- Aug 19, 2008
- 10,997
- 3,882
- 315
The relationship between executives and the corporations that they work for is, in and of itself, a relationship of employee to employer, just like everyone else that works for the corporation.
Yet, uniquely executives are allowed to mutually decide each others compensation, creating a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" environment.
Conservatives usually jump at any suggestion of the government regulating executive compensation as being anti-capitalist, but in fact since it's the stock holders who are the owners, not the executives by right of being an executive in and of itself, government regulation of executive compensation would actually protect the stock holders from what is in reality massive employee theft.
The reason that they get away with it is that the executives control the largest united block of stock holder voting power. Sometimes even a majority. This leaves the multitudes of small investors defenseless against them.
However, even if they control a majority of the stock holders voting power, it would still be appropriate for the government to regulate executive compensation, because a democratic system does not mean a dictatorship of the majority. Preventing abuse of the minority by the majority is why we have laws.
Though it may not be right for the government to regulate compensation for executives in private corporations, it is definitely in the best interests of the stock holders in PUBLIC corporations for the government to step in and stop this theft.
Remeber the stock holders are the owners, not the executives!
Yet, uniquely executives are allowed to mutually decide each others compensation, creating a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" environment.
Conservatives usually jump at any suggestion of the government regulating executive compensation as being anti-capitalist, but in fact since it's the stock holders who are the owners, not the executives by right of being an executive in and of itself, government regulation of executive compensation would actually protect the stock holders from what is in reality massive employee theft.
The reason that they get away with it is that the executives control the largest united block of stock holder voting power. Sometimes even a majority. This leaves the multitudes of small investors defenseless against them.
However, even if they control a majority of the stock holders voting power, it would still be appropriate for the government to regulate executive compensation, because a democratic system does not mean a dictatorship of the majority. Preventing abuse of the minority by the majority is why we have laws.
Though it may not be right for the government to regulate compensation for executives in private corporations, it is definitely in the best interests of the stock holders in PUBLIC corporations for the government to step in and stop this theft.
Remeber the stock holders are the owners, not the executives!
