What a load of crap!
Business leaders take the risk to open the business in the first place. They put up the money for all the permits and red tape, the inventory, the building space and all the trappings, the inventory, supplies, etc. Why wouldn't they be rewarded if successful? They're the ones taking the hit for failure.
Thanks for your comment.
What do you propose when it comes to capitalism then? Are you proposing there should be no private businesses? After all, if you have a business, there has to be an owner/leader.
What happens when there are no businesses?
Also, our taxes don't pay for CEO's, unless you are talking about private companies like Planned Parenthood, which shouldn't be getting a penny from the taxpayer.
I don't propose anything. I asked why we reward people who sacrifice others for their own sake.
I know the answer has to do with the cold heart that lives in the souls of most of you.
Why do you propose we reward people who haven't made the sacrifices to get what they want?
When there is no reward for people who work harder, or even work at all, people stop working or trying to achieve. Now you have a society where nobody works, but there is nobody left working to support them. What happens next? The government comes in and demands that people work, and they will work for the government, at wages that barely allow them to survive.
There are no Doctors because what's the point in going to school for 8 years?
Communism/socialism have never worked.
You wrote - "I know the answer has to do with the cold heart that lives in the souls of most of you."
So employers are in business to hurt their employees? Customers? Investors?
I think your communism is inflamed today Vic. You should take something for that - nothing manufactured of course, just ... something.
Because the politicians convincing people they're going to "regulate" the mean old money men are the mean old money men and those that aren't invite them in to author the regulations purposed to oversee them.
This is why I support a truly free market, then the corporations can force out people who best them in their own arena.
"...then the corporations can't force out people who best them in their own arena."
That's the beauty of a free market: you have the freedom to choose who you do business with. If you think a business is behaving immorally, you don't have to deal with it. If you think you can do better, you can start a company to compete in the market.
If you're living in a socialist state, and they say you will burn coal for heat and buy it from the state supplier, you either burn state coal or freeze, regardless of what you think of coal, how it's extracted or how employees are treated. And if you think you can do better, you'd better keep it to yourself or you might find your self on the wrong end of the state.
It's too bad this isn't a free market. That's why we're forced to do business with so many companies that should have gone under ages ago. But for their pocket pols, they would have.
Which business do you have to deal with?
AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Chrysler, GMAC, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, U.S. Bancorp, SunTrust and more.
I could provide a more detailed list if necessary.
All of those companies have competitors.
Not anymore, some of their competitors went out of business while they got bailouts which we are forced to pay.
Bailouts alone aren't an example of free markets. In a free market businesses are free to succeed and fail. Just saying...
I agree that no business is "too big to fail" in a free market. If a very large business fails in a free market, what it really means is a huge opportunity for it's better managed competitors.
Nobody said I wanted a socialist state.
I would like it if CEOs worried more about their employees than they did about their shareholders and their own paychecks.
What's wrong with a heroic attitude in leadership?
The guy who marches onto the field selflessly to save his comrades instead of jumping ship with his golden parachute, or worse yet tossing a grenade it his troops so he will have a bridge of bodies to pass over the minefield safely.
You think there are no great leaders in business? Really?
As for worrying more about employees than shareholders, CEOs have responsibilities to both, and a good one cannot neglect the interests of either group. Ultimately though, the goal is to earn money, if a company doesn't do that, there is no company, no CEO and no employees, so the bottom line is the bottom line and always will be.
I didn't say there are no good ones. I asked why we reward the ones who put profit above people.
You seem to indicate a business can't survive without profit. I am not so sure.
It takes money to make money, and investors are looking to put their money to work. If you have a profitable business idea, investors will buy in. At that point, people go to work.
If the business makes money, everyone is happy: the founders make money, the investors make money, and the employees have work and get paid.
If there's no profit, nobody's happy: the founders lose time and sleep, the investors lose money, and the employees get laid off.
Profit is like breathing for a business, without it, nothing else matters for long.
I get that.
Doesn't change the definitions I posted.
You have your money invested, do you want it to grow or shrink? If a stock consistently loses value, how well do they have to treat their employees for you to keep that stock in your portfolio and ride it down to zero?
Are you going to answer the question? Why do we reward those who sacrifice others for their own sake?
It's a straight forward question.
Nobody rewards someone for sacrificing others for their own sake. They reward effective business leaders for making money for them, just as you do when you invest in a well performing stock.
If you say. I can give examples of CEOs that get raises after they layoff hundreds of workers. Sound business decision? Maybe. Reward? Certainly. sacrificing others for your own sake? Absolutely.
I guess Romney would be a good example of that, with Bane Capital. There are predatory people in business. Personally, I think there should have been some kind of law against what he did. Buying and closing a company just to liquidate it's assets and pocket the pension money put aside for employees isn't just bad for workers, it's destructive to the economy.
OH vic why do you so hate anyone to work and get rich. There must be some rich people to keep everyone working.
I don't hate anyone. I don't like it when a CEO lays off people so the shareholders can profit, instead of being agile enough to find better ways to produce wages for the workers.
Vic - you should do it! You should open your own business - to produce wages for the workers. Show 'em how it's done!
I did. It was fun.
PS - Your Richard Branson has a net worth of about $5 Billion dollars. Which side of your mouth do you want to speak from?
Did I say all?
You posted him as an example - not me.
An example of what?
You tell me! He is in the picture with your headline.
I like the quote. You decide whether he's a hero or a dog.
It's your post - what do you think?
I think "A hero is someone who sacrifices himself for the sake of others. We give them medals. Why do we also reward those who sacrifice others for the sake of themselves. We call them business leaders and pay them lots of money to keep doing it." and that is what I posted.
Now it's your turn - that's how this works. I post and you comment.
We don't. No one is in business for the purpose of sacrificing others. That is not a successful business model.
See Mazes last comment