Forum Post: Cap CEO's Pay?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 10:34 a.m. EST by theainavl
(124)
from Asheville, NC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Shouldn't a list of the demands include something about capping CEO's pay? The average CEO makes 343 times what an average worker does. Companies should be forced to use the extra money to pay a fair wage, and give benefits to employees. Thoughts?
Don't cap cap their salaries. Stop the practice of quarterly bonuses. CEO bonuses should only be on long-term performance so they don't do horrible things (like downsizing) just for the short-term bump. Maybe outlaw CEO bonuses entirely.
Cap CEO pay and you hamstring American industry. The best and the brightest will work for our competitors in Europe and Asia.
Setting wage scales in a free-market economy simply don't work. It's better to tax them.
No. Make a demand like that and you will lose pretty much every private business owner and their families from joining in the 99%.
There are better fish to fry.
NOW HEAR THIS: Corporate Tall by VOLTFACE - a song about Wall Street. Wonderfully appropriate! Its the Anthem we needed!
Listen for FREE on BANDCAMP:
http://voltface.bandcamp.com/track/corporate-tall
Available on iTunes as well...
Yes cap and tax. Oh and the companies will move their headquarters from the US. These are global companies and they can operate anywhere. If we want full employment the US needs to make the US more attractive to do business here. Then jobs will return. Move you anger to Washington where they wrote the tax laws that encourage outsourcing, overseas manufacturing, etc
You see its a slippery slope when government starts meddling in private industry, it makes this NOT a free country, if they cap the compensation for ceos then whats next, carpenters can only make 12$ so houses are cheaper? Waitress can only make 3.00 so food is cheaper? The problem is washington,
How about just not doing business with companies who have policies you don't agree with, like paying their CEO's 343x the average worker's salary. If most of America really does support this movement, there should be a profound effect in these companies' bottom lines.
How about this idea: Instead of capping it, and instead of taxing the individuals who are making the income, put a limit on the deductions for corporate income tax of individual wages at 100x-150x the federal minimum wage. Therefore any wage over that amount is deemed excess profit that they are choosing to give to a single person rather then returning it to the investors and is therefore taxed from the corporation itself.
This way businesses are incentivised to stop increasing drastically the pay of CEO's based on competition. And if they do want to compete heavily for the best CEO's then they will have to pay a premium for that competitive advantage.
Use worker pay and benefits as part of the formula for taxing the companies profits, too. Increase penalties for not paying taxes on an exponential scale.
CEO pay is a problem, but it can only be equitably balanced by changing the system. To change the system, we need a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management system of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
I don't understand why people are so ready to cap the pay of someone working for a private organization but are unwilling, or at least seem to be, to drastically lower and cap the pay of people in the public sector. Basically your saying that a CEO of a private company should not become so rich but it's fine if your a politician? How does that even come close to ending corruption?
No cap... just prosecute fraud. If the data presented to shareholders is bullshit and a company goes under after giving out fat bonuses that is a crime.
That's the thing though. Shareholders know about this bullshit.
Except that most of the benefits are declared as "stock options" or "bonuses" that are "separate" from the actual salary.
Look at the CEO of Goldman Sachs for instance. His base salary is $600,000 but after bonuses and stock options it ends up being $53,965,418
Still, shareholders have to be stupid not to notice this.
of course they don't notice it. that's why warren buffet threw $5bn at those guys back in 2008, right?
Something that baffles me though is why people would buy stocks from companies that will give a bloated chunk of the revenue to CEO's. Many Americans seem eager to piss their money away.
Why cap it when you can tax it?
haha, no kidding I'm with you on that one
Tax it back.
The thing is, in public companies the executives have a total comp package . This is made up of lots of things, salary being only 1 component. The board approves a salary, but for equity based comp (where these guys really make the dough) those are actually voted on by the shareholders. It's been said before, but if you don't think the CEO is paid fairly, buy up a majority stake in the company and use your voting power to change it. When you run off all of the talent in the company, I'll be more than willing to purchase your shares at a fraction of what you paid for them and liquidate the fixed assets. Oh, and lay off all of the 99%.
Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about
Yes, capping CEO salaries should be done. It is an abuse of bargaining power. If CEOs can make $100M per year, then how much should the president make? $10B?
Already you have the administration telling employers how they have to run their business and they have to provide XY and Z benefits. It's a hell of a lot easier to stop hiring and that is exactly what they have done, plus dropped healthcare.
Lets see, sales last year were about $2,000,000.00 So under Obama math $8,575,000.00 in payroll works! Just like the rest of your brilliant ideas. I especially like waiving all debt. Brilliant!
343 times! really?? That means I should pay myself $8,575,000.00 per year! Awsome! Not reality, but AWSOME!
Absolutely! Let's limit how many hours I, uh I mean they, have to work. Let's cap the stress they have to endure. Let's cap the struggle to make payroll each week. Let's cap the endless, mind-numbing, burdensome bureaucracy they have to fight every single frigin day! Let's cap the BS taxes they have to pay to stay in compliance with Gov regulations.
Nonsense. No "stress" or "worry: is worth millions in compensation. As if CEOs of large multinational corporations worried about payroll. Give me a break.
You've clearly never had a leadership role. Furthermore, I surmise you likely have never had a modicum of real responsibility in the work-place, aside from balancing your cash drawer. CEO's are absofreakinlutely burdening the weight of a publicly held company. They answer to the Shareholders, the Board, the Directors, the managers, AND the hourly workforce. If you don't think they loose sleep when contemplating a plant closure, or dealing with a Union that believes just because little Tommy got his GED he's worth 26$ an hour to mount door panels you've just really never experienced the real world. You sir, embody the entitlement generation. Move to the former USSR, they tried this crap before - go see how that's working for you and let us know. Naive. Immature. Drivel.
We can't allow this divide between the haves and the have-nots any longer. We need to see Corps become more community minded and treat everyone fairly. The folks hammering out the goods on the production lines WORK for the Sr Execs - these folks are why senior execs are making the big bucks - yet these folks get diddly for their work compared to a top level manager who is paid to make big decisions however, difficult a decision is, there is no way in hell that that sr exec deserves lets say for argument sake, a $400K salary as compared to the line guy who is making $40K... 10 X more???? ... my ratio may be off some but lets do it differently from now on - CAP salaries - Make everyone's salary PUBLIC - no more games - once bills are paid and payroll is met - any residual income / profit - gets spread out FAIRLY - people making product sweat and bust ass to make product... they are hourly and deserve a HUGE profit share percent as compared to the decision maker - get rid of the typical hierarchy- draw up a corp plan that flat lines the org. Once a percent goes out to employees for profit share - there is a % that will go to charity and community - MAKE CORPS RESPONSIBLE to their COMMUNITY AT LARGE>.. employee is an employee is an employee. CEO's raking in $4,000,000 with bonus annually - needs to end. why does anyone need more than one home and a camp/summer home - i can see two homes wonderful ... but its about the greed that this nation has bred with its ILL - CONTRIVED notions of how to make money... capitalism is great but not when it bleeds with abuse and corruption
It's supply and demand, just like any commodity. Post 2 jobs online, one for a Director of operations, one for an assembler. You will get 5-10 resumes for the director, and HUNDREDS for the assembler. In that mix, you will find maybe 3 viable candidates for director and HUNDREDS of viable assemblers. That's why they are more expensive. Are there some hipots in the assembler crowd? Sure, a few. And guess what, we will get them into a management training program and build our front line supervision with those folks. After a few years, we will PAY to get their degree. When that Director finally moves on to a Senior Director or VP, for you guessed it: better pay, guess who gets first dibs on that Director role? Did Johnny the hard working and motivated assembler just become the enemy? Sure many on the line will say Johnny kissed ass. Heaven help if you are a woman with big breasts, they say far worse about them. And by they, I do mean....the 99%.
thank you for pointing out clearly the abusive, divisive nature our present system breeds... time to change the damn deal and that means change to the system... change to the way businesses behave. Judicially speaking - its law suit after law suit when someone is wrongfully jumped over or when women are sexually harassed but you know what - it ain't workin... companies settle out of court and the defendants sign away any privilege to express themselves freely after said deals are made!!! Freedom of expression bull crap - companies get away with murder beczause they can buy their way through it all... if we ever were allowed to publicize every law suit a company sees on day to day basis then my friend we would have many hands on, real tangible reason to push for these kinds of changes this movement is all about!
We settle out of court because it's more efficient. They buy the silence so we can bury the issue and move on. These settlements are typically a multiple of your pay, so you the disenfranchised can choose to not accept the hush money, and we go to court. Most companies pay a premium to the employee to avoid court, but if you drag them in, it will get ugly. If the lawsuits were made public, you would see about 80% frivolous b/s, and about 20% real issues. When a company has liability, it's typically one, or a few employees. If you don't think the corporate hammer comes down you are crazy. I've watched 15 year execs get walked because they allowed more men to advance than women, so it became a perception issue, and a strong message had to be sent. They may have done nothing wrong, but had operations in places with a higher concentration of men. I'm telling you, in a publicly traded company; f you do bad things to people, you lose your job. End of story. Fwiw, HR organizations in these companies are very much a majority Female career. So the gender equality thing doesn't so much resonate with them anymore.
I own my own business, so I suspect I know a thing or two about leadership and responsibility. As well, in my line of work, actual lives are literally on the line. Talk about stress! Where's my millions?! Waah!
CEOs have amongst the easiest jobs in the nation. It's an admin job, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, some of the corporations they run are large, and so it is nice to have qualified, skilled people in those positions, but let's not pretend the job is a uniquely difficult one, okay? It's just silly nonsense.
You should note, too, that because of how politically and economically powerful corporate CEOs have become, they have effectively managed to make their jobs devoid of any responsibility or accountability at all. They earn millions whether they are successful or fail spectacularly, whether they make the company profitable, or effectively embezzle from it. Who wouldn't want that gig? It's like being on welfare.
Wow. Easiest jobs in the nation? You have truly never met one of these folks. As for your business, you will MAKE millions when your business is making millions; duh. What you are saying is Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc are just secretaries? So you are saying, any hourly temp could create the jobs, businesses, and profits they could? Your business is doomed dude.
Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates are just administrators in their capacity as CEOs. That's what the damn job description is. While there are undoubtedly CEOs who have real talent for administering a business, I think you give way too much credit to the job to suggest that they create jobs and businesses. What they do is manage companies. If a company grows and is successful, the CEO deserves credit, to be sure, as does every other employee of that company who contributed to its success and growth.
But, again, how this relates to a business executive being some especially demanding, difficult job such that it is worth 300 times all other jobs on average, I don't know. You seem to have (appropriately) stopped even trying to argue that point.
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/golden-parachutes-how-the-bankers-went-down/
You obviously feel like you are qualified to do the job, and that it's not particularly demanding or difficult. While 300 times the lowest paid worker may be excessive, it's directly attributable to revenue per employee. If you do not think the CEO's vision, strategy, and execution are worth 300 times the cashier's wage, ok. But the shareholders seemed to feel ok with it. I have worked with executive teams, and the worker bees in my career. And I can tell you the stress level of balancing a drawer, pales in comparison with balancing a division P&L. You might worry about your job and your family, a CEO is worrying about EVERYONE's family.
you are in desperate need of reality check ...UNENDED is correct in what he is saying... there is NO CEO or EXEC worth an annual payout of anything close to a million OR MORE - more in many cases. GET rid of your superiority complexes, rid corporations of this old ideology and philosophies of managing to down... flat line organizations - make it a real team where you have direction coming from leaders in the org but you have mutual respect for every single employee adds value (not today but in a cleaned up version you hire value add resources!!!! not hire people who know people and get a job (with a Director title lets say) just because wifey or hubby work for a hiring manager... thats bull and happens EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK!) Get RID of this all this crap by legitimizing the corporate culture and making them answer to a well balanced, equitable and just mission!
Further to the point, if they won't hire you; you're just not THAT valuable. Adding OWS, and a trespassing charge to your resume is NOT going to improve your job chances. Just an FYI. If it sounds like I'm generalizing the OWS crowd, I am. Just the same way you guys are doing CEOs
Silly. You guys forget, just like top Athletes, boards and teams pay for the stars. And just like sports, sometimes you make bad draft picks. Either way, you pay for value. You telling me that Larry Ellison isn't worth more than a Mil a year? You guys completely gloss over basic facts: if sooo many people could do the job, and had the intestinal fortitude to start working 80 hours a week in dads garage to build an empire, wouldn't the 1% be a much bigger group? If the jobs so easy, what are you waiting for. I'm sure you can raise a grand. Get to not paying yourself, and creating jobs for your fellow 99%. Lazy people never put their money where there mouth is. And btw, "it's who you know", that statement was tired in the 80's when my mom swore she couldn't get a job because she didn't have inside connections. She eventually went rogue, started her own firm and sold it to one of the companies that would not hire her. Now she instantly knew everyone that mattered. Guess what, she paid herself more than 10x what she paid the other accountants. Because she had 10x the value creation. It's just the way the world works boys.
That doesn't mean your mother is a good person, a moral person, or a caring person. I don't claim to know your mother.
If you said your mother paid herself the same as the other accountants, then I'd say she was a great person.
Regardless, it's sounds like she worshiped mammon.
So what you are saying is: if my mom chose to take all the risk, make all the hard choices, pay herself nothing the first two years of biz to raise capital, and then elected to raise her own pay after achieving, and putting food on 9 other families tables she was less of a person? Wow! I really cannot argue against that type of belief system. It's akin to arguing with a child that wants ice cream for 3 meals of the day.
I don't see how it's akin to a child wanting ice cream for three meals of the day. I think I understand what you mean, but could you elaborate?
I'm saying you cannot logically argue with a child on why they shouldn't live on ice cream. It's got protien, it's got dairy, and it tastes good. But, you need a balanced diet in the end or you get fat, and sick. Children are short sighted (as I believe many of the protestors are). If you truly believe the risk takers, and the sacrificers are to not be rewarded, I cannot logically continue debating the subject with you. I wouldn't argue with a Creationist about evolution either. It's never going anywhere logical.
why should the government regulate such things? my position is simple: if a corporation is naive enough to waste money in this way, let them do so. if a bank is foolish enough to lend money to folks without the means to repay, let them collapse. why is no one holding the free market capitalists to their word? if the market is truly free, there is no "too big to fail." i say let them fail; it's the only way forward...
When the average salary of government employees exceeds the average salary of non-government employed, there is a problem and the term "Civil Servant" needs to be clarified.
I agree. That problem is with the top 1% who have ruthlessly suppressed labor bargaining power and thereby wages in the private sector over the last thirty years.
It's time we restored equity to the American economy.
No, we should tax monopolies more, demand better benefits for their workers, give contract employees better benefits, demand the average worker make no less than equal to the average government worker, and cap the retirement, pension and salaries of ALL government executives and admins over 100k.
That will not work, but getting rid of loopholes will work.
Who defines what a fair wage is?
living wage would be about 200k a yr in NYC as long as your single
200k a year is wealthy by most working folks definition (even in nyc--which varies wildly by borough).
Its called a living wage. http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/cap-ceos-pay/#comment-51328
http://occupywallst.org/forum/cap-ceos-pay/#comment-51370
Why would you only cap the income of the CEO?
All personal income should be capped! Tax all income over 1 million at 50 percent and all income over 10 million at 90 percent. Use the generated money to rebuild infrastructure and systems that benefit all people.
Believe me even if you raise the tax to 90% tax revenues won't increase dramatically as the rich will stop extracting too much money from the economy by themselves. It's a proven fact, check tax revenues during 1950s to 1980s. It's like telling your child that if she eats all the candies in a day, he/she will not get any candies for 1 year. They will never eat all candies in a day.
By setting top tax rate at 90% all we are doing is keeping the excess greed in check, which is exactly the need of the hour.
Well CEO is a good place to start, but yeah, you make a good point.
Yes, absolutely. CEO pay must be regulated, as it is in most every other industrialized country. There also must be demands to make corporate boards independent and to empower shareholders to make boards and CEOs accountable.
It's actually undemocratic for anybody else other than shareholders to set CEO's pay. So the rule we should make is; any listed company should fix CEO's pay upon approval from a super majority shareholder only (say 60% of shareholders).
Believe me, majority of shareholders will immediately vote and correct this problem. The key thing for the government is to set the right policies and not interfere in private businesses.
It is not undemocratic for anybody other than shareholders to regulate CEO pay. It is undemocratic for one to suggest that there are things beyond our government's reach as it pertains to corporate behavior.
If you are curious as to why that is, see Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf.
Corporations are extensions of government power. Treating them as if they were private businesses is how we got into the mess we're in in the first place.
Hi Unended, Thank you for your posts. The pdf link is very informative. Best Regards, Nevada
You're welcome! I am glad you found it informative. I did too.
I am a progressive and I am for democratization of corporations. I will not support the government intervention in fixing pay of CEO's or any other employees of a non government owned organization.
"Corporations are extensions of government power". I disagree, mainly because government doesn't have any economic ownership over corporations. The only control that corporations have, is enjoyed by the shareholders only and I believe that's the right way to go.
Even if we make govt to fix CEO's pay,
Government job is to set the right public policies and provide proper incentives for people and corporations to do the right thing. The failure of current US economy is due to failed public policies and wrong incentives for businesses.
The way to fix a problem is to find out the root cause and solve it. You don't fix a problem by doing some tweaks here and there.
Yes, agreed.
Steve Jobs pay was $1 million a year, but had shares in the co, I believe apple pays its retail employees much better. Isn't this a better idea?
Reinstate the high marginal tax system -- it is the loss of it that caused the explosion of CEO salaries.
How about limiting CEO pay to 30 times (or some other number) the pay of the company's lowest paid worker. You want to make big bucks, spread it around first.
so i guess the govt will have to also cap the salaries of pro athletes rockstars and artist also right ? great idea
CEOs run large, public companies. Pro athletes are just employees. So, no.
if the key word is public companies than the public(the investors) will decide the compensation if you want to decide their pay package then become an investor.. by the way most pro athletes are incorporated and their names are franchised
No, investors are beneficiaries of the public grant of power to corporations. It is the public that retains ultimate control and responsibility over all things created by its government.
Athletes are not personally incorporated. That isn't legally possible. The money they earn from their contracts is for the labor they provide, not as administrators of a corporation.
anyone can incorporate all they need is to hire a few employees this can be landscapers servants ect it protects them from law suits against their personel wealth . and yes they do copyright their names and many are fanchises
Yes, anybody can incorporate (although this was not always the case; in fact, corporations were initially granted very rarely because they were correctly viewed as extensions of government power). What I mean is that you cannot incorporate yourself. Incorporation creates a separate entity that engages in some activity. The contracts that athletes strike are labor contracts between themselves as individuals and an employer. Athletes may be shareholders of or have requested incorporation of a corporation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the salaries they make playing sports. Those are separate businesses.
No, tax the hell out of them. If CEO's pay is capped, and that money used to hire new workers and pay the workers of that same co a fair salary then it might work, right?
i agree that raising taxes on the rich is a better approach so long as the revenue is used to wage peace (not war). let the corporations pay their talent as they see fit just so long as corporate executives pay their fair share back to society by way of appropriate taxation.
So, where in any law does it give the government the power to cap anyone's pay? Corporations are private, they do as they wish. Why can't you people understand this?
oh its understood and needs to change that is a core reason as to why we are all here - they can't just do as they wish and continue to get away with creating their own little empires whilst many go hungry... no more
while i agree, at least in part, with the sentiment here, you are entirely incorrect. as you must know, corporations are subject to innumerable regulations by the states and societies in which they operate; this would simply be one more regulation by the same means. certainly you recognize that the very designation of "corporation" is a matter of public regulation.
So, lets split the hairs..... the point I am trying to make to this guy is that corporations are not public. They are private. Yes, there are regulations, but the ownership is private. Wow, I could mop you all up in the court room any day of the week.
Corporations are not private. This is abject ignorance about what corporations are. Corporations are extensions of government power and, as such, are regulatable in all respects by the public.
If you want to be educated, see Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf
WTF?! Are you serious? So who owns the corporation? Big or small?
Can you read? You're goddamn right I'm serious. I'm also absolutely correct.
hahha... what a clown... I own a corporation... someone in your family probably owns one. If you are so right then why is the OWS fighting against corporate greed if the government could just waltz right in and change it. Wow... I bet you have a masters in something... am I right?
And the corporation you own is fully regulatable by us. What you don't get is that your corporation is not you. Your corporation is a separate entity, created by the public. You may have asked for it, and you may retain control over it, you may have shares in it, and you may receive privileges from it, but it is not yours. You accepted the privilege of limited liability from the public, and so you will also accept whatever regulations we impose upon the corporation. If you are not happy with those regulations, don't accept public power.
If I own it and receives all benefits how is it not mine? So, do you have a master's? Come on.. fess up...
That you are permitted by public grace to profit from an enterprise does not mean you own it. I will repeat it for you: if you do not wish to be subjected to public control, do not request privileges bestowed by the public. It really is quite simple.
So do you own any shares?
I do own shares in corporations. I don't oppose corporations per se. I oppose the public's loss of control over them.
You have to understand, this is about straightening out the extremes in corporate governance of the largest (often financial) corporations that exercise near monopoly power. This isn't about stealing Joe Public's property or inserting ourselves into the affairs of every incorporated business in existence.
But there are certain principles that need to be re-established, including who is serving whom.
The public DOES NOT CONTROL them. Man you are thick.
I realize that. That is what requires benig reestablished. The public must REassert its power over corporations. It is utterly irresponsible to grant government power unfettered from any public oversight.
I'll just nod my head because I have no idea what your talking about and i'm pretty sure you don't either.
If you had educated yourself and read the link I posted at the very start of this conversation, you might have been able to follow along.
See Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf
Im sure it will just be more factually inaccurate left wing propaganda designed to say what someone wanted people to believe.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it is. And I'm sure you can tell me that without ever having read it. Congratulations on your faith-based worldview.
The problem is unfair wages. The CEO makes $11mil a year, but the person working at the bottom of the chain makes minimum wage but no benefits. Why can't people understand THAT?
Okay, then you buying the controlling share of any corporation and make your ideals happen. That is all you have to do. Once you allow the government to start dictating wages, then you are letting them step into other areas.
The companies should take it on themselves then. There should be a boycott of co that do not offer their employees a living wage.
ahhaah... boycott... are you the one that wanted to pay for fuel with change...
hello! commie alert!!! what are you people thinking..... this is America you dont want someone coming and telling YOU how much you can pay yourself from your own company, DUH this shit is whack!!!
A CEO of a corporation does not run "his" company. He runs a public company endowed with government power. His position is a public one and rightfully subject to regulation by the people, as every aspect of any corporation is, no matter how small or large. If you don't want to be subject to public control, don't accept public power.
A public company has no government power, and FYI the federal reserve bank is not federal and has no reserves. What you are talking about sounds like nationalism to me. Public corporations are not the same as publicly traded corporations. Where do you come up with this stuff??? I mean really can you cite some statute that says a publicly traded corporation has government powers? They buy themselves government favor ok but government powers,,,, that's as funny as the word poppycock
It's quite simple. A government creates a corporation by issuing a charter, which gives existence and form to an entity that did not previously exist. The corporation comes to being through an act of government, and it is given powers that individual citizens do not have, for example, indefinite existence and limited liability. You cannot have a corporation without a government that endows it with these powers.
The view of corporations as private entities is a relatively recent phenomenon. Historically, Americans were distrustful of corporations and recognized them as the government entities they in fact are. Indeed, the Boston Tea Party was a protest against one of these corporations. As a result, early Americans granted corporate charters rarely, and usually only for a limited time and purpose. As well, they placed clauses in charters that the corporation had to act in the public interest. Charters were revoked if corporations exceeded the strict bounds placed upon them in their charters. If you want to learn about this, and I encourage you to do so, see Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf
people create companies by articles of incorporation and memorandum of incorporation. some companies are publicly traded some are not. and sure there are some government corporations like electric and water companies. and yes they never die and get special benefits. BECAUSE the money interests buy influence in WASHINGTON DC. its the international bankers that are the problem not corporations not lobbyists not politicians its the fact that our money system is controlled by international bankers!
People do not create companies by articles of incorporation. People request the creation of a corporation by submitting articles of incorporation. Incorporation occurs when the government bestows public power by granting a charter and creating the corporation. Whether the company is publicly traded is irrelevant to whether it is a creature of the government.
The problem is not "international bankers." The problem is American corporate executives who have used the corporations they control (frequently of the financial variety) as vessels for their personal enrichment and used the resources at their disposal to shape American government policy in favor of their personal enrichment, to the detriment of the other 99% of us.
I have seen a few corporate registrations and never have seen one with any government seal affixed to them. They are registered as an entity separate from the founders to shield them from liability that for sure. I wonder if you know about your corporation the one listed on your Social Security Card and your drivers license and your bank and or credit card statements.
But why not? Why shouldn't American workers not be given benefits, a living wage, retirement while the CEO of the same company makes MILLIONS of dollars? How is this fair?
life is not fair, and besides does the laborer have the same training and knowledge as a CEO? I am not defending the CEO I'm trying to defend the private rights of people And corporations. if you don't like corporations take their licenses away or something but don't start talking like a socialist commie.
Well, personally I think things like this could make life a little more fair. I don't want $11mil, I just want a fair living wage and benefits.
I hear ya, but the problem is the non money, money system
That's more Obamanomics government socialism, which is unacceptable. People need to boycott corporate products and buy American.
A list of demands? You have to negotiate from a position of strength to have demands? This group is annoying at best, You may have requests, not demands!
watch and learn,. . 99% has all the power!
Really! I'll watch but you will learn..I hope!