[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 75 KB, 650x500, ceo_pay_nightmare.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3451786 No.3451786 [Reply] [Original]

While there are cases of people managing businesses they also own, the rise of professional managers shows that this is only done sometimes.

If management of a business is seperated from ownership of a business, management becomes labour like any other. What moral claim does the owner have to profits from this business, when he does no work and is presumably not an invalid?

Furthermore, in a world of 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'representation', why are these managers representative of the owners and not of the workers? Is the idea of electing managers from a pool of workers so alien to a republic?
Is input from below so far fetched in the age of the internet?

Also, obligatory inb4 americans claiming that its never been done before

>> No.3451808

>>3451786
>Furthermore, in a world of 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'representation', why are these managers representative of the owners and not of the workers?
Last I checked, workers vote too.

>> No.3451810

If you want to start a worker collective, go ahead and do it. The great thing about a free market is that you can run your business however you damn please. If you think it can be efficient, prove it.

>> No.3451818
File: 13 KB, 211x250, 1307327390629.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3451818

>black woman as Uncle Sam
>doesn't know what crony capitalism is

>> No.3451826

>managers
>leaders, responsible of making important decisions
>if shit hits the fan, management is to blame
>no work

>> No.3451830
File: 139 KB, 424x470, 1264557133546.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3451830

10/10

>> No.3451843

>>3451808

You vote for your overseers?

I commend your place of employment for being democratic.

>> No.3451850

>>Also, obligatory inb4 americans claiming that its never been done before

>>3451810

I must be psychic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_%28book%29

>> No.3451859

>>3451850
He never claimed it was done before. Read again.

>> No.3451879

>While there are cases of people managing businesses they also own, the rise of professional managers shows that this is only done sometimes.

owners manage their business until it's large enough to hire a manager, then if all goes well the owner retires.

>If management of a business is seperated from ownership of a business, management becomes labour like any other.

white collar labor. yes.

>What moral claim does the owner have to profits from this business, when he does no work and is presumably not an invalid?

prior work producing future earnings. yep, the owner made something that continues to pay dividends. If we don't award those dividends there's not much motivation to do all the work of building a business.

>Furthermore, in a world of 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'representation', why are these managers representative of the owners and not of the workers?

the owner's interests are in some opposition to those of the employees, and indeed the employees' interests are often self-damaging. Somebody has to do the dirty job of keeping people working and businesses making money.

>Is the idea of electing managers from a pool of workers so alien to a republic?

we often elect retarded leaders. businesses can't afford that.

>Is input from below so far fetched in the age of the internet?

input from 'below' should always be heard, and generally be ignored. If those peons knew what they should be doing... they'd be in charge.

>> No.3451880

Businesses arent implicitly for the benefit of the workers, and managers arent obligated represent the workers of a business.

If its a corporation there is no owner, and the corporation keeps its own profits.

Just stating facts, because, I dont feel like OP asked anything in particular.

>> No.3451895

>>3451880

Remember that corporations are controlled by the voting shareholders. So if they do not own them in the traditional sense, they recieve profits indirectly.

>> No.3451907

>>3451895

>Remember that corporations are controlled by the voting shareholders.

I dont think they are controlled, but they are definitely owned.

> So if they do not own them in the traditional sense, they recieve profits indirectly.

Wait, who recieves profits? The stock holders? What do you mean?

>> No.3451916

>>3451907
not that anon, but wouldn't dividends be a share of profits?

also of course gains in stock value as corporation capital increases?

>> No.3451919

OP doesn't understand the fact that the workers don't have that much power in a private corporation because it's not their corporation. An employer hires someone for their labor, not their ideas necessarily. Labor is exchanged for money and perks, simply working somewhere doesn't give you power over the place. You're essentially arguing for something not in the contract.

>> No.3451924

>>3451919

This.

Also I'm shocked that this thread hasn't been overrun by socialists yet.

>> No.3451937

>>3451879

>>What moral claim does the owner have to profits from this business, when he does no work and is presumably not an invalid?

>prior work producing future earnings. yep, the owner made something that continues to pay dividends. If we don't award those dividends there's not much motivation to do all the work of building a business.

There is no motivation for a capitalist, no, unless you're Robert Owen. For a participating worker-owner? A lot. I'm not advocating that we stop letting people retire, but why not let the workers get some of that sweet profit funded retirement?

>>we often elect retarded leaders. businesses can't afford that.

So, you're not a big fan of democracy? Keep in mind the same safeguards exist; bad leaders can be voted out, easier than in politics in fact, because of the smaller inertia of the firm compared to a country. Bad shit happening will be felt and acknowledged.

In fact there is no guarantee that in dictatorships you will get a good leader. Was Stalin a better leader than Hitler because he came to power by undemocratic means?

>input from 'below' should always be heard, and generally be ignored. If those peons knew what they should be doing... they'd be in charge.

More authoritarian stuff. You know, if a fault developed in a space shuttle part on the factory flaw, and I was managing the plant, I'd bloody well want to hear about it. To manage any group you need information, and people close to the ground are likely to have it.

People are intelligent beings. To have decisions made 'for their own good' is patronising, humiliating and has been regularly abused by those in power.

>> No.3451935

>>3451916

>not that anon, but wouldn't dividends be a share of profits?

Yeah thats true. First of all corporations have all kinds of classes of stock, which are entirely up to the corporation, very often stock that comes with no dividend.

I guess that guy was right in every sense I could imagine. I remember hearing about some research that found that stock without dividends is just as profitable as stock with dividends.

>> No.3451953

>>3451937
>I'm not advocating that we stop letting people retire, but why not let the workers get some of that sweet profit funded retirement?

I'm from the other thread. I need to know specifics. What legislation do you propose?

Suppose I start a very successful nail manufacturing business (as in an iron nail that you pound in with a hammer). Suppose that my orders exceed my personal capacity to make iron nails. Suppose I would be willing to share some of my profits in exchange for aid in making nails. How exactly are the profits split? In order to get another worker, it is necessarily that I must share all profits 50-50 down the middle? I may not take such an offer and remain in solo operation.

Also, how do the wages of the janitor compare with the professional code monkey. I mean - they both work at the same company. Are you suggesting that they ought to get equal money? If not - then how is this decided? Currently this is decided by someone with the authority to allow people onto the premises, and remove people from the premises, and the one who owns the computers, the copyrights, the trademarks, and so on.

>> No.3451955

>>3451937
I used to agree with you.

since then I've started a few businesses, and succeeded in retiring from the income of one.

people are morons.
you are a moron.

you'll learn, but until then there's no reason to put you in charge of something you didn't build and thus don't understand.
you don't even know how little you know.

there's even less reason to pay you for not knowing. If you want to get paid like I do, do the work I did.

>> No.3451970

Responding to
>>3451786

I am the same anon as:
>>3451953

The answer to:
>What moral claim does the owner have to profits from this business, when he does no work and is presumably not an invalid?
Is that capitalism is a wonderful mechanism to achieve better material wealth for /everyone/, not just the people who happen to come out better in the society. Even the people at the lowest spots of society are better off because of capitalism than they would be under non-capitalism.

Note that I am not arguing for hands-off, laissez-faire. That is retarded and immoral. However, I am arguing for incentives for people who produce more material wealth.

>> No.3451976

>>3451953

Shares or wages could be set in bargaining when the charter is drawn up. No one can set up a blueprint for every industry.

As a guideline, for each area of work pay should be relatively consistent per unit time, with incentives for higher quality work.

As for differences between areas, I'm not sure. Perhaps the length of study required to do a task would be the main issue, the necessity of the work (though you'd think all the work would be necessary) or the unpleasantness of the task.

>> No.3451981

It's important to note that workers can be more productive and useful if you give them more freedom. It also frees up extra administrative expenses.

Ultimately it is a choice on behalf of the worker. They do not deserve anything more than the owner explicitly states when they are hired.

>> No.3451983

>>3451976
So, are you arguing for government regulations to control wages? That is, you are arguing for a centrally controlled economy?

>> No.3451990

>>3451953
little known facts:

most companies contract out their janitorial services.

half of janitorial contractors in the US make over $90k/year, and ~15% make over $140k.

codemonkeys be damned. I quit my geology job to work as a contract janitor when I learned this.

>> No.3451996

>>3451970
the air is pretty damn filthy and would be worse if it weren't for state intervention. In fact, without state intervention my life may be pretty fucking miserable right now.

>> No.3451998

>>3451990
I still make more than that, as a code monkey, straight out of college.

It was more a rhetorical device anyway. I admit that I could have picked better job descriptions, like the guy who programs the computers at McDonalds, vs the guy who operates the slushy machine.

>> No.3452002

>>3451996
Goddamned anon. You must be trolling me. Read it fucking again. I said:
>Note that I am not arguing for hands-off, laissez-faire. That is retarded and immoral. However, I am arguing for incentives for people who produce more material wealth.

>> No.3452003

yeah man, I think my life would be much better living under the communist tribal community of the American Indian.

>> No.3452005

>>3452002
yeah, I misread that "NOT". Negatives can be pretty tricky.

>> No.3452017
File: 64 KB, 457x640, Cincinnatus_statue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452017

Managers are workers. Management is work.

Look at what your democracy and representation has got you so far: massive amounts of debt, dependence on the State and dissolution of traditional family units and widespread anomie. More of this nonsense is not the solution.

>> No.3452030

>>3451998
true enough.

just getting the word out. I wish someone had told me when I was younger, not that I would've believed them...

>> No.3452031

>>3452017
Falsely extrapolating from isolated incidents to the whole. Ignoring contradictory evidence. In other words, anecdotal.

>> No.3452048
File: 37 KB, 396x640, 1309929508834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452048

>>3452031
None of what I described is isolated. Name one Western state with none of those characteristics.

>> No.3452057

>>3452030

So what exactly do you do then?

>> No.3452065
File: 31 KB, 220x322, Burnham_Managerial_Revolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3452065

Maybe people will finally read Burnham.
>pic related

>> No.3452067

>>3451970


I think the drive behind capitalism would be more effective in distributing the benefits if businesses are run by their employees. The drive to improve is still there. If they share the profits, working harder with better strategies will result in more profits for the company - and thus every member in it.

It's important to remember that despite the advancements over the last few centuries, only a tiny fraction of the wealth has gone to people who need it. We should seek to increase this.

>>However, I am arguing for incentives for people who produce more material wealth.

Agreed, they deserve it. Hard work should pay off in a fair society. Capitalism, by my reckoning anyway, seems to systematically underpay most hard workers and overpay a small subgroup.

>> No.3452070

>>3452031
>>3452048
Propose me an alternative, or shut up.

>> No.3452080

>>3452067
>Agreed, they deserve it. Hard work should pay off in a fair society.
You missed the memo. I'm /not/ arguing that they should get it because they deserve it. I'm arguing that they should get it because it will make the /poorest/ person in the society demonstrably richer and happier than if the hard worker wasn't rewarded.

>I think the drive behind capitalism would be more effective in distributing the benefits if businesses are run by their employees. The drive to improve is still there. If they share the profits, working harder with better strategies will result in more profits for the company - and thus every member in it.

I'm still awaiting your more specific description of the laws to accomplish this. If they are government regulations on wage controls, then I'm pretty sure this is going to be a bad idea for all of the well known reasons why centrally planned economies fail.

>> No.3452089

>>3452057
I'm retired, I have been for a decade- since I was 30.

I own a commercial janitorial business and a related environmental restoration company. I made my first million off janitorial work. and my second and third.

>> No.3452090 [DELETED] 

>>3452080
>>3452067
>Agreed, they deserve it. Hard work should pay off in a fair society.
You missed the memo. I'm /not/ arguing that they should get it because they deserve it. I'm arguing that they should get it because it will make the /poorest/ person in the society demonstrably richer and happier **when** if the hard worker wasn't rewarded.

>I think the drive behind capitalism would be more effective in distributing the benefits if businesses are run by their employees. The drive to improve is still there. If they share the profits, working harder with better strategies will result in more profits for the company - and thus every member in it.

I'm still awaiting your more specific description of the laws to accomplish this. If they are government regulations on wage controls, then I'm pretty sure this is going to be a bad idea for all of the well known reasons why centrally planned economies fail.

(fixed)

>> No.3452130

>>3452070

That should be trivially clear from what his pictures are and his stances on social issues. Look at them again if you didn't get the hint the first time.

>> No.3452137

>>3452080

>>Agreed, they deserve it. Hard work should pay off in a fair society.

>You missed the memo. I'm /not/ arguing that they should get it because they deserve it. I'm arguing that they should get it because it will make the /poorest/ person in the society demonstrably richer and happier than if the hard worker wasn't rewarded.

Okay, my mistake. So; are you saying that capitalism is a better solution to poverty than, say, paying the poorest people more? That would seem to be the most direct solution. I think the best way to do this is to implement industrial democracy, which will lead to working poor getting paid more as a matter of course.

>>I think the drive behind capitalism would be more effective in distributing the benefits if businesses are run by their employees. The drive to improve is still there. If they share the profits, working harder with better strategies will result in more profits for the company - and thus every member in it.

>I'm still awaiting your more specific description of the laws to accomplish this. If they are government regulations on wage controls, then I'm pretty sure this is going to be a bad idea for all of the well known reasons why centrally planned economies fail.

While I am not arguing for a centrally planned economy (the concentration of power in the hands of the planners is dangerous, the time it takes to respond to change too great), your country probably has a minimum wage law of some sort.

I don't have a detailed set of laws, but I'd legislate workplace relations to achieve a democratic model of the firm. A sponsored drive to set up this type of workplace might work better than legislation however. As for wages, thats for the worker-owners to decide. If the government interferes to a certain degree its no longer a worker-run firm, its the USSR all over again.

>> No.3452150

>>3452137
>your country probably has a minimum wage law of some sort.
For all the good it does - which is almost nothing.

This is a radically different concept to requiring that workers get their "fair share" of their company's profits. Don't even compare the two. I'm asking for hard laws, not fluff.

>I don't have a detailed set of laws, but I'd legislate workplace relations to achieve a democratic model of the firm. A sponsored drive to set up this type of workplace might work better than legislation however. As for wages, thats for the worker-owners to decide. If the government interferes to a certain degree its no longer a worker-run firm, its the USSR all over again.
All I can say is that you are having a break with reality. This is a pipedream, just as bad as The Venus Project.

>> No.3452160

if an employee wants a larger share of their work, they need only buy shares in the company they work for.

if it's a privately owned business, the employee can always work somewhere else, or start their own business.

there's a lot of assumption that the average joe can run a business there OP. If that were the case there'd be far more businesses and far fewer employees around.

>> No.3452179

>>3452160

Of course they can't. You need money to break into the market. Money that your 'average joe' doesn't have because its concentrated.

>> No.3452192

>>3452150

And what grounds to do have to compare this with the venus project? That thing is run by a fucking con artist. I don't see what's so outlandish about a worker-run firm. Presumably your objection is in the idea of using the government to create them.

Regardless, you haven't shown why you think it is unworkable.

>> No.3452201

>>3452179
or at least that's what we tell you.

even when true, anyone with a decent business plan can find capital, or even a good ol' fashioned SBA loan of up to 2 million dollars. (personal credit doesn't much matter, your business plan does)

we seriously can't make it any easier. it doesn't matter what you give people, most of them won't have the guts to trust their own judgment. this is wise, most people aren't cut out to run a business.

>> No.3452215

>>3452201

Why then do you see the families of the wealthy consistently do well in business?

Barring durr superior blood it can only mean that either the access to capital, connections with the powerful or superior education are responsible.

>> No.3452223

>>3452215
*cough* education and better upbringing *cough*

>> No.3452237

>>3452215
all of those are factors.

borrowing 2 million to start your business means you've got an automatic handicap against anyone that's not mortgaged up the ass.

but how do you suppose the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place- assuming they didn't inherit it? probably not lottery tickets...

>> No.3452245

>>3452223

Exactly. So much for capitalism's promise of social mobility.

>> No.3452249

>>3452245
You have a better chance under this than under a feudal system.

>> No.3452277

>why are these managers representative of the owners and not of the workers
Because it's the who owner signs the manager's paycheque, not the workers

In b4 some labor theory of value retardation, the workers agreed to give their labor in exchange the the considerations in their employment contract, they do not pay the manager

>> No.3452299

I own a business that I have operated for 17 years and soon I will turn over all of my duties and I will rarely work at all unless there is a large contract with a new client at stake and I am asked to handle it or feel that I must.

Whats my moral claim to the profits? Its my fucking company, I built it. I am the one who took ALL the risk. I am the one who reinvested my own money back into the business. During some bad times I worked at a loss, at one point for a few months I was literally working 18-24 hour days (not exagerating I often went for days straight, I had to) with nothing to show for it WHILE maintaining payroll and even a few advances.
When my first employee who I trained bought his first house, I was living in a camper eating almost exclusively from the supermarket bulk bins. I didnt even eat kraft dinner, I fucking bought cheese powder and maccaroni and beans and rice and hunted on my days off. Just over 1.4 million dollars had run through my company at the time all told. I could have simply quit after a big job and pocketed the profit rather then reinvesting. Thats what many of my workers did after a big payday. They would go spend weeks drinking their money away and I'd hear back from them when they wanted more work.

The buck stops at me, if things somehow went to complete shit and we fucked up a few big contracts I dont lose my job and go find another, I lose my house, my vehicles, my investments, my projects, everything. I would go from living in a nice upper middle class home to living under a bridge.

THATS why I can say that I am absolutely justified in generating income even when I withdraw myself completely from day to day operations. It all comes down to risk. I started this company with a fraction of an average paycheque that my people get these days.

>> No.3452315

>>3452299
this

>> No.3452326

>>3452299
I wanted to point out that I offer the option of subcontracting off of me to anybody who has completed a few jobs. Direct profit sharing, people who subcontract make as much money as they actually earn, at the same rates that I do. But if they drag ass or fuckup, they make less money.


Out of 43 people currently 2 of them subcontract off of me.
One of them makes almost twice what anybody else makes in the same period of time. And he knew nothing when I hired him, he was worse then useless.
Many of my people could work circles around him and they do, but they prefer an hourly wage even though they could potentially make far more money.

The average worker doesnt want risk, doesnt want to and often can not deal with the consequences of a failed job. They want consistancy and to be treated fairly and paid predictably.

>> No.3452340

>>3452299

Since you wrote a story about your business without actually mentioning what you do I suppose you aren't interested in talking of the logistics but what the hell.

What do you do?

>> No.3452370

>>3452340
Construction/renovation. I began as a painting company (and I did presure washing subs on the side for other painting companies) during an extreme housing boom and the lack of companies able to fufill contracts had clients pushing me to diversify, which I did. Which is one of the reasons I was constantly scrambling for overhead, the equipment I needed was constantly changing and at the time, I couldnt even RENT most of what I needed, it just wasnt available on demand.

Plus many jobs required me to put crews up in hotels and pay for their food as well. ($50 a day per person). It adds up, quickly.

>> No.3452372

So is everyone in this conversation already aware that pressure on employees wages will push them near their marginal product?