If the president of the united states is paid $400,000 a year then all the corporation leaders should be limited also.
Look what we have at $400,000 a year. He ain't worth it.
2007-07-26 11:25:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the proportion of a ceo's wages to a worker's is ridiculous. i don't think that much disparity is healthy, except for the ceo. many companies have empowered their employees, and the company is better and stronger for it.
a reason that many companies in the usa have gone under is because of not listening to the workers. massey ferguson would build with bad parts, "to keep the line running". and then ship them with the bad parts. they are no longer in this country. at the ford flat rock, mi plant, they were building probes on one line, and mazda's on the other. ford would do that retrofit crap, mazda would stop the line until the problem was fixed. two different idealologies. whose products are better?
in most cases it doesn't matter who is smarter, because the boss is the boss. progressive minded employers will listen and build better products. arrogance gets you nowhere.
2007-07-26 08:59:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You would need a v. powerful government to run a command economy like the USSR used to do. They tend to become like any ruling class elite when absolute power corrupts absolutely. It can be done but there are more inherent inefficiencies than in most competitive systems. If I save my money, start a company, how would it be fair if the people that I employed to work there suddenly got to take over and what would it matter if they were as 'smart' as me, it's my capital at risk, who's going to work harder not to lose it, them or me?
It's really all about hard work and gambling, most workers wouldn't be workers for long if they had a love of both.
2007-07-18 14:45:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
There are many successful employee owned companies.
First one that comes to my mind is Appleton. (It is right down the road from me, and I have family employeed there)
http://www.appletonideas.com/Appleton/jsps/ourcompany.do?langId=-1&catalogId=239327&storeId=139327
The company has been around for 100+ years, is 100% employee owned. It used to be traded on stock market, but the employees decided to invest their pensions, to buy out/back the company. The employees have votes similar to stockholders. They still have bosses, etc, but they have much more control over their benefits, their pay increases, and unlike publically held companies, they get the benefits of profit, instead of working to pay stockholders.
2007-07-26 12:32:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kacy H 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Equallity of wealth. YOU WILL NEVER SEE IT IN AMERICA. Our own Gov. already allowed to destroy the middle class wealth. And to whom ever East Coaster is. What makes an accountant better than a janitor. This is the mentality thats destroying this country. There are more accountants steeling from the company than janitors. Think about.
2007-07-26 10:55:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Greg j 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ask Harley Davidson? I think eliminating upper management would easily save companies absurd amounts of money.
2007-07-25 23:21:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ferddaword 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The breakup of the Soviet Union is a good model.
2007-07-18 15:45:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Caninelegion 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The company would probably save a ton of money because they wouldn't have to pay the fat salaries to people who don't actually work.
2007-07-18 14:35:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Su 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
They tried that with a few companies. It didn't work. Ask yourself this; if your an accountant should you get more money than the janitor?
2007-07-18 14:37:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Are you saying that it's a zoo out there and the animals are in charge?
2007-07-18 14:38:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋