Further to my recent post about executive salaries, here’s an article from Tuesday about how the tech firms that pay their CEOs the most give the lowest returns to investors.
20Jul06 — 6
- 04.05.23 Ten-year quest through Development Hell pays off
- 04.04.23 Testing "podcasting"
- 04.03.23 Mistakes Have Been Made
- 04.02.23 Coming soon
- 11.02.19 Live comedy review: Geoff Norcott at the Southport Comedy Festival
- 08.20.19 Republic Interiors
- 12.27.18 The Wykehamist Fallacy
- 12.08.18 The Moral Degradation of The Labour Party
- 10.14.18 FILM REVIEW: Downsizing
- 09.09.18 Film Review: Fright Night
So don’t invest in them, then. If you are really upset, don’t buy their stuff either.
Then it won’t be your money, so why should you care?
If you were talking about (e.g.) grotesquely-overpaid “Chief Executives” of local councils (ie, Town Clerks, as we used to say), that would be a different matter, since their funding comes from you and me by force, and I could be persuaded to get aggrieved.
In fact, come to think of it, I already am.
So don’t vote for the people who employ them. Then it won’t be your money, so why should you care?
You make the common mistake of believing that there is a real difference between state and non-state corporatists. The arse-covering, jargon-spewing, complacent, thieving, and mutually back-scratching incompetent don’t seem to find it difficult to move back-and-forth between the two worlds, wangle similarly outrageous levels of welfare provision for themselves, and treat their respective customers and investors with similar levels of contempt.
The problem in both cases is that those at the “top” have striven mightily and fruitfully to uncouple their rewards from our powers. It is as easy to choose to pay for a competent and sensibly-remunerated local government official as it is to choose to pay for a computer without a copy of Windows pre-installed.
“have striven mightily and fruitfully to uncouple their rewards from our powers”: I doubt it. I suspect that they want heaps of rewards and of powers. It’s responsibilities that they shun.
Andrew and PG are both right. We get the CEOs that we deserve in both spheres.
You could avoid this in the case of local government by allowing political parties to develop shadow administrations that can be promoted when they win elections. A new sort of ‘boss politics’.
Until government actually changes following elections, (as opposed to elections being used simply to introduce the new scapegoat) supply will always be inelastic. And any fule kno that this makes for sloppy service.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always get in.
“So don’t vote for the people who employ them. Then it won’t be your money, so why should you care?”
How does that work?
It doesn’t. In exactly the way that not buying private sector companies’ products products or shares doesn’t work. That was my point.