Should Corporate Profits be Banned?

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
They, most often, already do get a share of that profit in the form of bonuses. Something that most of the other employees do not get.



So, tell me: Do you have anything against universal profit sharing?

Yes, if they are my profits; do whatever you want with your own.

The problem is that most of the workers do not. This is a philosophy of greed, which I think is wrong. Everyone in the company should share in the victories and defeats in a company. Unfortunately, for most, workers only share in the defeat and rarely get a share of the victories.

No, it is a philosophy of rewarding risk taking and enhancing productivity.

Feel free to tell me which part of that you disagree with and why? I await your response with bated breath ...

 

[thaiboxerken]

i don't agree that the executives take most of the risk.

 

[TimCallahan]

Yes, if they are my profits; do whatever you want with your own.

Ah, but they aren't your profits alone if you needed the help of your employees.

No, it is a philosophy of rewarding risk taking and enhancing productivity.
Feel free to tell me which part of that you disagree with and why? I await your response with bated breath ...

Fine. Your employees who were productive should get a small piece of the pie, then. You have a problem with that?

 

[balrog666]

i don't agree that the executives take most of the risk.

They don't, owners do; but sometimes they are one and the same.

Ah, but they aren't your profits alone if you needed the help of your employees.

I pay them quite well for their productivity but only my capital is at risk, so the rewards are mine just as are the losses.

Fine. Your employees who were productive should get a small piece of the pie, then. You have a problem with that?

Yes, as my employees have already been compensated for their efforts; how much many money I make off my capital, my own labor, and my informed decisions is none of their business.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They don't, owners do; but sometimes they are one and the same.

I doubt it. Owners often incorporate so that they don't place their own personal finances at risk. Everyone in a business is at risk, but, often, it's the workers that end up in a position where they end up at a soup kitchen if the business fails. CEO's, owners and other execs, not so much.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Actually, it sounds like a good idea to me.

Good thing you're not in charge because you would completely destroy the economy.

 

[Travis]

No, it is a philosophy of rewarding risk taking and enhancing productivity.

Feel free to tell me which part of that you disagree with and why? I await your response with bated breath ...

What risk taking?

You think executives actually take risks? There is no risk. If they make profits then they make millions. If the company loses money they still make millions and get a new job the next week at another company where they will be guaranteed millions more even if they royally screw up all over again.

 

[balrog666]

I doubt it. Owners often incorporate so that they don't place their own personal finances at risk.

Of course they do! But that doesn't change their tax status or tax rates.

Everyone in a business is at risk, but, often, it's the workers that end up in a position where they end up at a soup kitchen if the business fails. CEO's, owners and other execs, not so much.

It is a rather obvious point that unskilled workers without marketable skills or accumulated capital are the most "at risk" in the modern world - when has it ever been different?

Oh, and welcome to the real world - I'm glad you finally noticed that it is there!

What risk taking?

You think executives actually take risks? There is no risk. If they make profits then they make millions. If the company loses money they still make millions and get a new job the next week at another company where they will be guaranteed millions more even if they royally screw up all over again.

Who said anything about executives?? Do executives open businesses with their own capital in your fantasy world??

 

[The Dark Lord]

Re: profit sharing.

If a company wants to profit share with regular employees, fine. If not, well it is the company's money and it should not have to share profits with anyone it does not want to.

 

[RandFan]

I think in the future most if not all corporations will be owned in part by employees. It makes for better corporations and the idea that employees bust their ass just to survive and make the owners super rich doesn't make much sense. Exploiting people because you can doesn't make it right.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Most all corporations are already owned in part by employees although not all employees own a piece. Any of them could by buying stock (at least ones at publicly traded companies) though.

 

[RandFan]

Most all corporations are already owned in part by employees although not all employees own a piece. Any of them could by buying stock (at least ones at publicly traded companies) though.

I'm not talking about nickles and dimes. But thanks.

 

[DavidJames]

Most all corporations are already owned in part by employees although not all employees own a piece. Any of them could by buying stock (at least ones at publicly traded companies) though.

I can't help buy laugh when people make comments like that. Yes, I'm part owner of xyz corp, I own 142 shares out of more then a billion. I'm a powerful capitalist.

 

[TimCallahan]

They don't, owners do; but sometimes they are one and the same.





I pay them quite well for their productivity but only my capital is at risk, so the rewards are mine just as are the losses.





Yes, as my employees have already been compensated for their efforts; how much many money I make off my capital, my own labor, and my informed decisions is none of their business.

So, are they compensated the same if the company does so-so as they would be if the company does really well? If so, what's their incentive to work harder? Also, did it occur to you that employees might actually have some good ideas that might cut waste and increase profits? If you use such suggestions, and it increases your profits, why shouldn't they get a piece of the pie?

 

[The Dark Lord]

I can't help buy laugh when people make comments like that. Yes, I'm part owner of xyz corp, I own 142 shares out of more then a billion. I'm a powerful capitalist.

I can't help but laugh when people make silly strawman. Simple fact of the matter is that if any employees of a company own any shares of that company's stock, it is part employee owned. And, of course, there are companies where people who are employees own large parts of the company. Founders who are also executives, for example.

 

[The Dark Lord]

So, are they compensated the same if the company does so-so as they would be if the company does really well? If so, what's their incentive to work harder?

To keep their job? To get a raise? To move up?

Also, did it occur to you that employees might actually have some good ideas that might cut waste and increase profits? If you use such suggestions, and it increases your profits, why shouldn't they get a piece of the pie?

If the company agrees to do that, they should. If not, well, it is the company's money to do with as it pleases.

 

[The Don]

i don't agree that the executives take most of the risk.

It depends on the size and type of the company and what you consider to be at risk.

Here in the UK, even if a company is a limited company it's quite usual for banks to ask for Directors to put up their own collateral for loans when making loans to small and medium sized businesses. In this case the executives would be taking a significant personal financial risk.

In the case where an entrepreneur has founded a business, they may have taken little or no cash out of the business over the years. In that case, the executive is taking a significant risk that they will eventually be able to realise a capital gain from the sale or flotation of the business.

On the other hand, executives at large companies very rarely risk their own capital. In some cases they may stand to lose the value of shares or options but I'm not aware of executives being routinely asked for anything other than a nominal "buy in".

The executives who take the least risk are probably those running privatised utilities. They're paid multimillion salaries and bonuses for doing nothing more than making sure the place doesn't burn down.

When people talk of executives I suspect that most people think of executives of major companies rather than the first two examples.

 

[RandFan]

Simple fact of the matter is that if any employees of a company own any shares of that company's stock, it is part employee owned.

Trivially true. It's a silly point. I'm talking about something like a Mondragon Corporation. I'm a fan of capitalism and like the incentives and returns it provides. But it's hardly the optimum solution for the vast majority of workers who bust their ass their whole lives to make someone else rich. Statistically the American dream is a lottery that most people will not realize.

 

[RandFan]

If the company agrees to do that, they should. If not, well, it is the company's money to do with as it pleases.

I believe in the pragmatic reality that ensuring property rights ala Adam Smith is the best means to provide incentive and leverage talent and brain power to manage business, to innovate and improve production. But corporations understand well the game of monopoly and know how to game the system to the best of their advantage. To reduce competition and when the supply of labor is high get the most out of labor with the least outlay to them. That a company can exploit workers doesn't mean that it is the ethical thing to do. The current model of capitalism/corporatism will not last indefinitely. The trajectory of human progress favors improving the lives of all citizens. It's slow, incremental, but we will get there.

 

[DavidJames]

I can't help but laugh when people make silly strawman.

What strawman, please elaborate?

Simple fact of the matter is that if any employees of a company own any shares of that company's stock, it is part employee owned.

I agree with you. But in reality it's a pretty meaningless statement. I own part of xyz corp, BFD, I have effectively zero influence.