(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134464)

it seems like your real gripe is with the corporatocracy itself, which i definitely agree with. what's disturbing is that there is now almost zero pushback against the corporatocracy. present-day "liberals" have become even more loyal to The Machine than big business "conservatives." normal people all worship corporate branding and trends and unironically look to corporations as ideological and value-creating leaders (!)

it's not a pretty picture

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134573)

In 500 or 1000 years the corporate form may disappear completely as we either destroy ourselves or reach some state of fully automated luxury communism. In any case, this is hopefully just an unfortunate era that we have to go through to reach a higher state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134607)

let's not get lost in the weeds.

all of these sundry social/economic problems (crime, real income, GC excess/greed, etc) will sort themselves out if we simply deport all the 3rd worlders/jews and maintain the quality/homogeneity of the population stock.

we don't need to complicate everything with these niggling sideshow arguments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134531)

that's how you establish the stigma.

if OTOH your 'country' is an open-borders GC tradezone flophouse for 5bn rootless 3rd-worlders, these stigmas cannot obtain.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134732)

The problem with shit like "CEO pay vs. median salary" is that this shit is very prone to manipulation. For example: I'm the CEO of some large company and want a pay increase. My company is Walmart, a company notorious for paying people shit. So my cap is fairly small, right? Wrong. All those employees making shit are now employed by some other company that I pay to. In fact, what this law would do is really create a huge incentive to outsource everything low paying to third parties or automate away low paying jobs. McDonalds? Fuck having a million low paying workers. Automate them or have them work for some other company.

Rather than helping low-paid workers it'll hurt them because they won't even work for the large corps anymore. They'll essentially work for shitty staffing companies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38134758)

But boards do need to be more active in removing bad people and discouraging graft. CEOs should feel the pressure to perform and the consequences for underperforming. Setting performance metrics will of course be subject to the specifics of the company and the market conditions it faces.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38135053)

Which is why I think the focus should be prohibiting golden parachutes. It is hard to tell BoDs to do that when every time they "remove bad people" they pay some extraordinary amount.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38135196)

the people complaining about CEO pay wouldn’t actually want a CEO to perform well because it generally comes at the expense of the workers at the company.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38135349)

Seriously, what is the next best option for a CEO of an ARE country F500?

It's not like it's a FAANG CEO who can be a VC partner/bank MD/founder tomorrow so you need to pay to keep him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38138362)

Before the reformers came in, CEOs were paid in cash and some options. The cash was higher and options aligned with success of the entity. Even in a bad year, a CEO might make $10m in salary and everyone got pissed. The check was that the directors were not professional independent directors, but people who actually knew the company and had a stake in it, either directly or through the community.

Now, everyone has a comp consultant. And directors are nationally based and essentially professional directors in most instances. That consultant juices the ceo pay by slightly moving the peer group which the independent directors comp committee sign off. Over time, this drove executive comp much higher. There is also a shift away from cash and to diluting options/RSU etc. and the RSU are worth money even if the stock is flat or down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4247792&forum_id=2#38140065)