- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,531
- Reaction score
- 14,937
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The last company I worked for was owned by three men. The company pulled in approximately $13 million in net income each year. We had 40 employees, three locations, and usually about $2 million worth of inventory on-hand. I was mid-range in terms of salary, making 35k a year (started at $10 an hour three years ago). There were weeks that I wondered whether I could afford the gas to get to work during that three-year run, but I never felt as though the owners should give up some of their millions because I was struggling. They're the ones taking the risk with the company, especially in a trick economy. Why should they not be the ones reaping the majority of the reward?
They of course were the owners of the company and as such entitled to the profits of the company either in salary paid to themselves or as cash payouts (minus government taxes of course)
Most publically owned corporations have CEO's that do not own a majority of the stock, and generally own a small percentage of the company through stock options. It is those CEO's (and comparable upper level managers) that I have an issue with on their compensation. Not so much on how much they earn in comparison to the lowest paid employee in that company, but more along of why they are earning 2-5 times what a comparable manager(CEO) earns at a similar sized company in Germany or Japan. I truelly doubt a CEO at an averagely well run company in the US deserves 3 times the compensation of a manager at a German company with similar results. The compensation of public managers and CEO's in the US has been corrupted through conflicts of interest ( compensation commitee's) and are against owner interest. Unfortunately owners are a generally diverse group ( Mutual funds, pension funds, thousands if not millions of individual investors) who do not have the power to keep corporate boards looking after their interests.