Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Bill Would Punish Companies for \"Out of Whack\" CEO Pay" video.

  1. I am utterly opposed to this bill. It's bullshit. Positive discrimination at its stupid worst. The problem is not that CEO's earn much more than their workers. The problem is that the workers are not paid a reasonable wage. The problem is that rich people have a disproportionate influence over politics. Comparing CEO working hours against that of their staff is ridiculous. Does that reflect the cost of their education? Does that reflect the risks that they've taken to build the company. Does  that reflect the decades it's taken to get where they are, or the massive increase in stress levels? Nor am I in favour of using taxation to penalise companies. The solution  is easy: a fair minimum wage, and a political system where companies cannot buy politicians.
    2
  2. Not a remotely viable one. Bitcoin has nothing to say about this situation. Companies need leadership. Boards might be a way to share that role, but companies need individuals with vision, experience and a vested interested to steer them. A Wikipedia approach to corporate management seems unlikely.
    1
  3. His Divine Shadow Digital to analogue converters?;-) but no, not heard of them. How do they work? 
    1
  4. What a typically proletariat perspective. "No-one can accumulate wealth because they're taking it from the pockets of someone else". Of course, you completely ignore the fact that they do by providing things that others want to buy. No business, no standard of life for anyone.
    1
  5. glukolover . You said "The only reason people get rich in the first place is on the backs of everyone else. To even be able to make anything at all, they need a whole lot of other people to do the actual work, and a society to function in and protect them." When you use the term "on the backs of everyone else" there is a clear implication that this is an exploitative relationship, when clearly that is not the case. The workers require jobs, the customers require products or services. You assume that an employer/employee relationship is exploitative because, hey, "the man". I think that such thinking is typical of working class people who expect jobs but then resent the very people who provide them. I suggest a more nuanced perspective would be more realistic. I thought that that point was pretty clear in my previous post, but I hope that this clarifies it. And I used the word "they" in exactly the same vague way as you did.
    1
  6. ***** I lack the expertise to say with any  credibility, but I would have to say that no matter how menial your job, if you work a full week, you should be able to pay your reasonable living expenses, with at least a little left over for occasional luxuries such as the cinema, a night out at the bar, video games or a vacation once every three or four years. The fact that Walmart employees must be subsidised by other tax payers because the company pays so poorly is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE. The company should be taxed into obliteration unless it changes its ways. What about yourself?
    1
  7. Daniel Pryce Is that enough to live on? It still seems pretty lean. 
    1
  8. But if you want the best people, you need to pay whatever the best people require to come work for you.
    1
  9. Absolutely right. Say goodbye to all your major industries (not that they pay much tax in the US anyway). What we need to fix that, is every dollar earned in the USA, pays 25 cents tax in the US - no matter where you're headquartered. Also, do these lawmakers not think that these companies might not find a way around this? Pay in stocks, deferred benefits, payment to family members for consulting fees, and more.
    1