Once more..it's their compensation package..REGARDLESS of the health of the company.
But that again is a criteria that only stands up for rich people, the same compensation structure at lower levels is something you have no moral problem with. The notion is that it is unethical to negotiate compensation that is not tied to company performance, and that morally indicts salaried workers unless you just say it's unethical for the rich to do but fine for others.
Look, I think it makes a world more sense for compensation and performance to have a greater relationship but most Americans do not have their compensation directly tied to performance either and you only call the rich ones greedy. This is not a consistent criteria between the rich and the poor so it does seem to be contingent on them being rich for it to quality as greed.
At the same time they get their obscene bonuses....regardless of the fact that they didn'tr make the company more successful...and .. 100s of workers get tossed out on the street.
Sometimes layoffs are exactly what is needed to make a company successful. Which is it that you want, sometimes you can't have both? This is why I think this is just generalized anti-corporate ranting.
And if you are faulting them for taking large compensation packages while making layoffs I certainly wouldn't be able to do that but don't think it is inherently unethical because most people don't give up their compensation for others and don't begin to think they are being greedy.
It's hard to say what anyone's value is worth. I subscribe to the notion that value floats and is what people are willing to pay and are able to negotiate. So just
because the compensation is large I am not willing to say that they are greedy.
These same protesters will often say that the corporations should also not "outsource" jobs overseas, and what they are essentially saying is that their 1st world salaries should be preserved over multiple 3rd world salaries. The comparative suffering caused (being unemployed in the first world vs unemployed in the third world) is large, but I do not think it's unethical for the first world workers to compete with them.
the fact that CEOs don't lose these HUGE compensation bonus packages when the corporation has to layoff employees because of the lack of foresight of the CEO.
Well, do you think it's unethical to negotiate a compensation structure that is not directly tied to company performance or not? Or is it only unethical if you are an executive?
I thought I had made it clear that this is not a simple case of the $$$ alone. I'm not sure I can make this point any clearer.
You make clear that you believe
you aren't just arbitrarily calling the same self-interested behavior in the rich "greedy" while not in those who aren't rich, but I don't think you've made a very good case that it is true.
If you think you are, why don't you try to establish what your criteria is and see if it doesn't just revolve around the compensation size (so far your evidence has simply revolved around the notion that the compensation is outsized, but upon no basis other than its size).
Perhaps you could re-rerad what I wrote? I recognize that I have been known to be vague. Vaguely I recall a few 100 people telling me this at some point.
Reading it again is not going to materially change what you said, or make me agree with you. I am convinced by reason, not repetition and no matter how many times I read it it will say the same thing.
If we don't agree that's fine, we don't have to and we'll both survive but I really don't think we are barking up the same tree, I am looking for more nuanced criteria than I believe you to be.