Dec 10, 2011 17:38
Is it just me or does anyone else see the inherent idiocy of creating an entity that has one motivation - making money. Not for the people doing the work, mind you, but only for owners and investors.
Actually, I do not have a problem with profit. I have a problem with the definition of expenses being limited to money.
In a nutshell, I believe that a business should take care of its R&D, equipment and employees, before it takes care of its stockholders and/or owners.
I would like to see individual owner profits limited to the maximum that any management employee makes in a year. Furthermore, I would like to see management pay limited to double that of the highest paid non-management employee. Taking more as profit is taking money/livelihood away from the employee, the people actually providing a service to the company and its clientele.
First you pay the employees. And by pay I mean all of the perks enjoyed by the owner and/or stockholders of the company from insurance of all kinds and retirement to stock options, so that the employee is vested in the company from day one.
Employee owned companies are the future of business because they create a sense of community among the employees. And by sense of community I mean a shared purpose.
This is the limit of the rule of human made law: The limit being defined by those that make the laws. A universal code for what is right and ethical between profit takers and employees in the business place is missing. An understanding of the value of a business is currently limited to the amount of money it makes its stockholders or owners. The remedy is to either make all employees stockholders or to redefine the concept of profit as being money taken after certain (expanded) minimum standards are met for the employees.
Thus endeth the first thoughts...