How does it make you feel?

How does a CEO like that feels in the company of billionare-tier rich people? Probably like NEETs feel in the company of someone else than their mother.

This thing gets me the most that some people don't understand how little value skill-free people have or that if you increase minimum wage then you'll just have higher rent.

Just stay at home with bro

Attached: D1O-rrKU4AAmhE4.jpg (956x960, 56K)

>12k to fuck coffees up
>11.5m to manage 238,000 people fucking coffee up
>Make $48 a year per fuckup making 12k a year

That would cause my federal taxes to double, so instead of paying $1,600 a month I'd pay at least $3,200

Nothing. A sports star makes even more per year yet nobody assumes they can run and shoot hoops like Jordan, yet everybody assumes they could do the work of an CEO.

>tfw i make twice as much at my job and do less work

Attached: 1532784840739.jpg (253x229, 12K)

>zoomer learned capitalism

me like totally outraged

Attached: 6927815.png (480x360, 110K)

solution - no more rent-seeking kikes in the stock market. company solely owned and operated by employees and executives. all employees get dividends of profit every quarter in addition to salary/wage. Starbucks made 4.2 Billion Dollars in profit - would equal ~$17k in dividends if profit divided equally (it wouldn't be and shouldn't be). if dividend percentage based on time/grade with company average employee would net $5-10k per year.

The company is owned by shareholders and as such all they are entitled to all residual cash flows of the business. Employees are merely the inconvenient meat puppets that exist while we seek to automate their labor

Angry commie detected

Why should businesses pay employees more than their worth on an open market? seems stupid

High level execs rarely take the blame when things go south. Not to mention they always fall with golden parachutes in the event things actually do go south.

Based.

what I described was actually a fascistic concept because the owners of the business would be part of the business's internal heirarchy as opposed to owned by "the people" (communism) or some multi-national abomination (ie modern global capitalism).

employees generate the profit for the company by producing whatever it is they sell. in this scenario it's shitty coffee. why should a multi-national holding company get all the profit? wouldn't you want more of that profit staying in the community generating it?

that's how it is currently. I am suggesting a paradigm shift where the employees are the shareholders of their own future based on the work and value they add to the company.

You're just saying "Companies should pay their employees more". If you do that, the price of goods will go up to compensate for the increased wages. Please learn some basic economics

i suggest you get someone to tutor you in reading comprehension faggot.

>"that's how it is currently. I am suggesting a paradigm shift where the employees are the shareholders of their own future based on the work and value they add to the company.
"

Lol do you even know how shares work ? A company IPO's to raise funds they need. You think employees can raise the required capital ? No. Will the shares be worth what they're worth today if they're given away ? No.

Why do you think executives and managers don't "generate wealth" you insufferable moron? You think shareholders hire all these worthless people who do nothing for the company? Why would they "share profit" (Which they already you, you can't pay people without profit retard) when another company can just...not share profit, make more money to invest in improving the business, and then effortlessly out compete all the retards running Co-op socialist che guevara coffee shops?

"Sharing more profit" just means diverting money away from net and more to employees, ergo, more wages. PAY PEOPLE MORE WOW IT'S SO FUCKING GENIUS. JUST PAY PEOPLE MORE BRO

>this is how it works now so how can it ever be any different
there are a lot of solutions to this problem. the simplest being that private parties can still loan money to start ups (similar to IPOs) but they won't get stake in the company unless they also work there and add value. Once funds are paid back nothing else will be owed.

>the guy who pours the coffee should make as much as the guy who runs the company as a whole

Attached: 1551812097448.jpg (963x1024, 82K)

How about fire the barista and put in a damn kiosk already

I do think they generate wealth you fucking retard. I think they (executives and managers) should comparatively make more salary as well as be entitled to a larger share of the dividends. I am not suggesting that "muh minimum wage" needs to be increased across the board. companies should pay whatever they pay to get the best workers and those workers should be entitled to a very small portion of the profits they help create.

They are entitled
Their salaries come from the profit the companies make.

One runs the biggest café brand in the world and has to make million dollar decisions daily.
The other pours liquid into a paper cup.

I think it's about fair.

Are you retarded loans are a risk to the company, they have to be paid back no matter if the company succeeds or fails, interest payments will steal cashflow that a new business desperately needs to grow.

People like you who don't know what they're talking about but still think they know what they're talking about is what's wrong with the economy stfu communist scum go follow a course basic economics

>people go to school to get skillsets.
>Lots of people have the psychology skillset and no job.
>Nobody has the CEO skillset and so firms compete to hire CEO's for millions
Why don't we just turn being a CEO in a college program?

Attached: 1552147323540.png (1360x768, 1.84M)

Wouldn’t bother me EXCEPT for how leftist SJW the cunt is
Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me

>How does it make you feel?
Vindicated. Starbucks employees are usually libcuck retards. Let them make $0 for all I care. The CEO is fucking based for exploiting them.

I'm pretty sure it's a human rights violation to fuck peoples' minds up and turn them into psychopaths.

>everyone who doesn't agree with globalist economics is a communist
KYS boomer scum. you are so indoctrinated that you can't even comprehend of a different way existing and working.

here is one a way to solve the cash flow problem; deferred payments for X amount of years. another option is that HNWI could also invest in the company for stake but are required to be an active member of the executive team.

No. All that happens is sales tax rises by 10%

What about cut off their dick and feed them hormones?

kek

Are investors rent seekers?

youre forgettin all the bonuses they get too

this lel.

the under class is a net negative value for spciety which automation will make painfully apparent

let them all starve

The guy who makes the coffee should make more than .1% of what the guy on top who bangs models all day and doesn't contribute anything the company as he hires people to do his job for him for much less money.

That's not a solution, why the fuck does anybody want to loan that business money if it's not for a high interest rate. Also did you take the 2% inflation into account ? guess not. What happens if the business doesn't make a profit the first X years? Are the lenders just gonna say ; oh oke, no problem just pay me next year! Loans exist and there's a reason why companies choose IPO's over them. You're just living in a fantasy world, you probably never did any type of business in your life and your only frame of reference is the little knowledge you have. I'm not trying to insult you as a person but you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

no that's brave and progressive

Genuinely thought the salary would be at least 50 mil plus

in the current system where investors are buying equity to extract value without adding anything beyond liquidity to the stock I would say yes. a system where global capital can extract massive amounts of profit and value from simply owning shares in a company is inherently bad for the society/nation. it basically centralizes money and profits around centers of influence and capital. you see this currently where, instead of large benefactors spread throughout the country investing profits back into local people all profits get sucked to large financial and international centers of power.

Lol implying you would ever have the guts to tell the under class they're obsolete, you don't need them anymore and they will just have to starve. Welcome 4th Reich french revolution style

Attached: 1541217101461.jpg (487x600, 26K)

Why *should* he?
It seems more like you're punishing the CEO than wanting the employee to make more.
Have you considered be less envious? If someone is making millions, that doesn't mean you or anyone else is losing money. Work is mutually beneficial both parties are made better off otherwise they wouldn't engage in the transaction

Progressing to what?

The ceo could give me some of his money. I would like that. More money is good for me.

Starbucks baristas don't know what the fuck they are doing. Coffee is always burnt.

Isn't the point of stock buy backs dealing with companies not need the capital?
Think about it. Say you're an airline, and you need to buy a new plane. You make low profit and a new 747 costs tens of millions. The access to capital is the entire thing. Otherwise, why go public? Just buy up stocks.

Attached: 1552052960357.png (307x228, 43K)

IT'S NOT FUCKING FAIR!!! HE DOESN"T DESERVE TO HAVE A BETTER LIFE AND MORE MONEY THAN ME. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE HIS MONEY AWAY.

Attached: Screaming.jpg (700x700, 63K)

makes me want to be a CEO and not a pathetic wage cuck.

To the next GET
Sorry boomer, you were 30 posts late

IPOs exist in my fantasy world. I was using loans as an example. I am also not saying that I have ALL the answers or the expertise but it's an important discussion. I am skeptical of anyone that dismisses it outright in favor of the status quo which has objectively destroyed or is in the process of destroying the middle class of most western countries.

How would you reconcile having publicly traded equity markets while simultaneously trying to have realized profit not entirely extracted from the middle class? Perhaps stricter foreign capital laws? I don't know the answer but I do know that something has to change.

The 8% sales tax is already fucking annoying, and now you want that to go all the way up to 18??

my brother pays a % of his paycheck into some scheme like that to get stocks of the company he works at.
can't access them for 20 years or something, economy will crash and burn in 10 but he won't listen. He did it because some boomer worker did it 40 years ago and made 90k.
what a scam

If you made the ceo disappear nothing would happen to the company because the ceo has automated himself out of his job yet he still makes 12 million yearly in addition to the stock price rising because he sets his own salary. So why even let the company pay him anything

that is a scam and much different than what I was referring to.

Jow Forums will defend this

Publix is run the way you're describing.

Your grammar is horrible. Are you referring to treasury stock?

want that pay? become a ceo. why are you so confused about this?

Richer people spend more on sales tax simply because they spend more money. As long as 10% is less than the $1000 from ubi it benefits me.

rich people are literally bankrolling the entire world with all the tax they pay.

BASED AS FUCK. THIS IS THE FUTURE

>If you made the ceo disappear nothing would happen to the company
they’ll appoint a new ceo you fucking retard. you think shareholders just appoint some dude to get free money

If you spend $10k per year buying things with an 8% sales tax it amounts to $800, but with an 18% sales tax it goes up $1.8k. You’d have have to spend less then $10k a year, preferably

No. The companies stock. A company can buy and sell shares
If it needs money to buy an airplane it sells stocks
If it doesn't need the money now and will need it later, they buy back the stocks so they can sell them later

Why do boards appoint a CEO at all?
He doesn't set his salary. The board does.

Yep, totally a socialist company.

Wait, $12k per year? How the fuck is that accurate

Attached: brainlethead.jpg (1462x2046, 121K)

That's just Starbucks coffee user.
We call it charbucks for a reason.

If a company buys its own stock that's treasury stock. Its a contra equity account on the balance sheet (under the cost method). If investors see this deprivation of cash it might not look good. Stocks are also inherently risky. If you buy back at 100/share and it drops to $70/share you fucked up. Stock buybacks are usually just for employee stock options, to increase eps, and for mergers.

Lol stealing this. Charbucks. Fucking charbucks.

>If investors see this deprivation of cash it might not look good.
And there is the rub. If you "don't need the money" when taking a loan, based off your income etc, you get lower rates than if you do need the money. And if a company needs the money through stocks, they're going to get less for them.
Everyone loves a winner
This problem isn't exclusive to the stock market

I'm missing your overall point? I haven't had my charbucks today.

Okay. Basically the problem with stocks being used to raise money is not exclusive to stocks.
I work in sales. The best prospects go to the person making the most in commission. They person needs the sales bonus the least, but is most likely to sell.

Supply and demand. There are an abundance of dumbfucks who can pour coffee. People who can successfully lead an enterprise are scarce.

>literal who coffee shop
lel

Attached: 1542275543740.png (500x336, 48K)

very good user, the way it all works is just perfect; some people are destinated to success and others are destinated to live poor, natural selection works very well; long live capitalism.

Attached: 8979878345.png (275x183, 7K)

Don't try to fix something you don't know the solution for. Brighter minds have thought about solutions but the current system is the best system we have, if there's something better i will support it but the truth is there's none at the moment. Also you're basically suggesting to ban IPO's, which is weird since you should be able to have the freedom to give away shares in your company and people should be free to buy them if they want to.

all i know is i have tried starbucks a few times its overpriced crap operated by barely trained monkeys

>No. All that happens is sales tax rises by 10%
That's a good way for me to stop buying the occasional treats and only buy things I'll absolutely need from now on

>CEO fucks up big time
>238,000 people get fired
except this has never happened in the history of ever
look at activision: they're failing monstrously but their managers keep getting bonuses. higher ups literally never take responsibility for anything, if anything, they get rewarded for it

GET A JOB HIPPY

seriously dont be a pussy boy and go work some manual labour and you'll be paid twice as much

How are businesses supposed to raise capital without a return?

I mean, we could charge people to get jobs I guess.

>the services entry level staff provide are equal in value to Howard Schultz
Top laff

Yes. The previous CEO apparently got paid $3 billion to fuck off. This guy's net worth is at least a billion from Starbucks options alone which should be taken into account.

No, what he said was correct, and what you're saying is correct too. CEOs aren't personally punished for fucking up-unless they're forced out which does happen on occasion, but they are still an important figurehead that can represent life or death for the company, including its employees, as a whole

he is worth more imagine the scale of the serivce he provides