Except a good CEO can absolutely drive a company to more revenue and better services, while a bad CEO can bankrupt a company. The CEO guides a company, otherwise Apple would never have built the iPhone or iPad. If Stephen wasn't an important cog in blackstone than what made his firm worth billions and what made the others fail? If I remember correctly blackstone was build up completely by Stephen, down to the first hires and customers. After a lifetime of him building the company you want to just toss him out because you don't think he's contributing enough? But imagine if what the author says is true, and someone had a new economic system that was even more effective at allocating wealth than a free market/capitalist society. Why would we try it in the richest nation on earth first? To be in the global 1% you need to make 34k a year, something that's easy to do here. Things we regard almost as human rights are luxuries most of the world will never experience. If this person has an answer they shouldn't' start in the US they should be going to some poorer country and trying to implement it there, if it works then we can bring it over here. The idea that we should throw out such a successful economy because someone wants to try what they perceive as a better system (with no data to show for it) seems borderline dangerous
Indeed. The questions are though, are the people who take CEO positions so uniquely qualified to justify the disparity in wealth and power they hold in comparison to the average worker? Additionally, why is the pay gap in American companies so much larger than in many other countries? Japan, for example, gets thrown around a lot as an example, where they make about a fifth as much as American CEOs. In companies where CEOs hold pretty much veto power over anything the boards of directors or shareholders want, Facebook for example, doesn't that lack of checks and balances open up the company to more risk than one that is more equitably run? Jeff Spross is actually quite the insightful opinionist. I don't always agree with everything he says, but he often has some very interesting things to say. That said, he's not promoting upending the American Economy with a new system, just that we give our disparity in wealth the scrutiny it deserves. Additionally, other countries and communities are constantly trying new things and getting interesting results. America's economy, while monolithic, isn't the be all and end all in economic systems. Even here, we are surprisingly diverse in how our companies organize themselves and as a country we constantly try new things and learn learn from successes and failures. For individuals, there's more than one way to live our lives. For companies, there's more than one way to do business. The questions we always need to ask though as we navigate through society, individuals and organizations alike, are the ones where healthy decisions are the ultimate goal.Except a good CEO can absolutely drive a company to more revenue and better services, while a bad CEO can bankrupt a company.
If this person has an answer they shouldn't' start in the US they should be going to some poorer country and trying to implement it there, if it works then we can bring it over here. The idea that we should throw out such a successful economy because someone wants to try what they perceive as a better system (with no data to show for it) seems borderline dangerous