Posts Tagged ‘CEOs’

cartoon_of_the_day_4-26-16_fight_for_15

Special mention

183438_600 183449_600

capitalist

Who are the capitalists?

It’s one of those questions I always pose to my students, and they always get wrong. Their mainstream economics courses don’t offer much help, since the term is never even mentioned. (I know, bizarre, since presumably what the students are being taught is a theory of capitalism, which surely includes capitalists.)

But, after scratching their heads for a while (since, clearly, they haven’t really thought about it before), they finally offer up some guesses: Shareholders? CEOs? Everyone?

Nope, I patiently and sympathetically respond. Not shareholders, since they offer money to firms in exchange for some portion of equity ownership, for which they receive a cut of the profits in the form of dividends. They’re not capitalists. Nor are the CEOs, who are hired by the capitalists to run the enterprises on a day-to-day basis.* And most of us are not capitalists, since we receive the bulk of our income in the form of wages; we don’t deploy capital to generate additional money in the form of profits.

So, my questions to them continue: What is the position of capital in corporate America? Who occupies that position? Who is the personification of capital in contemporary capitalism? Who is Mr. (and Ms.) Moneybags?

They remain stumped. And so I answer my own question: the boards of directors of capitalist corporations.

As I explained earlier this year:

The members of the boards of directors of corporations (say, of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies) are the ones who sit at the top and are ultimately responsible for the enterprises. They are the people who, during occasional meetings of the boards (for which they receive a small fee), decide the general direction of the corporation, hire and oversee top executives, and fend off crises. In other words, they occupy the position of capital and appropriate the surplus created by the workers within those enterprises. . .

Within contemporary capitalism, then, capitalists are members of corporate boards of directors. And it’s a tiny group. Given that boards are made up of 10-15 members, we’re talking about (for the leading, S&P 500 companies) only 6250 individuals. Even less (closer to 4500), if we subtract interlocking directorates, that is, individuals who sit on more than one board.

BoD

But I was wrong—not about who occupies the position of capital, but about those “small fees.” As it turns out, according to recent research by Williams Tower Watson (a business consultancy that designs “solutions that manage risk, optimize benefits, cultivate talent and expand the power of capital to protect and strengthen institutions and individuals”), the average compensation of members of corporate boards of directors again increased last year, to $265,748 (about half in cash, the other half in stocks). That’s no “small fee” for a part-time position, which involves attending a few board meetings and offering occasional advice—and it’s a lot more than $160,000, which was the average board member’s compensation in 2006.**

So, as it turns out, the small group of individuals who occupy the position of Mr. (and, increasingly, Ms.) Moneybags not only appropriate the surplus from their workers. They also distribute to themselves a growing chunk of that surplus.

Not a bad job if you can get it. . .

 

*Corporate CEOs may not be capitalists but they’re certainly well compensated for their service to capital. According to the Economic Policy Institute [ht: sm], “in 2015, CEOs in America’s largest firms made an average of $15.5 million in compensation, which is 276 times the annual average pay of the typical worker.”

**According to Jena McGregor, “the average director would seem to be earning a little more than $1,000 an hour.”

 

 

65701bd4-4a08-11e6-bf9f-36dd91314911-1560x878

Apparently, Gravity Payments CEO Dan Price [ht: sm] recently received a gift from his employees, a new Tesla.

Price and Gravity gained fame last year when the young CEO announced to much fanfare a plan to raise pay to $70,000 a year for all employees, after a phase-in period. Price said he would also make $70,000, dropping his salary from more than $1 million annually. . .

Gravity spokesman Ryan Pirkle said the gift was thought up and organized by Alyssa O’Neal, an employee who he said was one of the “most impacted” by the raise.

A gift for a gift. Price decided to raise the salaries of his employees, and they reciprocated by buying him a new car.

It’s a heart-warming story. But, as I wrote a year ago,

I’m not prepared to celebrate Price as a “good capitalist,” as against all the “bad capitalists” who are choosing to increase the gap between average workers’ pay and the enormous payments to CEOs.

My point is a actually somewhat different: first, that capitalists—whether in Columbus or Seattle—do lots of different things, and presuming they follow a simple rule (whether profit-maximization as in the usual neoclassical story, or the accumulation of capital in many heterodox stories) means missing out on the complex, contradictory dynamics of capitalist enterprises; and second, that other kinds of enterprises (in which workers themselves make the decisions about how the surplus is appropriated and distributed) would do even more, on a wider scale, to transform the dynamics of the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. economy.

It’s the difference between an individual gift and a gift economy. In the former, workers are forced to rely on the benevolence of their employer, to whom they feel beholden; in the latter, because they participate in appropriating the surplus they produce, workers actually have the means to regularly bestow gifts on themselves as a collectivity, on whatever bosses they may have chosen, and on the wider society with which they have a reciprocal relationship.

Now, that’s a gift economy worth celebrating.

corporate-crimes-cartoon

Special mention

182150_600 7-15-16

tumblr_nrzx3b8il51qf5yp8o1_1280

Special mention

288BD119-A577-4F0C-8E66-2C720304AC90 low_wages_2326265

Adjunct

Lisa Liberty Becker is absolutely right: there’s something seriously wrong with a university system that has “gone the way of Walmart,”

profiting from the continued manipulation of the lowest rung. However, these customers aren’t shopping for $2 T-shirts but for an education. You can give that lowest rung more pay and say it’s better than nothing, but a 50 percent raise on low pay still equals low pay, and one-year contracts don’t provide stability. These conditions affect the courses that college students and their parents pay huge bucks for, thanks to astronomical tuition rates now averaging $35,000. For one of the courses I taught last spring, the school collected $105,000 in student tuition — more than 16 times what I was paid to teach said class.

Adjunct professors across the country—who make up almost three quarters of college and university classroom teachers in the United States—have responded by forming unions and collectively bargaining for contracts, to increase their pay and to obtain longer contracts.

That’s a start. But, Becker is correct, it’s not enough.

I respect those speaking up against university administrations when administrators have so little respect for them, and their union wins are certainly moral victories. However, the cracked framework of the college system persists even after these protests end and union contracts are ratified, and administrators continue to fill adjunct spots with little difficulty.

The problem, as adjunct and tenure-track faculty both know, is the rise of the corporate university, which is governed by boards of directors, run by CEOs, and has all but eliminated faculty governance.

Vivek Wadhwa begins by quoting a former employee:

“The Soviet Union I left behind was a dictatorship but the workplace was a democracy; America may be free but the workplace is a dictatorship” said Len Erlikh after I hired him at First Boston (now Credit Suisse First Boston) in 1986.

He then goes on to defend corporate “enlightened dictators” and the absence of democracy in the workplace.

I know that dictatorship doesn’t sound nice but it is what business leadership entails. People love to follow strong leaders. They want to be led by people with vision, conviction and good values. They may not agree with everything the leader decides, but as long as ethical lines are not being crossed, employees will follow directions, work hard, and be loyal.

The alternative, of course, is a democratic workplace, where employees participate in making the major decisions in the places where they work. Major decisions such as how production is organized, how much surplus there will be, what should be done with the surplus—including what kinds of managers should be hired, how much power they should have, and so on.

Yes, “The job of manager today is to lead, articulate goals, inspire, motivate, and enable.” And, in a democratic workplace, the job of the other workers is to participate in the process of leading, articulating goals, inspiring, motivating, and enabling themselves and everyone else.

Democratic workplaces have no need for dictators, benevolent or otherwise.