upvote

points

by BJones124 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby griffinkelly4 hours ago|
next
[-]
One other interesting fact about Japanese companies is that their CEOs get paid far far less than Western companies.

Checkout this article that talks about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/2010/07/5-lessons-of-ja...

edit: added article.

reply
upvoteby pstuart3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As it should be. The pay gap from CEO to bottom tier worker is now obscene (21 times in 1965 and ~285 today). It's the foxes looking after the henhouses.
reply
upvoteby Aunche3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure why the left cares so much about CEO to work pay ratio these days, especially when Marx himself recognized that ownership was the true source inequality. A CEO is just a really well paid worker. Even CEOs who become billionaires do so from capital appreciation more than compensation.
reply
upvoteby johnnyanmac32 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A CEO is a worker incentivized to maximize profits to maximize compensation. And nowadays they see other workers not as a profit center, but as a blockage to their next big payout.

So yes, it is a problem when leadership doesn't have long term aspirations for the large company.

reply
upvoteby marcosdumay2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality, and most people can plainly see it.

How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

reply
upvoteby derektank2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>How is it working for the US to have every company mostly owned by the general public's retirement funds?

It’s working quite well for retirees.

reply
upvoteby Aunche2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Because Marx theories do not hold up to reality

Sure, but ownership being the root of inequality was the one thing that he was actually correct about. CEO to worker pay ratio is something that is completely irrelevant. Companies spend orders of magnitude more money on its shareholders (dividends, buybacks, and reinvestment) than executive compensation.

reply
upvoteby kevin_thibedeau1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Global societies were still mostly agrarian in his time. His analysis doesn't work well for the modern era with <5% engaged in farming. Central planning won't work. You need distributed decision making to be flexible for changing circumstances. You need capital for industrialization and you need a cadre of people who can take risks to invest surplus capital into new ventures. The large disparity in wealth is a problem, but some is necessary.
reply
upvoteby p_j_w1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Maybe others see it differently than I do, but the actual spending isn't so much the issue. It's the fact that these people with so much money exist at all. That much money translates to a tremendous amount of power which allows them to bend the law to their will.
reply
upvoteby reedf14 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The writing is a joy and the context is useful. Hardly buried.
reply
upvoteby programjames4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I clicked on the article to learn, "why Japanese companies do so many different things," and then got hit with pages of low-bitrate context, such that my eyes started glazing over and it was difficult to find the answer to the question. So I appreciate their compression, or at least pointing to where the answer is found.
reply
upvoteby thrawa83873364 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah not everyone is a reader these days
reply
upvoteby programjames47 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Not only is that implication rude, it's just not true. I am at least in the 99th percentile of amount of reading. I just think the article is poorly written. Not everyone is a good writer these days (or any days).
reply
upvoteby jimbokun45 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
TikTok attention span at work.
reply
upvoteby SubiculumCode4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The answer is much more deep than those bullet points provide. Hard disagree.
reply
upvoteby tyre4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Yes, thank you for compressing it. They start their answer with:

> Here is the answer I want to suggest: Japanese companies excel in lots of very different domains because it’s inherent in how they’re structured.

Which is then backed by some economists saying something similar (generally), but all of which completely ignores Japan’s specific history.

As a better example Of examining Japan, here’s a look at Japan’s monopolies, how they were broken up, and partly how that effected the future of their industry:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-Ac68FKG4

reply