Topsalarissen aanpakken.

1. Hub schrijft: “ Topsalarissen van directeuren en commissarissen vielen tot nu toe redelijk buiten schot.” En dan vier zinnen verder “Als er onder die topfunctionarissen personen zijn die oneerlijk handelen of de boel bedriegen, kan en moet daar met de normale wet tegen worden opgetreden.”

   Voor mij heeft de Latijnse oorsprong van het woord “functionaris” via de Franse omweg van “fonctionnaire”, de betekenis van ambtenaar. (Voor Nederlanders is dat misschien anders.) Commissaris, voor Nederlanders is dat waarschijnlijk weer anders, doet mij onmiddellijk denken aan EG, euh sorry EU,-commissaris.

   Daar ligt de kiem van de oplossing.

   In dezelfde mate als de topsalarissen in de bedrijfswereld gerechtvaardigd zijn, in diezelfde mate zouden alle salarissen (en niet enkel de topsalarissen) in de overheidssector met onmiddellijke ingang dienen afgeschaft en met 80 jaar retroactieve werking dienen teruggevorderd (dwz dat ze teruggevorderd kunnen worden van de erfgenamen van die profiteurs).

2. CEO Pay — Normal or Unfair?

   Tibor R. Machan

   In my many years of trying to understand the free market economy I
   
   have
   
   been hampered by the simple fact that no such thing exists. Like ideal
   
   marriages, genuine free markets are mostly something we can conceive of
   
   and understand in theory but rarely encounter in the actual world.
   
   Yet, just as with ideal marriages, we can ask whether free markets, if
   
   they did exist, would be better for us all than, say, some other
   
   conception of economic life, such as mercantilism, socialism, the
   
   welfare
   
   state or communism? And we can also think through how near-free market
   
   systems operate, by reference to the pure free market ideal and various
   
   thought experiments, as well as the history of approximations.
   
   When comparing the merits of economic systems, it is necessary to think
   
   through what would happen if they existed in pure form. That way it is
   
   possible to propose various public policies based on the results of
   
   such
   
   comparative analysis.
   
   One thing about free markets is that in such a system to a
   
   considerable
   
   extent the consumer drives the economy. Sure, producers come in with
   
   big
   
   ideas but unless consumers decide to purchase their wares, producers
   
   will
   
   go under. Sure, advertising can help; yet even there no one has to
   
   response to ads – indeed, we encounter thousands of them we evidently
   
   ignore.
   
   Critics of the free market ideal maintain, however, that the system is
   
   largely rigged in favor of big greedy players, by which they tend to
   
   mean
   
   corporate managers and their clients, shareholders (investors,
   
   stockholders, or family members who own closed firms). Especially
   
   outrageous to such critics is the sizable salaries made by some CEOs
   
   and a
   
   few other company managers. Among these critics many hold that
   
   something
   
   must be wrong when such people can garner huge incomes, sometimes even
   
   when the company isn’t doing very well, while ordinary employers make
   
   but
   
   a fraction of what these folks rake in. This surely cannot be the
   
   result
   
   of mere consumer choices. There must be something corrupt or grossly
   
   unfair afoot, so critics tend to approve of various state – by which
   
   read:
   
   coercive – efforts to set things straight, make the system more fair
   
   and
   
   just.

3. vervolg

   Of course, there can be malpractice in any profession, including
   
   business
   
   and, indeed, big or very big business. We have witnessed much
   
   malfeasance
   
   throughout the history of the profession. Yet, misdeeds abound within
   
   all
   
   professions – medicine has its quacks or charlatans; education its
   
   indoctrinators and deadbeat scholars; politics its demagogues and petty
   
   tyrants. Virtue and vice tend to be pretty evenly distributed among
   
   the
   
   various different careers upon which folks can embark.
   
   Yet, most disparities in pay are driven by the free choices of
   
   consumers,
   
   up and down the line of the business community. This is akin to many
   
   other fields of work.
   
   Consider that orchestra conductors get much higher pay than, say, the
   
   violinists or viola players; the champion sluggers in baseball received
   
   far greater compensation than those who have meager showing on the
   
   field,
   
   let alone ball boys and others in the employ of those who own the team.
   
   There are only so many people in the professional sport, music, movie
   
   or
   
   book industries who are in wide demand, with the rest lagging far
   
   behind.
   
   The star system is nearly ubiquitous throughout the society and it is
   
   mostly due to how consumers of the various products and services choose
   
   to
   
   spend their resources.
   
   I know this from personal experience. I have authored nearly 25
   
   books,
   
   edited another 20, yet none has hit the big time, all the while around
   
   me
   
   I am fully aware of the best sellers listed every week in The New York
   
   Times Book Review section. My columns fetch me a pittance compared to
   
   what George Will or William Saffire earn. And it is all pretty much
   
   due
   
   to nothing more insidious than the fact that zillions of people want to
   
   read those other folks, while only a few hundred, maybe a thousand at
   
   most, are interested in what I produce.
   
   That’s life. Is it unfair? No, because none of those folks who do not
   
   purchase what I write owe me anything. If you aren’t owed the same
   
   consideration paid others, there is nothing unfair about the little you
   
   receive. (As a teacher, however, I do owe each of my students equal
   
   attention, since I made that promise when I signed up to teach them.
   
   Not,
   
   however, those to whom I made no such promise.)
   
   The free market, like life itself, isn’t about fairness. Yet, oddly,
   
   at
   
   the end of the day it comes closer to it than all the alternatives – no
   
   near-socialist system has ever managed to distribute power and wealth
   
   without some folks at the top getting the bulk of it and few ever
   
   having
   
   the chance to take their place. On that score, at least, the free
   
   market
   
   is far more fair – we all have a pretty good chance to get into the
   
   game,
   
   provided we keep at it.

Comments are closed.