Why are executives/managers in corporations paid so much if they're not actually creating value/their job isn't...

Why are executives/managers in corporations paid so much if they're not actually creating value/their job isn't actually necessary and they're just receiving the surplus labor of other workers? They're just employees of the owner/shareholders so why do the owners/shareholders keep them around if they're just taking surplus labor they could pocket themselves? Wouldn't the ideal corporate structure for a capitalist be that the only jobs that exist are the ones that are necessary and everyone is exploited, some less than others depending on the necessity of their position and the rarity of their skills?

Other urls found in this thread:


In part because of cronyism and typically because they're part of the same owner/shareholder class stratum.

As Marc wrote about the owner/managers of his time they are compensated for the labor that they do to aid in the production process/running the business. But, they earn far in excess of what that managerial labor is worth. Marx and Engels were old men when the corporate revolution took off in earnest but Marx noticed even in his time that it was actually the managers who were closest to supervising production who were paid the least.

He argued that the pay of the managerial stratum is inverse to their actual productivity.

Because they get to keep the product of workers due to property rights and state protection therefore the state must be abolished

I think the best analogy is the UK still having a royal family when their perceived use is over. They're a vestigial organ of early capitalism that was required for it's development, but now they try to justify their existence in increasingly grandiose ideological ways in comparison to their inherent lack of function beyond capital transfer in a horizontal way (sliding money around to people in the same skyline offices.)

They call themselves and ask other people to call them "job creators" they perceive themselves as being both the building and loan and the bank in It's a Wonderful Life. They think they're necessary entrepreneurs that Steve Wozniak was nothing without Dweeb Jobs. They're ambassadors between products and finance. They're makers and you're a taker. Captains of industry ETC. The main job they do is invent and have other people invent new ways to justify their existence and sustain it.

But owners/shareholders don't think of themselves in terms of class, they think in terms of what they're getting for themselves.

I get that, I'm wondering why that's the case.

But why do corporations keep instituting the same managerial system if it just costs the actual owners and the ones with the real power profit? Why doesn't the shareholders of Microsoft fire all the overpaid executives and put in new ones who won't take the surplus labor of the workers?

It kind of like giving away a title of nobility. By having these positions available that are mostly worthless but come with real rewards, they can award politicians, people from other companies they like and have people in key positions they need to keep control of the company.

Because most people are incapable of being top-level executives and managers. It requires above-average intelligence and decades of experience to be a top-level executive of a large company, in part because so much of the job requires a level of intuition that simply cannot be conveyed in an academic environment. Furthermore, earning one of those positions requires a long and successful track record because owners and boards of directors need as much assurance as possible that their investment will be in dependable hands. Even given that it is possible for a candidate to be able to run a company or manage a large segment of one successfully without much experience, there is still no way for such a candidate to prove it, and that's really why the pool of potential CEOs is so small. It is not irrational to demand proof that a potential hire can handle a high-level position for decades if you are about to hand over control of a billion-dollar organization to him. This is especially true if your company is owned by risk-averse investors who demand security for their investment. While half a million dollars a year might seem like a big waste compared to the salaries paid to workers, it's actually nothing if you consider that the total price of the company's stock could be in the tens of billions. Big corporations run by boards and investors are certainly not perfectly rational and there are plenty of examples of common fallacies made in management but the high price paid to executives and managers is not one of them.

Skipped to

gave me a giggel
copypasta or am I supposed to read your Trumpwall of text?

Sometimes I wonder what would happen with buildings like those under socialism.

It preserves the illusion of meritocracy, that people are paid what they're worth and that people who are worth more rise in the hierarchy. Talk frankly to just about any working stiff and you'll see the illusion doesn't work.

Cities in general would be less tall and more spread out. Instead of just streets there would be transit every few stories between buildings. We'd have high-speed rail all over the place.

Because in most instances the actual connection between the "value" added to a large multinational conglomerate by a CEO/executive and that multinational conglomerate's performance is nebulous. Then you have golden parachutes that effectively reward CEOs with millions in cash, shares, etc even if they've been ousted for gross incompetence

CEOs and executives are basically just glorified politicians:
Conglomerate does well? Obviously this is entirely due to the managerial genius of the CEO in question.
Conglomerate does badly? Obviously key markets are weak, industry conditions are poor, demand is volatile…

This is a huge part of it. Their salaries are not even necessarily the primary source of their income. A high level executive may himself be a significant stockholder.

That seems to be a near-universal truth of capitalism: the more intangible the product of your labor is the more you get payed. Productivity is punished.


because their job is to be class traitors

But why would an owner/shareholder who only cares about profits care about maintaining some illusion? Couldn't the illusion be maintained without a group of people who take surplus labor away from him?

I understand this and I'm asking "why"? How do they serve the owners/shareholders? Why keep them around if they're not actually producing anything?

But individual capitalists don't see themselves as part of a class, they just do whatever serves their interest. How do overpaid executives serve their interests?

I wasn't implying that they have zero value as a whole, just that its extremely difficult for shareholders to ascertain exactly what value a CEO provides independent of the external environment. And shareholders as a group tend to be quiescent, really only intervening against CEOs when they're catastrophically incompetent.

The problem with libertarianish assumptions about shareholders and CEOs is that they never bother with what actually happens in the real world, preferring instead to disappear into first-year-econ-textbook-tier "Well if a CEO earns $10 million in remuneration/year, obviously that is the value of what he provides QED"

Read Art of War.

Stratifying income allows for more markets to sell to. Instead of selling the same products to people in the same income bracket, they can sell hot dogs to poor fucks, deli meat to people in the middle, and veal to the people with lots of money. Diversifying business makes it more stable and harder for competitors to disrupt. Even though there are not that many capitalists truly in charge, they want to be able to buy nice things. The people making those nice things want to make them at a good profit, and economy of scale helps with that. So if they also sell the nice things to a group of well-off proles, they can increase production efficiency. Everyone (who matters) is "happy".

be filled with apartments or some shit

Sorry for being Terse. Art of War is very short and it explains the importance of managing your opponents' knowledge. Since class warfare is happening all the time, its concepts relate to the bourgeoisie's actions. They are aware of this and you should be too.

t. classcuck

I found a picture of you.


executives have almost a cult of personality built up around them in the business world. They genuinely believe they are worth that much. And then the success of any given executive turns out to be a total crapshoot, in line with the odds of success of the businesses
they may also be extremely skilled/talented at the job, and create value for the company. it's a mix of both.


I wasn't implying they produce zero value either, just that if they're being paid with surplus value taken from the workers, why would the owner keep them around when they're taking profits from him?

I don't quite understand. Owners hire executives so those executives can be part of the class of people who buy certain products?

By class warfare do you mean the bourgeoisie try to divide the workers by creating another group of proletarians to manage them and they ensure this divide and the loyalty of the executives by paying them more than the value they produce? Essentially, their real job is to represent the owners/shareholders interests in gaining profit and to ensure their loyalty and to prevent them from identifying with the workers that they're exploiting, they in return pay them these extreme amounts?