Corporate Greed And Corporate Capitalism Revealed-www.yofoto.cn

Home-Based-Business Corporate greed and corporate capitalism have been under attack recently with movements, such as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in New York. But is it justified? What effects are these two buzz terms having on the world? With unemployment near a record high in much of the world, the cost of goods rising, and CEOs for companies that are moderately successful to successful taking huge nine-figure bonuses, it’s usual to see how people are becoming disillusioned. But is the system as broke as far too many people think that it is? For an answer to that, it helps to look behind the problems of society and see how corporations are contributing to the problem, and how, if there is any way possible, they can fix it. How they contributeCorporate greed and corporate capitalism arguments pick up a lot of steam in the reality that unemployment is higher than it has ever been. It is also very slow to rebound. Meanwhile, companies are sitting on top of more cash than they ever have, refusing to hire new staffs. While on the surface this looks bad for the corporations, take for a moment that government turmoil is also at an all time high, and that most companies are sitting on the cash because they have no idea how tax arguments and solicitude will shake out – for them or against them. With significant tax increases, they may not only be unable to hire, they may also have to fire people that are currently employed. This could be a huge long term problem, and until the government decides on a definitive course of action concerning corporate taxes, it will continue to be a problem. In any way, one thing that is inexplicable: huge bonuses for a very small percentage of these companies. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason for one individual taking a $100 million bonus when there are 300 staffs at the same company, who are struggling to make a living wage. That’s a complaint corporations have failed to ignite a viable response to. Take how beneficial it would be if the top dog took only $1 million and divided the remaining $99 million among his 300 staffs. (That’s $330,000 each.) At a little point, the public wants to know, "How much is enough?" How they can fix itWhile the example in the last paragraph is just a number pulled out of the sky, the logic is sound. With so far too many staffs worried for their jobs and so far too many without jobs altogether, how can the top brass now justify the huge payouts. About the Author: 相关的主题文章: