> This argument hinges on the idea that the executive is earning rewards that are vastly disproportionate to the risks he faces for making mistakes.
C-level execs of large banks (the kind of execs in question) DO early disproportionate amounts of money and face no real risks even when they fail miserably. C-level execs typically get golden parachutes and usually face no criminal charges even if their actions or direction lead to criminal behavior.
> Doesn't every employee enjoy the benefits of the company's success?
No, absolutely not. Is it better that someone be employed rather than have no job and go hungry? Yes. But you are wrong if you think the janitors that clean the offices and other low level employees share in the success of the company, these people are paid low, flat wages and are highly expendable even in successful times for a business.
> Individually their pay is small compared to the executive's, but taken together their collective reward dwarfs what the executive takes home.
The average worker does not share their income in some kind of collective way and does not have a way to collectively bargain for extra wages or benefits. C-level executives, on the other hand, have tremendous salaries compared to the average worker working under them and are rarely in danger of any penalty for bad or illegal decisions.
> As for risk, remember that however all-powerful the executive's role is portrayed to be in popular culture, he is ultimately a servant of the shareholders and the employees. He acts according to pressure from the owners of the company to transform an existing business into a more profitable business. Morality can and certainly does enter into it, but only in such a capacity where it doesn't interfere too severely with this mission.
If high level executives get a license to act against moral interests of people at large without the risk of punishment, we should expect sociopathic-like behavior from those person and they will do damage in some capacity or another.
> When viewed from this angle, it's clear that putting in place laws that would allow you to prosecute CEOs that execute this mission in good faith is foolish.
Nonsense. No person or business entity is entitled to profit without rules or regulation. We aren't Ferengi.
> It would be incompatible with our legal principles because it would assume that all leaders of faltering companies are criminals unless proven otherwise, simply by virtue of being at the helm during bad times.
Running a business poorly is not a crime. Running a business with the intent to lie, defraud, and otherwise cheat the law is. Expanding or strengthening laws to ban behavior that is destructive to society is not wrong but is moral and necessary.
> Worse, it would transform the role of the CEO from that of the responsibly careful and reasonably bold leader to a timid sheep who lives in fear of mob justice for impossible-to-foresee consequences of his innumerable, seemingly innocent, decisions.
If this were to happen, society would be a better place. Instead now we have not sheep but wolves that seek their own profit regardless of how many lives are destroyed.
C-level execs of large banks (the kind of execs in question) DO early disproportionate amounts of money and face no real risks even when they fail miserably. C-level execs typically get golden parachutes and usually face no criminal charges even if their actions or direction lead to criminal behavior.
> Doesn't every employee enjoy the benefits of the company's success?
No, absolutely not. Is it better that someone be employed rather than have no job and go hungry? Yes. But you are wrong if you think the janitors that clean the offices and other low level employees share in the success of the company, these people are paid low, flat wages and are highly expendable even in successful times for a business.
> Individually their pay is small compared to the executive's, but taken together their collective reward dwarfs what the executive takes home.
The average worker does not share their income in some kind of collective way and does not have a way to collectively bargain for extra wages or benefits. C-level executives, on the other hand, have tremendous salaries compared to the average worker working under them and are rarely in danger of any penalty for bad or illegal decisions.
> As for risk, remember that however all-powerful the executive's role is portrayed to be in popular culture, he is ultimately a servant of the shareholders and the employees. He acts according to pressure from the owners of the company to transform an existing business into a more profitable business. Morality can and certainly does enter into it, but only in such a capacity where it doesn't interfere too severely with this mission.
If high level executives get a license to act against moral interests of people at large without the risk of punishment, we should expect sociopathic-like behavior from those person and they will do damage in some capacity or another.
> When viewed from this angle, it's clear that putting in place laws that would allow you to prosecute CEOs that execute this mission in good faith is foolish.
Nonsense. No person or business entity is entitled to profit without rules or regulation. We aren't Ferengi.
> It would be incompatible with our legal principles because it would assume that all leaders of faltering companies are criminals unless proven otherwise, simply by virtue of being at the helm during bad times.
Running a business poorly is not a crime. Running a business with the intent to lie, defraud, and otherwise cheat the law is. Expanding or strengthening laws to ban behavior that is destructive to society is not wrong but is moral and necessary.
> Worse, it would transform the role of the CEO from that of the responsibly careful and reasonably bold leader to a timid sheep who lives in fear of mob justice for impossible-to-foresee consequences of his innumerable, seemingly innocent, decisions.
If this were to happen, society would be a better place. Instead now we have not sheep but wolves that seek their own profit regardless of how many lives are destroyed.