a corporation enters an agreement with an executive or an employee.

I don't think the legal standing of contracts needs to differ depending on the net worth of the people involved. And I do believe a lot of employment contracts include performance clauses, actually.. I mean it would be hard to confirm lol but I'd be surprised if many didn't. Especially those involving executives.

That said, I don't actually disagree with you on a lot of this. I think fair and liveable compensation to employees should absolutely be a cost of doing business, and corporate greed has definitely been codified and normalized in American society and its corporate governance frameworks, which has implications even beyond US borders.

But I still think it's vitally important to understand the true animus behind corporate behavior, if there's any hope at all to change it (or even just effectively regulate it lol).


>Why are contractual obligations guaranteed? Why don't they
>come with performance clauses? The CEO is already paid
>handsomely. Why add a contractually obligated payment
>regardless of performance?
>

>Does it really hurt to lose a job that paid you $260 mil to
>leave (yes, she got $260 mil)? C'mon. You act like losing
>that job is some detriment to her livelihood.
>

>
>And the rest of the workforce doesn't contribute to said
>profits? This is a cop out. Paying a livable wage 'should'
>be a cost of doing business mandate but because oligarchy is
>the norm in government, no one makes corporate greed
>accountable for the masses. So they conflate the importance
>of a CEO, pay them even if they fail and complain whenever the
>10's of thousands of peasants say, 'it's hard to live on
>$11/hr in New York/DC/Chicago/LA/Houston/Atlanta, etc'.
>
>How dare you ask for enough to keep up with inflation when we
>have to pay CEO's more than they've ever made in history?!?!
>
>