It is hardly a dodge. I didn't think I had to explain how government and private enterprise are different. Most of us are educated people on this board, I would have thought the majority would understand such a basic difference.
The shareholders certainly and and should have a say in how their employees are compensated. And, as I pointed out in privately held enterprises they largely do. Practically speaking however, I think that the average shareholder is less vested in the salaries of those who are employed in the companies they are invested in for a myriad of reasons. For one, they may not have enough of an investment in the business that it is immaterial to them, or in the case of fund managers, may simply have no interest in being that involved, and the shareholders of their funds who are then shareholders of the enterprises, may not be shareholder's of record and therefore not entitled to even have a vote on anything period.
The thing that you are not addressing is frequently the Board that makes such determinations are actually made up of some of the largest stockholders. So in effect they are the ones making those determinations on salary - if nothing other than by approving a budget. And, certainly they are approving major compensation packages such as the president. So, yes they do in fact have a say and exercise that say.
Additionally the difference between government - which from a taxpayer is only a taker, versus a private enterprise in which you are invested is that - the private enterprise is making you money. So, IF you are making money and are happy with your rate of return you are less likely to care or question the costs that get you there. Because quite frankly, it doesn't matter. Now, if you are not happy with your rate of return or are loosing your investment, shareholders do generally have a say, and frequently oust the top management at least.
I have a handful of investments outside my retirement funds. As I pointed out legally speaking those shares of mine which are in funds are owned by the funds, not me, so it would be up to a fund manager to exercise any voting rights they may have. Which they don't. So lets concentrate on my personal investments. Of my individually owned stocks, no one investement in any one company is material in anyway to my net worth. So, if my $200 in Diebold goes down the tubes... quite frankly I don't give a shit. So, even if I did have a say in the salaries of employees. I wouldn't bother to execise any voting rights.
Last year, my husband and I paid about $15,000 in state income taxes. That is material to me. So, if I had the right to vote to keep costs down, by voting to not increase salaries, I would be interested in casting such a vote. Would I determine that these are hard working people and therefore deserving of a raise. Possibly. But, in my experience, that is not how Government employees have performed ( outside of those in essential services such as police and fire). So, quite honestly, it comes down into the portion of my income or net worth invested in the enterprise - be it by paying taxes, or by invested in stock. And, when that amount rises to the material amount - I am more interested in voting on things that directly affect my tax bill. And, salaries are quite a large chunck of that bill.
And, as I previously mentioned - the majority of stockholders do get some say in salaries - if not for the top most people then certainly as a chance to vote on a budget for salaries. Which I think I explained in a previous post, would be a preferable option to me rather than setting individual salaries.
connie
