|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
How do the incentives for the boards and upper management of private institutions differ from those of the public ones? Stock options in the private sector come to mind, in contrast to just shared national ownership in the public sector, but can't think of much else.
If by Ong's point you mean workers owning the means of production, I would argue social ownership, whether employee-owned large businesses or top-to-bottom stock option programs, are not too popular since those share the profits to a wider audience, and who'd want that if you can get it all to yourself.
I forgot to add that "Ong's point" that I mentioned was about employees not having that amazing of incentive to do good work. There is a lot of truth to that. It can be unpacked and better understood, for sure, but the point I was making was that if this is true of all employees, then it would be true of public employees.
It is common for people to romanticize about public service (not saying you do it). Some may think that people who work in public service do better jobs than people who work in private. I mean, the euphemism is in the name, isn't it? Public servant. I think the truth is that government employees are just as shitty (or as great) as private employees.
|
Reply With Quote