Apple and Google embody two alternative models of capitalism

The title is a bit pompous, but the article does actually relate the policies of the two companies with a basic concept of capitalism (allocation of capital).

It's as trite as saying "there is no historical basis for the idea that getting a higher salary is the primary concern of an employee." What would that add to a discussion about wages?

If you think corporations should do something differently, why not just say so, and say what?

Having investors dominate, as Apple does, is a good way of handling one principal-agent problem: getting managers to do right by their owners.

See:

>Consider first Friedman’s erroneous belief that shareholders “own” corporations. Although laymen sometimes have difficulty understanding the point, corporations are legal entities that own themselves, just as human entities own themselves. What shareholders own are shares, a type of contract between the shareholder and the legal entity that gives shareholders limited legal rights. In this regard, shareholders stand on equal footing with the corporation’s bondholders, suppliers, and employees, all of whom also enter contracts with the firm that give them limited legal rights.14

From the previous pdf. Basically these false ideas about the relationship between shareholders and corporation have almost totally permeated modern business discussions. Correcting that misunderstanding may lead to a political discussion (you bring me there later in this comment) but it isn't political in itself.

>It's as trite as saying "there is no historical basis for the idea that getting a higher salary is the primary concern of an employee." What would that add to a discussion about wages?

I think it would if you also linked some interesting articles about labor movements and how we became disconnected from this history. I understand if you don't find the information interesting [ :'( ] but I did and thought it might add some context to the debate between the two management styles in the article.

>If you think corporations should do something differently, why not just say so, and say what?

I wasn't sure if my opinion was relevant and was truly just trying to correct an extremely pervasive false belief. However if you want to know, I'd like to see management compensation become more seperated from share value. In my mind a CEO compensation package would involve a base salary and then components that reward the CEO when share prices increase relative to an industry benchmark, when median wage in the firm increases or when employees report more satisfaction or maybe the firms labor retention rate increases? Something that incorporates workers although I'd have to think harder about exactly what metric. And also maybe a component that incorporates some sort of consumer rating. Corporations have responsibilities to their workers, their customers and their shareholders, the idea that the individuals in a company get rewarded for helping only one of those groups in a big problem with our system today (imo).

What percent of asset markets are owned by the 1%?