Business/Crew Awareness Series: Pirate Master or Profit Sharing?

[Freeyourchains2]

As a business owner, you must decide how to distribute your profits.

This thread is to discuss the various forms of doing so in relation to the two following extremes:

The first way is what i call the "Pirate Master". From the controversial "Survivor" Spinoff TV show, "Pirate Master".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Master

Basically The Captain claims 50% of the total profit made, the Officers share 25% of the profit, while the rest of the crew members share the remaining 25% of the profit.

The other way, is the Captain evenly distributes 100% of the profits among all crew members.

Now each business is different and controlled by "The Captain"; however most Corporations tend to lean toward the "Pirate Master" approach, but with the business entity taking the majority of profits for expansion and re-investments while the company stock ownership is majorly controlled by "The Captain" and any senior officers.

Thus, while the Business Entity gets 75% of the profits(earnings) for re-investments asset acquisition from Any and all investor's money. The Captain and Officers get that 75% in profits in a round about way of owning the most shares of the company and giving the crew members no chance to own shares through employer options.

Thus the Stock Market Corporations and also Private companies approach the "Pirate Master" way, more then profit sharing.

[GuitarStv]

There are no companies that use true 100% profit sharing . . . because the skilled people, and those at the top of any company command higher salaries that the secretary.  This happens even if some minor form of profit sharing goes on.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  People with more skill, responsibility and stress naturally expect higher pay than those who have none.

I'd say it's very rare for a company to be run in such a way that the top 10% is paid less than 50% of the total salary awarded.

[sol]

I'd say it's very rare for a company to be run in such a way that the top 10% is paid less than 50% of the total salary awarded.

The US government is run that way.   Top executives typically make two to four times what lowly workers do, and there are fewer of them than you find in a typical corporate management structure.  The relatively low pay at the top of the ladder is part of the reason why government has such a hard time attracting really qualified leaders.

Unless you're talking about elected officials.  That's a whole different game where rewards are power and ego based, not direct salary, but the total number of elected officials in government is dwarfed by the number of senior executives in government so I sort of ignore them.