Do corporate executives really need to have their maws stuffed with gold? For a decade or so now, company bosses have been paid higher and higher remuneration whether their companies prosper, and whether the economy goes up or down. Most of the American workforce has been on a sort of wage chill if not freeze during the same period. It would make a naïve non-economist think workers have nothing to do with delivering growth and prosperity – apart from occasional pink-slip massacres needed to boost the stock price.
I’ve never quite understood why paying a living wage to some poor hardworking person toiling on the production line or slaving over a hot computer should be regarded as eroding their moral fiber and inflationary in its effects on the economy. Of course, one argument is supply and demand. When there are lots of people chasing jobs, then of course their wages stay low. It’s the market.
But is there really a shortage of people who want to be CEO, CFO or various vice presidents? Surely there’s no shortage of qualified executives. There are almost as many MBAs around now as there are driver’s licenses. Everyone wants to be the boss. So if Adam Smith was right, that means these should be minimum wage jobs.
In fact, what executives really want is the glory and the recognition. The money is nice of course, but they would do it anyway. So how do you concretize the incentivization? One of the problems the US has had from its inception is the lack of clear honorific titles. That is why so many people cling to functional titles, even when they have left the job. Only in the US are ex-presidents, ex-judges, ex-ambassadors, ex-senators and ex-congresspersons still addressed by former titles.
This betokens a deep hunger in the American social psyche for honorable recognition that cannot be met by the present system. Anyone who has seen the way New Yorkers fawn over blowzy eurotrash with dubious Hapsburg titles knows that beneath the thin republican veneer beats a heart every bit as ingratiating as the most backwardly groveling European peasantry. On a lower level, think of all those lodges with their fancy titles and costumes. Indeed on the lowest level, look at the grand imperial wizards of the Klan. Clearly, throughout American society there is a deep yearning for the recognition and stability that titles bestow.
You will note that all those hangover honorifics only go to government types. When a CEO or company president retires, they lose their handles along with the office. So they have to make do with money instead of dignity. This is wrong.
The US constitution needs an amendment to remove the section prohibiting titles of nobility. Of course, when the constitution was first written, noble titles had connotations of feudal privilege. Things have changed since then. A century ago, CEOs of the then Enron equivalents, such as the Rockefellers, were called ‘robber barons’. But over in the mother of parliaments the radical liberal prime minister, Lloyd George, put truth in the epithet. He filled the House of Lords with enterprising businessmen who had contributed to society (and Liberal Party funds).
The problem with the British honors system is that honors tend to go mostly to devoted civil servants who have polished their brasses so faithfully that they now hold the title of KCB. The system needs adaptation and more continuous incentives. In the good old days when the old British aristocracy was forming, all you needed was your wife to sleep with the king to set up a noble house that would last centuries. This led to inbreeding, snobbery and inefficiency.
I propose that, to begin with, the most successful large-cap CEOs be granted the title of Earl, medium-cap CEOs will be Duke and small-cap, Baron, but only if they forgo all stock options. The titles would be hereditary to their oldest offspring except – and here’s the nub – they would drop one grade each generation unless the heir achieves similarly valorous additions to shareholder value.
I propose that some reputable body, say the Conference Board, be reconstituted as a sort of American College of Heralds to determine companies’ merits and to award coats of arms accordingly. You know the sort of thing: Pfizer’s would be a lance rampant on blue background to represent the success of Viagra. Procter & Gamble would have a slippery slope descendant on a brown background in token of Olestra. Enron’s shield: a pensioner pendant on a background of offshore islands.
It would be even better to build in more incentives for lower orders of management and perhaps make titles last only five years before reassessment. Of course, we could mine all the titles of Europe for finer subdivisions such as Marquis, Margrave, Count or Graf. Indeed, in this modern multicultural age we could extend our range to include South Asian titles like Nawab, Jam Sehab, Nizam and, my personal favorite, the Wali of Swat. Just imagine how that would go down at the country club. Arise be knighted Corporate America; you have nothing to lose but your options and you have a wali-hood to win.
The Speculator
