>>39No they don't achieve optimal efficiency but they are rather close, and the higher the position of an employee, the more responsible he/she tends to be. Wasting work time in Instagram is on a different scale from hiring an inferior worker when having the choice of hiring a superior one. That's a decision with large long-term expenses. Nobody would do that in any decent company.
I agree. And will add few companies are decent.
Harassment? How is harassment counterproductive?
Umh, it makes employees uncomfortable? It makes them want to leave the company? They will work less efficiently. How is any of this a good thing?
I don't even know what the hell that has to do with it. In the free market economy people must give up their salaries? No, buddy, that's not how it works.
A competing CEO would get better business by investing their salary back into the business and keeping only what they need for themselves. If the free market forces were really so powerful, the CEO that lived off as little as possible would run everyone else out of business with all other factors being equal. But you don't see this. They still indulge.
Anyway, all I see are some contrived, thought-up fantasies. Go get a job, get out more, look at the people around you. Stop spreading bullshit that you made up.
It's based on observation of the human being. Human nature conflicts with efficiency. People act on their own interests and impulses, not the interest of a company.