What's insane is some of the lawsuits that succeed.

If he made a change on compensation not based on the interest of the company, then the other shareholders should be allowed a say.

You do need committed investors, but even if you have investors cashing out it may be better for the company that they leave when you look at things on a 5-year or longer timescale.

It's interesting that you critique gp's comment for being binary, but you also make an absolutist comment yourself by stating "there's no reason" in:

>But there's no reason that a company paying out 100% of earnings to its employees can't outperform a company paying out less year-over-year. ... it may be better for the company that they leave when you look at things on a 5-year or longer timescale.

Instead of "no reasons", there are several reasons why a company paying out 100% of the profits to employees for 60 months will make it underperform another company that retains some of its earnings. A company can use its retained profits to spend on future expansion, speculative research & development, acquiring a company, etc. In many industry segments, if the company doesn't grow, it becomes irrelevant and dies. (At that point, the jobless employees get 100% of $0 profits.)

I can't think of any example in business history of a company that paid 100% profits to employees and therefore had $0 in retained earnings year-after-year ... outperform its competition.

I'm not saying that paying min 70k is beyond this point where paying them won't help you on T time scale, but it needs to be evaluated. You can't just assume that paying someone more will be more than made up for in increased long term efficiency.