Fair enough. Huawei’s bonus pool was exceptional in that it was so large. And that even base salary spread between lay workers and executives is far smaller than in a US counterpart.
But the idea of an annual bonus tied to company income isn’t a novelty of Huawei. Nor is this a sign of a non-capitalist business model. It is simply an earlier stage of Capitalism.
You can maybe argue that this counts as “labor aristocracy” only if you argue that fairer profit distributive among employees co-op/esop structures of large profitable tech company like Huawei exising makes their employes much better compensated compared to others. But thats not a problem with the structure , its a reason for more and more of China’s and the worlds tech and other companies to be restructured like that.
Luxury cell phones occupy an economic niche that affords the firm high profit margins. I don’t think you’d want this model of firm operating your plumbing network or electricity provider or your rail system or your grocery store chain.
That’s not to say the co-op model isn’t superior to the corporate investor model. But it is still a capitalist form of production, in which the incentives are stacked towards continuous growth and expansion.
Fair enough. Huawei’s bonus pool was exceptional in that it was so large. And that even base salary spread between lay workers and executives is far smaller than in a US counterpart.
But the idea of an annual bonus tied to company income isn’t a novelty of Huawei. Nor is this a sign of a non-capitalist business model. It is simply an earlier stage of Capitalism.
Luxury cell phones occupy an economic niche that affords the firm high profit margins. I don’t think you’d want this model of firm operating your plumbing network or electricity provider or your rail system or your grocery store chain.
That’s not to say the co-op model isn’t superior to the corporate investor model. But it is still a capitalist form of production, in which the incentives are stacked towards continuous growth and expansion.