Man, I wish the poor would stop whining...Follow

But alas, we derail the thread. Smash, quick! Say something controversial!

I realise this is getting off the sock-puppet discussion but wtf?

You think it's better for someone not to get a performance bonus when they do well, meet targets etc.? That just leads to people who do "just enough" to get past their next evaluation rather than taking an interest in their business.

The CEOs are there to make the business prosper. IMO they shouldn't have salaries unless they are linked to performance.

Gbaji, while I tend to enjoy reading/agree with-most of your posts, I'd have to disagree with them on this thread.

AlexanderonAsura, what can be said?! You haven't a clue what you are agrueing about, sorry kid.



As someone who only earned $23k gross last year working 2 jobs, I can easily see how the rich can and do use pathetic/cheap ways of getting richer, and why they shouldn't be allowed(in some cases) to profit off of those like me.

The view is much clearer when you can look up from the bottom.



In what world is a $500k bonus justified? When it is given to someone who took 3-4 vacations(on company money), whose work schedule includes "outings" to the golf course/restaraunt/spa/etc a few times a week, and who spends most of their time ************ with others all day long, while they should be putting in as hard of days work as those they profit off of?

Do you see them giving the honest days worker the same considerations? No. A $.15/hour raise to a worker that has been there for 20 years, is not the same as a CEO who has been there 2 years, getting a $500k bonus. You might try and say that, across the board in a massive company it would be the same. But you'd still be wrong. As the company makes more and more money, their labor costs decrease while keeping the workers at roughly the same salary or pay. And the CEO's and others keep getting more and more of that profit, through bonus and such by simply holding that position.

Do they deserve it? Bonuses? No. If they have stock in the company, let them make their money off of that. If the company is doing well enough, why would they need a $500k bonus after they receive their checks every month? They wouldn't, it's just pure greed.

We all may have the same rights outside the workplace, but unfortunately that doesn't translate into the boardrooms. Which means that as soon as we enter that workplace, we as workers have no pay/salary rights and are vunerable to those "tactics" being used by those who would exploit us. Which translates into the rich getting righer, and the poor either leveling off or getting poorer.




The difference is that when the worker chooses to buy a gift, buy a car, whatever, they have to choose to take that hit to the wallet. A CEO who gets an absurd bonus, doesn't have to worry about it. These cannot be compared to each other, I'm sorry.



That would be ridiculious to do so, the law persay. What I think everyone can agree on, is that there should be laws/regulations put into place to penalize those companies that give massive bonuses to their board members after they have just cut hundreds or thousands of jobs due to "profit losses". If you think it is right for these companies to do these things, then you are morally bankrupt in your own right.

We are a Capitalist nation after all, and as the word "Capitalize" indicates, we as a nation all capitalize off of someone, somewhere.

But the problem is, that even though these board members make up the majority stockholders in whatever company, the money they are throwing around belongs to the company and not the individual. No matter how much stock they hold in the company, unless they own 100% of it.

Do the minority owners of these companies get to decide on the bonuses handed out? Not likely.

If I buy up 10% of Microsoft stock and am still considered a minority owner, do I have a say in who gets what every year? No. Because if I'm overruled by the majority, then I'm **** out of luck in my protest.

And unless they consult every single stockholder, what they are doing is wrong. Because they are taking someone else's money and spending it for them, regardless of how you try and cut it.



If you have ever worked anywhere where you get paid an hourly wage you'd now how funny this statement of yours is, companies are required to post the laws for all workers to see. Ever heard of "Minimum Wage" or "Overtime Pay"?

I'm not taking it out of context either, you said it.




I think you are confusing "rights", with "benefits". Getting a bonus is a "benefit", and does not come close to falling anywhere near a "right". >.>

You're better than this, come on man! You keep saying "rights", when everyone is talking about job "benefits".

And as far as what it would benefit? Don't you think the company as a whole should recieve that bonus and not the person who did not actually earn it?

I'm serious. Do you know how much it would benefit a company, to reinvest that $500k or whatever back into itself? Or to distribute that money between all the workers, no matter how small? You know, the people who actually made that profit for the company, not the people making a profit off of them.



First of all, everyone living in the world is directly effected by Capitalism.

You want an example: Watch what happens when it is announced that minimum wage is going up. Watch as the prices, both nationally than globally start climbing on everything. And watch as these same companies that raise prices, fail to increase workers wages in response. Yet make massive profits off of it. And that's even before the minimum wage increase is even passed, that's just off the announcement that it "might" be in our future.

Secondly, capitalism only enables such technological development. It's not even remotely the reason for it advancing like it has. >.>




No one is denying that capitalism is what made this country what it is, just take a look at the Native Americans, didn't they just look comfy laying facedown shot in the back for their lands? Didn't the Africans just look so happy in the cotton fields? Doesn't the enviroment look just so lovely in all it's toxic modern goodness? Huh? All caused by Capitalist ideas and actions.

You like how I twisted it? Well, you are doing the same. It's a hard pill to swallow, but Capitalism has it's uses and it's demons. Capitalism is both useful and destructive. You cannot argue that Capitalism is the end all best, when it's far from it.



I don't hate the rich, I just want to boot them in the ***. If they got there through hardwork then I applaud them, if they got there through stepping on those they exploited then I pity them.

Do you think I like having to worry about where I'm going to get money to eat 1 week out of the month, and barely having enough to allow me to eat 3 weeks out of that month? While my boss snorts lines of coke, goes to the gym every single day and when he's here does absolutely nothing but ***** and moan about crap he has no idea about? While he is now majority owner of the TV station my Grandfather founded, built, and then later got screwed out of by legal loopholes by his minority partner at the cost of over $500k to my Grandfather? All the while he tells me, that the company can't afford to pay me more. Though I've seen the profit sheet. >.>

Do you think I like the fact that my step-father got over 300k in the divorce from my mother, and almost completely wiped out her and my grandfathers business by doing so? Hmm?

My Grandfather made a mini Empire, yet he started out working in the coal mines making $.13/hour. Capitalism at its finest.

Yet through various scam artists, such as his TV business partner and my step-father he and my mother have lost nearly everything, all due to inadeqeute(sp?) laws and legal loopholes. Capitalism at its worst. >.>

Gbaji, Capitalism is a double-edged sword, yet you are trying to make it out to be an all-purpose kitchen knife.


Sorry for the long *** rant.

In a world where his decisions have a huge effect on whether the company makes or loses millions of dollars each year. You do realize that bonuses are part of the contract that a CEO signs when he's hired right?

You do realize they're virtually *NEVER* based on performance, right?

Then Brownduck used a really crappy example, right?




Do you just make this up? CEO bonuses are almost *always* based on performance. My comparison to a professional athlete is a good one. They sign a contract in which they receive some base pay, and in which they receive bonuses based on their performance. I'd argue that CEO's have more performance based bonus stipulations in their pay then the average pro athlete in fact...


What makes you think otherwise? Care to actually support your assertion? Or is this just going to be another case of you making stuff up because it fits your argument?

Then Brownduck used a really crappy example, right?

True.

Show me some examples then.

Translation: I made up a crazy claim and can't find anything to back it up


S'ok Smash. I'm quite sure no one actually bought the whole "CEO bonuses are virtually never related to performance" bit. Sounded good inside your own head I suppose...

Why does that matter if they're "new" or not? I thought we were debating whehter some "new law" or regulation should be enacted to limit CEO pay? That's forward looking, so lets at least start at how things are "right now".

this article would seem to call many assumptions into question:



Well gee. If over half of CEO's recieved performance shares, then we must conclude that some percentage higher then that use a system with performance based pay contracts (since there can't be fewer then that, but can be more since we can assume that 100% of CEOs didn't all earn their bonuses).

Kinda throws a wrinkle in Smash's earlier assertion that virtually no companies do this, doesn't it?




That's a pretty meaningless assertion. You can attack *any* payment system by arguing that it could be exploited. The CEO's could just embezzle money from the company too! What's your point?

If not the board of directors, then who do you think should make the decision as to how much executives of a company are paid? The government?


Isn't that the big flaw with your line of reasoning? It's like the old adage that Democracy is a bad form of government, but is still better then all the other ones. Same deal here. What would you replace this system with? How would you do that without trampling on these silly things we have in this country called "rights"?


Again: It's not your money. This bizarre idea that wealth is (or should be) collectively owned and all the people (represented by the government of course!) should have a say as to how it's used is wrong. Just plain wrong. The first and most important right is that of private ownership of property. It just amazes me how many people today don't seem to know this...

Kinda throws a wrinkle in Smash's earlier assertion that virtually no companies do this, doesn't it?

Nope.

I think, perhaps, you're not bright enough to understand. I'd say it was a shame, but really at this point, it's par for the course.