Slashdot Mirror
Google Execs Happy With $1 Salaries
DarkClown writes "ZDNet is on the one hand reporting that Google execs will keep their $1 salaries again this year, and on the other hand is reporting that the executives cashed in more than $160 million worth of stock last month." From the stock article: "Since the search giant went public in August 2004, Brin has sold about 6.5 million shares at a market value of $1.68 billion. Page has sold about 5.8 million shares at a market value of $1.4 billion, according to calculations from Thomson Financial. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, who was brought in to run the company before it went public, has sold more than 2.1 million shares, worth more than $502 million." They could be getting a multi-million dollar salary *and* the stock money. Good faith efforts go a long way in my book.
Too bad liberals run Google
But can we really say it's some amazing piece of good faith that they settled ONLY for 1.4 billion dollars in salary for the year?
Every single news story I see here on Slashdot has already been posted to digg.com. I guess the slashdot editors are getting lazy. Mod me down, I don't care.
I read an article somewhere that says these kinds of stock options instead of salaries lead to the massive corporate frauds....
Someone please give them the link to... http://www.thelaptopfund.com/
Thanks!
This must be like the 5th headline today, that came from digg.com.
I suggest the slashdot editors and submitters should read digg.com more often.
Bending the rules so you lose less money doesn't exactly count as good faith.
So the employee's can be shown that they too can be happy with $1 salaries. These execs set a shining example that we should all emulate. Consumerism is a curse, and wages are the crack cocaine of consumerism.
Can we honestly say "good faith" is their motive and not income tax?
In addition to the billions they are making from their stock, their $1 salaries also allow them to qualify for food stamps. Just another perk...
Unknown host pong.
8th post!
jeezus, they take out billions in cashed in options and people talk about "good faith" ...
They are doing what every other tax paying American is doing this time of the year, trying to get out of a mountain of taxes. I think it is great, I wish I had this option.
They're betting their distant future as multibillionaires on the value of their stock and securing their immediate future via cashing in as mere billionaires. Sounds okay with me.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
I worked for a consultancy where the CEOs capped their salaries at $55,000. The place I work now has a similar deal going.
Of course, all the CEOs are wealthy from stock sales.
Shouldn't that be illegal to pay people under the minimum wage?
IANASME (I am not a stock market expert) so maybe someone can explain this too me.
The SEC has mandated stock option expensing methods because previously too many companies made executives' pay pretty much disappear - instead of paying them, they gave them options. Now that they are expensed, what is the difference? It just seems to me as if the executives are getting paid billions of dollars and Google's bottom line should reflect that with the new expensing procedures- whether it it direct compensation or stock options.
Thanks,
Jack
Even if their wages were in the millions per year, it would affect the money they were getting from stock options in the same way a feather would destroy a mountain.
Why not just let that potential money accumulate in the company and access it with much lower taxes later on as dividends. Hell, even doing this $1 salary thing could impress stockholders enough to boost the share price enough to give them even more money.
I mean, it's not like this move hurts them. They look great to their employees, get lots of great press, and don't pay as much in taxes. Later, when they don't have _quite_ as much stock money to thow around, they can ask for a nice salary, and a greatful board will shower them with riches.
I expect the next move from these guys to be buying some small spin-off for $10 million and turning it into a media powerhouse to later sell for $7 billion and a seat on the board of an even larger company...
So, do they divy their one dollar up into bimonthly pay checks?
The news here is that the executives are selling their stock -- not normally considered a show of faith in the company. Brin and Page have each dumped over a billion dollars worth, and Schmidt another half-billion.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
What percent of shares do they still own? If they end up selling too much stock, an unscrupulous company may swoop down, buy all these shares, and then gain controlling interest in the company.
Page and Brin I understand - what the hell has Eric Schmidt done to amass 502M $? I mean he seems to be an ordinary CEO of an extraordinary company where the "extraordinary" part was present before he took over as CEO. What did GOOG do great since being run by Mr. Schmidt?
In this case, the Google founders and executives are cashing in on their IPO. It's not really the same as the typical salary to stock option crap that's going around. Let's face it, if you could get paid via capital gains (15% tax rate, until it's not taxed at all...) instead of salary (38% tax rate), why would you want a salary?
Make dividends and true stock investments (investing in IPOs, new stock offerings, and startup stock payments) taxable at the capital gains rate and revert all the daytrading/recycled stock profits to the full tax rate; it will benefit new technologies and put the brakes on silly speculation trading (read: gambling for the rich).
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
How much tax is paid on that dollar?
So Steve Jobs pulls this stunt too, what about minimum wage laws? :} (seriously)
I can own my own google executive for just $1 a year?
"I don't get it. Well, I could ride it to the store, I guess."
1$ salaries are great, they cost your business very little and you don't have to pay any kind of taxes on them. I'm surprised all high level executives don't opt for similar salaries.
~= scwizard =~
Of which I have not previously been aware. I thought hyperinflationary practices had a tendency to raise the cost of living without raising wages in concert- but this takes the cake.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It isn't about tax evasion or good faith. It's a way to link productivity to company success. If stocks are high, they make more money, if they aren't they make less. Many companies have started doing similar things, as linking rewards to success is far more profitable for everyone. Shareholders benefit greatly, as the leadership has more invested in the company, so is more focused on its success. Paying someone a 500 million/yr salary with no difference if they do well or poorly leads to poor results. It's basic economics and psychology: proper motivation results in proper rewards.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
Is what feeds corporations. Welcome to the club Google.
There is a difference between Stock, and Stock Options. These guys aren't just the CEO's, they are the founders. When they sell off stock, they are selling off their parts of the company they founded. You know, the one you use every day for searching, that has enriched your internet experience. Presumably they and their investors have some split of the available stock, and they are simply adjusting this ratio more toward the investors. They could quit tomorrow, and STILL sell that stock, or keep it, and just live off the work they've already done.
The point is, they aren't being PAID in stock (That's not part of their current salary, reimbursement for their current work), that is the reward they have for risking their money, work, and reputations building this thing called Google in the first place.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
But at least they aren't wasting company resources for their own salary.
Most American CEOs should take this as the way to do things instead of giving themselves dubious raises. That or somehow their salary is tied into the stock price in which if they pump and dump the stocks their salary will go through the floor.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Or to be more truthful-- another day another 0.0027378507871321013004791238877481 cents
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's all about the taxes, whether it saves them money or the company.
One obvious reason comes to mind; a salaried employee and the company must pay the FICA taxes equally. But it is only calculated against the amount of the salary. In this case, $1. Saving millions for the company.
I'm not an accountant, therefore I'm sure there a dozens of other reasons to keep a low salary. I'm guessing "Good faith" faith is not one of them.
James Marciano
356@up-set.com
They better make sure they are set up for retirement.
Aren't they supposed to be paid minimum wage?
crazy dynamite monkey
In terms of business, Google so far is a great business that tries to do no evil and approaches a lot of problems from an academic standpoint. It makes them money and it makes people's jobs easier. Good for them and good for us.
But $160 million in stock options? $1.68 billion in 2 years? Damn! Do you know how much rice and grain you could buy for starving people? How many middle class and working class people you could employ with that? The 8th highest paid executive in the world is the CEO of ExxonMobil and he made $88 million this year.
It's good that these stock options are tied to performance, because if Google tanked, they'd get nothing. But let's put the amount of money into perspective. Can we tone down on corporate greed? Did these guys really need that much in stock options?
I'm just saying...
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I'd feel better about investing in the company if they were taking home large paychecks. If they are taking $1 paycheck to help keep the company solvent while they selling billions in stock I'd worry about the future of the company. They don't seem too confident in the potential of the company. If they only cashed in a few mill a year to offset their loss of wages I wouldn't be concerned but they seem to be divesting as fast as they can without obviously destabilizing the stock. I'd say future earnings for the company are seriously in doubt. They certainly don't have faith.
Yep, Brin, Page, and Schmidt are only paying 15% on their haul, vs. the 28% I pay for taking a salary that's about 0.02% of Schmidt's gain.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Hi I work for the RIAA, and I don't understand what this is about? My brain explodes every time I read it, but we have a fresh supply of donor monkies.
So could anyone give me a quick synopsis of how this one-dollar pay thingie works. Add supported synopsis is OK.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... if my math isn't wrong is almost 4 million per month in a plain old savings account paying 3%. Didn't Bush's tax cuts make this income tax free?
I can't imagine what a nerds like those guys would spend that much money on.
Don't be greedy. There are plenty of us out here that would be more than willing to give them twice what they're currently making a year....
I don't fault the Google guys for their compensation or their decision to try and defer some tax issues. Hell, I don't even fault them for turning their pseudo-salaries into a miniature news event. They're in the business of growing Google, and part of that is playing up the "Google mystique."
Yeah, they make a lot of money no matter how you count it. But you know what? So can you, if you come up with an idea that's good enough and get people to buy into it.
We should look upon home-run successes like Google for inspiration, not class jealousy.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
If Africa could almost instantly send me porn, useless trivia and the ramblings of quasi-literate teens based off of just a few English words, I'm sure its stock would go up too.
I'd never want another dime if I had that much. Hell, I could give half of it away, live off the interest, and give away most of the interest, and still live happily ever after. The headline "Google Execs Happy with $1 Salaries" is a gigantic DUH considering how much loot they have already. Working in a job they love in what has to be a relaxed, comfortable atmosphere doesn't hurt either, I'd guess.
Article moderation: -1 Duh.
But $160 million in stock options? $1.68 billion in 2 years? Damn! Do you know how much rice and grain you could buy for starving people?
Let Darwin take care of this. The people who are weak and unable to sustain themselves will die off. The strong and capable will survive and benefit
Feeding millions of starving people who are incapable of sustaining themselves will do nothing for these people and only promote the survival of a weaker group of people. This is anti-evolution.
These guys started at the bottom of the pile, right? Just like the great majority of us, they were workers. Then they had a great idea, and now years later, they're billionaires because of it. It's the american dream. Why does everyone assume that just because they've made money they've turned to the dark side? 99% of you put in the same position wouldn't be turning down the billion dollars from stock sales. You'd have earned it fair and square, and you'd be very happy with yourself. I'm happy for them too, they've created probably -the- most useful tool on the internet, IMHO. Dave
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
This is just a neat way to get away from charity. According to http://globalrichlist.com/, they are among those billions who earn less than 2$ a day, and are therefore not expected to donate.
I'm not sure how this can impress anyone. They made more than God cashing in their stocks. I say they are still being greedy. Why not take a $.01 salary. Wow...they are all about the company! Taking no salary! How many yachts to they need to water-ski behind !?! How much is enough !?!?
if they can be compensated that well without taking any money out of their operating reserves, good deal. it can't continue forever, but then again, they can invest those billions elsewhere and just keep doing what they are doing for fun. personally, if i scored that well, i'd run off on a world tour and screw working. of course, that could explain why i haven't scored that well with that kind of work ethic.
What they've effectively done is told their employees: We care about the company
actually what I gather is they told the employees "we care about Wall Street" which can be quite different from caring about the company (lay off half of your workforce and outsource and the stock will go up, be conservative with your numbers and projected earnings and the stock will go down).
I personally wish the stock market just disappeared, but fat chance of that happening.
-- the cake is a lie
Me culpa.
Minor correction: A stock option is properly the option to buy or sell a given number of shares on a given date for a given price. See Wikipedia for a more thorough discussion, but in short what a stock option as a means of compensation entails is this: The company gives you an option to buy N shares for X dollars each on D date. If the stock price on the open market is greater than X dollars per share (call it Y), then you can exercise your option by spending N * X dollars to buy N shares of stock. Actually, you can do that even if Y < X, but that would be equivalent to buying a gallon of gas for $2.50 when it costs $1.50 across the street. Once you buy the N shares of stock, you can (as most people do) sell them back into the market for their going rate, Y dollars each. So your profit from fully exercising your stock option is N * (Y - X).
If you hear someone say their stock options are "under water," it means that Y < X and the options are worthless. Also, note that most stock options given as compensation for work are not freely transferable, whereas stock options purchased on the options market can be sold back into the market. That's most of what options traders do.
But the other people pointing out that this story is not about stock options but rather about actual stock shares are probably correct, at least as far as the company's founders go. They already own shares of stock and are just selling the shares off into the market for cash. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both do this from time to time with their respective companies. How it works is you form a company, call it Acme. You incorporate it as Acme Inc. and, in the articles of incorporation, grant yourself 1 million shares of common stock. Then you later make an initial public offering and the Acme Inc. board authorizes the issue of 1 million more shares of common stock, which get sold through the stock market (probably covered by an underwriter or something initially and sold from there). So now you own 1 million shares and other people own 1 million shares. All you have to do to get rich is sell your shares out into the market.
Investors don't like unknowns. They aren't going to dump billions into a company run by two guys (though brilliant) who have never run a business. Instead they want a company with the ideas of two brilliant guys and run by someone who has done it before. Even if that persion seems to run sinking ships. So Eric Schmidt did what probably many people could have done, but he was the one who did it. So he gets the money.
Since capital gains tax maxes out at 15 percent rather than the 38 percent tax on income, they pay a smaller percentage to the federal treasury than their secretaries. Not to mention that they also get out of paying into the Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment systems.
Of course, they aren't unique in this regard. The same is true of most people for whom salary is not the primary means of support.
that some CEOs get for getting fired that really pisses me off!
Enron. Enron. Enron. Ummm... Enron?
Does anybody here really believe that a CEO's perspective changes if they get a $1 salary versus a multi-million dollar salary when they have a ton of stock and options? Good CEO's will feel a vested interest in the company's performance, and bad CEO's will not. Awarding them scads of cash may keep them on board with your company, but that's all it buys you.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
it's time to sell google stock. I'm pretty sure they lost their interests in their company.
Your ego is Matrix!
Anti-evolution? There is no anti-evolution; it's a nonsensical phrase. Try learning some terms before you spout nonsense. Here's a hint: Darwin never said "survival of the fittest" ever in his work. Maybe if you opened a book you'd be able to realize what evolution is. I might be giving you too much credit, though. Go back to watching Sesame Street.
They're just covering their asses for when the inevitable crash to the stock comes. Might as well cash in on the company while its price is still in nevernever land.
I'll work for 1$ a year, and settle for only 200 million in shares, if that's any incentive.
Salut,
Jacques
Some of those "Will Work for Food" signs are legit.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
If this was Microsoft and Bill Gates most of the posts here would be calling it a meaningless PR grandstanding that is somehow worse than if he didn't do it, like they did against him giving away a fortune to charity.
Analogies.
Question 1.
One Billion Dollars Salary::One Billion Dollars From Sale of Stock Grants/Options
a) Mayonaise::Hamburger
b) String Beans::Artichoke Hearts
c) Guacamole::Avocado
d) Tomato::Tomato
Either way, you can ditch the company at any time and retire to, well, anywhere you want.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
How much do they pay normal employees? Just curious. Not just the high up engineers, but the lower tech people too? Has to be pretty decent since cost of living is so high around them.
As I sit here in my cube wasting time waiting for the clock to tick to 5 PM and dreaming of having only a couple of million dollars so I could live off the invesment income, I am pondering why would anyone want to work after they have made $500 million or $1.5 billion dollars?
I could think of so many more fun and exciting things to do than... work. How many of us here worked for dot-coms and on paper were worth millions? I was and kept pestering our CFO as to when I could dump all of my shares and quit. Sadly, we went under before I could dump. If I was an employee of Google and my stock options were worth over a couple of million, I would dump and run.
Kind of makes you wonder about what kind of people stick around when they are already super-rich. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, etc. Why do they continue to work? Is it because they have nothing better to do?
According to yahoo finance:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG
Eric Schmidt gets $82,000 and Sergey Brin and Larry Page get $45,000.
No Sigs!
They are NOT stock options, these are stocks that the founders owned because they inested their life into the company when they founded it.
You do realize that on a salary of eleventy googillian, billion, trillion dollars the FICA tax would be precisely $5,580 don't you?
I suppose they're really getting a deal on that $1,305 in Medicare tax too.
Duh.
For a stock/stock options program to work properly, it really needs to last for several years, or at least long enough to not tempt executives into doing stuff which hurts the long-term viability of the company, in order to increase the short-term value of a set of stock options.
I.e. the stock options you get this year cannot be sold/converted until X years later.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
1.6 Billion is 1600 Millions
Wouldn't want to pay taxes on that chunk of change!
In regards to the aforementioned job...
I'll buy that for a dollar!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
RTFSummary: "and on the other hand is reporting that the executives cashed in more than $160 million worth of stock last month."
Suits will come, and suits will go.
Just make sure Guido is well compensated. The world really needs Python.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
There's a distinct difference here as well - if they got a salary, it would be coming from the company coffers (i.e. company networth would DECREASE). By selling shares, they are just selling what THEY ALREADY OWN. So yes, they're in a sense increasing their personal fortune by working, but at NO COST TO THE COMPANY. I.E. If they decided to pay themselves $20M a year, they would get that ONTOP of the shares they already own. Instead, they decided the shares are enough, and that $20M each effectively gets split among all the shareholders.
Steve Jobs also claims a dollar sallery, but didnt include the $80 million jet, etc etc etc.
what are they being compensated, basically..how much free shit do they get outside of stock.
...it also makes the younger generation have a job at Google their dream job. Lots of free time, fun work, good company atmosphere, and a possibility of producing the next big thing combine to make Google look like the best IT job around.
Did these guys really need that much in stock options?
If the market (in this case, investors) wanted to pay them that much, then yes. They didn't use violence to obtain their money, they didn't bribe the government to pass laws in their favour, they simply produced a product (stocks) that other people of their own free will were willing to buy.
Welcome to freedom.
Incidentally, no one on this planet is starving due to lack of food. We produce far more than we require, even for all 6 billion of us.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
That would be called Socialism, an economic model that has consistently failed when put into practice.
If the key execs are basically forgoing salary, that's fine. Despite the fact that they've been monstrously profitable via stock and other incentives, I personally think it is commendable that they don't have massive executive officer salaries as well.
If the corporate officers of a company have been instrumental in making their company profitable/valuable, I think it is important that they are well-compensated.
However, it is important for the company to remember the people who have really made it actually work where the rubber meets the road (marketing, development, sales, support, IT, and all the folks in between).
A Passionate Independent Musician
I don't agree. If you give Brin's money to all those starving africans, they buy food, multiply and there are suddenly 100x as many of them as there were before, but they don't really have that much money each. You have just greatly reduced the average wealth of us all. On the other hand, if you let them starve to death, you reduce the population at the low end of the wealth scale, so you immediately have a great increase in average wealth. Now, what exactly are you in favor of?
Jiggity
I'd be happy too. The top bracket on the $1 in salaried income is a twice what the top bracket is on the capitol gains tax they pay for the stock sale. If they pay even that... They could dodge by having a personal C-corp that holds the stock. As long as the corp reinvests the money elsewhere before the end of the fiscal year they don't pay any taxes on it at all. The personal corp could invest in lots of things... houses, cars, jewelry...
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Well, technically wouldn't sterilization be anti-evolution? I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no such phrase- after all, if there wasn't, and he just said it, well, now there is a 'anti-evolution' phrase. I agree however- it may be cold and cruel, but sustaining people who don't have the resources to sustain themselves is simply illogical.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
it is because for some, there is no limit (in +ve sense). They dont reach a stage and conclude they have earned enough, but strive for something more. They have a determination, and an infinite apetite for more, as there are lots more to be achieved, if everyone thought I have done my part for my lifetime, we would have been more backward
Sure, and the Earth might just stop spinning and reverse direction. Could be why they sell millions of dollars worth on a regular basis. You think they live on the $1? And, even if Google stock tanked, do you really suppose that all their stock would not amount to much more than a dollar? Anything is possible, not realistic.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
This example of only getting paid by selling stock works for the major stock holding executives of a new public company on the rise. I think the decision is in good faith, but will not last forever. Over the next 10 years, when the stock begins to stable off and another round of executives are brought in, I don't see executives working for only stocks that they can sell. If google keeps their plan of paying executives $1, you will see huge executive bonuses, to make up for the slowly growing stock prices. No company can keep growth like google has seen!
With your intelligence, it's probably the Christian Bible.
Let's to a little math: the stock market values Google at around 100 times earnings. When Larry and/or Serge forgo say $1 million in salary, that translates directly on the balance sheet as $1 million additional earnings for Google, and boosts Google's market cap by around $100 million, a substantial fraction of which belongs to Larry and Serge. Say they own 30% of the company, then by not taking the $1 million in salary, they boost their net worth by about $30 million. So if Google can appreciate at a rate of more than 3.3% annually, they're actually doing better than if they took the salary.
I don't know if it's good-faith or not. It could be just selfish. Instead of $X in cash, take $X in stocks, wait a year, and (if you're google), you could very well have doubled your money.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
The whole thing makes me quite sad. I love technology, but deterministic systems are vulnerable to manipulation. A robust audit trail, with a proper chain of custody (as was pointed out) is crucial to decreasing the vulnerability.
But in the end it is a social contract. And no contract is worth the paper it is printed on if both parties do not intend to honor it. IF there is a strong will to steal an election it will be done. I have worked as an election observer in some former Soviet republics. If you want to know hao to stuff a ballot box I can tell you because I have seen it.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
It would not be surprising that they would quit in a few years, but right now working at Google would have to be one of the most interesting jobs in the world. And this is for an outsider, can you imagine if you'd created the company yourself?
Well, to sum it up... ;)
They only get the nominal 1$ as a yearly salary, and instead get paid in stock and stock options.
This means that they have strong faith in their company (if the stock crashes they'd lose alot of money compared to just having a ordinary 6-7 digit salary)
And regarding the sale of stock - its stock they already own, so they are taking nothing away from the company. Its like turning part of your coin or stamp collection back into cash. Well, its a tiny bit bigger than that but the principle is the same.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Linking pay to stock prices, or paying in stock, is a bad idea, because stock prices can be fraudulently manipulated.
Think about it. Who makes the announcements that affect the stock price? Management. Who then benefits from inflated stock prices? Management. (Because ordinary stockholders aren't in on the scam, they are as likely to lose as win.)
So you get frauds like Enron and Worldcom.
Many companies have started doing similar things, as linking rewards to success is far more profitable for everyone.
First, they shouldn't be rewarding "effort" so much as "results". Effort doesn't cut it- ability does. Second, there has been a growing trend such that executives are compensated in such a way as that, from their perspective, makes it less consequential one way or the other if the company doesn't do well under their leadership. If they get canned, they often still walk out the door with a fat chunk of change- more than most people will make in their entire lives. If they stay on, they get paid their rediculously high salaries along with whatever perks they've managed to include. For the CEO, it's a no-lose proposition, while the company, shareholders, and employees stand to lose a great deal.
I believe there is such a disconnect between CEO compensation, the rest of the company, and company performance in general, we're quite aways off from the true, results-based compensation that gets so much lip service these days.
Depending on what kind of corporation they are a $1 salary is meaningless anyway. There is more than one way to pay an employee in real money.
Remember state taxes as well, and the two biggies: OSADI and Medicare. True enough, federal liability isn't all that bad, at least for low earners. I paid 8.8% this year. Ok but then let's add in state tax, now I'm at 10%. Still better than capatial gains, but we are't done yet. I also had to pay OSADI and Medicare, and I don't get toreduce those with deductions in any way. Well now I'm at 17.5%. Oh and I'm under the median saliry as well.
So you have people who are making lots more money, but paying a lower percentage of taxes. Same with your $82,000 case. Add state, OASDI, and Medicare and I bet it's 25-30%.
Ahh, wish I hadn't posted, because I'd mod you insightful. I had forgotten about the ALT, of which my knowledge is limited. But you're probably right, I'm sure that they get caught in there somewhere.
It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn
That Eric Schmit was involved with Google. Is this the man who tanked Novell? Goggle erred in bringing Him on board if he is the same one.
It is the World dream!
The american dream is to have a job, house with a tiny garden, two or three kids, a dog and a cat, and of course a wife. All of them fat. And then to live on credit for the rest of your life.
Let's face it ... Google's stock is WAAAAYYYYYY over-valued (see: insanely-so)...
... it's tied to the balls of the complete idiots who are paying $400+ per share.
/rant.
The company's stock price *will* fall and it won't be because the company is performing poorly or anything like that. It's just over-valued at the moment and it's a perfect time for Brin and Sergei to get the best bang for their stock.
Google's stock price is not tied to performance
There are trust fund you cn put the money in, that for all intentr and purposes is exactly like having no money.
Except the interest, and it only counts if you take it out. Completly untouchable by the Feds, including IRS.
I jst watched someone ccome into a sizable inheritence. It is amazing what it gets you in the way of service. He paif hardly any fee to his broker. Everytine asomething incurred a fee, they said "Don't worry about it".
They don't do that if you have a paultry 200K in an account.
So if the desired, they could be qualified for food stamps. Of course, that would be insane. Not touching the interest on billions just to get a couple of hundred buck in stamps.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Time to SHORT SELL GOOGLE, its about to tank if the top execs are bailing out Ride the bubble, sell out the top, get out, let someone else clean up the mess when its all over. Preferably the Feds, on the public dollar.
The stock market wouldn't exist if it weren't for those pesky civil liberties. You know, the ones that say you can do pretty much what you want with your money except buy hookers, drugs, and politicians.
Get rid of those freedoms, and you can get rid of the stock market. I'm just saying...
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
They aren't options if you are just selling stock you aquired through some other means than an actual options award. I dunno, say you started the company and you retained a percentage of it. Don't confuse Larry and Sergei's cashing in with flipping options. It's not the same thing, and it doesn't mean the same thing to Google's bottom line.
Completely OT, however:
Humanitarian efforts have nothing to do with logic, unless you count "maybe if I help them now, they'll turn around and help me later if I need it."
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Unlike the FICA portion, which caps out at 94,200 (2006) there is no cap on Medicare... so 1.36% of eleventy googillian, billion, trillion dollars is A LOT!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Most of those who starve do not do so because they are 'weak' and inherently 'unable to sustain themselves'. It is usually due to the fact that they do not have the opportunity to improve their condition. To use starving Africa as an example, you could be the smartest, strongest person in the world there, but I reckon you would still have trouble finding food if your entire country is a battlefield.
I'm not trying to say that the Google Boys should give up all their money; it is theirs, they earned it through their own blood and sweat. I am saying, however, that it is a ridiculous notion that feeding starving people somehow perpetuates a strain of less-evolved subhumans who really should not have survived into today's world.
And if you meant that in a sarcastic way (which I hope you did... why oh why would anyone mod that comment anything but funny?), you have my apologies.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
I think your entire world-view is warped. You're talking as if one company getting big precludes another from getting big, and you're saying that by having very rich people, others can't get rich.
Unfortunately, Adam Smith and his masterpiece "The Wealth of Nations" explains very profoundly how wealth is not a zero-sum game. It can be created and destroyed, sure. It can be siezed and redistributed, yes. But in a free market system, wealth is created with every transaction and even every non-transaction, as long as those transactions are informed and done by free will.
That's why the US is able to have a trade deficit for most of the past century yet still be the wealthiest country in the world. We create wealth faster and better than any other country. We can export that wealth in exchange for cheap products. In fact, by doing so, we create even more wealth.
In short, we can ALL get rich, we can ALL have big companies, and one person's success doesn't mean another's failure.
I will go into the simple explanation of why this is. It has to be what wealth and value really mean. Wealth is a measure of how much valuables you have. You are wealthy when you have more valuables than you really need, and poor when you don't have enough. (Wealth and poverty in this sense are very subjective.) But what is value? What makes one thing worth more than another?
Simply put, value is in the eye of the beholder.
When you walk into the grocery store, ask yourself some questions. Pick up one of the items in your cart, and ask yourself:
(1) What would life be like without this item? Imagine putting it back on the shelf and not buying it. Imagine what you would do without it. Perhaps you would buy something else, right?
(2) How much would I really pay for this item? (NOTE: Don't tell anyone, particularly the clerk what this number is!) That is, at what price would I stop buying this particular item? Think also about the price you are paying by engaging in this trade. You could've done any number of other things besides shopping that may have value.
(3) How much is the retailer willing to sell this item for? That is, at what price will they stop carrying the item? (Keep the cost of buying and shipping the item constant--we're concerned about profit.) Be sure not to exclude opportunity cost--the cost of not doing something else they could've done.
Now, hopefully you have two numbers: The maximum price you are willing to pay, and the minimum price they are willing to sell at. I know you can't guess these numbers precisely. Just rest assured that for our purposes the following is true:
(1) The maximum price you will pay is above the current price of the item. After all, if it was equal, why go through the trouble of carrying it to the checkout counter? You're just causing yourself unnecessary pain.
(2) The minimum price they will sell at is below the current price of the item. If it was equal, they would rather not sell it.
The magnitude really isn't important. What is important is that these numbers are greater than and less than the current price. (If you were a brilliant genius and knew everything, you would only be doing things that profited you the most. You'd probably be richer than the Google guys by now. But we're not, and we generally don't make the best decisions. That isn't to say we don't make good decisions.)
So, note what happens as you pay for it in the checkout line:
(1) You sly little fox, you just made yourself slightly wealthier! You gave away that worthless money for something with true value! Congratulations, you have won the jackpot, you have created wealth for yourself and thus your country. Walk home proud! In fact, go indulge yourself a bit with your newfound wealth.
(2) That cheating little store just made out like a fox in the henhouse! They gave away that cheap product and got in return more cash than they thought it was worth! They are walking to the bank laughing: "Can you believe he ACTUALLY paid THAT much
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Ugh! All this complication.
All this arguing over whether it's fair for them to be making such small income and such massive moneys otherwise, whether they're paying enough into the system or not--
This is why I'm in favor of the Fair Tax- a nice clean simple equalizer.
Support the FairTax
Except they sold the friggin stocks so they're billionaires, and what happens to Google now really won't affect them one way or another, except perhaps that the rest of their stock might not be worth $1B when they get around to selling it. It's generally Not a Good Thing when executives sell off lots of stock. See: Enron, Worldnet AT&T, et al.
True, except that most financial planners tell people to diversify their holdings. Now, if your whole fortune was tied to a single company's stock, wouldn't that be a bit risky? They've only sold a small chunk of their total holdings, so it's not an entirely bad thing from a shareholder standpoint.After all, you wouldn't want most of your 401(k) to consist of your company's stock, why should the Google founders do the same?
I believe that Capital Gains Tax is higher than Income Tax (at least from personal experience). I'd be willing to believe "Good Faith" based on that
At the lower end of the income scale, the capital gains tax rate is higher. However at the end of the pay scale that the Google founders are at, the tax rate for the income tax is MUCH higher. See the IRS tax rate schedule (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=13351Oh please, only Slashdot could praise someone making billions off stocks for foregoing a salary as if they are so selfless. The last I heard Bill Gates, along with other Microsoft execs, was taking home a salary of around $865,000, (this was a few years ago it may be different today). A salary of $865,000 for a top executive at one of the worlds largest companies is puny, it might as well be zero. Executives at much, much smaller companies take home 10 or 100 times as much. Compared to the value of Microsoft stock he owns his salary might as well be zero. Yet he is routinely lambasted as one of the most evil people in the business. In fact Gates is the one who has pledged the majority of his fortune to charity, a $29 billion endowment to the B&M Gates foundation so far. That's putting your money where your mouth is. Foregoing a salary when you're already making billions? yes if only we were all in a position to be so altruistic.....
It is a red flag. It shows that Google stock is way overvalued. But we knew that already.
Wouldn't it be more of a red flag if they had sold MORE of the holdings? They only sold a fraction of what they had, according to the article. Why shouldn't they be able to diversify and sell a small part of the Google stock holdings?Drat... need sleep.
I suspect that much of the animus seen in the comments stems from the fact that the Google crowd are so unbearably smug about their success. One can just imagine Largey at the the press conference: "Yes, we have decided to forego our salaries this year. It is one of the many ways in which we practice our credo of not being evil." Ok, ten points for style, and it puts you a pip ahead of most of the other corporate giants, but with a billion and a half in the bank it doesn't exactly make you St. Francis of Assisi, does it?
Likewise, all the hype about Google's technical staff being the smartest in the business. It may well be true that you are smarter than everybody else, but if you go around constantly and loudly reminding everyone of the fact, it's a bit much to expect them to love you for it.
Yup, 24 checks for $0.04 each, minus tax and social security withholdings, each mailed to their homes with $0.39 cents worth of postage.
Not if they use direct deposit or have the statements delivered at the office.Why???? You ask why??? Because as a fellow cubical dweller much like "peter" from "Office Space" otherwise known as my life story. When you are low level you have to deal with a never ending raft of crap, some moron is always causing a problem, systems are failing processes are breaking down, trouble is happening, every 2-bit manager of some group presumes to have some kind of authority over you, and you recieve no credit for anything good that you do, oh yeah you work in an unpleasant setting(cubicle) and your salary is not great.
Now lets look at the executive founders at google. Lets see, hmm no manager, no cube, nice office, no money problems, receive the credit for everything, run the show make the decisions, do what is interesting no need to toil to make the product a reality they have developers. Acquire companies with your overly valuable stock... No question there, they answer to no one but the market who loves them for some crazy ass reason, god forbid the stock market actually regard a real honest to goodness company or huh innovator the way they regard google. Their job is good, its fun, its in the lime light, they have few real onerous responsibilities.
As for the stock dump, these guys are no dummies stanford phd, university od michigan undergrad CE. If you look at google where is the real innovation, where are the hard assets, they have an advertising model some dubiously patented search technology(Markov called he wants his chain back), and a brand. The valuation is insane they have a single source of income that is vulnerable, a list of competitors 10 miles long, and a raft of litigation ahead of them(Gmail, google print, etc). Hell they are even using core technologies licensed from their principle competitor yahoo. Honestly I also dislike that they leverage off open source then treat it like a redheaded stepchild. I'm so sick about hearing about google, if they disappeared tomorrow I would not care.
Can you pray tell us how the hype was created given the small factoid that this company did not advertise on the msinstream media at all?
Nah, why let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned baseless character assasination, that would not be fun, would it?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Of the "standard responses" you mentioned, only the army (or the military in general) is paid for by national taxes. Police, roads, fire protection, schools--almost everything else, in fact--is the state or county's responsibility. In any event, I'm certain that Google could probably have provided all of the services it desired for its own protection for far less than a quarter of its annual income, and probably does so anyway (most major companies seem to employ their own security forces, for example), which means that Google is forced to pay for services it will probably never need to use.
But in many states and localities, the things you mention (police, roads, fire protection and schools) do have federal funding tied to various national programs. Think of all the highway bills passed by Congress, funded by gasoline taxes, for example. And there are all sorts of educational bills that are passed, with federal mandates (and funding). And the police compete for anti-terrorism funding, to buy stuff like better radios and such.all the "free market" theories assume things that are in general not true in real life, where governments, corporations and special interest groups routinely engage in misinformation, protectionist practices, etc. and do their best to stack things in their favour.
You engaged in free trade. You both exchanged something of lesser value in exchange of something of greater value
yes, company A exchanged something of lesser value (a US employee) with something of greater value (an overseas, cheaper employee) with outsourcing company B: both companies are happy (company A saves money, company B generates money) but in the end the US employee gets the shaft.
"free" markets would be free only if there was as much mobility for employees as there is for jobs/capital: as things stand now jobs can move anywhere that is cheaper, however employees can't.
I do agree that eventually things will stabilize, where all of the world will enjoy the same standard of living and consequently outsourcing won't happen anymore, however I personaly really doubt that will happen any time soon.
Oh, and I personally wouldn't gloat too much about
That's why the US is able to have a trade deficit for most of the past century yet still be the wealthiest country in the world
besides the risks inherent in a huge trade deficit, being the wealthiest doesn't mean at all having the highest standard of living. I'd rather have 1000 people earning around 100,000 a year than 1 person earning 1,000,000,000 and 999 people earning 20,000: yeah, scenario B is "wealthier", but unless you were the lucky one you'd do a lot better in scenario A.
-- the cake is a lie
Feeding millions of starving people who are incapable of sustaining themselves will do nothing for these people and only promote the survival of a weaker group of people. This is anti-evolution.
I can not beleive this has been modded insigthful+5 (when i read it) . Go read a book on the IMF or someting. I never thought the slashdot crowd could be so ignorant , obtuse and stupid.
Enjoying what you is not a prerequisite to become a millionaire.
Most dirty rich people see an oportunity, apply themselves to a task and are at the right place at the correct time, very often these people are very passionate about what they do, but they do not necessarily love what they do, but understand that it is a means to an end.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Although make sure to keep in mind that you lose a little control with each share. The correct way to maintain control is to remain the majority shareholder with 51% or more of the total shares.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
larry and sergey (or however you spell his name) may have billions in the bank, but they don't have women. i think they are quite pathetic -- i've seen larry at undergraduate parties here at stanford. i mean seriously, these guys have no girlfriends and probably never will. it's sad.
You should send me all you possesion and money and the kill yourself.
If there is one thing I've learned, it's that geeks make horrible investors.
... well, I'd still probably do it. :)
I've seen a number of posts on here complaining about the Google share price being outrageous. I'd be interested in hearing what they would have to say about Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) at an astonishing $89,600 per share. I suppose you think they are overrated too?
It's all in the market cap. While it might seem that might post is a thinly-veiled insult to the Slashdot crowd, I actually intend for it to be encouragement for most of you to go out and take a few stock market classes or read up on investopedia or wikipedia.
Here's your free lesson:
Market cap of Google is $130.94 billion. Market cap of Apple is $64.30 billion. Berkshire-Hathaway is $112.99 billion. IBM is $126.93 billion. Microsoft is a whopping $279.74 billion. Yahoo is $49.47 billion.
(Current as of EOD 1-24-06)
Based on this, a geek can deduce their interpretation of which company is "worth" more and thus determine which stocks to buy and which ones to "short". (For more on how to short a stock, use your favorite search engine or check with your brokerage)
Assets and Liabilities also play a huge part in valuation. A company can have a high market cap but have a crappy current ratio or debt to equity ratio. Personally I think Google is slightly overvalued, but here's the list that I have with actual market cap and where I think each of the above companies market caps *should* be.
TICK-ACTUAL-WORTH
GOOG-131-110
AAPL-64-80
BRKA-113-130
IBM-127-100
MSFT-279-230
YHOO-50-80
It's up to you how you determine what you currently value a company at, but I think valuing based off of market cap is a good way to get started. For example, Yahoo at one point had a paltry market cap of something like 7 billion after the dot-com crash of 2001-2002. Astute investors (like myself and others) invested in these companies that we suspected would rebound. Several of us make off very well because of it. And it didn't take much more than time for us to learn.
Of course, I gradually taught myself this over the course of about 6 months. I do not regret using the time between graduation and first official full-time job to do so. What a risky time to be playing with my money, though. If I had to do it over again
Oh, and I lost money too. But if you invest in safely and stay away from the lure of pink sheets stocks, you'll do fine.
I wonder if they get a 3% christmas bonus at the end of the year. An extra three cents can go a long way during the holliday season.
are the executive compensation packages worth more more than this company made in the trailing year?
now that's a business plan to pay a google pe ratio to own...
I cannot believe this got moderated to +5, just goes to show you there exists sick bastards that actually believe this shit. I'm not a bleeding heart by any means, but how can such a statement stand to even the most cursory of inspection.
...that reduced the long term capital gains tax to 15%.
"I make next to nothing, and I pay more income tax than that."
You can thank George Bush for that.
Are senior executives so morally bankrupt they need to be bribed just to do their job?
with that many billion, you own your women.
Do like tony hawk and Skull did: Make a foundation. You see if you own a for proffit. Then give a ton of mony to your NGO xyz.org and it gives a ton (equal to or greater than your "gift") The feds (generally) don't pay much attention. The cool part: Since your getting a ton of "free" stuff then you don't need to have 1.5billion dollers sitting around. (and with the chouce of loose 1.5 mill to the feds or use that 1.5 mil to make a NGO...)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm pretty sure we'd be mocking and laughing at Microsoft if they did this. Google sure does have public opinion by the nuts, though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...where making legitimate money was evil?
Over 9 million shares have been sold with insider transactions. Ie with an average price of $350 it means that they have sold around $35 billion in stock in the last 6 months or about 20% of its market capitalisation. It is also grossly over valued and is due for a stock to earnings realignment.
$1 Salaries!? Haven't these people been informed about minimium pay!? Prolly not, they're EXECTUTIVES after all, it's not like they even WANT to know.
It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
Since long term sales on stock is just 15% - short is 28%
If they were getting those salary, they would have to pay the income tax bracket of 38 to 42%
I say Google CEO and uppermanagement are all tax cheater, and that the IRS should close this loophole.
did Steve Jobs start this $1 salary thing or did someone else do it before him?
i see it's moderade flamebait now, good.
a sp
go read this AC http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.
Wasn't their entire business built on the purchase of one copy of RedHat linux for the OS? (or so the legend goes)
Should they give something back or not?
They certainly have 'fuck you regular Chinese people' money, it seems.
What's the deal here, and when is the big splashy 'Your Rights Online' article going up about Google basically censoring themselves 'to compete more aggressively in the world's second biggest Internet market.'
"Do no evil." Whatta bunch of bull.
I won't even bother submitting the above link. Someone else already has. Slashdot editors???
This is great! The People will fall in love with Google because they did this move, They will have a good visibility and even they alwals have a large visibility but this will blind some people and tell them that Google is a friendly compagny that is there to help the world with all their super power Products 3000 XXX_-001 ultra... Whtch out, they are so big, I'm afraid of the future !!!! But thanks god to give us Google news that give me the possibility to see the sports news today!!! With another dollar I will happy!
Thanks for visiting my Web site! Post your comments on my forum!
The company I work for has an over the hill CEO who pulls in almost $1,000,000 and hasn't done anything for the company for the last 5 years except see its stock go from $5 before the .com boom to $180 at the height of the .com boom and back to $5. Good leaders know how to sail in a headwind. Anyone can sell water in the desert. This asshole for a CEO sees fit to lay people off besides himself and reward himself with bogus performance bonuses because the company is profitable for one fucking quarter before tanking the rest of them. The best companies have leaders with vision who help themselves AND their investors. This fuckhead only helps himself, and the dumbass board doesn't have a damned clue how clueless this Medicare-aged, fuck-gummer.
This is a perfect rant on the message board but I'd get caught and fired. Hell, they might be doing me a favor.
So what? Do you call it double taxation when the profits are taxed at the corporate level, then taxed when payroll is dispersed to employees?
When someone receives income, they pay taxes. Double taxation isn't some strange exception, it's a natural result of incorporating to form a new legal entity. The corporation adds an extra someone to the chain of payment, and that someone pays taxes. Calling for an end to the dividend tax is essentially asking to have one link in the circular chain of income to not have to pay taxes while the rest of the links still do. It's a shameful handout to a subset of the population. Taxes on dividends no more encourages companies to see other ways to pay shareholders than taxes on salaries encourages companies to find other ways to pay employees. Maybe it will change some details (indeed, benefits like health insurance are a common non-taxed form of compensation), but people still want the cash.
Ruben Bolling summarized the situation effectively in his Tom the Dancing Bug comic "Can you spot the double taxation?"
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Oh please. Steve Jobs does the same thing, and undoubtedly many others. If you look around, you'll realize there are plenty of things which were not, in fact, invented by google (or apple, for that matter).
see, almost everbody has a price ... now tell me that they all deserve every penny
meanwhile, i wonder just how many people are currently starving due to lack of capital?
no pun intended
We have similar debates over the funding of the National Health Service in the UK. The answer is that to allow the rich to opt out would undermine the whole point of any social security system, which is to protect the poorer members of society who *can't* afford a pension, health care, or to be unable to work for a period of time for whatever reason.
Social funds like SS and the NHS recognise that capitalism depends on inequities in the distribution of wealth as part of its basic mechanism and spread the cost of their funding across the whole of society, leveraging the wealth of those with more money to help out those who have less to help mitigate that.
The alternative is to suggest that all taxation should be hypothecated and that you have the right to withdraw your participation in those areas where you're not going to directly benefit from a particular levy. People who don't have children or who send their children to private schools would be allowed to opt out of paying for state education, etc. The logical outcome would be that you pay a fee to the fire brigade when they attend a fire at your house, or to the police to investigate a burglary there and pay nothing at other times.
Taxation is not a consumer service fee.
The GP poster got the terminology wrong but the numbers right. If you sell stock for a profit you receive capital gains. These capital gains are now taxed at 15% due to the Bush tax cuts.
The dividend tax rate is also at 15%. This was done on purpose, to give companies more freedom in how they handle their profits. Since there is no tax difference, they are free to choose capital investment or dividend distribution.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It's been a long time since I've felt compelled to "friend" anyone here on slashdot, but I've just added you to my friends list. I agree completely with your post.
The nice thing about capitalism is that it is one of the few scientific theories of the 1700's to stand the test of time. Since capitalism, there have been several theories that have seen the light of day and have been burned by it. For example, socialism and communism have been shown to be absolute and complete failures.
The fascinating thing about capitalism is how simple the theory is. Go ahead and attack any of its fundamental principles and theories. But you'll be fighting a losing battle. After two hundred plus years, it is still logically sound.
Notice that you didn't attack the theory. You only tried to say that no theory is correct in practice. You probably accept the theory of evolution. How would you like to argue with someone about evolution when that person says, "It's a nice theory, but it's just a theory. We know reality and theories don't match."
Free market capitalism works in the labor market as well. Moving jobs overseas keeps Americans competitive. Would you rather force American companies to hire Americans on bloated salaries? What would be the net effect? The absolute destruction of our economy as American companies fail and foreign companies decide they would rather not hire Americans. Oh, you didn't know that did you? Foreigners have moved more jobs to America than we have lost to foreign countries! If we decided to stop exporting our jobs, then Japan and Europe would stop exporting theirs, and we would be worse off.
Unfortunately, your last bit is sorely misguided. In America, we not only are wealthier, we have the highest standard of living. How do I know this? Name one country you'd rather live in than the US because it has a higher standard of living. Now explain why you haven't left the US for that country. Now also explain why the people in that country are clamoring to live in the US.
There is a field of economics that is unfortunately loosely coupled with Adam Smith's basic theory of capitalism. That field is named "macro-economics" while Adam Smith's theories are called "micro-economics". Somehow, people get the picture that these two theories are equivalent when they are not.
Macro-economics is the field where we try to measure GDP, Cost of Living, and the interest rate. This is where government tries to set a tax-and-spend policy to boost the economy and smooth the cycles. Unfortunately, this field is not based on solid, simple theories that can be easily proven or disproven as easily as micro-economics. And unfortunately still, this field gets too muddled with politics to the point that it is misrepresented in the public arena. Recently, several key theories in macro-economics have been overturned. The idea that a nation can't endure deflation without a fiscal crisis has been disproven in practice. We have recently experienced actual deflation with only beneficial effects. Also, for a very long time, the US has had an unemployment rate far below what the macro-economists say is healthy. And our interest rates have been far lower than what they say we should. And we keep increasing the deficit and yet we haven't come to the catclysmic end predicted.
Wealth, if you paid attention to my earlier discussion, is not measured in dollars. It's not measured in anything tangible. It is purely subjective, dependent on the observer. You may look into my household finances, and then look into someone else's, and then say I am the poorer of the two. But I will disagree. I have everything I want, and then some, so I am wealthy, and I can't ask for anything more. And I have things the wealthier don't have: A wife that loves and tolerates me, three beautiful children who respect their mother. I also happen to have a piano and a computer. The piano is worth more than the most expensive stereo HD-DVD system money can buy to me. It's probably the most valuable item I own right now, because I enjoy it so much.
Wealth is not as simple a concept as you are making it out to be. Don't be fooled into thinking it is. There's no happiness in thinking wealth can be counted in dollars.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
You are correct; The American way does not ensure the two absolute requirements: freedom of choice and information.
But you are missing the big picture. The American Way is MORE free and MORE informed than the others.
You are arguing for limited government. I am all for that as well. We need to reduce the scope of the regulations and kick government out of the places where it doesn't belong. For instance, the FDA has been shown to be plagued with fraud and scandals. Why not make it a private institution that relies solely on its reputation to make a profit? Why not allow other organizations to evaluate drugs and food and then convey which drugs and foods they find preferrable over others and why?
You are making another mistake as well. You are assuming that corporate executives are somehow less human than you are. I imagine you have never taken the time to get to know any at all. For the most part, and I do mean "most" as in the grand majority, corporate executives are actually very nice and noble people. They are not corrupt. They are not mean. Many of them see their role in life as producing good products for less money and at the same time creating well-paying jobs for Americans.
Of course, the minority, the small, tiny, minority, abuse their positions of power, try to hide their abuses, and commit fraud on a large scale.
I propose to you that America is the least tolerant of all nations towards this kind of abuse of power. Name one corporate executive that has committed this kind of crime and gotten away with it? When I mean, "get away with it", I mean, without facing any of the penalties, government-imposed or not, that comes with the discovery of the crime?
Now, I want you to shift the context to any other country. Name the people in that country who commit these kinds of crimes, are not discovered, or do not face the penalties of the crimes. I can tell you one country in particular is especially corrupt at high levels: Japan. You don't hear about it, but it's there if you look for it. Here's another, where bribery is a way of life for the corporate executive: France.
America can be better about this, and we should be better. I can't think of any American who says, "Well, we worked hard, we tried to eliminate all forms of oppression anywhere in our society, and guess what? We did it! Give yourself a pat on the back, we can all go home in peace because America is perfect and will be forever!" No! We are constantly striving in our own way to make our own corner of the country better.
But you know what else? America is the best there is. Not many countries come close to what America already has.
I will submit this: If we are more careful about the ethics and morality and in being informed and free in our economic decisions, we will only have brighter days ahead. The minute we stop being careful about this, then we will descend into poverty once again.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Repeat the party line: only wages should be taxed.
... is that you might well think that market speculation is not PRODUCTIVE per se, since it doesn't directly output a good. But it does not mean there is no use for the community.
Indeed, the main utility of a market is to be found from an INVESTMENT point of view. Where do you think the money goes when you buy a share ? To the company, which can invest in whatever it needs. Sure, it also boosts the value of shares/stock options, but that's a side effect. The company has been financed.
However, I have to disagree with the parent as well; most of your reasoning is correct, but you do not acknowledge that some actions can boost the share value (often not for long) on false basis, therefore not improving the company itself. And unfortunately this tends to become quite common when executives have such a stake in company shares.
Then what I fail to understand is, despite its length, why on earth your comment got modded "Insightful".
That's quite interesting. I just ran a search for "tibet" on google.cn. I can't read the first two results, but the third and fourth results, at first glance, look very pro-Tibet-independence.
Perhaps Google hasn't launched this new site yet, or perhaps it's returning different results due to my IP address not being in China. Can anyone confirm?
You couldn't have said it any better and it's sad that you're not considered the "insightful" one here.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Amen brother!
The problem is, the kinds of execs you're talking about use unethical tactics to misleadingly spike the stock price, selling all their shares at the top of the spike. A better system would be to award them a more direct money bonus each day based on the growth of the stock over that day, something like
.03) * ($20 * 10) = $35. The higher up you are, the higher your bonus and sensitivity should be.
$ = ((1/s) + g) * (c*s))
Where c is the "standard" bonus, and g is the % that the stock has grown (shrunk), and s is how sensitive the bonus is to share value.
So if the stock loses 3% over the last week and the standard bonus is $50 (remember this is daily), with sensitivity of 10, the bonus is (.1 -
The twist is, you don't get the monetary award you've earned until a year after, and you must still be with the company. So your cumulative bonus earnings in Jan 2004 aren't collected unless you stay until Jan 2005. So you can't artificially inflate the stock, jump ship, and keep the bonus. The exception being is if you are laid-off, but from reasons different from trying to selfishly inflate the stock price. Then you'll get the bonus money you're entitled to.
Yeah, I'm sure that this system is either unrepairably faulty or something like it is already used by some companies. I'm obviously no expert in the field, but it seems more sensible to me than saying "here, have this stock, sell it and flee to a tropical island when you know it's about to go down".
The bottom line is that there needs to be a system where you don't get the money right away, before we get to see the aftermath of your decisions. The boys at Enron got the money first and are now facing trial. If they knew they'd have to face trial (or at least watch their daily bonus drop the same amount as it had risen) before getting the money, do you think they would have done it?
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
UAE (The country) has a lot of oil. In fact, the whole country's economy used to be (and still is) based on exporting oil. But since recently (10 years or so) they have been investing a lot of money gained from oil exporting into infrastructure and have created some of the architectual wonders which atract tourists (mostly upper class), who in turn bring the country money. This income is not comparable to what they make from oil, but if things go as they are going, they will soon make enough money to support themselves purely from tourism. Now the question: WHY? Because oil is going to run out and if they continue to rely solely on oil, their entire country will be on welfare when that happens.
Google is a great search engine. In fact, the whole company used to be (and still is) based on the awsomeness of its search engine. But recently (about 2 years or so) Google has been investing the money gained from selling their great search engine's stocks into other areas (just about everything), which in turn bring in even more funds. However, their founders are selling thier stock. And now the question: WHY? The answer is a game of "Spot the analogy"
I'm in exactly the same position as Google regarding my own web site. I can comply with the Chinese government's wishes, or I can have them block me with their firewall.
But you know what? That's still a choice.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Nobody has noticed that the tax rate on their capital gains is 15% while the tax for someone making an equivalent income is exhorbitant.
I barely make 6 figures and I'd gladly trade that in for a $1 salary with equivalent(6 figure) growth in equity to the bank for the rest of my working life, duh!
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
My grandfather was a boot maker (craftsman for those of you in america who've never met one) in eastern europe.
:(
I still have a few pairs of boots he made before I moved to the USA.
He commanded a premium, made everything out of leather.
I've outgrown those boots, but to this day I cannot find footwear as comfortable or as high quality. (5 years of wearing and they didn't stink or break or need to be resoled, except one pair that needed to be resoled, my 8 yrs age pair, I turned 11 and outgrew that one too
My father was a contractor, and he offered 7 and 5 year warantees on his workmanship. You know the amazing thing?? He only ever had to fullfill ONE warranty repair!!!
This is because he commanded a good price (air conditioning, plumbing and gas fitting and electrical) for his area, he was VERY customer service oriented, and he delivered better quality than most (and often he would give a quote, someone would hire someone "they knew to be better" and then would call the old man a week later to fix what those "certified" guys fucked up. I'm not lying. He bought us a house with that business, cars for each family member, computer gear (I worked with him for a LONG time). He never EVER advertised on TV and only ever had ONE newspaper add (and never cold called or gave out flyers). His only advertisement was Word OF MOUTH. All because of QUALITY OF WORK.
Same thing goes for old computer gear, and some cars, I've had a 3 gig IBM from the "olden days" that FINALLY died nearly 11 years later. 1995 to 2006... show me ONE GODDAMN MAXTOR or HITACHI (ibm sold their drive setup to them) that last nearly as long.
Of course that little drive is a collector's item. MADE IN THE USA.
Then they were made in eastern europe, quality still good. Then made in chinese satellite nations,Taiwan and Singapore made good units... Then made in China, and the quality got flushed to the shitter.
Cheaper build, shorter warranties... shittier products.
Perhaps americans should STOP shopping by price. Perhaps that was the great fallacy at first. Everyone here worries about bottom line and buys the cheapest shit they can. Then they wonder why it breaks.
Corporations caught on to it, and kept making cheaper shit. Seeing that americans didn't care about quality (the majority don't) they sold shittier products at ALL ends of the spectrum.
So we ended up with service and quality going to shit. After all, one way or another you won't stay without high tech goodies and other brand name shit, because you want to be "normal".
And unless you buy stuff made in Canada, and a few in europe... almost all other "high tech goodies" are made in China. You wanted cheaper, YOU GOT IT!! NOW LIVE WITH IT OR FIX IT!
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Also, I'm credit card free since about 5 years ago myself :)
:)
Just finished paying off my school loans recently. Trucking's been nice to me, I just cut the checks to each of them and let them fuck themselves for all I care
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler