Facebook Details Executive Salaries, Bonuses

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has detailed the pay of 27-year-old Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as well as four other executives. These are people who are set to be billionaires at least on paper when the company goes public as part of its $5 billion initial public offering (IPO). All five individuals are in line for annual target bonuses of 45 percent of their salary plus other base wages. For Zuckerberg, the bonus could amount to roughly $225,000 this year, based on his annual salary of $500,000."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I don't want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Period.

Their "low" salaries are concerning...

[moozey]

FTFA "These salaries of course don’t take into account the executives’ stocks in the social networking giant. If you were worried their salaries are on the low side, don’t be."

Oh thank god! I can finally sleep easy tonight. Phew!

Re:Their "low" salaries are concerning...

[localman]

Okay now, here you go, you forgot your meds. And here's some water. Okay, let's go back.

Sorry about that moozey, he manages to get out of the cage sometimes.

Re:Their "low" salaries are concerning...

[g0bshiTe]

+6 Awesome

I seriously lol'd.

What?

[paxprobellum]

I thought Zuck's salary was $1? What happened to that?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Steve Jobs' salary... :-)

Re:What?

[sackvillian]

Zuckerberg's new one as well.

Specially designed to inspire shareholder confidence if you're a believer, or to lower his tax bracket if you're a cynic.

Re:What?

[paxprobellum]

I agree that his salary is largely irrelevant. It just seems ridiculous to take (a publicized) $1 salary for ... one calendar year. (If that?)

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, Jobs only got $1 annual salary, plus lots of stock options (at a "special" rate). Since he didn't get paid a salary that could be taxed, he "borrowed" against his stock and options, which is not taxable until the options are converted to stock, or the stock sold, and then it is "capital gains", and not simple income, at a much lower tax rate... So, in effect, he was paid million$, but had a tax burden much less, percentage-wise, than the rest of us working schlubs!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Potentially stupid question - how did the country make them rich?

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money!

The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.

Re:What?

[artor3]

Public education for him and his employees. Infrastructure to help him and his employees get around and provide them with the electricity needed for their work. Safety and stability so that he doesn't have to pay millions of dollars in protection money to organized crime. Safe, plentiful food and clean water, so that he didn't die as a child. Clean air, so that he doesn't have horrible respiratory illnesses. Social safety nets so that he could take risks without fear of dying in the gutter if he failed. And so on.

Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia. Unfortunately, it's now become commonplace to deny this obvious truth, because "Greed is Good", at least in the minds of the greedy.

Re:What?

[ninetyninebottles]

Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money! The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.

Bonuses in shares instead of salary are just such compensation taxed at a very low rate and the employee can borrow against the stocks and still come out ahead of paying taxes. The executive is happy. The bank is happy. The government and the people who expect taxation to be fair and just... screwed.

Re:What?

[larry bagina]

Salary is subject to FICA taxes (7.2%+-) up to $106,800 or so. As his salary was $500,000, his effective FICA tax rate was only 1.4% or so. Seems like a trivial amount to me, but then again, the rich are different than us. For example, they do everything possible to reduce their tax burden and then complain that it's too low.

Re:What?

[amRadioHed]

She probably doesn't understand why you want people asking her about executive compensation instead of asking her boss.

Re:What?

[timeOday]

Potentially stupid question - how did the country make them rich?

I guess one answer is, why do these success stories tend to occur in the US rather then elsewhere? Why isn't Silicon Valley in a tax haven instead of California?

Re:What?

[Sir_Sri]

Jobs and Zuck will also own a large chunk of a different class of shares that the typical stock price. These special shares will have things like more voting rights, potentially pay a dividend or similar every year, they may (or may not, depending) be unlimited liability rather than traditional limited liability stocks and so on. I'm not quite sure how apple and facebook do (or will do) it, but this is pretty common for most big companies.

It's because of these different share classes that zuck will be able to give himself 60% of the voting power in the company, despite owning only about 25% of the value of the company.

Being the CEO of a company comes with a few perks too. That private jet the company owns? You're using it for business purposes, even if you're flying to florida for golfing, it's always part of your security/connectedness/etc. requirement, and because you're golfing with the CEO of another company it's business meeting, so it's not a taxable benefit since it is for work.

Over the years regulators have become less fond of the more archaic schemes, like rather than hiring you, they're contracting sir_sri management services, a wholly own subsidiary of Sri's Cayman Island management group, where Sri officially claims residence, so the housing, provided by the company, is a 'temporary residence' and for the use of any of Sir_Sri Management services employees who may be required to fulfill the terms of the contract (not disclosed), and they're families who may also have an expense account to deal with the temporary relocation from the Cayman islands. Oh and because you're only there temporarily, all your meals, and general housing services are also covered expenses*.

* a lot of this still happens a lot, justifiably so, on shorter term stuff.

Re:What?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia.

No, no, no! Somalia's not like American because it doesn't have enough Jobses and Zuckerbergs! They're the job creators! If Somalians had more of that entrepeneurial spirit, they'd be rich too!

Re:What?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Somalians do have entrepreneurial spirit, they just end up being shot because of it.

...which is a pretty good solution, actually, for some Western "entrepreneurs" like Zuckerberg and Murdoch.

Re:What?

[timeOday]

Come to think of it, a more direct answer is, "The US Government invented the Internet."

Re:What?

[Shoe Puppet]

She earns $2 a year? Wow, her boss ist a bastard.

Re:What?

[turbidostato]

"Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither."

It's only the Somalia *does* have equal rule of law, in fact a single law, "the one on the right side of the AK-47 commands" and *does* have the strongest of property rights, just try to take off the AK-47 from the hands that hold it from the right side.

It's only ridiculous to claim that Somalia doesn't enjoys the benefits of capitalism in its purest form.

Re:What?

[phantomfive]

I do wonder if the less visible Facebook execs have any plans to support the country that made them rich.

What line do you have to stand in to be made rich by your country? Because I want to stand in that line.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting Zuckerberg and Murdoch? Murdoch is a scumbag that actively tries to have laws changed to hurt regular people, so I could understand some vitriol there.

But all Zuckerberg did was make a service that millions of people love. And he did it without selling anyone's personal information, buying draconian legislation, etc.

You might find facebook annoying, or be jealous of his site's success, but let's not get stupid.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

You'd have to be a weird sort of dude to give charity to the federal government.

I reduce my tax burden as much as is legal, so I don't think the rich are all that "different" on that particular score.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Yes, there are many tricks like that. I can't write-off the miles on my second car even though the only reason we have a second car is so that I can get to work. Yet my VP can drive around in a company car and the company can write it off.

But that's not the sort of thing we are talking about here. The man holds billions worth of Facebook stock... any dip (or rise) in stock price is of far more concern to him than all the incentive packages the board could possibly come up with. He already has motivation to work as hard as he is capable of for the company. Do I think he has a great accountant? I'm sure of it. Do I think that he took the $1 salary because it would be good for the stock price and not because it could save him a few hundred thousand (or even million) in taxes? Yes, I'm quite certain that was his rationale.

Re:What?

[10101001 10101001]

You'd have to be a weird sort of dude to give charity to the federal government.

Wow! I didn't realize it was charity to pay taxes, given it's taxes that provide services oneself enjoys* but, if wealthy enough, services that others enjoy as well. Well, I guess it is charity in the sense that it means potentially paying more than you get out for the benefit of others. Personally, I'd just consider that a common duty of anyone with the means towards humanity. But, then, I take that from the idea that just because you're not a completely selfish dick and rose above doing the absolute minimum when it comes to contributing to the world doesn't make your actions charity.

I reduce my tax burden as much as is legal, so I don't think the rich are all that "different" on that particular score.

When the tax laws are rewritten so that "reduce my tax burden as much as is legal" is pretty fluid on the word "legal" precisely because you money can more or less help buy what "legal" is, I think "that particular score" is very different. That's precisely why Warren Buffet bitched about the point that capital gains taxes are so ludicrously low, given it's precisely the rich that have the means to have so much of their assets tied up in stock and hence benefit from such an effectively low income tax rate. I mean, I don't know about you, but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1, it's easy to see why the average person isn't going to buy much in the way of stock. Hell, when middle and upper middle class people started actually buying stocks directly (as day traders), their was an incredible amount of bitching and moaning from the rich (through a receptive media) precisely because their actions were causing disruptions in stock prices which represented a significant instability in expected returns. Of course, mutual funds were just as bitchy as they being the middlemen in stocks for the middle class didn't like missing the potential customers nor how it became clear just how illusionary stock prices really are when a relatively few can have significant disruptive effect on the stock market. But, I digress...

*Yes, I realize not everyone uses all services and plenty of people don't pay enough to cover their share of what they use. But, then short of every paying on a per-use basis, there's no way to be "fair" in that sense. Having said that, there's already the absurdity of people today who bitch they paid $X into social security and expect to get $X out, either to themselves or to their loved ones when they die, ignoring that plenty of people on social security get more than they ever paid in (the disabled, the elderly who live longer than average, etc) which makes that entirely unreasonable unless there's some expectation that the government either (a) take the $X and invest it into companies and use dividends or later sales or something to cover the difference (which wouldn't work, given the relatively low rate of return to the demand) or (b) take taxes from some other source to make up the difference (which makes social security not self-sustaining and rather misses the whole point of budgeting). Meanwhile, per-use services fall on their face for many obvious reasons (a person who is robbed of their money, is murdered, etc obviously can't pay) behind the whole injustice of such a system (not that people seem to think too much about that, but it's easy to not think about when you spend all your efforts painting government as the source of injustice). But, then, I digress again..

Re:What?

[superdave80]

...and because you're golfing with the CEO of another company it's business meeting, so it's not a taxable benefit since it is for work.

I really wish the IRS would make it so that you can only deduct things necessary for the business to function. There is no reason that you need to play golf with the CEO, or your latest client. Meet with them in a fucking office meeting room and stop using the business as a tax free credit card!

Re:What?

[Sir_Sri]

That might make it a pretty dreary work environment. That office party you throw for every 10th/100th product you sell, that christmas party, that free lunch fridays are all unnecessary to the core function of the business. So they'd be taxable benefits, so who would do any of it? Treat your employees like drones, and you get drones. Germany up until relatively recently even let bribes be a deductible business expense, because well, that's the cost of doing business a lot of places. I think you lose a competitive edge if you can't wine and dine other guys, and there really is a lot to be said for having semi-casual business discussions.

Don't get me wrong, I mentioned it because it is abused, but there's probably a legitimate case for business expenses to include treating your people and customers like more than just drones.

Re:What?

[10101001 10101001]

Charities at least put the money to good use and are relatively efficient. Governments, no so much.

Depends on the charity. How many cancers have been cured, again? Seriously, though, people expect the world from governments--and certainly a lot of the blame comes from authoritarian government officials and their supporters in the past who used it to justify their actions, whether or not they were justifiable, along with the more socialist oriented who set to use government to fix social, economic, and private company problems--while ignoring all the good that governments do do. It is, after all, the case that millions of people receive medical care (if nothing else, for many from the government mandate of requiring medicare provides to provide emergency care regardless of whether a person can pay), housing, food, etc precisely because of government in a way that charity can't reasonable match because even the wealthy combined couldn't prove the sort of funds necessary for the task while not nearly enough individuals reliably donate--they're less likely to donate during times of trouble which are precisely the time when the need is greatest.

Having said that, yes, government is grossly inefficient at times, often corrupt at various levels, frequently takes up causes that are either misguided or inappropriate, etc. But, that's a part of the necessary evil of government. The best that can reasonably be done is to work to fight those points of inefficiency, corruption, etc. One sad truth is, most people aren't interested enough politically to do that and so you have inane things like Congress having horrible public support yet individual Congressmen having great public support, even though those Congressmen vote in lock-step with the greater Congress on almost everything. One could then argue, I guess, that at least with charity it requires an active action to occur, so at least from that perspective it'd result in money being spent overall more wisely. But, if people can't be bother to invest time in their government, why would they bother with charities? No, the result would be a drastic drop in "charitable" spending (ie, both government and private spending towards the needs of others) even if overall private charitable spending would skyrocket.

I mean, as much as some people like to envision the chicken and egg issue of government involvement in affairs like welfare came about because of do-gooders usurping charities, the truth is that government only became involved after a long period of charities/private individuals simply failing to meet the demands of the people and only after a lot of political fighting--admittedly a lot of it based on the principal of what a government should be and do and not only on the selfishness of the wealthy who knew they would likely have to shoulder a lot of the burden--did change occur. So, backing out of paying taxes is pretty much paramount to either giving up on the idea that the problem is at least workable (if not solvable) or being at least a little selfish and ignorant, possibly willfully, about how many people are being damned to starvation, the cold, etc. I mean, the only thing left is saying that those people "deserve" their condition of real poverty because they don't work [enough]--ignoring the adage "the world doesn't owe you a living" and how that translates to starvation as well as how many breaks business people get in things like bankruptcy, limited liability through corporations, etc.

Well, sorry for all the rambling. I guess I'm just sick of the way the image of government has been so twisted, from in the 50s being the source of heroic "G-Men" battling communism and supporting justice at home to now being full of incompetent boobs who do nothing right--and both coming from the same political party. Neither image was true, of course, and it's not like the image actually made government into what it was projected to be, although it could be said that in the former case the projection was used to

Re:What?

[TheLink]

Hell, when middle and upper middle class people started actually buying stocks directly (as day traders), their was an incredible amount of bitching and moaning from the rich

In contrast poker players trying to make money are actually happy if more fish join the table.

Re:What?

[oxdas]

On the other hand, businesses get more tax breaks as well. That they only pay taxes on the profits means that the owners get to invest; in infrastructure, workers, r&d, etc. for free. They also don't have to pay taxes on capital appreciation for their stock in that company and those investments. Theoretically, the super rich are supposed to pay that tax when they die, but there are lots of ways around that. Less than a quarter of the Walmart fortune has seen a dime of taxes. Do they deserve that much money? I think they deserve to be rewarded, but too much inequality starts harming everyone. I love capitalism. Capitalism leverages the greed inherent in most people (good idea). Unfortunately, the only way to preserve capitalism for the long term is to ensure that opportunity persists in high enough quantity that people's greed drives them to pursue it. I worry that we are reaching the point where inequality starts eroding our capitalism and not sustaining it. Do you believe that there can be such a thing as too much inequality?

Re:What?

[Surt]

Generally, it's the line where you get born to rich parents.

Re:What?

[artor3]

There are such "lines" all over the country. Join a start-up. Start a business. Work on Wall Street. Make the next Minecraft or Braid. Play professional sports. Become a musician or actor. Of course, doing those things doesn't guarantee success. There's quite a lot of work required, and quite a bit of luck needed too. But that doesn't mean that the country didn't enable your success.

Being born in a great nation like the US means that you get opportunities that people in Syria or Moldova or the Congo can scarcely dream of. You still need to work, and there's no guarantee of a payoff, but if you do end up as one of the lucky ones, if you do end up making more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime, you have a duty to give back so that those same opportunities are still around for the next generation.

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

Nonsense. Gov't destroyed education, not improved it, made it much more expensive and destroyed the quality.

Gov't doesn't create infrastructure, in fact gov't can do absolutely nothing without the free enterprise providing the means for it. The wealth is FIRST created by the people who work for living and then gov't comes in and steals it, reduces the overall amount of wealth in the system, scatters it around among its preferred people and then this is called 'public good'.

I am happy to live in times when this is going to come to a crashing end, this is something to look forward to - the end of the system. Either it will turn completely dictatorial and it will be even a bigger disaster or there will be a huge swing back to the true free market and freedoms for individuals and socialist ideologues will simply be laughed out of town.

Re:What?

[ExploHD]

I'm sure that he's more concerned about dividends than the valuation. With 533.8 million shares and, let's say, 10 cents quarterly dividend dispersments, he could have made $53,380,000 every three months. At a 15% tax rate with no FICA (medicaid, 1.45%; social security 6.2%), it's the ultimate tax dodge.

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

Oh, and the people who are able to build their businesses and then are able to be paid more money than average are already giving back to society much more than society EVER gave them.

Facebook didn't exist and now 10% of population are on it. Definitely 1 person giving 10% of population something they are willing to use is much more important than any taxes that can ever be collected or anything that this person was ever given by anybody.

He shouldn't be paying ANY taxes, he already pays his dues to the society as is, by providing it with something the society wants. Before he pays a single cent in taxes, he already paid millions in salary, he bought millions in equipment and he created millions in value for his clients, investors, customers and employees.

Re:What?

[jpapon]

Facebook better start making some serious cash if they hope to pay out a 10 cent quarterly dividend.

Re:What?

[jpapon]

You, as an investor, now pay that tax TIMES the capital gains tax.

You say that as if it's a bad thing... You do realize that 15% TIMES 15% is less than 15%, right? That's also not how it works, at all, anyways.

You are an idiot... you don't even understand basic arithmetic, why should anyone trust your "insights" into what makes an economy successful???

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia. Unfortunately, it's now become commonplace to deny this obvious truth, because "Greed is Good", at least in the minds of the greedy.

- this 'Elizabeth Warren' talk is also complete nonsense, and I can easily show it with a few facts.

Out of 37 richest self-made people in USA, 27 were born prior to 1850. Only 3 were born in the 20th century - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.

Over the 1870 to 1913 period of time people became much wealthier relatively to the time preceding that period than people over the entire 20th century relatively to the 1870 to 1913 period. This was done without most of what is called 'government' today, including most departments, agencies, income taxes, regulations, etc.

Beyond that - looks like you think that Zuckerberg owes you something, when in reality he is doing much more than his 'fair share' to increase his own wealth, and the wealth of everybody around him, providing products people use willingly, hiring thousands of people and providing opportunities in various niches around his business, creating jobs in the process (all of which is just a consequence of him making a buck).

On the other hand YOU are slacking off compared to Zuckerberg. You are in the same society, you aren't from Somalia I take it, yet I don't see you provide people with products that 10% of population wants to use and uses and I don't see you making millions for yourself, various investors, clients, creating thousands of jobs. You OWE MUCH MORE to the society by your own standard than Zuckerberg, he has given back already much more than he will EVER USE ON HIMSELF.

You are a slacker but also you want to steal money from others, who make it and you want government to do it for you.

Re:What?

[mjwalshe]

if you believe that i have some shares to sell you in London Bridge

Re:What?

[neonKow]

I seriously doubt Zuckerburg is relying at all on Social Security for retirement.

Re:What?

[dumeinst]

OH stfu. You've been reading to much Ayn Rand. As it's already been stated - no one reaches these levels of success on their own. Yes he had a good idea, yes he worked hard to make it happen but he didn't do it in a vacuum. He was in the right place - at the right time. He came from a background of privilege. He had opportunities in his life that 98% of Americans, let alone humanity do not have. Quit pretending that people who through ingenuity, hard work, and not a little bit of luck and fortune are somehow the salvation of humanity. It's f*%cking nauseating.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

The only way that argument makes any sense is if you believe that Zuckerberg thinks that doing the Steve Jobs $1 salary thing won't affect stock price.

Re:What?

[DigiTechGuy]

I'm sure this will get modded down, but I believe the only "fair and just" way to implement a tax is to divide the federal budget by the number of citizens. Everyone pays their fair share and there is no way to dodge it.

With current spending levels at $11,504.62. I'd wager most of us here pay more around that number or more... and we're not rich by any means, personally I feel quite poor. Now think about cuts to spending and bringing federal government back to a small, unbloated and Constitutional size and scope. I can identify $2.188 trillion in spending cuts, most of which is big dollar entitlements and redistribution of wealth but a large chunk of which is military spending used to wage unconstitutional wars and invade or occupy sovereign nations which have not made any aggression towards us. Figuring on those cuts, which would surely happen quicky given there are no tax loopholes under such a system, and everyone pays an equal and fair part of the tax burden... You annual tax bill would be only $4,417.88.

I'm sure there are other cuts to entitlements, redistribution of stolen money, military, and bloated government contracts that can be made which would further reduce that tax bill but have little or no effect on our day to day life, aside from us having more money to spend on things... Which is to say invest in our economy and create a demand for more jobs, goods and services. There are several variations that can be made on this tax scheme but it's the only way to ensure taxes are truly "fair and just".

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

Blah blah blah, I don't see you providing society with anything but hot air on /. Come on, slacker, do something. Make billions for yourself and others around you. You are not from Somalia, are you?

Re:What?

[localman]

No, the surest way to quench an economy is to let the infrastructure crumble, reduce public education, eliminate social services, and/or run these programs at a huge deficit until you go bankrupt.

You want a first world country? Fucking pay for it. None of the rich you are so defensive of are going to suffer under a reasonable tax code like we had in the 90's. They actually will suffer if we dismantle the beautiful country we've built over the past 60 years despite the whining of people like yourself.

Re:What?

[localman]

It's like you don't understand what freedom means. I'm going to guess you've never spent much time living in a country without all the social services you take for granted and malign. There is no meaningful freedom without a strong, well run central government. Unless, again, you want to point to places like Somalia as "free".

Don't actually explore reality, though. Go back to theorizing that pure libertarianism would somehow miraculously play out differently than it has in every "free" area throughout all of human history.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Wow! I didn't realize it was charity to pay taxes

It's not. It's charity to pay more than you owe.

Otherwise I suspect we largely agree.

but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1

I sympathize and agree with your general argument, but on this point you are way off. You can open an etrade account for free and then trade any number of shares for the $9.99 commission. Now, to keep your overhead sane, you should probably not spend 10 bucks to buy $100 worth of stock. The real barrier to entry is that most people simply don't save at all. It's in our blood as Americans - not sure what the real problem is. People live paycheck-to-paycheck in very nice houses, driving very nice cars. My kids are actually doing much better than me in total returns in their little $2000 education IRAs - and they simply have a DRIP fund in each. I'm amazed how many people don't max out their 401(k), yet have enough to buy a new car every 5 years. I'm also surprised how many people (like my wife) put up with a 401(k) plan that only lets them choose from a small number of pre-screened mutual funds. I think DRIP funds are great because there is no commission when you re-invest the dividends.

Re:What?

[localman]

Nothing you're saying holds up to reality. I challenge you to give one example, from anywhere in the diversity of the whole world through all history, where good infrastructure and an educated general population was created without strong central government. I have been asking for an example of this for almost a decade now, and it seems to be how you get a libertarian fundamentalist to shut up or change the subject.

So.... got anything to bring to the table for discussion?

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

For decades I've answered that question in exactly the same way - USA 1870-1913, Switzerland for the last 20 years, China today.

Good infrastructure means infrastructure that market requires.
Good education means education that market requires.

USA had no strong central government before the Fed and IRS basically, all of these abominations: Fed, IRS, FDA, EPA, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FBI, F&F, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, labour laws, dept's of education, energy, commerce, agriculture, interior, etc., all of this was created already after the economy of USA became strong due to the free market that preceded it and those are the instruments of destruction of the economy and society. I have plenty on these subjects in my journal.

I have tons of comments on this subject, here is something in infrastructure and taxes.

Central government is the end of the road, monopoly on government that is constantly putting more and more pressure on the freedoms of individuals will eventually be released in an explosion and it should.

Re:What?

[ninetyninebottles]

I'm sure this will get modded down, but I believe the only "fair and just" way to implement a tax is to divide the federal budget by the number of citizens. Everyone pays their fair share and there is no way to dodge it.

That would be fair, but only if the world were fair to start with. That is to say 100% inheritance tax and everyone given an equal share of all wealth at birth. Of course that is impractical, so we try to create a somewhat fair and sustainable system by progressive taxation, where those that make more and have more pay more. This ostensibly prevents the wealth consolidation principal from kicking in so hard all the wealth is owned by a few aristocrats until the peasants revolt and we start the cycle again. Realistically these days the taxation has been shifted such that wealth is constantly consolidating into fewer and fewer hands and is leading towards an inevitable revolution unless corrected (military, political, or economic revolution: the new deal was a revolution of sorts).

You[sic] annual tax bill would be only $4,417.88.

Okay, put on your economist hat. 50% of the citizenry of the US has zero net wealth. Their assets and debts collectively balance out to nothing. Moreover, there is no realistic hope of this changing (as a group) over the course of their lifetimes. Those people pay an effective tax rate of about 5% now and make under $26K. So you just quadrupled their taxes. What do you think is going to happen? 50% of the US is now rapidly racking up debt and being denied loans since the banks know they have no hope of paying them.

What will happen is obvious. They'll pick up guns and knives and clubs and containers of gasoline. They'll murder you and take your stuff. They'll kill the rich and redistribute the wealth, probably in a very inequitable way while creating a new government, likely less stable and less just than the one we have now.

There are several variations that can be made on this tax scheme but it's the only way to ensure taxes are truly "fair and just".

Taxes can only be fair and just in a world that is relatively fair and just. That's not even close to this one. Your scheme is just a pie in the sky road to revolution, suffering, death, and instability.

Re:What?

[KingMotley]

FICA is mostly for social security (some small portion is for medicare). Considering that social security benefits are also capped at ~$24,000 per year, it seems quite fair. Are you trying to suggest that the cap be lifted? It's not as if any of it (supposedly) goes to paying for anything but his retirement anyhow. Are you trying to say that the rich need a better retirement plan? Even if they remove the $106,800 cap, it's not going to affect YOU in any way at all, nor will it reduce your federal tax burden AT ALL.

Re:What?

[mjwalshe]

If Public opinion turns like it did with the bonus's in the UK it could get very nasty - all its takes is OWS or UNCUT to start calling it out and a few politicians to jump on a bandwagon on the evil foreign pirates(they would pick a foreign borne CEO to start with) screwing over our brave boys and seniors by avoiding paying tax for the VA or medicaid.

Sv 1$ salarys could see a very big backlash and some poujadist type laws being enacted quickly

Re:What?

[snarkh]

Why would he care so much about dividends? He can just sell a bit of his stock. The capital gain tax is also 15%, makes no difference either way.

Re:What?

[DigiShaman]

Yup. Just ask the folks living under the USSR, China, and Cuba post revolution. Sure enough, the vast majority of the rich got shellacked, but so did th average citizen too.

Well, you know what they say. Misery loves company. Sad but true.

Re:What?

[ExploHD]

Continuous payments from dividends as opposed to selling stocks which fluctuate in price. If he sold 100 million of his shares on the market, that could drive the price down due to supply and demand, making his net worth drop. If he keeps his shares and let's the dividends continue, over time he could make more that way than if he sold his stocks when Facebook becomes as valuable as MySpace. Remember: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Ever since the bush tax cuts of '01/'03, dividend payments from companies skyrocketed and have not dropped, even with the downturn. Go through Google Finance and look at ten-year views of somecompanies, dividend payments are almost now quarterly and are paying more. AT&T payed out $10.2 billion in dividend payments last year ($0.43 per share x 5.93 billion shares x quarterly) and it's gone up this year to $0.44 per share; in '07 they were paying $0.355 per share.

Re:What?

[eggstasy]

I don't know what you're talking about - I've never worked at a company that spent anything on... parties, and at the few companies that do throw up the one single Christmas party, those types of parties are considered a boring chore.
I'd rather work at some place that spends less on stupid crap, pays better, and allows me the freedom to spend my time and money however I want, thank you very much.
My coworkers are not my friends. I'm not exactly running out of friends, and I don't want to be judged as a professional for what I do with my personal life.

Re:What?

[tehcyder]

Zuckerberg created thousands of jobs and BILLIONS of dollars of wealth where none existed before

But every time someone posts on facebook, an angel weeps a bitter tear, so it's not all positive.

Re:What?

[tehcyder]

Come on, slacker, do something. Make billions for yourself and others around you

Some of us do not consider the making of money life's highest goal.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

I'm all for flattening the tax code - I just don't think that Zuckerberg is trying to avoid taxes as his primary motive in this particular case. He's already getting 4 billion dollars worth of stock... if the stock goes up by 1%, he makes 40 million dollars. He is far, far more concerned with moving the stock price than he is in his tax rate.

Personally, I'd like to see the feds kill the corporate tax. This would eliminate the "double taxation" howls and then you could jack up the dividend and capital gains rates to match the income tax rate. While this would be disastrous to the CPA occupation, I don't think that's a very good reason to hold up tax reform.

Re:What?

[operagost]

If Warren Buffett was truly selfless, he would just create a foundation as other stupidly wealthy people like John Huntsman have done, and set it up so that his foundation is the heir to his fortune. He wouldn't be "bitching" about how low his taxes were, because the wealthy wouldn't be wealthy without realizing how wasteful and downright evil government is. He has motives other than philanthropy, and frankly as troll-laden as Slashdot is I still believe the intelligence here is above the mean and we really should know better than to take anything some rich guy says for granted. Buffett is saying what you want to hear, so you believe him. What makes him more trustworthy than Bill Gates, or Donald Trump? You should be wary of all these guys.

Re:What?

[operagost]

I'm dismayed at the legs this "Somali Capitalism" meme has on Slashdot, a site where you'd expect most of the posters have heard of "straw men". Somalia is by no means experiencing any kind of credibly free market (which cannot exist unless a government is at least able to maintain peace), yet when anyone tries to cite the horrors of the Soviet Union or China as an example of socialism gone amuck the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is trotted out.

Re:What?

[roman_mir]

Oh, I see, so just stealing from others, who do make it a goal then?

Re:What?

[10101001 10101001]

Buffet Foundation*. And the reason he's bitching is (1) he recognizes that it's absurd how *high* taxes are on the poor/middle class, even if they get a lot or all of their income tax back because it interferes with the growth, development, and well-being of the very people with the least disposable income, and the only way to offset the desired relative tax cuts is to either fundamentally restructure government spending (ie, zero defense or zero welfare+social security (without tax cuts), just to have no deficit, and even further cuts to start paying on the debt) or to shift more of the tax burden to the upper middle class/rich (which some spending cuts, since tax increases aren't likely to be enough); (2) there's a lot of rich people who *aren't* giving to charities and so as much as he plans to give away his fortunes and urge as many other billionaires/millionaires to do the same, it's not enough to actually rely upon the good will of a handful of the notable billionaires to "do the right thing" to actually resolve the social/economic issues of our day which is why government is there to step in; and (3) that a lot of that "wealthy wouldn't be wealthy without realizing how wasteful and downright evil government is" is BS, given it's actually (at least supposedly) fulfilling the needs of people that made those people wealthy under an obviously not so downright wasteful or evil government that it stopped them from becoming rich.

*As above, a lot of his "fortune" is the paper value of his stock in his company, which he can't reasonable sell in bulk (as it'd kill the stock price and allow a takeover that'd likely liquidate the company) and likely is never going to be worth even half the stated value. Other than that, yes, he plans to leave the bulk of his fortune to his foundation to carry on his philanthropy.

Re:What?

[mjwalshe]

Why would you want to do that you would have much less incentive to invest in equities - which is going to hurt everyones pensions and savings.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

What do you mean? Equities would still be attractive, and I don't think artificially pumping up the value of equities with the tax code is healthy in the long term anyway.

Re:What?

[turbidostato]

"Somalia is by no means experiencing any kind of credibly free market"

It's of course true that Somalia is not what Adam Smith had in mind when writting about "the wealth of nations". But I'd say that, as Newton was wrong because of his implicits (no, speed is not an absolute magnitude), so it was Smith with those of him (no, there's no need of "democracy and imperium of law ala occidental way" for the basics of capitalism to apply). Once one understands this, it's obvious that, quite in fact, Somalia is not only an example of "capitalism by the book", in that Mogadishu is a perfect example of "the market town", but the only natural outcome of what capitalism unavoidingly becomes if left alone on the hands of the capitalist actors themselves: the only difference between Mogadishu and Wall Street is that the latter still has a resemblance of government limiting the reach of capitalists.

Yes "the government", so hatred by all those "liberalists of caricature" that will jump "comunism" at the first mention of regulation "for the people, by the people", is the *only* practical deterrent that avoids Wall Street becoming Mogadishu.

Re:What?

[snarkh]

This makes sense for moderate size stockholders with varied holdings, who value a steady cash flow. For immense fortunes like his, almost completely invested in one company, it would make much more sense to sell stock.

Thanks Mark, for Facebook

[BenJCarter]

It's a great free app that I can choose to use, or not to use. It has brought me in contact with people I haven't talked to for decades. I hope you become fabulously rich. I also hope that Facebook doesn't engineer itself into oblivion before an alternative comes along...

Re:Thanks Mark, for Facebook

[BenJCarter]

Nope, I don't work for them. The funny part is, as I was typing my entry, I could see people thinking exactly what you said. I don't think you should have been modded down for your comment.

Why does he need a salary at all?

[elucido]

It's such a waste of money to give these guys a salary when they are billionaires. If I were them I would lower my salary to $1 or I would give myself the salary of my lowest level employee as a gesture.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all?

[Firehed]

Sounds like somebody hasn't heard of secondary markets. He can most definitely sell his shares pre-IPO (FTC regulations notwithstanding, which would certainly come into play now that an S1 has been filed).

Re:Why does he need a salary at all?

[NemoinSpace]

If I were them ...
If they were you, I suppose they would sit around all night and post on Slashdot. ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Facebook.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all?

[netsavior]

Executives that elect for stock only compensation might seem to be extremely magnanimous in not taking a salary. In reality it is a nice way to shield yourself from nearly all of your income tax burden. Candidates for office whose first names rhyme with bullshit tend to lose in the court of public opinion when it comes out they pay buffet level taxes instead of their "fair share."

It's funny that when people talk about 1 dollar executives they get all lovey-eyed, but when they talk about executives paying no taxes they get all torchy-pitch-forkey. When in actuality the two are the exact same thing. You know how much Larry Paige pays in income tax on his salary? $0. Know how much Zuck will pay? about 270k (assuming the bonus is cash). One sounds like a billionaire asshole, the other sounds like a billionaire asshole who pays at least some taxes.

I am not saying Google does no good, or that Facebook does, but I am sick of the fluttery $1 salary non-sense.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all?

[tehcyder]

He's a paper billionaire.

Yeah, you're not a real billionaire.until you have a room filled with one billion in actual gold bars.

Re:And we care because?

[jhoegl]

I agree, this is news for Nerds, not news for people interested in becoming wealthy through various means including nefarious or even slightly shady.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB

[Ethanol-fueled]

Agreed, and it is reassuring to be in class and see that more and more people are ditching Social networking and saying, "get over yourselves - we don't care what you do in your personal lives."

As far as my friends go, it usually takes some incidence of drama to get them to quit. Two of my friends quit as a result of bad breakups with ex-wives. I was smart enough to learn those lessons back in the MySpace days, when I was in a relationship living with my girlfriend:

" Ethanol, who is that bitch you added to your friends list? Are you cheating on me ?! "
" Uh, she's my sister. No, I am not cheating on you.
( 3 days later )
" Ethanol, who is that bitch you just added to your friend's list. Are you gonna cheat on me with her?! "
" No, she's my fucking grandma! "

That teacher, incidentally, moonlights as a consultant and encouraged us all to "network," because that's how people get jobs and succeed, he thinks.

He should tell that to my boss, an utterly unqualified asshole and idiot, who got his job due to networking because his buddy was his boss and friends with his boss' boss. After he utterly ruined our department, blaming his faults on us, and sent morale through the floor blaming and bullying, I led a revolt to overthrow him. Consultants were called in to see where the faults were and his buddy-boss was asked to leave the company. Now everybody involved in the idiot's hiring is getting a pistol-whipping from corporate, and he's on his way out. Meanwhile, the department (except for the boss, of course) got bonuses for showing self-sufficiency in the absense of real leadership.

In short, "networking" is another bullshit buzzword. Any decent employee can succeed by merit alone.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB

[amRadioHed]

In the example you gave I don't see how MySpace was the problem at all, your insecure, jealous girlfriend would have given you grief with or without MySpace.

As for your classmates, why would they have friends on Facebook that they don't care about? If there are people on Facebook I don't care about I either hide them or unfriend them. Social networking is a tool. That some people don't know how to use it is not the tools fault.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB

[Ethanol-fueled]

Yes, the example was a bit extreme, but I was trying to say that no good ever came out of social networking for me, only bad. Again, I don't need to "network" to land decent jobs, that's what references are for. Not socially networking also helps me weed the voyeurs and petties out of my personal life.

I've mentioned this before, but there is a lot that can be inferred even from a private facebook profile. An example - I don't social network, but my ex girlfriend did. Even private facebook profiles show a name and a picture to the public. Searching for her name + "facebook" on Google led me to her profile, and through the changes to her profile pic over time, I was able to (properly, verified later without asking through conversations with her) determine when she got a new puppy and when she broke up with her boyfriend.

Knowing that she didn't have a boyfriend, we became intimate again, and I told her about how I brought her only cat treats(not bringing dog treats) in a past visit even though I knew she had a puppy because it would be creepy for me to know she had a puppy then. I also told her that I used the same tactic to know when it was a good time to flirt with her. She giggled at first, then started to become angry. "It's not fair!" she said. You can stalk me online, but I can't stalk you?

Creepy? Maybe. Hypocrite voyeur? Perhaps. But not nearly as creepy as actually having a Profile and spending my workday leering at scantily-clad friends of friends online and sticking my nose all up in their business.

Still a little disturbing

[cvtan]

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[rgbrenner]

Wait... 500,000 / 365 * 2 = $2739.73

If that's all you have saved, that says more about you than Zuckerburg's salary.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[demonlapin]

I wonder why I bothered doing science.

You were suckered in. I saw the light and went into medicine. It's not a perfect job, and it's definitely not science, but it's interesting and it pays well.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[sinai]

Zuck didn't get to where he is solely due to greed. Lucky break? Sure, but that should only encourage a career in science/tech/engineering/medicine. Consider that at a $750k annual income, Zuck makes about $4k each weekend. Add to that the assumption that he made a conservative $1bn US from his stock appreciation, allocated over 8 years. So since he started Facebook, he's been making about $690k every weekend. Having $690k in retirement as a couple is downright impressive in a country where well over half the population could not cover a $1,000 emergency. I would be proud if I were you!

Re:Still a little disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for you...life's "score" isn't counted in dollars. At best, it's a related stat that may help you get what you really want out of your time here. Worrying about whether you have enough is reasonable. But worrying about why you're not one of the über-wealthy few is a pointless endeavor that can only lead to under-appreciating all that you do have.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[Surt]

Your calculation is a little off for what Zucker can make in a weekend.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[m50d]

Most people who went into tech don't make as much as Zuck. I suspect top scientists (even the average nobel prize winner is only the best in a given year - Zuckerberg has done better than that) make similar money.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[tbird81]

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

No-one forced you to do science. No-one promised you hundreds of millions of dollars. Why didn't you just start a highly successful business?

Re:Still a little disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why obsessed with money? Ask yourself, are you happy? You've got a wife and have worked for 30 years, putting you in the 50's bracket - that's more than a lot of people get. Why so regretful of the life you've led?

Re:Still a little disturbing

[hairyfish]

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

What has changed? Entrepreneurs are have always been the ones getting rich, and science has never been a career choice if you want to be a fat cat. It's not that you are in the wrong line of work you just didn't have the right combination of smarts, ideas, connections, work ethic, timing and luck to make it big.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[blahplusplus]

You're confusing the laws of large numbers with success. For every facebook there are millions of failures. These people simply take advantage of economies of scale. If you want the big money you have to be in a position of authority on incoming revenue over the business. It's better to be an owner then a worker. That's why the richest people tend to be owners or something close to it.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Science has benefits beyond its pay (I would hope), but very little science affects the world like Facebook.

The world exists in its current state because of science. Gimmicks like facebook are typically forgotten within the span of a decade. Try to get some perspective.

Re:Still a little disturbing

[rgbrenner]

Even facebook would have failed without a stream of venture capital during the YEARS it was loosing money. Zuckerberg actually got 2 lucky breaks: building facebook + finding people willing to throw money at him (we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.. so I think that's an accurate description).

Re:And we care because?

[MightyMartian]

Speak for yourself!

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB

[Sulphur]

Agreed, and it is reassuring to be in class and see that more and more people are ditching Social networking and saying, "get over yourselves - we don't care what you do in your personal lives."

As far as my friends go, it usually takes some incidence of drama to get them to quit. Two of my friends quit as a result of bad breakups with ex-wives. I was smart enough to learn those lessons back in the MySpace days, when I was in a relationship living with my girlfriend:

" Ethanol, who is that bitch you added to your friends list? Are you cheating on me ?! "

" Uh, she's my sister. No, I am not cheating on you.

( 3 days later )
 
" Ethanol, who is that bitch you just added to your friend's list. Are you gonna cheat on me with her?! "

" No, she's my fucking grandma! "

That teacher, incidentally, moonlights as a consultant and encouraged us all to "network," because that's how people get jobs and succeed, he thinks.

He should tell that to my boss, an utterly unqualified asshole and idiot, who got his job due to networking because his buddy was his boss and friends with his boss' boss. After he utterly ruined our department, blaming his faults on us, and sent morale through the floor blaming and bullying, I led a revolt to overthrow him. Consultants were called in to see where the faults were and his buddy-boss was asked to leave the company. Now everybody involved in the idiot's hiring is getting a pistol-whipping from corporate, and he's on his way out. Meanwhile, the department (except for the boss, of course) got bonuses for showing self-sufficiency in the absense of real leadership.

In short, "networking" is another bullshit buzzword. Any decent employee can succeed by merit alone.

If they network alone.

Seems Reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

How many CEOs have actually earned these salaries and bonuses? I think Zuckerberg has. Congrats!

Re:And we care because?

[wisty]

useless tool makes a pile of money fucking everyone else in the world news at 11

Given the size of the company, and number of customers, $275k for a General Council or Head Engineer, $300k for a COO, and $500k for a CEO (plus potential 45% bonuses for all) is a pretty fair deal. Theses guys work long, hard hours, and have a lot of responsibility.

zuckerburg annual salary

[Alchist]

Zuckerburg's salary of $500,000 is only effective through 2012. As of 2013, it will drop to $1. http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/mark-zuckerberg-will-have-a-1-salary-starting-in-2013/

Re:zuckerburg annual salary

[jpapon]

Actually, most stock options are taxed as regular income when you exercise them.

ISO options aren't, but even then he'd have to wait a year to exercise the options if he wanted to avoid short-term capital gains taxes (which are the same as income taxes).

Re:zuckerburg annual salary

[jpapon]

Whoops, meant he'd have to wait a year to SELL the options

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:maybe it's just me, but

[ATMAvatar]

If it makes you feel better, he got a little stock, too.

Re:And we care because?

[Surt]

I guarantee you they are not working more than thrice as many hours, and take less risk than I do.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB

[Surt]

There's no irony in using the necessary tools to get your message out. Were you the same crazy guy complaining when they used the newspapers too, because those were owned by rich guys?

You use the forum that you have to. Often there isn't a superior venue to the one that in the short run benefits one of your opponents. That doesn't mean you'll lose in the long run.

Re:And we care because?

[Z34107]

It's not Zuck's fault you're underpaid.

-3 : Incorrectly Pedantic Ad-hominem Comment

[sonamchauhan]

You excluded any valuation of his ownership stake and options from your definition of "making" (I know Facebook is not public yet, but I _can_ estimate the value of the home I own as an asset without having to try sell it.)

Not to mention other perks like use of an executive jet.
http://www.bornrich.com/private-jet.html

If this were Apple being discussed, wouldn't we get some really kooky numbers Jobs' $1 salary?

Re:-3 : Incorrectly Pedantic Ad-hominem Comment

[rgbrenner]

Your home is not a fair comparison. You can more-or-less tell what that is worth by looking at similar homes in your neighborhood. But no one knows how facebook's stock will perform, what his share will ultimately be worth, or what he will be able to sell it for. He can't just dump all his shares on opening day -- if he wanted out, he would have to sell a little bit at a time over years. So if facebook stops growing (or worse, shrinking), the stock will collapse, and Zuckerberg won't have a penny of what those shares are supposedly worth. Your home doesn't have that problem.

Paper wealth does not equal real wealth. I thought we learned that lesson in the 90s.

Re:And we care because?

[mjwalshe]

Compared to what say that dodgy tax dodging geezer Redknap will get if he gest the England manager job its quite reasonable.- as hes on £3m-a-year contract with a mid ranking premier team at the moment.

Title grammar?

[badzilla]

"Facebook Details Executive Salaries, Bonuses"

Why do Americans use this strange form of English? I mean using a comma to separate nouns and usually only towards the end of a sentence. The obvious way to write the same thing would surely be "Facebook details executive salaries and bonuses."

Not a criticism by the way. I would really like to know and Google has not helped me.

Re:Title grammar?

[Corbets]

Because 2nd grade English class is not a prerequisite for Slashdot editors. We don't learn it that way in school, rest assured.

Re:Title grammar?

[IndependentVik]

It is a journalistic standard in America to use commas in place of the conjunction "and" when writing headlines. This started because, back in the old days of printed newspapers, you tried to do whatever you could to save space in your headlines for the words that formed the meat of the idea you were trying to convey.

Did you follow or did you lead?

[Shivetya]

I mean no offense to you or your line of work, I am in the same boat. I followed. I am happy where I am at. I know where I want to be and work to get there.

Just like there are superstars in sports there are superstars in business. Whether they bring new products or innovation matters not, their drive is wholly different.

Now I know some will write it off to luck and yes, there are many cases of luck. Guess what, you don't get lucky not doing. You get lucky by trying, in some cases over and over and over.

Look at it this way, I would rather live in a system where there are untold riches for those who succeed. He isn't some politician deciding from up on high the winner or losers. He is deciding for himself and there are hundreds, if not thousands along for the ride. He created something many people value.

Some need that mythical pot of gold on the other side of the rainbow, others just feel the need to do. Which is he? Hell if I know. I don't have the drive but am quite happy to be in their world.

Re:And we care because?

[localman]

You are correct, but I imagine that what you do creates less value and is less unique than what they do. We're not paid by how long and hard we work, but rather by the combined perception of how much value we provide and how hard it would be to replace us. Is it always fair? No. Is it always unfair? Also no.

Re:And we care because?

[Surt]

Absolutely. I purely take exception to the story that we're rewarding risk taking and hard work. We're not. We don't reward those things. We reward success in the marketplace, and that's it.

Re:And we care because?

[Surt]

Actually, it is. He entered into a secret, probably illegal (still to be tested in court) agreement with my potential employers to hold down wages.

Re:And we care because?

[localman]

No, but the public sector is generally underpaid compared to the private sector, so the comparison is a bit off.

This is why the idea that privatizing saves money is a joke. The government is inefficient compared to the impossible ideals we hold it up to... but not compared to most large industry.

Re:Because they are worth it!

[Devout2]

Because they sell your info!

Re:And we care because?

[eharvill]

Since when is 3rd place in the EPL a "mid ranking" team?

Re:And we care because?

[Surt]

It's a common trope that our capitalist society is designed to reward successful risk takers.

Re:And we care because?

[g0bshiTe]

You assume what he created was unique in the first place. It wasn't. Has everyone forgotten Myspace already?

Re:And we care because?

[g0bshiTe]

We only reward risk taking if it's done by Wallstreet, but we don't call it a risk taking reward. We call it a bailout.

Re:Niggers with aspergers syndrome

[manual_tranny]

I'm sorry my comment was moderated "offtopic", I was only trying to be humorous. I appreciate slashdot's perspective that it is better not to reply to flamebait posts and I will avoid replying to racist and foul language posts in the future. However, I firmly believe that it would be best if posts like the one I replied to were DELETED!) Freedom of speech doesn't need to protect inflammatory racist drivel. We should all be allowed to speak provided that our thoughts have a hint of quality behind them. There is a point at which language is not worth the paper (or electricity) it is printed on.