Lenovo CEO Gives His $3M Bonus To 10k Workers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lenovo CEO Gives His $3M Bonus To 10k Workers

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 20, 2012 @08:09AM from the what's-the-opposite-of-a-golden-parachute dept.

ndogg writes "Lenovo CEO Yang Yuanqing has decided to give his $3,000,000USD bonus to his workers instead of keeping it. Those 10,000 employees include receptionists, production line workers, and assistants. That works out to about 2,000 yuan or $300 per employee, which is about a month's worth of salary."

267 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Capitalism FTW! Boycott Lenovo.
1. Re:Bloody communists! by spidercoz · 2012-07-20 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yeah, how dare they make our decent, god-fearing capitalist CEOs look like money-grubbing scum.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
2. Re:Bloody communists! by DinDaddy · 2012-07-20 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  JAL CEO did something similar and took a paycut as well. Cold day in hell before any american CEO would do this. Even if one were willing, the others would kill him in the country club locker room and bury his body on the links.
3. Re:Bloody communists! by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Haha.
  People have corrected me when I said the free market is like a pure democracy (people vote with their $'s for the companies they like). They say that democracy is a form of *government* and does not apply to private transactions. Well..... the same applies here with the private transaction between this guy and his colleagues within the corporation. It's not communist. It's not government.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
4. Re:Bloody communists! by SJHillman · 2012-07-20 08:23 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  As I recall, there's a lot of American CEOs with a $1/yr salary. I think Lee Iacocca may have started that trend when he went to work for Chrysler (or at least he popularized it). Granted, these guys are already filthy rich and can live off their assets/investments alone but it's still a nice show of generosity.
5. Re:Bloody communists! by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-20 08:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You joke but I actually saw arguments along these lines not long after the 2008 economic crash. People worried that if the CEOs of the banks that took government loans didn't get obscene bonuses as usual, it would pressure other banks which weren't bailed out to do the same and that would be un-capitalist government interference.
  There's no hope for you guys, sorry.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
6. Re:Bloody communists! by tmosley · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah, how dare they make our decent, self-styled godly fascist CEOs look like money-grubbing scum.
  
  FTFY.
7. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  except their fringe benefits and perks might amount to six figures, and stock options give them a net in the millions most of the time. It might be a nice show of generosity, but it's also a nice way to have some PR and tax breaks for the uber rich.
8. Re:Bloody communists! by randizzle3000 · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think that's so they can skip paying income tax, not because of generosity.
9. Re:Bloody communists! by SScorpio · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While they have a $1/yr salary. They still have stock options and other benefits that make up the difference. This is a tax dodge and not a show of generosity.
10. Re:Bloody communists! by spidercoz · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are in fact correct, free market and pure democracy are similar; they both treat everyone the same, and they're both fucking mythological.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
11. Re:Bloody communists! by organgtool · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Agreed! How can they expect their country to become successful if they don't proliferate the idea of only rewarding the people at the top? If they keep up this shit, the money will never trickle down!
12. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  This has nothing to do with communism, if anything this seems to be more of a free market move than anything else, or perhaps more aptly described, wise management.
  Assuming this was done of his own free will, which is what is stated and there really is no reason to believe otherwise.
  Interesting story perhaps, but there ain't much more to it.
13. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  In reality this is them just doing their job; in the cases you're referring to, the employee's don't get a single cent more because the ceo does this. Rather, the investors are getting greater returns because of the company's reduced bottom line, which is what a CEO's job is, to provide greater dividends to their investors.
  Neither generous nor selfless, just using resources they already have (enormous wealth) to increase their job performance at no personal sacrifice.
14. Re:Bloody communists! by mikeken · 2012-07-20 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Your signature... Def the HP with the i7, ram is cheap and you prob won't be using 8 GB anyways.
15. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As I recall, there's a lot of American CEOs with a $1/yr salary. I think Lee Iacocca may have started that trend when he went to work for Chrysler (or at least he popularized it). Granted, these guys are already filthy rich and can live off their assets/investments alone but it's still a nice show of generosity.
  I thought this had more to do with tax evasion? Get paid through capital gains rather than salary and pay less taxes.
16. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Except that is capitalism--- he being able to make decisions about his money, rather than the state taking it by force and deciding to redistribute it under a hairbrained planning scheme.
17. Re:Bloody communists! by dAzED1 · 2012-07-20 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  ....generosity? For someone living in California, the top tax bracket is 48.3% for salaried income. Qualified dividends, on the other hand, have ranged from 10-15% in recent history. There was nothing remotely "generous" about the pay he took. The Google founders do the same thing.
18. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That is right. There is a reason why news stories often refer to a CEO's compensation package. There are things more valuable then money, especially when you have plenty of liquid assets already.
19. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah, how dare they make our decent, god-fearing capitalist CEOs look like money-grubbing scum.
  Yeah! Our CEOs can do that perfectly well THEMSELVES, thank you very much!
20. Re:Bloody communists! by neonv · 2012-07-20 08:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Capitalism does not preclude altruism. Charity work has always flourished in capitalistic societies.
21. Re:Bloody communists! by jdastrup · 2012-07-20 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm not sure of the temperature in Hell that day, but I believe it was pretty mild in the OC when the eMachines CEO did the same thing in 2004 with his $72 million. http://www.johnhui.com/newsocregister.html
  
  Interesting, though, that the CEO, John Hui, was also Chinese
22. Re:Bloody communists! by Nadaka · 2012-07-20 08:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They have a $1 salary because salary is taxed at the higher rate reserved for the lower class. The CEO's get all their compensation in the form of stock options, and that is taxed at the lower rate reserved for the gentry and with a good enough accountant and a multinational organization capable of shifting money about, it may not be taxed at all.
23. Re:Bloody communists! by Clevershutter · 2012-07-20 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  These commies just don't get it. They should know that if Jesus were alive today he would be a Senior VP at Goldman Sachs and he would be royally pissed at them.
  
  --
  Simplicity if the hallmark of truth.
24. Re:Bloody communists! by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 08:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >>>Cold day in hell before any american CEO would do this
  There was an American company I saw profiled by ABC's John Stossel back in 2009. Unfortunately I forget the name, but the CEO decided not to have layoffs. Instead he agreed to take a cut in pay to the same level as the workers' pay, in order to keep everyone employed. I guess hell froze over that day.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
25. Re:Bloody communists! by spidercoz · 2012-07-20 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Touche, sir
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
26. Re:Bloody communists! by spidercoz · 2012-07-20 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  only because charitable donations are tax-deductible
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
27. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, the system that Soviet Russia had was so much better than anything any country has today.
28. Re:Bloody communists! by Clived · 2012-07-20 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Not if it was paid in after tax dollars by the CEO.
  
  --
  Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
29. Re:Bloody communists! by 3dr · 2012-07-20 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  "Generosity" was not the word I had in mind.
30. Re:Bloody communists! by thomasw_lrd · 2012-07-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia, you give your bonuses to the CEO.
  Oh wait, I guess it's not funny when it's actually true.
  
  --
  21st Century Renaissance Man
31. Re:Bloody communists! by Rude+Turnip · 2012-07-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Putting aside the tax strategy, it is still better to have a CEO's pay tied to company performance via stock options than a salary.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
32. Re:Bloody communists! by Red+Storm · 2012-07-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Consider this, if a CEO takes a $1 pay package and receives only company stock as their benefits package that means the company has to do well for them to make money. In addition *you* are free to invest in these companies and "freeload" on their incentive package and earn some income as well.
  
  --
  ---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
33. Re:Bloody communists! by DriveDog · 2012-07-20 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think it was actually more because 1) he already planned to ask the Feds for a bailout and knew he'd be more likely to get it that way, and 2) if he succeeded, he'd get a huge "compensation package" in a year or two.
34. Re:Bloody communists! by DriveDog · 2012-07-20 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  "Flourished" is in the eyes of the beholder. My cynical eyes see otherwise.
35. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Mod this up.
  Jebus, dude. "fourished?". My ass.
36. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  only because charitable donations are tax-deductible
  So?
37. Re:Bloody communists! by NovaHorizon · 2012-07-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had a mod point to throw +1 insightful on this. (I'm not sure the funny value is larger than the sad truth value, so insightful it would have to be!)
  
  --
  Defective Logic
38. Re:Bloody communists! by Afecks · 2012-07-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot deduct the value of your services given to a qualified organization. What excuse can you give for why that still happens under capitalism?
39. Re:Bloody communists! by NovaHorizon · 2012-07-20 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  only because charitable donations are tax-deductible
  So?
  It being tax-deductible (for up to 5 years depending on how much you donate) defeats the purpose of charity being shown as a positive effect of capitalism, which was the point that was being made.
  
  --
  Defective Logic
40. Re:Bloody communists! by tlhIngan · 2012-07-20 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  As I recall, there's a lot of American CEOs with a $1/yr salary. I think Lee Iacocca may have started that trend when he went to work for Chrysler (or at least he popularized it). Granted, these guys are already filthy rich and can live off their assets/investments alone but it's still a nice show of generosity.
  It's a PR positive move, yes, but it's also a tax-avoidance move.
  You see, capital gains are taxed lower than regular income. When these CEOs file tax returns, they pay the tax on that $1 salary, but pay much less tax on the million(s) they made during the year through stock and other dealings than if they took the entire amount through salary.
  You'll find they always get bonuses paid out in stock as well, for the same reason.
  And the best part of it is the "99%" don't suspect a thing - they see happy fun CEO only makes $1 a year and is so generous, etc. etc. etc.
  It's pretty much the most legal way to pay a lot less tax per dollar than everyone who works under you.
41. Re:Bloody communists! by Peter+H.S. · 2012-07-20 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  $1/yr salary is simply a tax evasion scheme since wages are taxed much higher than the stock options etc. that they receive instead. These tax dodging assholes that won't pay for police, road maintenance or any thing else that is tax funded, even portrait this scheme as something modest. They make me puke.
42. Re:Bloody communists! by KhabaLox · 2012-07-20 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  Putting aside the tax strategy, it is still better to have a CEO's pay tied to company performance via stock options than a salary.
  That depends heavily on the structure of the options package. Unless they vest sufficiently far in the future, the incentive is to take such steps to pump the stock price in the short term (say, 3-5 years), with no regard to the long term consequences (say 10+ years).
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
43. Re:Bloody communists! by KhabaLox · 2012-07-20 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  For someone living in California, the top tax bracket is 48.3% for salaried income.
  
  Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml
  Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
  Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
44. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Did you not read the part where he mentioned the $1 was not their only compensation?
45. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, American CEOs have been doing this too.
  A few years ago, the CEO of my company went to speak to one of our web developers and asked him if he could get some comments deleted about him on one of the Yahoo finance forums. Of course, the web developer said that this wasn't possible, and that simply wasn't how the web worked.
  Also, the comments weren't even that bad to begin with. They were the comments of shareholders (or some of our employees) that just said that the CEO was earning way too much money, for the kind of return that the company was getting (which was true enough).
  And a week later, he did the same thing as this Chinese CEO, he gave away his bonus to employees (thought in his case, his bonus went to the managers and to the top employees, not the receptionists or the cleaning ladies).
  So the point of my story is that CEOs are indeed paying attention to what people are saying about them. I know it doesn't seem like they are, but often times they're afraid to lose their current job and they'll return some of their bonus money if they think it will stop a shareholder revolt before it begins. Of course, those CEOs are probably also assuming that they'll be able to recoup that lost bonus later on, if they stay on as CEO because of it, so it's definitely not out of the kindness of their heart when they decide to do this.
46. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Bloody Capitalist prime example Apple to put things in perspective, Apple nearly doubled its profits in Q2 2012, It all adds up to $39.2 billion in revenue and $11.6 billion in pure, unadulterated profit ..... Ask an Apple stores employee what their monthly take home pay is?
47. Re:Bloody communists! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2012-07-20 12:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).
  You omitted Medicaid (2.9%, uncapped) and SS ( 10.4% up to 110k). So, if the extra 11.44k makes up for the phasing in of the highest rate (not willing to do the math), the highest rate is actulally 47.2%. Which makes GP closer.
  Also factor in unemployment/disability, and possible city taxes.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
48. Re:Bloody communists! by dAzED1 · 2012-07-20 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.tax-rates.org/California/income-tax shows the top rate; the ftb site doesn't show the schedule P and above rate. Wonder where I found fed at 38, though...MEH. Even at 44.3%, it's a third of 15% (more or less). Being paid in high-dividend shares instead of salary is not "generous." It's a tax dodge.
49. Re:Bloody communists! by KhabaLox · 2012-07-20 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Fair points. I inferred too much into "top tax bracket."
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
50. Re:Bloody communists! by KhabaLox · 2012-07-20 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I don't disagree with your larger point. I just thought the 48 figure sounded high (for income tax).
  Regarding Schedule P, I knew there was a reason I didn't become a tax accountant. That stuff is confusing.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
51. Re:Bloody communists! by daremonai · 2012-07-20 12:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd be happy with a company that thought on a 3-5 year time scale. 3-5 months seems more common (only the slightest exaggeration).
52. Re:Bloody communists! by Conception · 2012-07-20 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  This is not the case. If a CEO receives 1 million dollars in stock, he can then sell it for 1 million dollars. If the company stock stays level, he still is being paid 1 million dollars. If they stock drops by half, he's still being paid 500,000 dollars. The stock he receives isn't worthless until he proves himself. It has value and he can do many things with it including selling it at a lower income tax bracket than many Americans.
53. Re:Bloody communists! by similar_name · 2012-07-20 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I found this interesting. Seems taxes are one of several reasons for doing it. From the link in 2010/2011 Larry Ellison had a $1/yr salary but received $77 million in other compensation.
54. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  They do that to minimise income tax.
  Beyond the $1/yr salary, the stock options & other benefits they receive EACH year exceed what you will earn in your ENTIRE lifetime.
55. Re:Bloody communists! by sjames · 2012-07-20 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't let it fool you. It's $1 of 'income' taxed at the usual rate and millions in bonuses, options, and such that are taxable at a lower rate as capital gains.
  The gesture meant more back when actual good performance was required before receiving a 'performance bonus'.
56. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with the incentive argument is one of scale. Sure tying the CEO's compensation to the performance of the business is a good idea but the current method is deeply flawed. For any rational person money has diminishing returns. The difference between making 100K/year and 10K/year is much different than 100k to 1M or 1M to 10M and so on. The current system seems to guarantee CEO's high 6 figure or 7 figure salaries with the 'incentive' to make 10M to 100M in a few years. So its just a game played by the rich.
57. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  But it's a tax dodge that:
  a. provides benefits to the welfare of the company (the workers are a critical resource to the company)
  b. reinvests into the company
  c. let workers get a benefit free and clear to do as they please [with it]
  Compared to another argument that Bill Gates donates all his money to charities is better, with a charity you (i.e. Bill Gates) are still in control on how that money is used. vs the above folks--they can do whatever they want with their "charity" cash from their CEO.
58. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  You must also consider other things as in the case of the late Mr. Jobs. By being paid $1 a year he avoided paying child support ;-) a nifty plan and idea if you can get away with it.
59. Re:Bloody communists! by Maniacal · 2012-07-20 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Actually that doesn't make an sense. They already have the stock. They could ALSO pay themselves a handsome salary and even after paying taxes everything they took home would be gravy. I think it shows a CEO who's willing to bet his compensation on company performance. Not someone dodging taxes. Also, paying capital gains tax is not dodging taxes. It's paying taxes.
  
  --
  MG
60. Re:Bloody communists! by rachit · 2012-07-20 14:09 · Score: 2
  
  Also if you earn more than 1 million dollars, the California tax rate is 10.3. The 9.3 bracket is the one between 47,000 and 1 million
61. Re:Bloody communists! by cheesybagel · 2012-07-20 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Goldman Sachs: because the guys with the Gold make the rules.
62. Re:Bloody communists! by davester666 · 2012-07-20 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Next year, it'll be "See how great a guy I was last year, so this year, you should give me triple!"
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
63. Re:Bloody communists! by datavirtue · 2012-07-20 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  He is just being a LEADER. See that guys, a leader!
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
64. Re:Bloody communists! by Solandri · 2012-07-20 16:36 · Score: 2
  
  They have a $1 salary because salary is taxed at the higher rate reserved for the lower class. The CEO's get all their compensation in the form of stock options, and that is taxed at the lower rate reserved for the gentry
  Do note that to pay more in income tax than the 15% long-term capital gains tax rate, you need to make at least $54,575. Other deductions and exemptions will push the threshold income level even higher.
  
  $5,950 tax-free as standard deduction
  next $8,700 taxed at 10% ($870)
  next $26,650 taxed at 15% ($3997.50)
  next $13,275 taxed at 25% ($3318.75)
  = $54,575 in income, $8186.25 in taxes, or 15%
  
  Yes the 15% capital gains tax rate is lower than the higher income tax brackets. But it's still significantly higher than the 12.8% the average taxpayer pays (2009, column T). Based on the IRS stats, the adjusted gross income at which a tax filer pays an average of 15% in income tax is somewhere around $160,000.
  
  Do I think it's right that rich CEOs are only paying 15%? No. But the lower class does not have a "higher rate" reserved for them. They pay substantially less than 15%. Basically, the $1 salary tax dodge takes CEOs from taxation rates meant for people making over about $200k, and puts them at taxation rates meant for people making about $160k. The savings in terms of tax rate is a big deal (about 25% down to 15%), but the savings in terms of tax bracket is not (moving from the 99th or 98th percentile to about the 93rd-95th percentile).
65. Re:Bloody communists! by Solandri · 2012-07-20 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  A tax deduction is a reduction in your taxable income, not a reduction in your tax. If I'm in the 25% tax bracket and donate $1000 to charity, I only see a tax reduction of $250. I'm still left with $750 less than I would've had if I hadn't donated.
  
  Basically, you can think of money donated to charities as going straight to the charity (i.e. you never received it), with the government not taxing the charity.
66. Re:Bloody communists! by Compaqt · 2012-07-20 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that infusion of common sense. And also, can we see Warren Buffet's secretary's salary slips?
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
67. Re:Bloody communists! by Compaqt · 2012-07-20 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  The Federal government doesn't pay for your police department.
  Local taxes do (usually property taxes).
  Road maintenance is generally paid for with gas taxes and road tolls.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
68. Re:Bloody communists! by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-07-20 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Just because the CEO skipped his salary doesn't mean it goes to the workers. It may be a dividend, etc.
69. Re:Bloody communists! by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-07-20 17:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Jokes aside, when Henry Ford gave his workers raises, he was labelled a socialist. Even though his workers were much more efficient, and made Ford rich, when Hank gave even a part of that money back to the workers, he was labelled socialist.
  The trick is, Ford new that he needed a work force that was paid well to buy his cars. The payroll that you call an expense is actually the wages that can purchase someone else's product. And then the payroll that goes to those workers can buy someone else's product. All a virtuous cycle. Pardon the car reference, but some times money is like oil in a motor - it only does it's work when it circulates and when it stands still the motor seizes.
  Sadly most CEOs now don't have that foresight. We've been taught so much "make it someone else's problem" and "the only people you think of are the stockholders" that we've lost any vision. We're taught that unions are evil. Though they've seriously lost their way, they had use where they forced wages for everyone above some point so that the cycles can continue, and payrolls are squeezed to where we can't afford anything.
70. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  Oh please.
  For one, you're wrong about stock options - should they choose to exercise options, they'll likely end up paying capital gains (35%) on what they make when they sell. Stock grants are taxed as regular income, so they'll end up paying "their fair share".
  They're paying for roads - roads are paid for in the form of gas taxes. The goods they buy which are transported on roads also pay for these roads.
  They're also paying for courts - court fees are paid by the losing party - and less from our taxes.
  Sales taxes, which are difficult to avoid, particularly for expensive items such as cars, are also being paid by these individuals. One expensive car probably results in more taxes than you pay in total every year.
  All you've shown is how little you understand the tax system and how people pay these taxes. Do you think CEOs will draw as much as they pay into medicare/social security? Hint: most people who have their hard earned money taken from them and placed into the "trust" will only EVER see a fraction of that money generously "given" back to them.
  You have a far more pitiful existence - hating the men above you and pitying the men below. You who have no concept of what is rightfully yours, because in your world no one deserves what they earn and everyone deserves what they don't. What's it like living in fear of everyone else because they might actually deserve what they earn?
71. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  As I recall, there's a lot of American CEOs with a $1/yr salary.
  The Slashdot title states that he gave his bonus away, not his salary. American CEO's would give neither.
72. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  Such is the folly of attempts to tax income rather than spending. Regardless of how they made it or where they stash it, everyone spends money on something eventually. After all, it's much harder to hide your possessions than it is to hide your bank balance and very few billionaires have the willpower or patience to live their lives like ascetic hermits simply to avoid paying taxes on their spending. The Europeans have the right idea with VAT and other consumption taxes as opposed to income.
73. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  ...they also make you employed.
74. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  ...they also make you employed.
  Because employing him will make them more money than they would have had if they didn't employ him. You're welcome, rich guy, now pay your damn taxes.
75. Re:Bloody communists! by dargaud · 2012-07-20 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  In a different category, Tour de France race winners usually give their prize money to their teammates. They make enough in endorsement anyway, and there's no way to win if your team is not _with_ you during the race.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
76. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:42 · Score: 0
  
  1$/yr is a tax dodge
77. Re:Bloody communists! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 18:43 · Score: 2
  
  It's what happens when you outsource jobs to China. This guy has now significantly undercut the value of compensation while raising expectations for all the honest God-fearing American CEOs!
78. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  many state income taxes are at least partially deductible on your federal income taxes
79. Re:Bloody communists! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  In this particular case, it's not really charity, but rather smart management. This guy must be one of the dying breed of smart capitalists who want the factories still be there when it'll be time for their grandkids to take the helm.
  It also looks a lot like it's pre-arranged (the size of the "bonus" is neatly appropriate), but even if so, it just means that the entire executive management of the company groks why employee morale and loyalty is important, and not just this guy alone.
80. Re:Bloody communists! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  If Jesus were alive today, that'd mean that the time for the promised thousand year Kingdom where He rules over the faithful on Earth has come. Since "faithful" can obviously only mean USA, that would make Jesus its president.
81. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  No, the bonuses went into the pool... so that everyone could have free medical, school (including post secondary, even at world class institutions), housing, etc.
82. Re:Bloody communists! by sumdumass · 2012-07-20 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a dodge. The option counts as taxable income in several different ways. There are two basic types of stock options, a statutory option and non statutory stock option.
  A CEO or any executive taking options as part of a pay package falls under a non statutory option and they will have to pay a portion of the option value if the stock value is known whether they exercise the option or not. They will have to pay income tax on the difference between the option value and the stock price minus the already taxed value at the time of exercise. Also the option value, even if the value of the stock is unknown and it was not exercised during the year, can put a tax payer into a rate that forces them to pay the alternative minimum tax.
  What taking a $1 salary does is tie the majority of the pay to the outcome of the job performance and allows the executive to actually make more money then what might have been financially prudent at the time of the contract. Of course that is dependent on the executive's ability to improve the financial situation of the company and therfore the value of the stock. But the premise is that a company near bankruptcy cannot be paying millions to a new CEO, but they can under value stock- give them an option to buy, and when the CEO does his job and purchases the stock, he instantly makes a profit of the difference in value. This might look like $2.00 per stock option because of the current state of the company verses $15.00 per stock value at exercise or end of year which is $13 per stock profit over the number of options which might be 3 or 6% or more of the total stock available or so. Sometimes it's spread over a certain amount of years. GM for instance has 1.6 billion stocks issued and outstanding as of February 2012.
83. Re:Bloody communists! by sumdumass · 2012-07-20 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you know that the value of bonus's paid in stock and the value of stock in excess of the option price is counted as and taxable at regular income when given to just the CEOs. It's called a non statutory stock option and in some cases, the CEO can be charged with a percentage of the value of the options if the total amount of options are worth a certain amount in order to put them into the Alternative Tax Method making them responsible for taxes on income they didn't technically receive.
  Less taxes might end up being paid, but it isn't like it is being played out here on slashdot. It certainly isn't the way you seem to think it is.
84. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 22:04 · Score: 0
  
  it's tax avoidance, which is legal. tax evasion is illegal. and it's "fewer taxes" or "less tax"
85. Re:Bloody communists! by TheLink · 2012-07-20 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  What some rich people do is they don't pay capital gains tax. They borrow money from banks, and use their stock etc as collateral.
  http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/08/2310218/the-zuckerberg-tax
  There's a risk of course - if stuff goes bad and the banks get scared, they may have to sell their stock at a loss to pay the debt back. Maybe there are hedging methods to reduce the risk, but I doubt most of them would bother.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
86. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  [citation needed]
87. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Medicare is 1.45%, SS is 5.2% up to 110k. You doubled the numbers. Also, employer pays unemployment, not employee.
88. Re:Bloody communists! by wrook · 2012-07-21 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah. The main issue is that in many countries capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than salary. And while there are a lot of regulations regarding when an executive can sell options that they hold, I've noticed that there isn't usually a lot of scrutiny about when options are granted. What's astounding to me is that the information is all public, so it's easy for anyone to look at. You'll see options granted after large write offs, or you'll see companies over fill their sales channels (creating a higher than expected profit for a quarter) and then correct it later (creating a lower than expected profit for a quarter) right before they grant options to executives. And nobody calls them on it. It's easy to see if you follow high tech companies regularly (and actually read their reports). Anyway, it makes it relatively easy for companies to pay their executives on the backs of the shareholders while at the same time allowing them to avoid taxes.
89. Re:Bloody communists! by shilly · 2012-07-21 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  What a stupid bloody comment.
  Firstly, in case you hadn't noticed, Europeans have income taxes *as well as* VAT -- just like the US does.
  Secondly, billionaires remain billionaires by *not* spending all their money, or even a tiny fraction of it. Economists call consumption taxes regressive because they hit the poorest hardest. The poorest have to spend the vast bulk of their income (and often have to spend down their wealth) to support their day-to-day needs -- food, clothing, shelter etc. That is the original justification for why some items are zero-rated for VAT.
  Back in your box, where you can curdle up with your copy of Atlas Shrugged and have yourself a little rightwing wankfest. And yes, curdle was a deliberate pun.
90. Re:Bloody communists! by mjwalshe · 2012-07-21 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  No its not its a way of dodging tax that pays for things like medicaid and veterans administration as David Cameron says its “morally wrong.”
91. Re:Bloody communists! by jonadab · 2012-07-21 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  However, in comparison to CEOs of multinational corporations, someone who makes a hundred grand a year is, although not technically lower class as such, close enough as makes no difference.
  
  What the other poster said is an important idea to be aware of, particularly in American politics, because politicians (particularly ones from a certain political party I do not feel it necessary to name) love to increase their popularity and garner votes by publicly supporting higher income tax rates for the excruciatingly rich.
  
  To understand how empty this is, you have to realize that people with that level of wealth will only ever pay income tax on the merest fraction of the money they make. People who make multiple millions of dollars a year can easily afford to drop fifty thousand of it on a clever accountant (who incidentally can manage their financial affairs in ten hours a week and collect similar fees from several other clients), at which point the tax code starts to look like it is made *entirely* out of loopholes.
  
  Using capital gains instead of salary is just the tip of the iceberg. With a little planning, *most* of the money that you spend does not count as income of any kind, salary or otherwise. Maybe it's a deductible business expense. (Want to take your woman to Paris for a week? Quick, schedule a couple of business lunches...) Maybe what looks to the untrained eye like a huge capital gain is legally a capital loss. (The movie studios have turned this particular trick into an art form. Frankly, they should make a movie about it -- it's much more interesting than most of their subject matter.) Maybe you didn't officially make any money personally because it's all held by a trust fund or holding corporation or some other entity that your accountant conjured up out of paperwork and bailing twine. There are dozens of these tricks, and if one of them is inapplicable for any reason the accountant just reaches for another.
  
  Multimillionaires DO NOT PAY income tax at anything resembling the rates you would naively assume by looking at the tax tables. In the top income brackets, the numbers in the tax tables are unmitigated fiction. The illusion is maintained for political reasons, but raising the official tax rates for the very highest income brackets has basically no effect at all on anyone. You could raise the official tax rate for the over-fifty-million income bracket to nine thousand percent, and it wouldn't matter, because nobody would ever officially legally have enough taxable income to be in that bracket, even if they appear to the non-accountants among us to make over a billion dollars a year.
  
  So the next time a politician talks about taxing the very rich, you can just laugh and ignore him. It's utterly meaningless.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
92. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-22 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  I don't care what his intentions may or not be, but the end result of people getting a full month's salary does indeed seem a generous and a positive outcome. Not every charitable act of the rich is a tax dodge. Quit being cynical.
93. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  The trick is, Ford new that he needed a work force that was paid well to buy his cars. The payroll that you call an expense is actually the wages that can purchase someone else's product.
  
  There was more to this story that that, although I have no doubt that it is at least partially true. One was that as the assembly line work Ford pioneered, was incredibly boring compared to other jobs out there at the time, he apparently suffered from incredibly high turnover in factory floor staff. Raising the wages dramatically solved that problem to a great extent as well.
  Source a Teaching Company series of lectures on American History.
94. Re:Bloody communists! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  > Tax dodging assholes? Really? I believe they're simply taking advantage of the current tax law, not avoiding it. I'd do the same thing if I had the means. The assholes are the one who created the law that favors the rich, not the rich themselves, though you could probably argue that the rich had some influence on its passage. But then you're back to the morally bankrupt assholes again who won't do whats best for the country. Viscious cycle...
I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

You don't see that often. Very refreshing and restores a little faith in humanity.
1. Re:I would high-five this guy. by pwizard2 · 2012-07-20 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I wish we had more guys like this running companies in the US instead of the greedy sociopathic bastards we have in abundance.
  
  --
  "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
2. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah, this guy sounds like a pretty good guy. Except, of course, that his bonus is equal to what about 10,000 employees make in a month. Doesn't really make his company seem that great. I'm not saying it's not common, but it a good example of how messed up the system is. Do you really think that guy benefited the company, over what he was already making in a year, more than what 833 people do in a whole year?
3. Re:I would high-five this guy. by thereitis · 2012-07-20 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If he is directly responsible for keeping a company afloat which keeps 10,000 people employed, what is that worth?
4. Re:I would high-five this guy. by DriveDog · 2012-07-20 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And that is exactly the point! CEOs taking 1,000 times more than low-level employees implies that their activities somehow create 1,000 times more profit (or income, or whatever measure you want) than the activities of the lowest-paid and 100 times more than upper-mid-level employees. Or to put it another way, it implies that one individual at, say, $20M/yr is worth more than 10 of the next-best available at $2M/yr. I don't believe it for a minute.
5. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. You don't see this often either! http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/600066_463087100376020_1866026599_n.jpg
6. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying this guy is worth by himself what 833 do in a year.. but, a reality check : would you rather he not give the equivalent of a month of work to all of those workers ? He did out of his own will what MOST ceo wouldn't do. If he's Satan then other CEO are worse than Satan. For someone who earns 14m per year, giving up on 3mil is quite a nice percentage in my opinion. Compared that to billionaire who are known to give a lot, of course billionaires can "give" a lot since they're billionaire but what PERCENTAGE of their earning do they actually give, how much of a sacrifice their act amount to ? That man did something relatively nice in a world of predators. And he did it in China, a place not known for its kindness toward the lower class workers when you look at the conditions people are working under.
  Would Apple give a raise to the factory workers in sweatshops who are making ipads and macbooks ? Hell no.
7. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Consider how many CEO managed to destroy their own companies, I believe it.
8. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's really hard to put a price on the intangible work of CEOs closing huge deals versus the more tangible work of employees finishing cellphones, computers and other physical goods. It's like the science of measuring those things advanced much more on the factory floor than it did on the higher ranks.
  That being said, I couldn't care less if $3m was pennies to this CEO or if the $300 bucks the employees are receiving are too much or not. In the end, it all comes down to the original intention and, not knowing this CEO personally, I will say attribute a good intention to this act. Doing otherwise doesn't help me at all.
9. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's worth infinite. There's absolutely no compensation for a CEO that is unjust. We should be grateful to the Creators (of jobs) and thank them for letting us work for them.
10. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget: it also means they work 1,000 times harder!
11. Re:I would high-five this guy. by dargaud · 2012-07-20 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  It's really hard to put a price on the intangible work of CEOs closing huge deals versus the more tangible work of employees finishing cellphones, computers and other physical goods. It's like the science of measuring those things advanced much more on the factory floor than it did on the higher ranks.
  Maybe because it doesn't ? If a company makes phones, it gets its money by selling those phones. Not by 'closing huge deals', whatever that is. There are countless stories of CEOs spending their time on the golf court or between the legs of their misstresses while the company hums along nicely. I'd bet a foreskin that most CEOs could be replaced by pimply faced MBAs and nothing would change for the involved companies.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
12. Re:I would high-five this guy. by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Except, of course, that his bonus is equal to what about 10,000 employees make in a month.
  Or, more likely, his bonus was arranged to be equal to what about 10k employees make in a month, so that it can be conveniently split to provide for, in effect, a monthly pay bonus. CEOs don't routinely get $30M bonuses in cash or readily sellable shares.
13. Re:I would high-five this guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  Is he really keeping a company afloat or 10000 people do that and produce enough profit to pay the CEO nice compensation package?
An even more generous example by G3ckoG33k · 2012-07-20 08:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

http://www.thelocal.se/41536/20120619/
Family-run firm Nominit in Värnamo, southern Sweden, will be paying out 114 million kronor ($16.3 million) to their current and former employees in a gesture of goodwill. The company was founded in 1937 and is the two founders and owners have no heirs to their fortune. The company, which currently has about 50 employees, manufactures rivets and has a turnover of about 100 million kronor, of which 60 comes from export.
$16,000,000 to 50 workers.
1. Re:An even more generous example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Current + former > current.
  So, it's more than 50. Still, I wouldn't mind being an employee there.
2. Re:An even more generous example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  From the article:
  "The beneficiaries will get between one and two million kronor, depending on how long they have worked for the firm, according to the company. The money will be paid out as a salary and pension in three instalments."
  Which works out to be between $164,517.00 and $329,386.00 at current exchange rates, so pretty freaking incrediable.
3. Re:An even more generous example by geoffaus · 2012-07-20 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  similar happened in australia http://www.smh.com.au/business/generous-boss-gives-staff-a-15-million-bonus-20120201-1qry7.html
  
  --
  As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
4. Re:An even more generous example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  $16,000,000 to 50 workers.
  Uhm, no, not to 50 workers. Former employees were also included.
Well, good for him by ClickOnThis · 2012-07-20 08:17 · Score: 2

Nice to see a "servant-leader" taking a step like this.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1. Re:Well, good for him by MozeeToby · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Keep in mind, his total earnings for the year were $14 million. At a company where, according to the summary, $300 is an average month's salary. Not to take away from what he did, giving up $3,000,000 is still an amazing thing to do, but it's gotta be easier when you bring in $14 million a year than it is otherwise.
2. Re:Well, good for him by ClickOnThis · 2012-07-20 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind, his total earnings for the year were $14 million. At a company where, according to the summary, $300 is an average month's salary. Not to take away from what he did, giving up $3,000,000 is still an amazing thing to do, but it's gotta be easier when you bring in $14 million a year than it is otherwise.
  Point taken. Like I said, it's a step.
  As other posters have said, a raise for all of the employees would be even better. And it sure sounds like the company brass could afford it.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Holy Crap! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-07-20 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

That guy just earned himself some serious loyalty from the peons. Nothing says "I couldn't have done this without you" like sending a serious bonus down to everybody. The execs won't care, as that won't cover a day of their salary, but the people at the bottom of the ladder will appreciate it. Interesting that that came from a Chinese owner. I'd be curious to see what American CEOs think of that, and what their response would be to the question "Would you ever give you entire yearly bonus to your employees, and why?"

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
1. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be curious to see what American CEOs think of that
  "Fu'em... this guy is making us look bad!"
2. Re:Holy Crap! by SJHillman · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  This wasn't his entire bonus, just a boost to his bonus for having Lenovo's best fiscal year yet. Still a good deed.
  "Yang had earned $5.2 million in bonuses for the fiscal year ending in March. His total earnings, including salary, incentives and other benefits, amounted to $14 million, according to the company's annual report."
3. Re:Holy Crap! by Idbar · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, some CEOs may be just thinking what they would have done with those 3 million instead of sharing them with anyone else.
  
  Now, bankers on the other hand are probably thinking "meh... pocket change".
4. Re:Holy Crap! by hesaigo999ca · 2012-07-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that depends on their current salary, and the size of the bonus...I can give my 150$ bonus to all the employees under me and it wont mean bubkus...
  I could also have employees that on average make 75,000 and up per year, and consider that an insult (being they only got THAT bonus...not to be added to the already existing bonus from their company)....300$ is not worth a reply or extra karma points from them, while a months pay to a chinese employee...is a lot!!!
  context
5. Re:Holy Crap! by NeutronCowboy · 2012-07-20 08:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I agree that context is important when considering the impact. However, I have to say that if my manager or my CEO distributed their bonus out to all the people underneath them, my respect for them would go up tremendously - even if it would amount to only an extra beer at pub night for me. The important part is that they were willing to forego something that their contract said they were entitled to, and instead chose it to say thank you to their employees in a very direct manner.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
6. Re:Holy Crap! by Mike+Buddha · 2012-07-20 10:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  At my work, in 2008 we were still profitable, but the downturn was coming and we all knew it. The senior execs all forewent their own bonuses, but they distributed bonuses to all the lower level folks. I tell you that single act bought them a ton of loyalty from myself. We finally got back to profitability last year and the bonuses came back for everyone this year.
  
  --
  by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
7. Re:Holy Crap! by Wolfrider · 2012-07-20 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  --Absolutely. If I get around to buying a laptop $soon, I will remember this and look closely at Lenovo.
  
  --
  .
  == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
8. Re:Holy Crap! by war4peace · 2012-07-20 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Amen, brother. It's not that 50 cents that I get, but the gesture itself that would rise the guy on a long-lasting mental pedestal.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
9. Re:Holy Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  FUCKING YEAH.
10. Re:Holy Crap! by cheesybagel · 2012-07-20 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be done. Kind of. First time AMD had a profit the CEO distributed it as checks which he personally delivered to every single employee in the company. The investors hated him as a CEO because they would have preferred a dividend instead. Heh.
11. Re:Holy Crap! by hesaigo999ca · 2012-07-23 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with that...it would have been nice in reverse too though where when the economic crisis hit, and all those ceos partly to blame still got their bonuses, nothing actually said they could not refrain from accepting to show their compassion for what was happening to all those people and companies and banks
a real human being by Nolas · 2012-07-20 08:19 · Score: 2

Wow i thought all the CEO's of today's world were all psychopathic assholes. It's really cool to see there is at lest 1 CEO left on this planet that is an actual living, human being with a real beating heart.
Four horses... by gatfirls · 2012-07-20 08:20 · Score: 2

... with some bearded dudes riding them just rode by me, makes sense now.
1. Re:Four horses... by LordNimon · 2012-07-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  That was just the two guys from ZZ Top and their stunt doubles.
  
  --
  And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
  To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Something similar where I grew up... by The+Good+Reverend · 2012-07-20 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Kingston technology (memory manufacturer) split $100 million between 500+ employees. They also gave scholarships to all the local schools (mine included) - http://articles.latimes.com/1996-12-15/news/mn-9424_1_million-bonus-employee
1. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa I'm biased towards buying Kingston memory now.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by Amouth · 2012-07-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Do note that was 16 years ago when Kingston was the top of the top.. I have a feeling a lot has changed.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
3. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by war4peace · 2012-07-20 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  ...and that happened 18 years ago. Once.
  Not saying it wasn't nice, simply... those were the times.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
4. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  Math fail, 16 years ago.
5. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by war4peace · 2012-07-21 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  You just wait two years :) But yeah, my bad, somehow I read 1994.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
6. Re:Something similar where I grew up... by ToddInSF · 2012-07-21 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, a lot HAS changed... Businesses followed the lead, sold out and cashed in to overseas companies, and sat back and watched the jobs and industries go bye-bye.
  
  The "American Dream" of a huge windfall, of taking out WAY more than you put in, THAT is what America is all about. Well that, and dressing it up as some sort of fucking great achievement.
That's great and all, but... by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-07-20 08:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

$300 per employee, which is about a month's worth of salary.
If you're only paying your employees a measly $300 a month, how about a raise instead?

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
1. Re:That's great and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  I think the cost of living is lower in China.
2. Re:That's great and all, but... by DeathFromSomewhere · 2012-07-20 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  These are Chinese factory workers we are talking about here. $300/month is a shit ton of money for them.
  
  --
  -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
3. Re:That's great and all, but... by tmosley · 2012-07-20 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Those will come. A bonus is a half measure when you can't afford to commit to higher wages yet.
  
  Of course, the Chinese government could end their dollar peg and allow the value of those wages to rise, giving everyone in their country a de facto raise.
4. Re:That's great and all, but... by spidercoz · 2012-07-20 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's China, that's probably the equivalent of $3000 in the US.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
5. Re:That's great and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  If you do that then manufactorers will come back to the US and take the jobs away with them.
  Labor costs are a tiny fraction of total costs or a product. Shipping and ineffeciencies in your supply chain from being so far away from your US customers hurts. Many companies are coming back to the US as when oil hit $100 a barrel there were no cost benefits anymore to going to China.
  Eventually in 10 years manufactoring will start coming back when gas hits $5,00 a gallon and when Americans who will be even poorer than today will be happy to work for 7/hr an hour again.
6. Re:That's great and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 19:00 · Score: 0
  
  You can certainly commit to higher wages when your CEO gets a paycheck of $14 million every year.
7. Re:That's great and all, but... by tmosley · 2012-07-22 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Having one good year does not mean that the following year will be good. I don't know if you noticed, but there is a worldwide depression on.
8. Re:That's great and all, but... by tmosley · 2012-07-22 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  That would be nice, but there are other factors at play, like the $1.75 trillion we spend on regulation each year, which is 10X more than we take in in corporate taxes. Just imagine the compliance costs...
GG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:20 · Score: 0

Maxi respect! Kudos.
Wow! That is almost ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-07-20 08:21 · Score: 0

... the largesse amounts to about $1 per day per worker.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Wow! That is almost ... by HarrySquatter · 2012-07-20 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  So there are 300 days in a month now?
2. Re:Wow! That is almost ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  likely 2 or 3 months mortgage payments in china where the workers who received the bonus were.
3. Re:Wow! That is almost ... by genkernel · 2012-07-20 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  The bonus is for the fiscal year, so it makes sense to count the bonus towards yearly wages, doesn't it? I seem to recall a (working) year being in that ballpark number of days.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
A good example by Teun · 2012-07-20 08:21 · Score: 1

A good example of how big these fat cat bonuses are, for most workers a month's salary is significant.
And it's a good example to his fellow CEO's but I'm not holding my breath waiting for the next to share his bonus.
Send from a much appreciated Thinkpad :)

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
1. Re:A good example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You could see it as being 10,000 months of pay, for a single worker. That is 833 years. The $3M is just the CEO's bonus for one year.
2. Re:A good example by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-07-20 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  You could see it as being 10,000 months of pay, for a single worker. That is 833 years. The $3M is just the CEO's bonus for one year.
  Take one of those factory floor workers and make them CEO for a year. Can the company still have a record-setting year for revenues? Would make interesting television but I'm pretty sure I could predict the Vegas odds.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
3. Re:A good example by Teun · 2012-07-20 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Take that CEO and let him work for his regular annual pay but without bonus and see what becomes of the company.
  I'm convinced he would compared to the regular workers still be able to live a life of luxury.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
4. Re:A good example by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-20 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I would suggest you compare the CEO wages in the U.S. with CEO wages in the east, Japan especially.
  IIRC, the average is that CEO wage is 24x the wage of your lower worker. In the U.S. it is in the hundreds of times.
  The difference in the east and the U.S.: the CEO is considered important but not necessarily above the other workers. In the U.S. they are in an ivory tower. That's a problem and that's what so much of us have a problem with.
5. Re:A good example by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-07-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Take that CEO and let him work for his regular annual pay but without bonus and see what becomes of the company.
  I'm convinced he would compared to the regular workers still be able to live a life of luxury.
  Of course he would still live better than the factory floor worker, his annual salary is about $1M. I'm not seeing your point.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
6. Re:A good example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Take the one CEO and make him do the work of all the factory floor workers for a year. Can the company still have a record-setting year for revenues? Would make interesting television but I'm pretty sure I could predict the Vegas odds.
7. Re:A good example by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-07-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty simple. He's saying that since he doesn't make lots of money, eat the rich.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
8. Re:A good example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  I would suggest you compare the CEO wages in the U.S. with CEO wages in the east, Japan especially.
  IIRC, the average is that CEO wage is 24x the wage of your lower worker. In the U.S. it is in the hundreds of times.
  Just don't include China, in the east, though, because this CEO earns almost 3900 times more than the wage of his company's lower worker.
9. Re:A good example by Teun · 2012-07-20 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am saying you don't need to replace the CEO by a menial worker (and his pay) to make a better life possible for the rank and file.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
10. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-20 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about who is considered what, it's about productivity, which is directly tied to the USD reserve currency status, while USD was defaulted upon in 1971. Since 1971, the inflation hit hard, the savings started leaving and moving elsewhere (thus it's Chinese and not US CEOs), and the productivity of workers is falling, because productivity is a function of savings being used as investments to acquire/build more and better tools. Tools make a worker more productive, the more tools there are and the better they are, the less a worker needs to do to achieve the same result (with higher quality and less waste too).
  So the difference between the pay is not about 'high ivory tower', it's about the fact that there is no competition in USA, no competition in manufacturing, no competition in production, no competition in business, because of all the gov't destruction of capital, rules, regulations, taxations, inflation.
  In this situation the US companies don't have to compete with gov't bonds for interest rates, so nobody is trading stocks to get dividends, which means that the payment isn't going to the stockholder, who simply gamble with the stocks (and they are in the stock market because of theft of inflation too), but the earnings aren't paid through dividends, thus they CAN be paid to high management, and because there is no competition due to gov't regulations, destruction of capital and taxes, there is no free market to put a lid on this type of spending.
  A company that pays too much money to its CEOs and such, is a company that isn't using that money to reinvest in productivity, and it's only possible because there is no free market.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
11. Re:A good example by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  From the article, Yang Yuanqing's total earnings the last fiscal year were $14 million
  14000000/3600=3888.9
  Wow! Only about 4000 times as much!
  
  Yang had earned $5.2 million in bonuses for the fiscal year ending in March
  He did not even give his entire bonus away!
12. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-20 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  Put one of them in charge of HP, RIM, or Nokia for a year, would it be any worse?
  Consider, every year these CEOs make enough for 10 families to retire on.
13. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-20 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, productivity has increased steadily for the last 50 years. It's income that has faltered.
14. Re:A good example by riverat1 · 2012-07-20 14:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly right and it all started when Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 74% (I think) to 28%. High marginal tax rates encourage high earners to put the money back into the business including pay raises. Higher pay for people with normal incomes means more money to be spent in the consumer economy.
15. Re:A good example by cheesybagel · 2012-07-20 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  The former CEO of Micron used to be a factory floor worker. The fact is most CEOs are dumber than you would think and none are worth bonuses like that.
16. Re:A good example by zippthorne · 2012-07-20 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  In a company with 10,000 workers, I'd wager that one of them could do a reasonable or better job than the CEO. We're in a CEO bubble right now and their prices are being artificially inflated by market distortions limiting the size of the pool to a subset of those who are capable of the job.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
17. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-20 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  In China productivity has increased steadily for over 30 years, yes, in USA productivity has fallen steadily for the last 40 years.
  Productivity is the function of capital being applied to the labour force, and in USA the capital has been dwindling on the edge of extinction, capital has been moving to China.
  Capital is not your fake dollars, capital is the tools and machinery, all the instruments and automation in the factories, capital is what makes a worker productive. Your gov't numbers on productivity are simply ridiculous, productivity decreases as savings and capital investments fall, not the other way around.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
18. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-20 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's about the biggest brightest citation needed I have ever seen, complete with airraid siren and strobe lights! A quick scan of Google results on U.S. productivity shows not one single example contradicting my assertion that productivity has risen steadily for the last 50 yuears.
  Not one. Not from anyone. All were measured in inflation adjusted dollars. You must be talking about something that is not actually productivity.
19. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-20 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, and by your gov't statistics there is no inflation either and by your gov't statistics GDP means something and by your gov't statistics taxes are lowest as percentage of GDP (which is funny in itself, before 1913 there were no income taxes).
  GDP is fake, half of it is spending on consumer goods made abroad (54Billion USD/month trade deficit), the rest is split between gov't, its contractors, war, the inflated finance sector. Less than 5% of US economy is manufacturing, it's ridiculous.
  Productivity? You don't know what the word means, neither do people who give you your fake numbers. Tell me, is Detroit more productive than ever today, that it has no factories left?
  Over 46 million people in USA are on food stamps, or SNAP, as they advertise, tell me, with 15% of your population being unemployed while jobs are constantly leaving, are these people that productive, that they can be given free food and whatever else they get from taxing others (either via tax rates or via borrowing, so future taxes + interest or via inflation)?
  Tell me, all those people with all those university degrees that work as Walmart greeters or waiters or toilet cleaners, are they so productive?
  You'd think that with all that education, so an investments supposedly spent on them, they'd be doing better, no?
  Productivity is a measure of productive OUTPUT. Productivity is ability to have 1 person do work of 10 people or of 1000 people or more.
  A person with an excavator is much more productive than a person with a shovel or a stick.
  A person with a factory is much more productive than a person on food stamps.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
20. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-20 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  I see, you're using a made up statistic. The answer is simple. If 100 people are digging a ditch with shovels and then the next day one guy with a backhoe takes over and goes twice as fast, productivity doubles even though there are now 99 people out of work. Alas, he will only make about twice as much as he did when shoveling. The remaining payroll goes directly into executive bonuses.
21. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-20 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, boy, the person on an excavator either owns it, so it's his business, and there are plenty of people whose business involves owning complex tools, or the person on the excavator is hired in the market that sets the price for his skill. The price depend on the ratio between supply and demand, that's all.
  If it takes a few months or maybe a year to learn how to operate an excavator properly, then there will be enough people learning this skill. This is a skill and they can apply it either by buying, renting an excavator or finding an employer who owns an excavator.
  The worker becomes more productive, but the POINT of being more productive is NOT to give the worker the salary of ALL the workers who no longer have to do that job! That's NOT what the market wants.
  The point is to ensure that the rest of the people can be freed to do other jobs, to satisfy other human demands, and maybe some of them have to figure out what the human demands are on their own.
  But your argument that the excavator doesn't make the worker more productive than 1000 people with shovels, because he is not getting the same salary as 1000 people, that he gets paid only what the market sets.... well then, what's there to argue about? You don't know what's what.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
22. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-21 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really care what the market wants. It is not a living being worthy of compassion. I do care what human beings want. Humans are living beings worthy of compassion.
  So if you want to shed your blood before an idol, go ahead but don't expect me to join in.
23. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-21 08:18 · Score: 2
  
  I don't really care what the market wants. It is not a living being worthy of compassion.
  - and that's where you are completely wrong, just totally, fully, utterly, irredeemably wrong.
  Market is people. What market wants is what people want, not some people, not some politicians, not some group of people, the entire collection of people. Market economy will always end up beating you over the head, no matter what type of command economy you are trying to set up.
  USSR has been beaten over the head, China was in the same boat, all countries that tried printing money out of their trouble and that ended in inflation that drove their productivity to 0 and did the same with their purchasing power.
  Market wants everybody to exchange something of value, command type economy wants to take from people who produce, raise prices and at the same time give to people who don't produce, whoever they are, be it a military industrial complex and/or the voting block of the poorer population, etc.
  Market will always win at the end, the way to have a good economy is not to fight the market, but to let it work. The way to screw up your economy is to pretend you are smarter and more powerful than the collective desire of all people.
  Good luck with that notion.
  (and by the way, you are still under the completely nonsensical impression that increased productivity must lead to increased wages, this is nonsense. Increased productivity leads to increased purchasing power, which can be either presented as higher wages OR as lower consumer prices or a combination of the two. Instead the gov't creates inflation - printing fake currency, which creates fake demand for consumer goods, so drives prices up eventually, and at the same time it destroys productivity by driving away and destroying savings and thus the investment capital)
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
24. Re:A good example by sjames · 2012-07-21 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  No, the market is an emergant phenomenon resulting from the actions of some people. (for example, NOT the 99 who ended up out of work, they can't buy anything).
  That's not to say the market has no place, it is a fine regulatory mechanism when it s properly managed. Like a hammer, you can use it to build great things or you can smash your thumb.
  The USSR's and China's mistake was in trying to completely replace the market rather than guiding it to appropriate outcomes.
  The market is not sentient. If allowed to run wild, it will go off a cliff eventually. The best example of a totally free market we have is Somalia. The best example of a tightly regulated market we have is Finland.If I must choose one to call home, It wouldn't be a hard choice.
  I am under the impression that if increased productivity doesn't lead to more actual buying power, particularly for necessities, eventually the whold thing collapses in a very un-productive bloody revolution. Even whenm you count cheap stuff from China and cheap clothes from many places, buying power in the U.S. has nowhere near tracked productivity gains. That value didn't just go poof, it went into the pockets of the 1%. (you know, the ones who now own over half of everything). Societies generally prosper when wealth is more evenly (MORE evenly, not perfectly evenly) distributed.
  Good wealth distribution is more likely if the market is guided towards higher wages rather than through direct re-distribution by government, but either leads to a better result than we have now.
25. Re:A good example by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-07-21 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  In a company with 10,000 workers, I'd wager that one of them could do a reasonable or better job than the CEO. We're in a CEO bubble right now and their prices are being artificially inflated by market distortions limiting the size of the pool to a subset of those who are capable of the job.
  Which one and how would you know that?
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
26. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-21 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, the market is an emergant phenomenon resulting from the actions of some people. (for example, NOT the 99 who ended up out of work, they can't buy anything).
  - false.
  Market is all people, so the 99 who lost their jobs are people who voted for something, they have given power to gov't to fight the market.
  Thus you still cannot understand simple words that you probably read, you just don't get it.
  Here are those words:
  
  Market will always win at the end, the way to have a good economy is not to fight the market, but to let it work. The way to screw up your economy is to pretend you are smarter and more powerful than the collective desire of all people.
  You see, those 99 people voted for the system that promises to use violence of gov't to fight the market.
  And thus these 99 people have been beaten over the head. Too bad for them, they made the wrong choice of going for the hope of the short term benefit of supporting the politicians who offering to them to use the violence to take from some and to give to others.
  You don't understand the concept of this at all, you think the 99 people had nothing to do with the fact that they lost jobs. The 99 people have the power to tell the government to use force, that's all that the market sees: force is being used to steal, and the market always fights those types of forces.
  Stealing comes in many forms, it is taxes, it is regulations, it is borrowing to tax in the future, it is printing money - inflation.
  Market (all people, not just those 99, but the rest of the entire world) says: you can't prevent productivity and efficiency, you can't steal people's productivity to give something for free to anybody.
  Market (all people) says: we want an exchange of produced good, you are using force to prevent that.
  You are using force to steal, and market says: I am going to relocate the actual savings and investment capital, which means I am going to relocate productivity, jobs, real production somewhere, where there is less pressure to steal this way.
  That's all that happens.
  Those 99 who lost their jobs - they were UNPRODUCTIVE.
  You were arguing that in USA people are productive, then you are throwing this number: 99 people are fired.
  Productive people do not get fired, not in a way that prevents them from becoming employed very quickly again. What you have is a DEPRESSION, what you have is complete imbalance in the market, it's an artificial imbalance, it's created by the overweight, huge, all powerful, very violent government, and the 99 people are the reason for that government's existence.
  Every time the 99 vote for a politician who says: more regulation, higher artificial wages, more inflation, more laws, higher taxes on some, so that others can be subsidised, welfare, wars..... every time those people are complicit.
  They are responsible. They are NOT the victims, they are the perpetrators. They have gotten what they wanted.
  Their parents and grandparents did the same thing, when they voted for the people like Theodore Roosevelt, Hoover, FDR (well, FDR lied, he campaigned on the promise of getting gov't out of business, he promised austerity, then he got voted in and continued the inflating and spending policies of Hoover, but he couldn't have done it without people's support anyway).
  Every time a person voted for SS, Medicare, Medicaid and higher taxes 'on the rich', that means the person voted for BIGGER GOVERNMENT.
  Bigger gov't includes every department created in the last 100 years. From IRS and the Fed (supposedly private entity, which it is not), to FDA, EPA, FDIC, FHA, HUD, dep't of education, interior, commerce, to SS, to Medicare, to minimum wage and other labour laws, to these supposed 'civil rights', which are not rights, but entitlements for some and obligations for the others. That's big gov't. That's spending of the savings and investment that the market says IT DOES NOT WANT.
  The market doesn't want any of these things to exist, the market is not just those 99, the market is 7 billion.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
27. Re:A good example by roman_mir · 2012-07-21 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Also, my mis-educated non-friend, Somalia was a war torn country, fighting against the British occupation first, and then, after about 2 decades of 'communism' fight against that nightmare.
  Somalia is a country that fought to get some freedom, it had no freedoms at all. Somalia is a poor country, but today it has more freedom than it had under Communism and clearly it's not less productive today than it was under Communism.
  Somalia in fact is a tribal country, part of it has some form of 'central' gov't, and a large part of it is divided between different clans, similar to Swiss cantons. 20 years ago it was in a civil war, today it is the country with high growth, in fact Somalia has strong currency, because nobody is printing it.
  Somalia probably was one of the first countries in the world to implement bank transactions over SMS.
  As to Finland - I would never want to live in Finland, but again, that's where we differ, I run my business, I don't need anybody to tell me how I should do it, my clients can tell me what they want, governments can go fuck themselves.
  --
  And again: USA has no productivity, USA population cannot buy Chinese goods without 54 Billion USD per month LOANS because it has no productivity.
  Having productivity implies that you can have an EQUITABLE EXCHANGE OF GOODS IN THE MARKET.
  USA has no productivity, where is this productivity? USA cannot buy Chinese goods without printing and borrowing! Productivity is IN CHINA.
  Productivity is NOT in USA.
  USA LIVES ON CHINESE CHARITY. Once that charity is over, it's going to be a huge crash in US, because where are you going to get the stuff? You can print the dollars, but what good are dollars if you can't buy anything with them?
  USA is going to be a net energy and raw material exporter, USA is going to be a huge garage sale operation, selling your used items to China to buy food.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
28. Re:A good example by zippthorne · 2012-07-24 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the obvious way would be to try them all out and see, but you couldn't really tell much by having a different person run the company every day for the next thirty years.
  I'd expect that you'd have to do do research on both sides of the equation. One - how to find suitable candidates from within the population, and two - to determine the skills that need to be taught to anyone who has the aptitude to run a company well, but lacks the education to actually do it, and develop a training regime.
  Then you try out your training regime on the candidates, hopefully with some kind of evaluation process to winnow the field down to likely candidates, until there are few enough that you can try them out on a division or time period and see how they actually do.
  And keep in mind, that in this survivor style contest to race to the most likely candidates within the company who could run it, you're necessarily going to be passing by people who seem less likely based on your evaluations, but who might actually be quite capable of running the company.
  There will never be enough companies out there to try out everyone to see who could possibly run a company.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
And the bad news is... by stanlyb · 2012-07-20 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am on crossroad, from one hand we have:
1.CEO receiving $3mln bonus, not salary but bonus. On another hand we have:
2.Regular Joe's medium monthly salary of "$300"....
---------------
So i wonder which one is worst, a company with so low medium salary, or a company with so much big CEO salary....
PLEASE, help me decide...
1. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, engineers who make more than 40K a year are greedy IMO.
2. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  In China, $300 for unskilled factory work is quite a bit of money. It is not uncommon to make around $200-250. In fact, I think one of the reasons that they are starting to pay more and more is to try and keep loyalty high and reduce knockoffs and corporate espionage at the factory level.
3. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  I really doubt the $300 figure is a right average sallary. Statistical info says avg. sallary in China in 2012 about $800. Then again, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. For example sallary statistics for Bosnia & Herzegovina put avg. net sallary at 420 Eur but from first-hand experience I know it's really in the 250-300 Eur range pushed largely by the overpayed public administration. So assuming equal statistical skew done for government purposes (avg. sallary based taxation and avg. salary based paychecks in government jobs), we amount to $600 realistically. That's still double compared to the figure in the article. Still half months sallary for average Joe (and more than half for, say, the cleaning lady) coming from your boss is a nice bonus and a good move.
4. Re:And the bad news is... by Billly+Gates · 2012-07-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  CEOs only make like $200k -$600k (excluding bankers and other financial institutions). Sure that is a lot to one of us but is paltry if their ideas and talent brought billions for their company!
  This CEO realizes his people had a large part and even 3 million which is a TON of money is paltry overall to the revenue generated. This CEO had guts to do that as I would be very tempted myself for that 3 million knowning I could retire if they fired me tomorrow and I was just getting 200k while nice is not richness or a full retirement. If they fire the guy that is it! With WIndows 8 and a global recession brewing that risk is quite real and Lennovo might be punished by the shareholders in the next 6 months. No bonus for him that is for sure even if METRO and the economy are not his fault.
  So bravo
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
5. Re:And the bad news is... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...and have nothing to do with the company's overall success, right?
  That is what infuriates me about current corporate thought.
6. Re:And the bad news is... by Billly+Gates · 2012-07-20 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I really doubt the $300 figure is a right average sallary. Statistical info says avg. sallary in China in 2012 about $800. Then again, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. For example sallary statistics for Bosnia & Herzegovina put avg. net sallary at 420 Eur but from first-hand experience I know it's really in the 250-300 Eur range pushed largely by the overpayed public administration. So assuming equal statistical skew done for government purposes (avg. sallary based taxation and avg. salary based paychecks in government jobs), we amount to $600 realistically. That's still double compared to the figure in the article. Still half months sallary for average Joe (and more than half for, say, the cleaning lady) coming from your boss is a nice bonus and a good move.
  First is outlinners. If you count the billionaires and the corrupt government officials making a lot of money that will change the average even if that only is 1% of the population. Also do they count those who work or those who do not work like elderly and children? This changes your denominator too.
  For factory work I heard it is about $1.20 an hour which is $14.40 a day for a 12 hour shift not counting taxes. That is $86.40 a week for a standard 6 day workweek which then totals $345.60 a month. Hmm that sounds about right to me.
  Foxconn pays only $.30 an hour! Apple is very cheap and greedy and I bet you it has high turnover though it is increasing its salary to $.45 an hour. This would be something horrible like $150 a month!
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
7. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  This CEO's salary is $14 million. His monthly wage is ~3888 times the average monthly wage of the workers he is giving his bonus to. His retirement is very secure. Still, good on him
8. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  You're stuck because you're over-simplifying. There are many perspectives of an event that are no less factual or "true".
  For example, that 3 million dollar guy is worth so much because he provides jobs for so many Joes.
  Dunno about you, but I've been in business for myself a few times, often for pretty low wages because you do what you have to get by. In any of those jobs I easily spent more than my month's personal takehome to have that job for the rest of the year. Your working wages always are only a fraction of the value you generate for the company that can afford to employ you. It's the normal trade.
9. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  So what you are saying is, if I was to come into your life and do something that puts $1000 directly into your hands, I wouldn't even be worth $3 to you for it?
10. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't lowball the estimates of Lenovo's employees' salaries based on a general statistic of median income, especially since it doesn't specify whether it is the company, national, or local median. One of the Lenovo co-headquarters is in Beijing, and the cost of living in the city is pretty extraordinary. And while some of the employees may not be on salary, at such a large company there are many who are and are very well compensated. For instance, you wouldn't expect that someone who makes the median wage could afford to live near the center of the city any more than you'd expect that a Starbucks manager could afford to live in NYC's Upper West Side, but you wouldn't be surprised to find out they lived in Brooklyn or Harlem and commuted; the cost of living is comparatively reasonable there, but still a far cry from rural New York state's. However, even in Beijing 2,000 RMB is a generous gift, and to the lowest wage earners who live outside of the city, it could potentially cover a month's rent for a small apartment, half a year of utilities, almost a year's worth of internet and cell phone bills at the basic rates, or purchase a low end laptop. Although this didn't go entirely to low wage earners, of the 10,000 people employed at the Beijing branch who received this, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume at least half were. Basically, I don't think you have enough information to formulate an opinion that would be accurate or relevant enough to warrant an Insightful tag, much less a +5, but this is the new /., so I'm not surprised.
11. Re:And the bad news is... by JimCanuck · 2012-07-20 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Monthly minimum wages in the two provinces where Lenovo has factories are $127.11 USD and $135.05 for factory workers living in one of the provinces cities (where the factories are located).
  
  Also note, the minimum amount the Chinese Central government is allowing all regions to increase their minimum wage is 13% per year, up to 2015. However the average minimum wage increases the last few years between the provinces is about 20%.
  
  When was the last time Western Minimum wages went up by that amount for one year, let alone repeating it each and every year?
12. Re:And the bad news is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  First is outlinners. If you count the billionaires and the corrupt government officials making a lot of money that will change the average even if that only is 1% of the population. Also do they count those who work or those who do not work like elderly and children? This changes your denominator too.
  Averages for things like salary are usually reported as medians for that reason. I had assumed that by "average" we were talking about median, although now that you mention it, that may have been a poor assumption on my part.
13. Re:And the bad news is... by stanlyb · 2012-07-21 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I do prefer 13% increase over $200k, than 20% increase over $10k. Tell me stupid, but this is who i am.
  I could be even less greedy: like i do prefer 1% increase over $10mln, than 20% increase over $10k.....
14. Re:And the bad news is... by stanlyb · 2012-07-21 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, i do have enough information, more than you apparently. I do have experience in many EU countries, rich and poor, and in some SA countries, and once i had the chance to be even in Nigeria, and believe me, you don't wanna to be there, even as a tourist. Except if you have a small army with you. With machine guns. And tank. And i am not joking about the tank.
15. Re:And the bad news is... by stanlyb · 2012-07-21 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you. Because we all know that all the benefits that this company makes thanks to all these Joe's are given to the ones who made it happen. The regular Jo, right?
16. Re:And the bad news is... by poity · 2012-07-21 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's average. It's survivable, and usually what entry level workers are paid in the cities, but not "quite a bit of money." You definitely won't be owning anything bigger than a TV on this salary. That the CEO of a non-foreign company gets a foreign-level salary should be the real issue here. 14 million yuan would be just compensation relative to the 25000 yuan earned by factory workers, but 14 million DOLLARS is about 100 million yuan. If we assume that the average US worker is paid 35000 a year, then a comparable American CEO would have to make $140 million a year. Only one CEO in the US made close to that amount last year, and it was due to a one time bonus. http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/highest-paid-ceos/#photo-10
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I am begening to like Lenovo by Billly+Gates · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 1

Dell and HP practically have a monopoly in the corporate market. Lenovo still says laptops to some executives.
I wonder if they have any of the same enterprise agreements for servers, desktops, and everything else? Maybe my employer could switch to them? Regardless they are making an improvement in this market as Asus and Samsung are not as corporate friendly with integration all from one vendor yet.

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:I am begening to like Lenovo by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  Dell and HP practically have a monopoly in the corporate market. Lenovo still says laptops to some executives.
  Around Microsoft, most corporate laptops seem to be Lenovos, at least on the low-to-middle management tiers (and of course developers).
Henry Ford by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 0

This is like Henyr Ford's $5/day (a very generous pay package at the time). Ford's idea was that if the workers could afford the cars, the company would to better. In many ways China is living in the late 19th and early 20th century. I keep waiting for them to set a river on fire. In the mean time, we can learn (or re-learn) some things from them.
All of his bonus vs. part of his bonus by UberEcks · 2012-07-20 08:32 · Score: 2

Not belittling what he did by any means but "Gives his $3M" is different from "Gives $3M from his bonus" is different.
Crazy American Politicians by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:37 · Score: 0

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/06/scott-walker/gop-governor-candidate-scott-walker-says-he-has-gi/
Somebody forgot greed! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:43 · Score: 1

They forgot the most important part of their CEO training (greed) and remembered who also played a big role in the success of the company: the workers.
Astonishing. What kind of second-rate business school did this guy drop out of? :-)
[Googling]
OMG. He got his undergraduate degree in computer science, a masters degree, and he worked his way up through the ranks of the company that eventually became Lenovo as a salesman. What the hell is he doing running a major computer hardware company? Does he even have an MBA? I bet he doesn't even know how to fiddle with a company balance sheet to make it look good even if it isn't. :-)
Not unique to Lenovo... by MaWeiTao · 2012-07-20 08:52 · Score: 1

I've seen a number of posts talking about how American CEOs would never do such a thing. I'd really like to know where this sort of self-deprecating delusion originates. Common sense alone would dictate that this has had to have happened more than once in US. Searching on Google brings up a wall of spam, linking to the same Lenovo story. But look elsewhere and you'll see plenty of stories of CEOs paying out very generous benefits to all employees, or forgoing on payment of any kind during tough times.
And while this guy was very generous, many, if not most, Chinese executives pay their employees crap. In fact, a lot of Chinese workers, when they have a choice, find employment at foreign-owned companies because they know they're going to earn better pay under less demanding conditions. Surveys have shown that even those in more professional fields prefer working for foreign organizations. Chinese companies are generally known for being quite oppressive, but when people are desperate for a job they'll take anything. In my experience Lenovo thing is a fluke and the company probably has something to gain from it.
1. Re:Not unique to Lenovo... by Billly+Gates · 2012-07-20 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Oh please. IF you only got paid $200k a year and could get fired very easily with a high turnover wouldn't you be tempted to just keep the 3 Million?
  What is to say that Windows 8 will bomb and that the global recession wont get this CEO canned in the next 6 months now with 3 million less? American CEOs have reward incentive programs but nothing like 1 months salary unless you really really did something no one else did and it is just one employee. Most companies like Dell and Microsoft constantly fire the bottom 15% and your reward is you keep your job and NOT GET fired. That is how American business works typically.
  Lenovo will change this as the news of this will attract the top talent who has years of experience and the foreman can be more picky who they let on board and the whole asian culture of loyality to your company will be very strong to discourge IP theft. It is not what Lennevo did, but rather how HP and Dell fucked up. They made ultrabooks and better business oriented system than their competitors.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
In theory... it *is* a bit like *communism* by F69631 · 2012-07-20 08:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Many Americans don't seem to know (or perhaps care about) distinctions between communism (the form of utopia which countries like the Soviet Union supposedly wanted to achieve) and socialism (the system they intended to use in the transitional phase). Oversimplifying a bit... Communism is supposed to be a state where there is such an abundance of resources that everyone can get whatever they need and the motive to work would come not from material goods but from the social status that good workers receive, the idealistic desire to work for the good of mankind and stuff like that. Socialism is the idea that when a government takes control of the means of production and puts them to good use, the results are in some way (be it productivity, philosphical differences or whatever) better than than what capitalistic society can achieve... and if the difference in productivity is great enough, it could some day result in the overabundance of resources needed for communism.
So... When a CEO decides that he wants to give away huge sums of money (for social status and/or idealistic reasons... in a situation where he must have overabundance of resources for himself, because he is able to give away millions) and that the best receiver for the money are the workers that have produced the said wealth, I think that one could argue that it's - in small scale - very similar to how communist utopia was supposed to work.
Naturally this is all just a mixture of being pedantic and some form of thought experiments... but then again, what could you expect in a thread like this.
1. Re:In theory... it *is* a bit like *communism* by magarity · 2012-07-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Communism is supposed to be a state where there is such an abundance of resources that everyone can get whatever they need
  All economic systems are attempts to deal with scarcity of resources; there isn't suddenly an abundance of resources because a certain system was adopted. Furthermore, you're confusing resources with materials. Labor, capital and materials are the three equally needed resources for economic activity.
2. Re:In theory... it *is* a bit like *communism* by cheesybagel · 2012-07-20 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the single thing I liked reading in Das Kapital was in one place where Marx mentioned that once you could industrially manufacture diamonds the price would plummet because carbon is abundant despite the diamond mine market being controlled by a limited set of people who connive to control prices. Or was he talking about emeralds? Whatever. His ultimate goal was for the people to control the means of production in order that no one could have personal leverage over everyone else due to economic control. Since he did not think it was possible for all individuals to have their own means of production for everything he assigned these to the State so that in this way the people would decide how to use the means of production on their own with worker committees or whatever. At least that was the principle. In practice there was always someone in charge of running the manufacturing plant that was appointed by the State and had much the role a COO or even a CEO would. Given the problems organizations have with internal and external communication of knowledge it was hard to do things otherwise even if they wanted to. Contrary to what some say the economy of the Soviet Union, despite the social problems, performed incredibly well in the first three decades of its existence. Well enough to compare with Meiji Japan or Imperial Germany. Electrification, steel, mechanization, housing, etc. This from a country which was militarily defeated by Japan and humbled by Germany during their Imperial times. It was only after Khrushchev was ousted that their economic performance kept degrading. In the long run their top-down economic system suffered from the usual problems of any such system. If the people providing the directives suck the system goes down the drain. Even the other Allied commanders thought Stalin, if anything, was a great logistics expert. Khrushchev had enough vision to try different ways to do things even if he failed a lot of the time and stopped the purges once he came to power. The following leaders had neither vision nor managing skills so the result was pathetic. In the end the system was not sustainable. Yet I have little doubt someone will try to implement it again, with some other name, much like I have found people attacking the Agile model lately in favor of modified Waterfall models. Some people just cannot thrust bottom-up planning .
3. Re:In theory... it *is* a bit like *communism* by magarity · 2012-07-20 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Emeralds and diamonds can both be industrially manufactured. Kind of shoots down that theory.
4. Re:In theory... it *is* a bit like *communism* by cheesybagel · 2012-07-21 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but Marx wrote about that in the XIXth century... Diamond manufacturing methods were conceived in the Soviet Union in the 1960s or something.
Damned if you do.. by tanveer1979 · 2012-07-20 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

And damned if you don't!

--
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
1. Re:Damned if you do.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In Capitalist US, false dichotomy flogs you!
2. Re:Damned if you do.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ahem -
  I believe 'damned if you don't!' implies that you actually DONT.. doesn't it?
3. Re:Damned if you do.. by sjames · 2012-07-20 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm pretty sure that if they took their bonus check and divided it up amongst the rank and file like TFA is talking about, it would be seen as an unambiguously good thing.
  So damned if they're greedy bastards and double damned if they try to launder their undeserved gains.
4. Re:Damned if you do.. by QQBoss · 2012-07-20 14:23 · Score: 3
  
  I don't typically mod memes, but jeesh this is once I wish I had my expired mod points back!
  +1 funny, sir or madam.
Nice dupe, ndogg by damn_registrars · 2012-07-20 09:05 · Score: 2

I submitted this as a story 2.5 hours before ndogg did, and he gets the credit for it. Well played, sir.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Nice dupe, ndogg by Sponge+Bath · 2012-07-20 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but ndogg is a cooler user name, so by the rules of /. the glory is hereby assigned to ndogg. Eeeeeeehnnnndaaaawwwwwg.
2. Re:Nice dupe, ndogg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  His summary is straight from the.source article. I laughed
Safety doesn't sell by fustakrakich · 2012-07-20 09:08 · Score: 1

Lee Iaccoca should be in prison

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Oh hey, I have Lenovo laptop! by sandytaru · 2012-07-20 09:13 · Score: 1

At the time, I bought it because it was the cheapest one I could buy with a standard keyboard layout, but I am retroactively pleased with that decision.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
A Pittance For Popularity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:20 · Score: 0

He took his ~22% bonus and gave the 10,000 employees a ~8% bonus.
He did a great thing, but even when he is "super generous", there is huge disparity. I don't know what happened last year, but I'll bet he pocketed his ~22% and they got nothing.
Next year...
No, actually it means by publiclurker · 2012-07-20 09:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

that the CEO has to do something to cause a quick spike in the stock price when he wants to cash in. Generally, this is done by firing a bunch of people. It doesn't matter if this tanks the company, as the CEO's already gotten his cash.
1. Re:No, actually it means by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  It is funny that people believe that bad CEO performance means drop in the stock price. For most of the large corporations it doesn't matter who is the CEO. Just think for a second, CEO is just one person. Yes, there are some CEOs who are driving the company, but for the rest, unless they screw up big time it doesn't really matter what they do. The stock will go up or down just based on the overall market.
Wage relative to cost-of-living by phorm · 2012-07-20 09:57 · Score: 1

With the exemption of certain fancy toys (brand-name smartphones for example cost much the same anywhere), the value of a wage depends greatly on the cost-of-living in the area.
If the workers may $300/month, but you can get a decent lunch for under a buck then it's not actually too bad.
1. Re:Wage relative to cost-of-living by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  This so much. I see this argument so many times in various areas.
  It is why that $1 to charity can actually go a really long way to helping poor countries. It literally can because they can get so much for that $1 in most of those places.
  Exchange rates don't mean much when it comes to pricing and salaries when you compare them across different currency regions, hell, sometimes not even in the same towns, and even as low as large villages / small towns.
  That's why you should always do a little research before you travel to areas. You might end up travelling in the really expensive areas and waste away more money than you were intending to.
2. Re:Wage relative to cost-of-living by stanlyb · 2012-07-21 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  But if the rent and utilities are worth $400/m, then? How much bucks would you have for a lunch?
3. Re:Wage relative to cost-of-living by phorm · 2012-07-21 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously it's more than just the cost of lunch, I was just using that as a base for measurement.
4. Re:Wage relative to cost-of-living by stanlyb · 2012-07-21 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  And i am not. The matter of fact is that in these kind of countries, like China, the cost of living is always MORE than the income. ALWAYS. You may ask then, how they manage to live with negative income??? And i happen to know the answer, and obviously, you don't.
Charity and philanthropy pre-date the income tax by perpenso · 2012-07-20 09:58 · Score: 2

only because charitable donations are tax-deductible
Not really. Charity and philanthropy in the US pre-dates the income tax.
is that legal? by v1 · 2012-07-20 10:07 · Score: 1

No, actually it means that the CEO has to do something to cause a quick spike in the stock price when he wants to cash in.
(reminds me a bit also of the "pump and dump" phrase)
That almost sounds like "insider trading" except by one person rather than two. Is that legal? (assuming you get caught and they can prove it to the court's satisfaction of course, since it doesn't matter if it's legal or not if you don't get "caught")

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:is that legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it qualifies as insider trading, which is using non-public information when making a transaction. If you sell after the stock goes up (because firing people tends to make the stock go up) because you want to cash in, the information about the layoff is already public.
  It'd be more along the lines of stock manipulation or a conflict of interest.
Re:Oh hey, I have Lenovo laptop! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:22 · Score: 0

The quality of their tablet PCs has been going down (X61 is better than the newer X220. I own both and have had problems with both), but they're sill better than their competition. An extra plus to them for not making all their laptops shiny.
Capitalism and ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 10:26 · Score: 1

Indeed. Given in any situation where money changes hands and either party profits, there is a winner and a loser. Capital profit is inherently unethical whenever someone was not justly compensated. Only when ethical justice is defined as reasonable compensation, is it fair.
Ethically there is no way to win in a capital driven system, regardless of the amount you contribute.
1. Re:Capitalism and ethics by jakoye · 2012-07-21 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Fresh out of college and straight into the ranks of the Reds.
  
  --
  Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
Just to play Devils advocate by giorgist · 2012-07-20 10:36 · Score: 1

In the good old days say 40-50 years ago in Greece, money that was handed to the poor was often indicated as if it came from the pocket of the king. So my mother has the impression that the king was giving a dowry to poor girls, or the king was the godfather of thousands of poor kids. Now imagine if that happened today, and lets say they give the president 100billion in wages and then the president went off willy-nilly and gave money to the poor as he/she chose. The advantage of such a system is that good will gets rubbed off onto the president, the way the money is distributed is up to the president with less political infighting. The disadvantages ... well it is obvious that it is a scam, it weakens the institution of democracy, the wims of the president often go to his/her head and we end up with Now colour me a cynic :-)
1. Re:Just to play Devils advocate by JimCanuck · 2012-07-20 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  And Greece still exiled the King multiple times, because most of the population was not stupid enough to believe in that.
  
  We even had a little Civil War to keep the King out that the British were so very desperate to put back into power.
Once again. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:05 · Score: 1

Once again the Chinese are making us look bad. Which we are.
I love CEO Yang by glodime · 2012-07-20 11:12 · Score: 1

...for the bonus money.
Awesome CEO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:15 · Score: 0

Awesome dude.
200k cap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:20 · Score: 1

money is a funny thing when you're talking about those figures.
It kind of loses its meaning
any company which wants to really be a winner should:
1) cap everyones salary at 200k (no one is really worth more money than that in a given year)
2) distribute the excess that would have been paid out, in order of seniority, to the companies other workers
with the salaries in excess of millions that so many companies have for top executives this would go a long long way to making that
company much much more attractive to their workers/shareholders etc
no one gets shafted (who can't live on 200k a year?) and everyone wins (much happier workers etc)
you'd have people begging to work for you if you were this company
1. Re:200k cap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  oh yeah...and all stock options etc "compensation" gets counted against that 200k so no cheating lol
Meanwhile in megacorporation land by thegarbz · 2012-07-20 11:23 · Score: 2

My bonuses are fixed. They are written down in plain English in my contract. They even have a fancy name like variable performance pay for them. It has stopped becoming a tool to motivate long ago.
It used to be my bonus was a percentage of my pay grade, but that percentage was adjusted based on my personal performance, and the performance of our local business. Great, motivating and quite clear. Didn't really mind that scheme much since it meant that bonuses weren't really at the whim of some manager who was in a bad mood.
Now they threw a third category in. Our bonuses are now based on the global performance too. Well that's just great. Now if a US plant goes belly up due to the US market conditions, or a Chinese plant explodes and kills a bunch of people my bonus is scrapped despite there not being a single thing that I can do about it.
Yay motivation. Our new CEO so far has little respect from me.
Strawman by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:31 · Score: 0

Following the law is not tax evasion, by definition. Government makes the rules.
This is good news by roman_mir · 2012-07-20 11:57 · Score: 1

these news are good news, it shows that eventually it is possible to reduce the prices of notebooks further, should somebody be willing to take a lower pay as a CEO (this one ha 14million per year salary, this was 3million bonus), then they can reduce the prices and go to war against Lenovo. They could even hire some people away form Lenovo by offering slightly higher salaries (310USD anybody?)

--
You can't handle the truth.
What's your point? by F69631 · 2012-07-20 11:57 · Score: 1

I've read your post several times over and can't figure out whether you're trying to contradict something I said or not. In any case...

All economic systems are attempts to deal with scarcity of resources
Communism is precisely the post-scarcity utopia, which requires abundance of resources to exist first.

there isn't suddenly an abundance of resources because a certain system was adopted
Yes... And that's why no country tried to jump directly to communism, as none of them had the required abundance and all knew that they wouldn't reach that abundance simply by changing the system. Rather, they acknowledged that they would first need to reach the over abundance and believed that socialism would be more ethical and efficient system for the transitional period.

Furthermore, you're confusing resources with materials. Labor, capital and materials are the three equally needed resources for economic activity.
I can't figure out what in my post would make you think that. When talking about abundance of resources in relation to communism, the question is "Can everyone be delivered whatever they need?" and obviously that requires more than just the materials. (You can't deliver needed medical treatment without doctors and so on).
1. Re:What's your point? by magarity · 2012-07-20 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid you've made baby Marx cry.
  Communism cannot solve scarcity; it is only a system for allocating scarce resources, labor, and capital. The world is finite, capital is finite, and labor is finite no matter what economic system tries to allocate them.
2. Re:What's your point? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  Probably just got done reading Ian M. Banks...
3. Re:What's your point? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Communism is not meant to solve scarcity. It's meant to be introduced once scarcity is no longer an issue. Socialism is supposed to be the way to get there, per Marx.
  And while resources are physically finite at any given moment, so are our requirements. Once you have enough resources to keep everyone fed, clothed and entertained to the point that they don't have any external need, that is a post-scarcity economy and society.
4. Re:What's your point? by hvm2hvm · 2012-07-20 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the problem is that some people never have enough food/entertainment/money/power... Once you find a way to stop people like that from existing you can have your utopia.
  
  --
  ics
5. Re:What's your point? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's not mine, as I'm not a marxist.
  But yes, that was actually the main point of marxist socialism as a "transitional phase" - it was not only meant to create a society of abundance, but also to educate and breed people who would not lust for infinite power (other demands you list is obviously finite - you can only eat so much before feeling full, and you only have so many hours in a day for entertainment).
Melbourne Boss gave out 15million by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:22 · Score: 2, Funny

An Aussie boss gave out 15million to his employees when he sold his company, some of his bus drivers got up to $30000 and the average was $8500.
http://www.news.com.au/business/meet-victorias-best-boss-who-gave-his-loyal-staff-a-15m-bonus/story-e6frfm1i-1226258897821
It's not that uncommon, maybe if we start treating this as the norm rather than the greedy CEO image ridiculous CEO bonuses could be better distributed in future.
Capital Gains Taxes by thesandbender · 2012-07-20 14:10 · Score: 3, Informative

I see a lot of comments here about how this is all a dodge to get around income taxes with capital gains taxes.

1. This is a Chinese CEO in Hong Kong, not the U.S.
2. Carter _decreased_ capital gains tax rates, Reagan _increased_ them and Clinton _decreased them (to be fair, Bush Jr. decreased them even more).
3. Capital gains are taxed at a higher rate based on your income (again to be fair, people with a lower income can't take advantage the same way).

Capital gains taxes have a place, the idea is to encourage investment, which is why long term capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes rates but short term capital gains taxes pretty much mirror income tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maximum_Federal_Tax_Rate_on_Long_Term_Capital_Gains_(1972_-_2012).jpg
More clan-controlled corporations in the East by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-07-20 14:37 · Score: 1

The difference in the east and the U.S.: the CEO is considered important but not necessarily above the other workers. In the U.S. they are in an ivory tower. That's a problem and that's what so much of us have a problem with.
Since we're both [citation needed], let me counter you with my own theory about why Asian CEOs appear to be less fabulously compensated. Many of the larger corporations in Asia tend to be family or at least clan-controlled. I mean, take a look at Microsoft and Apple. If Microsoft were an Asian corporation, Bill Gates IV or V would now be in charge. Apple would now be led by Steve Jobs's wife or sister. Similar to the way some US execs enjoy working for the pauperly sum of $1, Asian CEOs (I'm generalizing, okay?) are willing to work for much less than their US counterparts since it's the family business anyway.
1. Re:More clan-controlled corporations in the East by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-20 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Many of the larger corporations in Asia tend to be family or at least clan-controlled. I mean, take a look at Microsoft and Apple. If Microsoft were an Asian corporation, Bill Gates IV or V would now be in charge. Apple would now be led by Steve Jobs's wife or sister. Similar to the way some US execs enjoy working for the pauperly sum of $1, Asian CEOs (I'm generalizing, okay?) are willing to work for much less than their US counterparts since it's the family business anyway.
  I'd say that this still has overall beneficial effect: people who view the company as their fief, rather than merely a convenient but disposable source of income at this particular moment, are far more likely to manage it well and look at long-term effects of what they're doing.
2. Re:More clan-controlled corporations in the East by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-07-21 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say that this still has overall beneficial effect: people who view the company as their fief, rather than merely a convenient but disposable source of income at this particular moment, are far more likely to manage it well and look at long-term effects of what they're doing.
  Having the company as your private empire may well have the opposite effect. Since effectively nobody can fire you, your only enemy being an overly ambitious relation, you have no incentive to do well on the job. On the other hand, if you're a hard worker, you may prefer to do things by the book, fearful of innovation, since you don't want to be known as the guy who ruined the family dynasty.
3. Re:More clan-controlled corporations in the East by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-21 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Having the company as your private empire may well have the opposite effect. Since effectively nobody can fire you, your only enemy being an overly ambitious relation, you have no incentive to do well on the job.
  
  For the founder of the "dynasty" it's unlikely, because if he slacks off he wouldn't have the empire to begin with. For his kids, it all depends on how those kids were raised, but there's certainly an incentive for their parents to at least try to do it right.
  Of course it still doesn't guarantee anything. But then again it's not really an empire in a sense that it won't last long on its own - it won't really tolerate the owner just letting it go as it always did for a long time, unlike in governance where it often seems to be the wisest thing a ruler can do. Business landscape changes significantly over the years, and someone who is not able to match the new expectations will eventually run the company into the ground, after bleeding money for a decade or two. Which, by the way, is also a good thing, since it lets someone who's good build a new empire for himself on the ruins.
Not a tax break. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-07-20 15:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the absense of triggering some government program that gives more tax reduction than the money given away, it is still a loss. He might not pay taxes on the money he doesn't get (because he had it paid to the workers instead). But that normally will be taxed at less than 100%. So he's still out-of-pocket.
IMHO what this says is that the CEO thinks that the compensation packages the company had set up ended up giving him too much, and the workers too little, for the long-term health of the company. So he fixes it by reorganizing it - and gets a boost in morale and some good press as a bonus.
He probably also ends up ahead long-term because the company does far better in the future than it would have without this action. But he also might be doing it because he really is an idealist and/or does care for his workers.
Either way (if he's not a compensated psychopath who doesn't feel anything much) he gets to feel very good in his eventual retirement.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:Not a tax break. by Compaqt · 2012-07-20 16:48 · Score: 2
  
  Call me gullible, but this makes me more likely to buy Lenovo computers for my staff.
  Vote with your dollars and all that.
  (Note: It's not like this would be the only criterion. Lenovo offered the only/best 15" laptop with Intel VT-x and numpad and nice keyboard that I was looking for from the laptop from which this is being posted.)
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Gold man-sacks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 16:36 · Score: 0

I dunno. If my man-sack was gold, I think I might have trouble with temperature regulation.
$300 is accurate for a "regular Joe" by chrb · 2012-07-20 23:52 · Score: 1

I really doubt the $300 figure is a right average sallary.
As others have pointed out, the mean average is inflated by billionaires etc. More relevant is the minimum wage and mean wage for migrant workers who are in these Lenovo factory jobs. "Minimum wages in China range from 1,500 yuan ($240) per month in Shenzhen to 870 yuan ($140) in Chongqing. The average monthly wage of China's 158 million migrant workers in 2011 surged 21.2 percent from 2010 to 2,049 yuan ($327)" source ... So $300 for a "regular Joe" is pretty accurate.
Oh yeah? by webgovernor · 2012-07-21 04:03 · Score: 1

Well, MY CEO just bought a massive Island that he'll visit sometimes when he's not at one of his 6 luxurious mansions. Take that commies!
Tax Rich People by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 04:25 · Score: 0

Tax them as heavily as they are already pretending to be taxed right now and it'll all work out in the long term. I also think a good old fashioned ass whooping is in order. Good time for reflecting on the war crimes and getting back in God's good graces over the horror and carnage we unleashed on all those innocent Iraqis. I think we could save money by outsourcing the actual trial to Poland. We could market it as the Olympics of International Justice if we also threw in a concurrent trial for the myriad number of high level bankers who need to be held accountable for the fleecing of the WORLD. There has to be a crime against that? Enjoy.
Bonus or coupon? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 11:03 · Score: 0

Is it $300 cash or a coupon to buy a Lenovo laptop? :)
Jokes aside I think this CEO recognizes that his company isn't much without its employees / workers.