Yes, most people here are so caught up with modern day marxism that they think CEOs run companies. They appear completely ignorant of Boards of Directors.
Oh, and by the way, engineers DO receive millions of dollars in stock options when the company does well.
Uh, yeah, here's the falshood-- who says you have to work for the company? You could leave the town.
What makes you think you can't use the roads? Whoever owns the roads would be happy to let you.
This contrived example is not logical, nor is it realistic. Its a house of cards.
If this is what you think libertarianism is, then you are fooling yourself. At least figure it out-- I tell you what, read Atlas Shrugged, its enjoyable and it will give you the philosophical foundation to understand why your example is silly.
Apple isn't arrogant and clamping down on diversity-- it is not apple's fault that windows is not compatible with them. It is not apple making themselves incompatible with windows. It was windows not following the apple standard (preferably licensed.)
Yeah, by modding down ACs and idiots who mark me as a foe I have found slashdot to be much more enjoyable.
Of course, periodically while responding to someone else I'll see an AC post like yours... funny. How pathetic your life must be to keep track of such shit.
Even the most assholish, annoying, I-hate-his-guts and I'll never work with him again CEO I've ever worked for, took risks, put his salary into the companies stock and worked really long hours.
I find that amazing, especially assuming these are tech companies.
You know, these are good questions to ask in an interview- how many CEOs has the company had, what's the CEOs ownership of the stock, how long has he been with the company, etc.
I find that some companies are hesitant to tell you the real deal about themselves (Even after making you sign an NDA). Towards the end of the dotcom boom, I was insisting that I have a meeting with the CFO of any startup before I'd start working there...and I'd go over the last couple quarters numbers, the stock dilution, etc. I caught that one company that had claimed to be profitable and about to IPO, was actually unprofitalbe, had two orders of magnitude more stock out there than my would-be boss claimed and was nowhere near sound enough for an IPO.
I've never taken any accounting, learned a bit from a good CFO at one company, and found that when you speak their language they'll talk to you. Also the CFO is a good person to ask questions to- they have a habit of being accountable for lies and are more likely to meet with you than the CEO and more likely to tell you the truth.
Plus if you don't talk to the CFO, there's no way you can evaluate any offer that includes stock options.
There's nothing illegal about going bankrupt-- the bank knew that it was the companies assets securitizing the loan, not the personal assets of the executive, and in the end, the bank got the company.
What would the homestead exemption have to do with this anyway? Executives are not liable for the companies liabilities.
I'm not aware of any law that prevents a bank from collecting on a home that has been mortgaged when the owner defaults. Thats what a mortgage is.
IF the home wasn't a security for the loan, then so be it. That's the risks of business.
Who exactly has gotten the billion dollar compensation package you're jealous of?
Or do you not know the difference between a billion and a million?
Sure, some people probably deserve to be paid thousands of times more than others. Gates, when the stock was riding high, deserved to be paid thousands of times more than me-- cause he was certainly creating tens of thousands of times the economic value I was, or at least the company he created was creating it.
He earned that money, no question about it.
I may have even been working harder than him, but I wasn't working smarter.
By your logic everyone who puts in 60 hour week should be swimming in cash.
Yes, they should.
The reality is that there are plenty of people who work two jobs in America and can barely pay rent and put food on the table.
This is only true because most people grossly mismanage their money.
Truth of the mater is, even in an expensive west coast city you can work minimum wage for 40 hours a week and have a place to live on 1/4th of your income. And if you're tight for money, the food is plentiful at foodbanks.
The only people who really have something to worry about are those with no job skills. Then its much harder to make ends meet, mostly because getting a job and keeping it is much harder.
But anyone working 60 hours a week with no kids should be putting money in the bank every month, and significant money. Those who have more kids than they can afford, well, they chose to be poor. Hopefully the kids make them happy.
It would take $1,811 a month at %18 to have $600,000 in ten years. Or, $2,211 if you wanted $600k in todays dollars at that point.
But it is possible to be invested in bonds that exceed %10, just not as easy now with interest rates so low, at this point the return from stocks is much better.
Except for the fact that your "example" is not of CEO salary.
Stock options are not salary and comparing them to salary (but not salary plus stock options) for an employee is the kind of false math marxists always do to try and gain political power from dupes.
Society doesn't exist. Society is a collection of individuals.
The issues isn't whether you should help your fellow man who legitimately needs it-- its whether you should be forced at gunpoint to help people who DON'T need it, and are just too lazy to work for a living like you do.
Those who legitimately need it do get helped-- and the richest in this country, for example, Mr. Gates and MR. Buffett will do more in their lifetimes to help poor people than all the blathering marxist idiots in this country combined. Both by building their companies and employing hundreds of thousands of people, and by giving away their money.
The difference between you and me is I say "Great, give away your money, I can admire that" and you say " you shouldn't have been allowed to have it in the first place and the government should have taken it away from you by force".
And your position is pretty idiotic because if this weren't a country where people could accumulate wealth, they'd go somewhere where thy could and there'd be no wealth for you to seize.
You saw what happened to the USSR-- they sure did help the poor people.
In such a system those who are lazy need a lot, and those who are industrious don't get to be rewarded from their labor.
Eventually those of ability start hiding money, and you need jackbooted thugs to come take it from them.
No, if you believe that, you are destined for a life of unhappiness-- I can assure you whether you "need" it or not, you will not be getting what I have.
The freemarket is really efficient- it took out Enron within 3 years of it starting to act fraudulently.
Meanwhile the US government has been perpetrating a fraud on everyone at gunpoint in the form of social security for 50 years and there is no end in sight.
Clearly the free market is efficient at punishing the guilty-- enron got the death penalty.
And there's an important distinction-- nobody lost money in Enron who didn't freely choose the risk of associating with them.
But everyone who is loosing money with Social Security is being forced to, at gunpoint. They have no freedom to support an alternative retirement plan.
Yet you think corporations are the problem??? Perplexing.
It does work, and it has workd. It worked for over a hundred years.
The mistake was enacting a federal income tax in 1919. That what put the end to libertarianism in the US (Which is what the US WAS until then) and created the great central government marxist state that has been growing in power ever since.
Libertarians did learn that lesson well, as they, unlike you apparently, know their US history.
Libertarians often want to maximize their "freedom in principle" without regard to the fact that they would minimise their actual freedom.
This is the standard marxist rant.
However, it would go much better if you could ever provide even a small example of how it is true-- at least prove a specific case before claiming the general case.
The reality is its totally false and is based on a logical falsehood.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats why the marxist party picked him as its VP candidate?
Ok. I guess that makes them to the right of Thatcher?
Yes, most people here are so caught up with modern day marxism that they think CEOs run companies. They appear completely ignorant of Boards of Directors.
Oh, and by the way, engineers DO receive millions of dollars in stock options when the company does well.
So, I guess my point is valid.
Uh, yeah, here's the falshood-- who says you have to work for the company? You could leave the town.
What makes you think you can't use the roads? Whoever owns the roads would be happy to let you.
This contrived example is not logical, nor is it realistic. Its a house of cards.
If this is what you think libertarianism is, then you are fooling yourself. At least figure it out-- I tell you what, read Atlas Shrugged, its enjoyable and it will give you the philosophical foundation to understand why your example is silly.
Apple isn't arrogant and clamping down on diversity-- it is not apple's fault that windows is not compatible with them. It is not apple making themselves incompatible with windows. It was windows not following the apple standard (preferably licensed.)
Yeah, by modding down ACs and idiots who mark me as a foe I have found slashdot to be much more enjoyable.
Of course, periodically while responding to someone else I'll see an AC post like yours... funny. How pathetic your life must be to keep track of such shit.
Funny how you think that is the norm.
The norm is the guy that takes risks.
Even the most assholish, annoying, I-hate-his-guts and I'll never work with him again CEO I've ever worked for, took risks, put his salary into the companies stock and worked really long hours.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
I find that amazing, especially assuming these are tech companies.
You know, these are good questions to ask in an interview- how many CEOs has the company had, what's the CEOs ownership of the stock, how long has he been with the company, etc.
I find that some companies are hesitant to tell you the real deal about themselves (Even after making you sign an NDA). Towards the end of the dotcom boom, I was insisting that I have a meeting with the CFO of any startup before I'd start working there...and I'd go over the last couple quarters numbers, the stock dilution, etc. I caught that one company that had claimed to be profitable and about to IPO, was actually unprofitalbe, had two orders of magnitude more stock out there than my would-be boss claimed and was nowhere near sound enough for an IPO.
I've never taken any accounting, learned a bit from a good CFO at one company, and found that when you speak their language they'll talk to you. Also the CFO is a good person to ask questions to- they have a habit of being accountable for lies and are more likely to meet with you than the CEO and more likely to tell you the truth.
Plus if you don't talk to the CFO, there's no way you can evaluate any offer that includes stock options.
There's nothing illegal about going bankrupt-- the bank knew that it was the companies assets securitizing the loan, not the personal assets of the executive, and in the end, the bank got the company.
What would the homestead exemption have to do with this anyway? Executives are not liable for the companies liabilities.
I'm not aware of any law that prevents a bank from collecting on a home that has been mortgaged when the owner defaults. Thats what a mortgage is.
IF the home wasn't a security for the loan, then so be it. That's the risks of business.
What was your point, anyway?
No you just bought really poor cars.
You can buy a Toyota from between 1980 and 1989 for about a grand and put maybe two grand into it.
The INTEREST ALONE on a new neon for 4 years would cover more than the three grand you paid for the toyota.
Sure, you buy a GM vehicle and yeah, you're wasting money-- but that's true whether its new or 15 years old. And don't talk to me about fords.
A five year loan on a $10,000 car is going to cost you $2,000 in interest. So I don't see how you're better off, paying $12,000 than $3,000.
Who exactly has gotten the billion dollar compensation package you're jealous of?
Or do you not know the difference between a billion and a million?
Sure, some people probably deserve to be paid thousands of times more than others. Gates, when the stock was riding high, deserved to be paid thousands of times more than me-- cause he was certainly creating tens of thousands of times the economic value I was, or at least the company he created was creating it.
He earned that money, no question about it.
I may have even been working harder than him, but I wasn't working smarter.
By your logic everyone who puts in 60 hour week should be swimming in cash.
Yes, they should.
The reality is that there are plenty of people who work two jobs in America and can barely pay rent and put food on the table.
This is only true because most people grossly mismanage their money.
Truth of the mater is, even in an expensive west coast city you can work minimum wage for 40 hours a week and have a place to live on 1/4th of your income. And if you're tight for money, the food is plentiful at foodbanks.
The only people who really have something to worry about are those with no job skills. Then its much harder to make ends meet, mostly because getting a job and keeping it is much harder.
But anyone working 60 hours a week with no kids should be putting money in the bank every month, and significant money. Those who have more kids than they can afford, well, they chose to be poor. Hopefully the kids make them happy.
You're right.
It would take $1,811 a month at %18 to have $600,000 in ten years. Or, $2,211 if you wanted $600k in todays dollars at that point.
But it is possible to be invested in bonds that exceed %10, just not as easy now with interest rates so low, at this point the return from stocks is much better.
Sheesh, you forgot that interest compounds!
Except for the fact that your "example" is not of CEO salary.
Stock options are not salary and comparing them to salary (but not salary plus stock options) for an employee is the kind of false math marxists always do to try and gain political power from dupes.
You're an idiot, you think everyone's fraudulent just because some people are.
And so you seek to eliminate human righs to fit your bigotry.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of promoting a religion.
You aren't worth the air.
(And yeah, you should go back to russia.)
Society doesn't exist. Society is a collection of individuals.
The issues isn't whether you should help your fellow man who legitimately needs it-- its whether you should be forced at gunpoint to help people who DON'T need it, and are just too lazy to work for a living like you do.
Those who legitimately need it do get helped-- and the richest in this country, for example, Mr. Gates and MR. Buffett will do more in their lifetimes to help poor people than all the blathering marxist idiots in this country combined. Both by building their companies and employing hundreds of thousands of people, and by giving away their money.
The difference between you and me is I say "Great, give away your money, I can admire that" and you say " you shouldn't have been allowed to have it in the first place and the government should have taken it away from you by force".
And your position is pretty idiotic because if this weren't a country where people could accumulate wealth, they'd go somewhere where thy could and there'd be no wealth for you to seize.
You saw what happened to the USSR-- they sure did help the poor people.
Sheesh.
Who want's to be president of Microsoft? Who needs to be?
This is the kind of idiocy that passes for logic among the left.
Just because the presidence of Microsoft isn't possible doesn't mean being wealthy isn't.
After all, Warren Buffett-- #2 on the Forbes list behind Mr Gates-- got that way by investing his paper route money.
Fraud is illegal.
Please point me to the Cato institute study where they advocate decriminalization of fraud.
Or admit you're just a marxist who can't stand people LEGALLY making money.
You haven't been paying attention. The feds are on the case and are working their way up the ladders, prosecuting those who committed fraud.
Justice may be slow, but that doesn't mean its non-existent.
In this case both the market and the feds are prosecuting the fraud...
In such a system those who are lazy need a lot, and those who are industrious don't get to be rewarded from their labor.
Eventually those of ability start hiding money, and you need jackbooted thugs to come take it from them.
No, if you believe that, you are destined for a life of unhappiness-- I can assure you whether you "need" it or not, you will not be getting what I have.
Its not crazy.
The freemarket is really efficient- it took out Enron within 3 years of it starting to act fraudulently.
Meanwhile the US government has been perpetrating a fraud on everyone at gunpoint in the form of social security for 50 years and there is no end in sight.
Clearly the free market is efficient at punishing the guilty-- enron got the death penalty.
And there's an important distinction-- nobody lost money in Enron who didn't freely choose the risk of associating with them.
But everyone who is loosing money with Social Security is being forced to, at gunpoint. They have no freedom to support an alternative retirement plan.
Yet you think corporations are the problem??? Perplexing.
Who was it that said "Give me liberty, or give me death?"
That you flippantly accept Waco without outrage, means you're already dead.
I love your ignorance of history.
It does work, and it has workd. It worked for over a hundred years.
The mistake was enacting a federal income tax in 1919. That what put the end to libertarianism in the US (Which is what the US WAS until then) and created the great central government marxist state that has been growing in power ever since.
Libertarians did learn that lesson well, as they, unlike you apparently, know their US history.
Libertarians often want to maximize their "freedom in principle" without regard to the fact that they would minimise their actual freedom.
This is the standard marxist rant.
However, it would go much better if you could ever provide even a small example of how it is true-- at least prove a specific case before claiming the general case.
The reality is its totally false and is based on a logical falsehood.
It is accurate because its absolutely ridiculous how ignorant so many people are.
How did the US survive from 1776-1919? That is the period before the constitution was amended to allow income taxes.
Answer that and you've answered your question.
Sheesh.