 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chuq

Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 135 Location: Gulf South
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: CEO Bonuses |
|
|
I heard y/day that the CEO of Goldman/Sachs will get a bonus worth $68 million.....is anyone worth that kind of money?
_________________ 'Politics' is made up of two words, 'poli,' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are blood-sucking insects.
- Gore Vidal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2831 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. That's ridiculous. A BONUS?! Now there's a company who must pay their lower employees really well 
_________________ Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
redstaterebel

Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 128
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's the market at work.
The 68 million guy is receiving what the market will bear.
Sachs could find someone who would work for much less - but they find $68 million of value in having this guy run the
show.
Sure, it is an obscene amount of money - but its not our money. Its the shareholders money.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2831 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you saying it's not money that could have been split between lower employees, or even went into savings for customers, or that it couldn't have went into health care?
_________________ Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon Shumway

Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 7
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | Are you saying it's not money that could have been split between lower employees, or even went into savings for customers, or that it couldn't have went into health care? |
point being that unles you're a shareholder it's not your call
_________________ "To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society." --- Theodore Roosevelt
http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2831 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Shumway wrote: | | Kizzume wrote: | | Are you saying it's not money that could have been split between lower employees, or even went into savings for customers, or that it couldn't have went into health care? |
point being that unles you're a shareholder it's not your call |
It doesn't make the decision any less outrageous, but you are correct.
_________________ Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gordon Shumway

Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 7
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | Gordon Shumway wrote: | | Kizzume wrote: | | Are you saying it's not money that could have been split between lower employees, or even went into savings for customers, or that it couldn't have went into health care? |
point being that unles you're a shareholder it's not your call |
It doesn't make the decision any less outrageous, but you are correct. |
it's no less outrageous than a billionaire sending his money out of the country for charity while letting Americans still suffer; but it happens. Or, some wealthy person leaving all their wealth to their dog instead of dispursing it to their kids/family/or the needy. How much control should the general population have over private funds? Or, do you believe all funds should be owned by the public?
I've always wondered why people believe they have a right to concern themselves in how others spend their money. makes no sense to me.
_________________ "To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society." --- Theodore Roosevelt
http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2831 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's more of an issue of--do I want to support this company that uses its money in that way? I wish boycotts were useful anymore, but companies have gotten so big that boycotts are not useful anymore. It's not an issue of me thinking the government should do something about it--it's wishing that the people had ANY sort of recourse for when they seen companies like this--but boycotts are about the only thing, and we can see how fruitful boycotts are when you look at how well Walmart boycotts have went....
I will definitely complain about the way companies spend their money. I'm not about to tell them they can't--however, I AM going to complain about it.
_________________ Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jq

Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is why I favor a maximum wage law. It does a lot more than a minimum wage law. Fights inflation, and increases the middle class. Money should be more evenly dispersed.
I'm not saying a CEO shouldn't be able to make a huge amount. But what if this guy got paid $20 million instead, and the other $48 million was divided among other employees. The people working the smaller but still important jobs would see bonuses maybe as high as $50,0000, and his bonus would stay prestigious. At the same time there would be over 1000 other employees receiving that $50,000 bonus and that chunk of change could help a lot of people and would end up going back into the economy.
Instead he will stick at least $50 million in the bank and it will never get spent-- everyone else underneath him is bitter-- and the economy is not better off.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume Site Admin

Joined: 31 Dec 1969 Posts: 2831 Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jq wrote: | This is why I favor a maximum wage law. It does a lot more than a minimum wage law. Fights inflation, and increases the middle class. Money should be more evenly dispersed.
I'm not saying a CEO shouldn't be able to make a huge amount. But what if this guy got paid $20 million instead, and the other $48 million was divided among other employees. The people working the smaller but still important jobs would see bonuses maybe as high as $50,0000, and his bonus would stay prestigious. At the same time there would be over 1000 other employees receiving that $50,000 bonus and that chunk of change could help a lot of people and would end up going back into the economy.
Instead he will stick at least $50 million in the bank and it will never get spent-- everyone else underneath him is bitter-- and the economy is not better off. |
I agree with you completely on this, but our opinions on this are not very popular, that's for sure, but I completely agree. I know that the stock market investors are "supposed" to be the ones, but I think it's gotten to the point where something needs to be done, since the stockholders obviously aren't going to do anything, and neither are the CEO's.
_________________ Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|  |
|