You're so sweet...does this mean I won't be getting anymore free games, or do I have to go to Circuit City where they're basically giving them away anyway? Sorry about that, but I guess I don't understand what was wrong, content-wise with what I said. I don't think that a person's opinion on the subject should be any less respected just because he or she's a student. I actually have more liberal economic opinions than I did when I was a student, and I have plenty of real life experience of working my ass off for companies, only to receive a paycheck that had a lot of taxes taken out of it. There's my real life experience. I b****ed about it more when I <B>was</b> a student, and I was getting money from both my parents and a job. Now that I'm not a dependent, and forced to pay for everything of myself, I've actually become more liberal minded in this area. I'm guessing you'll like my opinion when I was a student better. Enough content for you?
Unfortunately, it is not CEO salaries that are keeping Teachers underpaid, it is us property owners. We don't want our taxes raised. Then again, if our taxes get raised in Austin (and other porsperous Texas towns), the money will just go to some school district across the State. We cannot even control the amount we pay our own teachers.
Originally posted by Rocketman95 ...Sorry about that, but I guess I don't understand what was wrong, content-wise with what I said. It was not street-wise. I'll take a savvy, battle-hardened opinion over an inexperienced, know-it-all upstart any day. My expectation is that Haven will someday look back on this age and realize, to his embarrassment, how much he really had left to learn. I don't think that a person's opinion on the subject should be any less respected just because he or she's a student. I actually have more liberal economic opinions than I did when I was a student, and I have plenty of real life experience of working my ass off for companies, only to receive a paycheck that had a lot of taxes taken out of it. There's my real life experience. I b****ed about it more when I <B>was</b> a student, and I was getting money from both my parents and a job. Now that I'm not a dependent, and forced to pay for everything of myself, I've actually become more liberal minded in this area. I'm guessing you'll like my opinion when I was a student better... If you want less taxes, become a conservative. If you want a piece of the taxes someone else is paying, stay a liberal .
Originally posted by haven *yawn* Overused. Get a new word. And some people are machoistic lemmings who repeat truisms because they can't think critically. "We need defense!" "We're the big dog!" "I'm a home run hitter!" Too much libido, and not enough actual thought. Pardon? I didn't see DaDakota posting his salary. You may address my points that you consider relevant... You mean that you respond? Until you're like Major, TheFreak, etc, and willign to tackle even arguments that compromise your position... your position will not be substantiated. DaDa, that makes you the kettle. That's what makes them so difficult to argue with. When you pick and choose which points to respond to, while contesting your opponents entire idea... and you're not just responding in negation... you have utterly no way of making a case.
I have no problem with people profitting from their own business...but that's hardly what we're talking about here. We are talking about the truly overpaid and overcompensated. If they are so good, let their salaries be based on performance. I'm just sick of reading stories about CEO's presiding over poor performances by their companies and still getting paid too much for their work. The short-sightedness of boards and the stockholders make it almost impossible to execute good long-term planning anyway. Naturally, the people who attain these positions are a little different. The CEO/president of my last company was a really nice guy who happened to be a workaholic. He used to work for a major oil company and was doing very well - although I'm sure his work habits contributed to three divorces. He reached a point where he had a choice to screw some people over, or stop rising the corporate ladder. He stepped off the ladder. Personally, I work for a large company and make a nice salary. I see examples of what an MBA might get for me...managers averaging 12 hour days, constant infighting...I'm not really sure that's what I want for a life, even if it would mean a six-figure salary. Looking from that perspective, perhaps we can't pay these people enough to compensate them for what they've lost over the years...but we might not want to either. I think a fair system might be to compensate managers based on a percentage of the salaries underneath them times a factor based on the performance of their department. In addition, when a company does well, they should make more of an effort to compensate the fuel that drives the company - the workers.
You don't always have to screw over people to rise the ladder. Perhaps not...but I would suggest that if your concern is to rise as fast as you can, you are going to let some things fall to the wayside. For example, are you willing to cut good people in your department to make your numbers look better than someone else's? This is an issue because we are talking about the elite here - you don't get to the top without playing hardball.
RM95, I do respect your takes, and sometimes agree with them. I do think that life experience counts for a lot, and you certainly have that, I just don't like snide one line comments, and you and Freak do that a lot. Haven, I can tell by your posts that you are a smart fellow, I can appreciate that you have opinions, but opinions are based upon life experiences. And right now, whether you like it or not, being a young student, you don't have a lot to offer in the way of business experience. RM95 however has been in the biz and has become more liberal, which is what happens when a person lives with a gas leak for too long. DaDakota
Maybe I'm too optimistic; I don't accept that. I have met 3 very successful CEOs. Only 1 was cutthroat. One was one of the kindest people that you'd ever meet. His people would follow him off a cliff. Unfortunately, he had to leave the company and his people almost followed his successor off the cliff.
Funny, I met two big time CEO's in 2000: Don Jordan (former CEO of Reliant Energy) and Ken Lay (um, you know him, right? ) They, up until the arena referendum, hated the sight of one another. I found Jordan to be gracious, kind and really funny. He was a genuinely nice guy who seemed concerned when you spoke to him. He really paid attention. Lay, on the other hand, never really seemed like much of a nice guy. I got the sense he was rather full of himself. He also seemed like he was pissed off the majority of the time. Maybe Jordan retiring from Reliant that year mellowed him or maybe Lay is just an *******. Oh, well, we know at least one of those statements is probably true.
Or from playing hoops with Thad the man who "never met a shot he didn't like".... Typical YMCA game...hey Thad, I am open......What? You are open, but I have 2 hands in my face...I can make it...watch.... DaDakota
But then again, it's not really that surprising coming from a place like New Zealand. Aren't they the ones pushing the "Universal Basic Income" or social wages for everyone regardless of output? Yea, THAT will encourage people to work... I'm not sure what you're talking about here. But I will say that I think New Zealand has a far more compassionate and egalitarian work culture. Of course, I *am* almost a socialist. So feel free to ignore anything I say.
First off, I want to state I am all for rewarding the risk takers for their talents, energy, and foresight with as much ridicilious cash as they can accumulate. BUT, I am not for the risk takers family taking over as a CEO of a public corporation or given jobs within the company, when they are not the most deserving. The stockholders own the company, and they deserve the most brilliant, not victimized by nepotism. I fear with more small individual investors, replacing or dimenishing the larger financial institutions stake in the corporate world, it will open up more "enron" fiascos. I was reading a article stating mutual fund managers have not done their jobs properly by researching, and participating in voting for a competent/ethical staff of companies within holdings. Most funds, this responsbility is passed onto the fund managers. Exactly what is going to stop more CEO robbery of corporate America? It seems way to easy to cook the books, "call or put" the stock, and cash in.
The whole concept of the UBI is outside the scope of this discussion. I'm sure its easily found on any of one of the major search engines. Read up on it; i'm sure it will make a fine future thread. As far as the compassion of a working culture that will rob a man of a large portion of its salary, I am not sure what to say. If they were directly paying his salary, I might understand, otherwise, why should it affect them? Eglitarian? Maybe...but isn't that a pro-socialist term? The US is not socialist yet (although many would like it to be). BTW, just because your a socialist, doesn't make your opinions any less valid to me. I won't ignore them just because they're wrong x34
I think that their used to be an assumption that someone, at least the CPA, would stand up and report illegalities. Odd how the CPAs probably would never had allowed some small company to paly Enron's games, but when thousands of small investors were involved.. I think that the accounting firms should be under constant threat of losing their license to do ANY business as CPAs. Any shredding of documents during an investigation means immediate JAIL TIME (don't know if that can be done legally, but it sounds good). Laws and enforcement evolve in response to new (or newly recognized) threats. I hope they change quickly here.
