Maybe because media is sensational in nature and thrives on negative stories, and mostly puts out positive stories relatively scarcely.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Oh yeah Right! Like An American CEO Would Do THIS!!
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
I hope so. But you have to convince me....
I have to convince you the media is sensationalist?
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
I made no claim one way or the other on that. I am only commenting on its newsworthiness. And I would claim that in the news, they tend NOT to report when a CEO does right by their people.
As far as how many CEOs do right by their people, I don't have the stats on that. Frankly, I doubt that you do either. So convince me empirically, that they do wrong by their people more often than they do right by them.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Current state of affairs seems to support my cynicism.....
Seems, maybe. Whether is does or does not is not proven. How many CEOs are in this country. How many of them actually contributed to the state of affairs?
Speculation and generalization are not the same thing as empiricism.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
While it wasn't posed as a question, "Like An American CEO Would Do THIS!!" The answer is yes, several have done, or continue to do that. The list on the wiki is just the big corporations. Occasionally there are stories of owners and CEOs of smaller businesses that have done the same.
The question itself is incriminating. It's an argument-ender, because it implies wrongdoing. "How many X does a Y need, anyway?" This is a basic question used for everything from X=money and Y=CEO to X=guns and Y=hunter, and so on and so on. There is no legitimate reason for the question UNLESS the implication is that there is a number beyond which is unreasonable for a person to have.
"How much MONEY does a CEO need anyway?" Means, put simply that there is a number for X beyond which they should not have. What the cowardly who ask the question will not do is provide the VALUE OF X. It's snide, it's insinuating, but it does not come right out and say "A CEO should not make more than $1,000,000 per year" or whatever that value for X is that you have in the back or your mind. You refuse to answer the question because you don't want to be pinned down, but you still want to imply that such a number exists.
Well, if that number exists, WHAT IS IT? How much is too much, EXACTLY? GIVE ME A NUMBER. Or you're just blowing bull-pockey.
I hate that question; because it is a DISHONEST question. It's a raised eyebrow and a snarky grin, implying that YOU know BEST, but you're not going to share it with the rest of us. "How much X does a Y need anyway?" is one of the most asinine non-questions I can think of. My answer stands; none of your f-ing business, that's how much. Either give an actual number, or you have nothing to say.
WRONG. Stealing is a crime. If the CEO in question committed a crime, then they can be prosecuted and put in jail. If they did not commit a crime, then they cannot. So clearly there is a difference between a crime and not a crime. What you're saying is that some things, while not a crime, should be punished with jail time anyway. I completely disagree.
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. If I own 101 guns, I have 'too many'. And the implication is that 'too many' means some should be taken away from me. This is exactly the same argument as X=money and Y=CEO. There is some magic number you've got floating around in your head that you think is TOO MUCH MONEY and if a CEO makes more than that, they should have it taken from them. Spit it out. WHAT IS THE NUMBER?
The answer to the question is 'as many as they want'. It is none of your business if I own 1 car or a dozen cars. How many I 'need' is not your business. Never was, never will be. Same for X=money and Y=CEO. Not your business.
Because it represents populist outrage which is more closely related to vigilantism than rule of law. Everyone wants a fair trial for all until they see some 'guilty bastard' go free, then they want to drag them out of the jail and hang them. Everybody wants 'free enterprise' until someone gets rich that they don't think 'earned it' and then they want to strip their money away from them for being 'evil' and 'greedy'. The evil is in the populists. I dislike evil. I dislike evil people. That clear enough for you?
So what? Is it legal or not? If not, charge them with a crime and prosecute them. If it was legal, it's none of your business.
What your populist rage says is that if a person earns their money the way you find admirable, then fine. If they inherited it, or won the lottery, or accidentally stumbled onto a fortune-making idea without working hard for it, then they need to have it taken from them. Screw that noise.
And? What does that mean? If I have sociopathic tendencies but do not break the law, shall I be locked up? If I use those tendencies to get rich but do not break the law, should I have my wealth taken?
Your arguments make me sick.
Because it appeals to populist outrage. And populism is currently en vogue amongst the left and right wing lunatics. Populism leads directly to the end of democracy, and the funny part about it is that it does so by popular demand. You'll circumvent the law to punish people you do not like; to hell with whether or not they broke the law, you want them punished for having 'tendencies' you don't like, or 'not having earned' their wealth, or 'stepped on the backs of the poor' to get it. That's nothing more than Lynch mob mentality. Put your noose away, vigilante, I'm not buying your BS.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,453
You know, tax time brings up an item that offers a little perspective on "CEO pay."
Walmart stock is currently about $57 a share, and paid $1.21 in dividends last year. That means that 100,000 shares paid about $121,000 on a $500,000 investment.
That's almost a 25% annual return for 2011. If you bought the stock in 2007 at it's low of about $41,like I did, you've made a lot of money.
Of course, during that time, Walmart's CEO, Mike Duke made an average of $35 million in annual salary, which rather famously means that he made more in an hour than most Walmart employees make in a year.Some-like my mother, Granfire, and Rita-that's the wife-might find this to be ridiculous and unjust.
As a Walmart stockholder, though, why in the world would I care? :lol:
Walmart stock is currently about $57 a share, and paid $1.21 in dividends last year. That means that 100,000 shares paid about $121,000 on a $500,000 investment.
That's almost a 25% annual return for 2011. If you bought the stock in 2007 at it's low of about $41,like I did, you've made a lot of money.
Of course, during that time, Walmart's CEO, Mike Duke made an average of $35 million in annual salary, which rather famously means that he made more in an hour than most Walmart employees make in a year.Some-like my mother, Granfire, and Rita-that's the wife-might find this to be ridiculous and unjust.
As a Walmart stockholder, though, why in the world would I care? :lol:
Well, at one time you had to be a walmart worker to get stock...I might remember that wrong though.
However, I think even Walamrt workers don't tend to bother with what the CEO makes: Walmart is doing good business, the people are paid, though crappy by most standards, for most people who do work there, education and all that, it's the best they can hope for.
(now compare that with the folks from K-Mart, who ruined the company...)
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Aging, health issues and Martial Arts. - Martial Journal- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
