Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Mobilization

View
27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

27. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 23, 2012, 08:13 Beamer
 
Veterator wrote on Feb 23, 2012, 04:08:
Beamer wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 22:34:


What it often is is bonuses in the form of stock options, so that there's very serious investment from all the top employees.
You have that now, but not to the same extent. Often, though, those options didn't vest for years and unvested options were forfeit if you left the company, so there was far less company hopping since you'd be leaving a very sizeable amount of cash behind.

I have yet to speak to someone of the "common employee" variety who have gotten stock options and ended up not feeling ripped off. It usually pays off really well for early adopters and guys who come in at top tiers, but if you join even as little as a year after the company formed...you're SOL most the time unless you're top tier.

You either end up with stock that's worthless due to dilution or the company is bought out and your stock is worth pennies on the dollar in the deal. Or some other "screw the non-execs" deal.

It sounds like a really good idea, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually ended up with an amount of money that made them glad they stuck around through all the BS instead of jumping to another company for a higher pay position plus whatever else was in the deal.


Seems like more and more, stock doesn't mean much unless you control enough to influence decisions. As an employee or investor, you're just along for the ride and hope the people who are making the decisions are set on making you lose any gains you were expecting.

But that's who I'm talking about getting it - the executives.
Other than that stock options are a nice addition, but not a true form of compensation. Apple gives their MBA hires hundreds of thousands in their first few years, in addition to high salaries and good cash bonuses. It's cheap for Apple and it's nice for the new hires that are going to be pulling 80 hour weeks sourcing better plastic for the new iWhatever.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 23, 2012, 04:08 Veterator
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 22:34:


What it often is is bonuses in the form of stock options, so that there's very serious investment from all the top employees.
You have that now, but not to the same extent. Often, though, those options didn't vest for years and unvested options were forfeit if you left the company, so there was far less company hopping since you'd be leaving a very sizeable amount of cash behind.

I have yet to speak to someone of the "common employee" variety who have gotten stock options and ended up not feeling ripped off. It usually pays off really well for early adopters and guys who come in at top tiers, but if you join even as little as a year after the company formed...you're SOL most the time unless you're top tier.

You either end up with stock that's worthless due to dilution or the company is bought out and your stock is worth pennies on the dollar in the deal. Or some other "screw the non-execs" deal.

It sounds like a really good idea, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually ended up with an amount of money that made them glad they stuck around through all the BS instead of jumping to another company for a higher pay position plus whatever else was in the deal.


Seems like more and more, stock doesn't mean much unless you control enough to influence decisions. As an employee or investor, you're just along for the ride and hope the people who are making the decisions are set on making you lose any gains you were expecting.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 22:34 Beamer
 
Veterator wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 21:58:
Plus with extreme tax rates, there are other incentives the company offers in lieu of earnings and bonuses.

That might be a better office environment, better benefits packages, more locations, paid for housing, etc. Which all in turn fuel other aspects of the economy, spur more jobs, and increase tax revenue in their own way. If you can't earn more money, working less hours is the next way to go, with more vacation, etc.

Right now we're heading back the other way on the lesser jobs with people working MORE hours and essentially reducing the workforces to skeleton crews where they can't afford for people to NOT work overtime hours. Meaning your job is at risk if you don't work excessive hours in many jobs, while technically they follow the law.....they just find some other way to remove you.


What it often is is bonuses in the form of stock options, so that there's very serious investment from all the top employees.
You have that now, but not to the same extent. Often, though, those options didn't vest for years and unvested options were forfeit if you left the company, so there was far less company hopping since you'd be leaving a very sizeable amount of cash behind.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 21:58 Veterator
 
Plus with extreme tax rates, there are other incentives the company offers in lieu of earnings and bonuses.

That might be a better office environment, better benefits packages, more locations, paid for housing, etc. Which all in turn fuel other aspects of the economy, spur more jobs, and increase tax revenue in their own way. If you can't earn more money, working less hours is the next way to go, with more vacation, etc.

Right now we're heading back the other way on the lesser jobs with people working MORE hours and essentially reducing the workforces to skeleton crews where they can't afford for people to NOT work overtime hours. Meaning your job is at risk if you don't work excessive hours in many jobs, while technically they follow the law.....they just find some other way to remove you.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 15:55 Dev
 
Xombie wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 09:39:
Blues News forums are a whole lot better with prez on ignore.
I disagree. I don't yet have anyone on ignore, but if I did, prez wouldn't be on it. Even if I don't always agree with him, his posts are usually worth reading.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 11:21 Beamer
 
To clarify my last post, under 1965 tax code, inflation adjusted, a guy earning $50k would pay $10.4k in taxes, a 21% rate. A guy earning $250k would pay $83.270 in taxes, a 33% rate. A guy earning a million would pay $405,400, a 59% rate. And a guy earning 10 million would pay $8.725 in taxes, an 87% rate.

That guy earning $10 million keeps $1.274. A guy earning $5 million keeps $824k. A guy earning $824k keeps $364k. A guy earning $364k keeps $217k. A guy earning $217k keeps $150k. Etc. It isn't until you start earning over $250k that the taxes start getting extreme. But, as a result, there's no good reason to give one guy 1 million instead of 10 guys 100,000. There's no good reason to send 1,000 jobs overseas and give a guy a 10 million dollar bonus for it. Th money doesn't concentrate in few people, as it's very rapidly growing to right now (just look at how the balance of wealth has shifted since Reagan took office. 1% holds 40% of the wealth right now. For every dollar in America 40 cents is held by 1% of the people. And that is rapidly shifting. And I'd argue that it's really 0.5% that have it all.)

An economy cannot grow when so much money is in the hands of so few. They're not spending it, just accumulating it. The others aren't earning enough to spend enough to grow. The economy slows, then stagnates, then shrinks.
I don't care about inequality or fairness, I care about a healthy economy.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 10:58 Ozmodan
 
He should resign for being such an idiot to think the monopoly laws did not apply.

If you are going to be that oblivious to business law you have no business being a CEO!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 10:47 Beamer
 
wtf_man wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 10:18:
Beamer wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 09:50:
But yeah, the amount of changes we've seen to how our CEOs operate ever since the top tax bracket dropped from >70% to <40% is insane.

I'm sorry, but NOBODY should be in a 70% tax bracket. That's fuckin' insane.

At the same time... these asshats that are in the 35%-40% brackets shouldn't be able to CHEAT their way down to 15%, either.

You understand marginal tax rates, right?

If you do I'm sorry, but to assume that no one should be in it I'd guess you don't. It means that income after a certain amount is taxed a certain percentage.

So let's use the 1962 tax brackets, adjusted for inflation:
The first $30k is taxed 20%
The next $30k is taxed 22%
The next $30k is taxed 26%
The next $30k is taxed 30%
This goes up until $2.2 million, which is taxed 90%, and 2.9 million, which was taxed 91%.

This doesn't mean that a guy earning 3 million paid 91% in taxes, it just means he paid 91% on every dollar over $2.9 million. He made 9 cents for every buck above that.

Essentially it was a salary cap set by the government. What incentive would a company have to pay their CEO above $2.9 million? Any money to him just goes to the government. Every dollar paid to him was worth only 9 cents to him, which was nothing considering how much he already earned (and kept.)

So salaries were capped. Where did that money go, then? It would be reinvested into growth. It would be spent on other employees. There was no strong desire to cut jobs because those savings weren't as important. These days those savings are considered very important because enormous chunks of them go to very few individuals (just look at what happened to Black & Decker.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 10:18 wtf_man
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 09:50:
But yeah, the amount of changes we've seen to how our CEOs operate ever since the top tax bracket dropped from >70% to <40% is insane.

I'm sorry, but NOBODY should be in a 70% tax bracket. That's fuckin' insane.

At the same time... these asshats that are in the 35%-40% brackets shouldn't be able to CHEAT their way down to 15%, either.
 
Avatar 19499
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 09:50 Beamer
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 09:43:
CEO and exec salaries are insanely out of line relative to the work they do. I read a study recently that said the average CEO makes 157 times on average what the average wage earner makes. Even if they did work harder, which they don't, do they really work 157 times harder. Almost anyone can play the role of CEO effectively. It's an entirely overrated position.

"Harder" is a difficult thing to define, but they typically have the entire weight of the company on their shoulders, and are much more responsible for things much harder to control, or even out of their control.

But yeah, the amount of changes we've seen to how our CEOs operate ever since the top tax bracket dropped from >70% to <40% is insane. There are other factors at play, but that's the big one. Cut 10,000 jobs, get a ten million dollar bonus. When giant bonuses weren't possible due to the tax code there was less incentive to do something like that.
Of course, technology has made sending jobs overseas feasible, so that plays part, but the incentive is very much one of bonus. And the short term earnings focus of Wall St. has been another odd factor here.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 09:43 Prez
 
Xombie wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 09:39:
Blues News forums are a whole lot better with prez on ignore. At least 50% less complaining, and 75% less talking points in threads.

Wow. I have that much of an impact? I am flattered! Beam
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 09:43 Cutter
 
CEO and exec salaries are insanely out of line relative to the work they do. I read a study recently that said the average CEO makes 157 times on average what the average wage earner makes. Even if they did work harder, which they don't, do they really work 157 times harder. Almost anyone can play the role of CEO effectively. It's an entirely overrated position.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Bye weeks? Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks, and now he's dead… Well, maybe they're a good thing." - Moe
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 09:39 Xombie
 
Blues News forums are a whole lot better with prez on ignore. At least 50% less complaining, and 75% less talking points in threads.  
Xombie x0mbie x0mb|e Xombie
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 09:37 Beamer
 
Prez wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 08:21:
12. Ignored

Considering Beamer's utter stupidity I have no doubt that this comment is a childish jibe at me. It is amazing that he's too stupid to understand the concept of "ignored". I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't ignore his asinine ramblings. Life is too short to willingly subject oneself to his constant unwavering idiocy.

"Childish jibe."

Again, I know he reads these by clicking on my username, and they're often quoted.

Just find "childish jibe" amusing when followed by "constant unwavering idiocy."
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 08:21 Prez
 
12. Ignored

Considering Beamer's utter stupidity I have no doubt that this comment is a childish jibe at me. It is amazing that he's too stupid to understand the concept of "ignored". I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't ignore his asinine ramblings. Life is too short to willingly subject oneself to his constant unwavering idiocy.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 07:43 Beamer
 
Prez wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 05:53:
Truthfully I have no problem with CEO salaries. It's not my place to say who deserves to make what in salary. My garbageman probably thinks I make too much money simply because I make more than he does. When you start putting arbitrary limits on what certain people are allowed to earn, where does it stop? If we can tell CEO's what they can make, then can the drive-thru girl at Wendy's have the right to tell me what I can make?

What I do have a problem with is the utter lack of business ethics that exists in corporation management today. The amount of sleaze and good 'ole boy back-scratching that goes on among elites with never a care for the common employees, the ones who actually earn the money the company is making through what they do, is sickening. I just don't know what can be done about it without intrusive legislation that gives the Fed more power than it already has, which as it is is abused almost continuously.

Says the Glen Beck fan.
Why do you think there is what you perceive as a lack of business ethics?
To increase bonus size and therefore take home salary

So if you dislike one you dislike the other, because there's a direct correlation.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 05:53 Prez
 
Truthfully I have no problem with CEO salaries. It's not my place to say who deserves to make what in salary. My garbageman probably thinks I make too much money simply because I make more than he does. When you start putting arbitrary limits on what certain people are allowed to earn, where does it stop? If we can tell CEO's what they can make, then can the drive-thru girl at Wendy's have the right to tell me what I can make?

What I do have a problem with is the utter lack of business ethics that exists in corporation management today. The amount of sleaze and good 'ole boy back-scratching that goes on among elites with never a care for the common employees, the ones who actually earn the money the company is making through what they do, is sickening. I just don't know what can be done about it without intrusive legislation that gives the Fed more power than it already has, which as it is is abused almost continuously.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 04:34 Veterator
 
Flatline wrote on Feb 22, 2012, 03:23:
Tom wrote on Feb 21, 2012, 22:18:
Sooo... How much should the CEO of a company with almost 300k employees and $277B in assets make then?

90 times their lowest paid employee's wage.

So at 7.25 minimum wage a CEO would only be able to net around 640 dollars an hour. That works out to about 1.3 million a year. That should be plenty.

If he wants more money, he can give the poor bastard at the bottom a raise. A dollar an hour more for the custodian equates to 90 bucks an hour more for him. Which means the CEO brings home a million five a year.

Stock options and bonuses are depending on the company's standing 5-10 years *after* each work year. So if I was CEO in 2010, I wouldn't get stock options or bonuses until 2015 or 2020, ensuring I had a *vital* interest in the long-term health of the company.

Actually a pretty decent argument being made there. Far too much of the economy is based off short/quarterly term gains and it's not beneficial to society.

While long term planning would negate or mitigate a lot of the problems we have, such as the housing crisis and market failure afterwards.....you still need some sort of mechanism for dealing with extreme measures that have to be dealt with a timely manner for the companies continued survival. Some examples might be, extreme weather destroying their production (farms, mining, etc), new technology coming to market that requires a retool of their manufacturing to compete (think cost effective 3D printing, viable alternative to gasoline, or new plastic replacement).

The short term extreme solutions would be few and far between, and would technically be covered through long term rewards. But it seems like being a CEO in a difficult situation would offer no reward if there wasn't a clear best possible solution. While being a CEO during an uneventful year would be rewarding in comparison especially if there were unforeseen gains in your year due to market fluctuations that benefited your company.

But overall I agree that things should be stretched out. Just like I feel that loyalty should be the norm instead of constant job hopping for more pay (which is basically what you need to do if you want to be taken seriously...it's backwards in a lot of ways.) Imagine if you had to shop for new car insurance each year because your current company always made you pay more due being an known quantity, easy to retain, good long term customer. Health insurance does this, but health insurance has every aspect of the health care field bickering and overcharging.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 03:23 Flatline
 
Tom wrote on Feb 21, 2012, 22:18:
Sooo... How much should the CEO of a company with almost 300k employees and $277B in assets make then?

90 times their lowest paid employee's wage.

So at 7.25 minimum wage a CEO would only be able to net around 640 dollars an hour. That works out to about 1.3 million a year. That should be plenty.

If he wants more money, he can give the poor bastard at the bottom a raise. A dollar an hour more for the custodian equates to 90 bucks an hour more for him. Which means the CEO brings home a million five a year.

Stock options and bonuses are depending on the company's standing 5-10 years *after* each work year. So if I was CEO in 2010, I wouldn't get stock options or bonuses until 2015 or 2020, ensuring I had a *vital* interest in the long-term health of the company.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Evening Mobilization Feb 22, 2012, 02:02 Agent.X7
 
Tom wrote on Feb 21, 2012, 22:18:
Sooo... How much should the CEO of a company with almost 300k employees and $277B in assets make then?

Probably no more than the highest paid, non-executive employee. Do you actually think they do very much? They have legions of assistants and minions that do the actual work, and most of the ideas that earn the actual money come from middle-management.

FYI, as a former IT guy who has sat in the CEOs office of two major corporations working my ass off while the top dog fucked around all day, this isn't guesswork.
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo