This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?
Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
If you don't like what "Joe Worker" gets paid, start paying him. "Joe Worker" shouldn't steal your money. You give it to him when you buy his labor. You don't need a fucking revolution to give your wealth to "Joe Worker". You just need to hire him.
I meant that it is not a workable solution across the board. For one thing, many people are not capable of running a company due to their temperament, intelligence, etc. Also, as I mentioned, it would be a sad waste of many people's abilities to be doing CEO work when they're more ideally suited for something else. And of course if we all decided to follow your advice, there would be nothing to be president of.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?
Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.
Thank you. You said it a lot better than I did, but that is the point I was trying to get across. I don't care that the President of my agency make more than me. He probably puts up with a lot more shit than I do so he deserves it. I also have no desire to be the president of any agency or even my own because as hippiemom said it would take away from what I am good at and that is concepting and designing. My problem is the inequality in treatment. The agency is suffering some hardship so why should he be rewarded while the rest of us are facing lay-offs. He is just as responsible for the well being of the agency as we are, if not more. There is a hiring freeze, freelance freeze, pay raise freeze but the top tier still manages to get a bonus. If the agency was doing well I would careless if he received a million dollar bonus as long as I had a job and was being compensated for it, but that is not the case.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Here's a thought for you to chew on. I agree with the respondant that said that said corporation has the inheirent right to pay their CEO whatever they wish. After all, it's up to the stockholders to do what they feel will best grow the company.
However.
My problem is this. The people involved in the day to day decisions in our Government..this includes the President, V.P, their Cabinet, and Congress... Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to be in bed with Big Business in this country. When policy is constantly being written that undermines the spirit of competition, the result is invariably going to be negative when it comes to the worker, the consumer and the taxpayer. It seems like every major industry is in contant consolidation. Take for example the insurance industry. Thanks to consolidation, there are maybe five major health insurers in the U.S. What that means for consumers is less choices, increased health care costs and more disregard by the insurers for their customers and their employees in general. I am increasingly convinced that what is being created in this country is nothing less than a new subclass of white collar prolitariat, who's lives and ability to increase their own wealth are more and more subject to the abuse of their dollar driven empoyers.
My girlfriend works for a major, United Health. Last week, her department fired three people...meanwhile they have hired 20 interns from OSU to do the job my girlfriend does at 10K less a year. They fire three people, not for performance issues, but because upper managment needed to free up 120K-130K in salary to pay for these interns whom can't even perform 1/2 the job function that their salaried writers do. So it comes down to bottom line. Cut heads, keep in budget, make money. To add insult to injury, UHC's CEO is bringing in roughly 500M salary and stock options. It's incredible that these three writers have their financial lives turned on-end for what?
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
I'm not saying his job is easy and that he doesn't deserve what he gets, but if the agency is in trouble finacially, instead of handing out bonuses to the top tier, why not put that money back into the agency to retain some of it's people.
That's the company's decision. I'm not defending whether it's right or wrong, just defending the company's right to make it.
You implied that whether the president receives the bonus is not up to him or her, so there must be someone(s) else making the decision.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This is not a workable solution, and everyone who proposes it knows it. I don't know why you keep saying it. We can't ALL be president or CEO. Someone has to do the actual work, don't they? Don't you think it would be a horrible waste of talent for someone with mammasan's creative abilities to be spending his time doing whatever it is that presidents of ad agencies do? Isn't it better if the creative people create, and the managerial people manage?
Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.
I totally agree that everyone has contributed. The crux is the value of each contribution. The general consensus is that the upper management's contribution is worth more. That's just how it works right now.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Thank you. You said it a lot better than I did, but that is the point I was trying to get across. I don't care that the President of my agency make more than me. He probably puts up with a lot more shit than I do so he deserves it. I also have no desire to be the president of any agency or even my own because as hippiemom said it would take away from what I am good at and that is concepting and designing. My problem is the inequality in treatment. The agency is suffering some hardship so why should he be rewarded while the rest of us are facing lay-offs. He is just as responsible for the well being of the agency as we are, if not more. There is a hiring freeze, freelance freeze, pay raise freeze but the top tier still manages to get a bonus. If the agency was doing well I would careless if he received a million dollar bonus as long as I had a job and was being compensated for it, but that is not the case.
Then I misunderstood you and agree with you on a lot of the points.
The problem is, the bonus is a decision to be made by the management of a company who have earned the right to make that decision. Management makes many bad decisions, but they do have the right to make them.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Except yourself. Except your business. Except your life. But that's no good.
We all have to be president of each other for something to work, apparently.
There are very, very few businesses that can be fully owned and operated by one person. It's not a matter of wanting to be president over other people ... it's a matter of more than one person being required for any work to get done in most industries.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
But "the board" still wants and deserves to be rewarded when they contribute towards the increased prosperity of their employers.
Definitely! And that, in part, is why slavery is wrong. But we're not talking about slavery here.
There are very, very few businesses that can be fully owned and operated by one person.
Meh...not "very, very few". The minority, definitely. But the point is valid.
It's not a matter of wanting to be president over other people ... it's a matter of more than one person being required for any work to get done in most industries.
And that's why more than one person is paid.
Look, it's easy to see a ratio like 400:1 and cry foul. It's certainly bullshit. Are CEOs worth 400 times more than an average person? Except for a rare exception perhaps, definitely not. But this isn't some massive problem. We're talking about a few billion dollars here. Go ahead, take back "YOUR WEALTH" as someone said earlier. What do you have? Ten bucks for everybody. Wow, congratulations.
This is a symptom of a mindset that creates much bigger problems. The mindset is the mindset of sacrifice...the one that tells "Joe Worker" that he owes his labor to his company and his pittance is just compensation. Sometimes that pittance is just compensation. Sometimes it's not. In the cases where it's not, I'm not going to fault the corporation who is freely paying it without binding "Joe Worker" to his job. "Joe Worker" needs to demand more and back up that demand with the value of himself. We need to stop teaching "Joe Worker" that he owes his body and his mind to a corporation or to "society" or to God. Only then will we stop seeing people sacrificing themselves to "greater goods" that just turn out to be unabashed looters.
Then I misunderstood you and agree with you on a lot of the points.
The problem is, the bonus is a decision to be made by the management of a company who have earned the right to make that decision. Management makes many bad decisions, but they do have the right to make them.
You are right they do have the right to make what ever decision they want, but I also have the right to be pissed off about their decision especially when their decision may cost me my job.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm a CEO...though I guess not by name. I rarely refer to myself as one, nor does anyone else in my business. However, every day on this board I see post after post directly or indirectly lampooning me and "my kind" as thieves, as barons, as liars, as cheats. Does this insult me? No, because I'm not a thief, a baron, a liar or a cheat. But does it bother me? Yeah. Because in those posts is often a written or unwritten threat informing me that someone is going to "take back what is theirs" with force at the expense of my freedom or my life.
Do I make more than the people who work for me? Typically, yes. Do I make 400 times more than anyone who works for me? Not even close.
Do I profit from my labor and the labor of others? Hell yes. Do I forbid those others to profit themselves? Hell no. People here are compensated beyond most of your wildest dreams.
Do I force anyone to buy my products, invest in my business, or work for me? Absolutely not. I earn those things based on the standards of effort, genius and integrity as judged by the people I trade with.
So please, the next time you use the term "CEO" or "president" ask yourself if the context in which you use it would best be served with the name of an individual or a word like "nigger".
dont regret it. it annoys the piss out of me. it is NOT a given that the poster agrees with the article posted and if you're going to spend your day scouring the internet for articles just to post them here without comment, make one thread... the "these are the articles i found today thread" with nothing but links.
if you're going to make a whole brand new thread about it, tell us what you think. otherwise it feels like cherry-picking/baiting and ive seen this juvenille practice before. post an article, keep your views secret, wait for someone to disagree, then make snide and condescending remarks to them for it.
yes, the whole board knows my thoughts on this subject, halliburton and other things are secret! ahahahahaha
also, you are faaaaaar from being above making snide and condescending remarks yourself
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i add to plenty of discussions around here. are you going to start a revolution? or are you just giong to sit here and bitch about it?
yeah, maybe you can tell us which 15 year olds give you a hard on again :rolleyes:
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm a CEO...though I guess not by name. I rarely refer to myself as one, nor does anyone else in my business. However, every day on this board I see post after post directly or indirectly lampooning me and "my kind" as thieves, as barons, as liars, as cheats. Does this insult me? No, because I'm not a thief, a baron, a liar or a cheat. But does it bother me? Yeah. Because in those posts is often a written or unwritten threat informing me that someone is going to "take back what is theirs" with force at the expense of my freedom or my life.
Do I make more than the people who work for me? Typically, yes. Do I make 400 times more than anyone who works for me? Not even close.
Do I profit from my labor and the labor of others? Hell yes. Do I forbid those others to profit themselves? Hell no. People here are compensated beyond most of your wildest dreams.
Do I force anyone to buy my products, invest in my business, or work for me? Absolutely not. I earn those things based on the standards of effort, genius and integrity as judged by the people I trade with.
So please, the next time you use the term "CEO" or "president" ask yourself if the context in which you use it would best be served with the name of an individual or a word like "nigger".
I'm a CEO...though I guess not by name. I rarely refer to myself as one, nor does anyone else in my business. However, every day on this board I see post after post directly or indirectly lampooning me and "my kind" as thieves, as barons, as liars, as cheats. Does this insult me? No, because I'm not a thief, a baron, a liar or a cheat. But does it bother me? Yeah. Because in those posts is often a written or unwritten threat informing me that someone is going to "take back what is theirs" with force at the expense of my freedom or my life.
Do I make more than the people who work for me? Typically, yes. Do I make 400 times more than anyone who works for me? Not even close.
Do I profit from my labor and the labor of others? Hell yes. Do I forbid those others to profit themselves? Hell no. People here are compensated beyond most of your wildest dreams.
Do I force anyone to buy my products, invest in my business, or work for me? Absolutely not. I earn those things based on the standards of effort, genius and integrity as judged by the people I trade with.
So please, the next time you use the term "CEO" or "president" ask yourself if the context in which you use it would best be served with the name of an individual or a word like "nigger".
Thanks.
I agree with the cheating, lying, thieving baron.
People who make oodles of money didnt get where they are being dumb. Or by being lazy. Or by hanging out on a message board. They didnt "steal" that wealth either. A large portion of major companies employ thousands of people, all who seem to get on fine with what they earn. What do you want? THe top guys in charge to make 2 bux an hour more than the janitor? Who gets to set the "gap in pay"? You??? Please.
Comments
Mammasan and the president have an interdependent relationship. Mammasan needs someone to competently manage his company or he'll soon find himself in the unemployment line, and the president needs mammasan to continue to produce good work, or he'll soon find himself with nothing to manage. They should BOTH be rewarded when the system works, everyone doing their part, and profits increase. I am not suggesting that everyone earn the same amount of money, but there should be proportional increases across the board when profits go way up. Everyone working there, from the CEO to the person who empties the trash, has contributed towards those profits.
Except for those who actually do it.
Thank you. You said it a lot better than I did, but that is the point I was trying to get across. I don't care that the President of my agency make more than me. He probably puts up with a lot more shit than I do so he deserves it. I also have no desire to be the president of any agency or even my own because as hippiemom said it would take away from what I am good at and that is concepting and designing. My problem is the inequality in treatment. The agency is suffering some hardship so why should he be rewarded while the rest of us are facing lay-offs. He is just as responsible for the well being of the agency as we are, if not more. There is a hiring freeze, freelance freeze, pay raise freeze but the top tier still manages to get a bonus. If the agency was doing well I would careless if he received a million dollar bonus as long as I had a job and was being compensated for it, but that is not the case.
However.
My problem is this. The people involved in the day to day decisions in our Government..this includes the President, V.P, their Cabinet, and Congress... Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to be in bed with Big Business in this country. When policy is constantly being written that undermines the spirit of competition, the result is invariably going to be negative when it comes to the worker, the consumer and the taxpayer. It seems like every major industry is in contant consolidation. Take for example the insurance industry. Thanks to consolidation, there are maybe five major health insurers in the U.S. What that means for consumers is less choices, increased health care costs and more disregard by the insurers for their customers and their employees in general. I am increasingly convinced that what is being created in this country is nothing less than a new subclass of white collar prolitariat, who's lives and ability to increase their own wealth are more and more subject to the abuse of their dollar driven empoyers.
My girlfriend works for a major, United Health. Last week, her department fired three people...meanwhile they have hired 20 interns from OSU to do the job my girlfriend does at 10K less a year. They fire three people, not for performance issues, but because upper managment needed to free up 120K-130K in salary to pay for these interns whom can't even perform 1/2 the job function that their salaried writers do. So it comes down to bottom line. Cut heads, keep in budget, make money. To add insult to injury, UHC's CEO is bringing in roughly 500M salary and stock options. It's incredible that these three writers have their financial lives turned on-end for what?
Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
Ok. But "the board" also doesn't want to be president or CEO.
Certainly.
Sure.
Except yourself. Except your business. Except your life. But that's no good.
We all have to be president of each other for something to work, apparently.
That's the company's decision. I'm not defending whether it's right or wrong, just defending the company's right to make it.
You implied that whether the president receives the bonus is not up to him or her, so there must be someone(s) else making the decision.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I totally agree that everyone has contributed. The crux is the value of each contribution. The general consensus is that the upper management's contribution is worth more. That's just how it works right now.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Then I misunderstood you and agree with you on a lot of the points.
The problem is, the bonus is a decision to be made by the management of a company who have earned the right to make that decision. Management makes many bad decisions, but they do have the right to make them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
There are very, very few businesses that can be fully owned and operated by one person. It's not a matter of wanting to be president over other people ... it's a matter of more than one person being required for any work to get done in most industries.
Definitely! And that, in part, is why slavery is wrong. But we're not talking about slavery here.
Meh...not "very, very few". The minority, definitely. But the point is valid.
And that's why more than one person is paid.
Look, it's easy to see a ratio like 400:1 and cry foul. It's certainly bullshit. Are CEOs worth 400 times more than an average person? Except for a rare exception perhaps, definitely not. But this isn't some massive problem. We're talking about a few billion dollars here. Go ahead, take back "YOUR WEALTH" as someone said earlier. What do you have? Ten bucks for everybody. Wow, congratulations.
This is a symptom of a mindset that creates much bigger problems. The mindset is the mindset of sacrifice...the one that tells "Joe Worker" that he owes his labor to his company and his pittance is just compensation. Sometimes that pittance is just compensation. Sometimes it's not. In the cases where it's not, I'm not going to fault the corporation who is freely paying it without binding "Joe Worker" to his job. "Joe Worker" needs to demand more and back up that demand with the value of himself. We need to stop teaching "Joe Worker" that he owes his body and his mind to a corporation or to "society" or to God. Only then will we stop seeing people sacrificing themselves to "greater goods" that just turn out to be unabashed looters.
You are right they do have the right to make what ever decision they want, but I also have the right to be pissed off about their decision especially when their decision may cost me my job.
Do I make more than the people who work for me? Typically, yes. Do I make 400 times more than anyone who works for me? Not even close.
Do I profit from my labor and the labor of others? Hell yes. Do I forbid those others to profit themselves? Hell no. People here are compensated beyond most of your wildest dreams.
Do I force anyone to buy my products, invest in my business, or work for me? Absolutely not. I earn those things based on the standards of effort, genius and integrity as judged by the people I trade with.
So please, the next time you use the term "CEO" or "president" ask yourself if the context in which you use it would best be served with the name of an individual or a word like "nigger".
Thanks.
yes, the whole board knows my thoughts on this subject, halliburton and other things are secret! ahahahahaha
also, you are faaaaaar from being above making snide and condescending remarks yourself
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yeah, maybe you can tell us which 15 year olds give you a hard on again :rolleyes:
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
holy drama queen, batman...
im not going to play that game.
If your talking quantity and not quality, I agree.
I agree with the cheating, lying, thieving baron.
People who make oodles of money didnt get where they are being dumb. Or by being lazy. Or by hanging out on a message board. They didnt "steal" that wealth either. A large portion of major companies employ thousands of people, all who seem to get on fine with what they earn. What do you want? THe top guys in charge to make 2 bux an hour more than the janitor? Who gets to set the "gap in pay"? You??? Please.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Is that simply because you don't agree with his opinions.
THats because of the large number of posts that are just articles, sans opinions. And due to repeats.
And repeats
And repeats
And repeats
And repeats
etc.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
It's called sharing information.
um, are there not opinions contained in the said articles..?
its called redundancy. Some here are almost like cartoon characters. Or white noise.
Usually opinions presented as fact, yes. But rarely any opening thoughts given by any thread starters with these articles.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Well you see it differently than I do and that's what makes this board worth while the fact that we all don't see eye to eye.
I missed this requirment in the guidelines...
oh, wait...it's not...
continue with your white noise...
I guess we should request that Kat & Sea update the guidelines with this new rule. No posting articles unless you provide an accompanying opinion.
And no more threads started with the lyrics or a line from a non pearl jam song. There are other areas in this mssg board for that no?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Well what if you are using those lyrics to express your opinion.