What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
73 Comments
- norman619, on 05/14/2009, -13/+30Who gives a *****? They were PRIVATELY OWNED companies and their board members were free to reward their CEO's in whatever manner they liked. Gvernment has no business telling a company what is acceptable in the rewarding of their employees. The ones the government now owns are another matter. Since the government is a major share holder in these companies then they can have a say in how they are run. Is I have a company free of any governmental involvement then I am free to do as I please. They only people I would answer to are the board members. If I felt my CEO deserved diamond studded toilet paper then that is my business not the government's and certainly not the business of people who do not own stock in my company. This is another example of the media trying to take advantage of the class envy in our country to villify CEOs of all companies when only a select few ran their companies into the ground.
- Blisshead, on 05/14/2009, -0/+13No, not the public, the shareholders. The words "the public" and the word "shareholder" are not synonymous.
- Seditio, on 05/14/2009, -2/+12Clearly Harry you have no clue what a CEO or an executive board even does. Do they work 12+ hours every day? No. These men are not necessarily compensated for 'hard work' but rather they are compensated for level of the decisions they make. As FKnight said, they can make one decision which can affect 20,000-30,000 people, not counting share holders, and also lose the company billions upon billions of dollars. As much as you do not want to admit it these men are extremely intelligent and educated beyond the means that most people can ever dream. Did most of them have privileged lives? Of course. But why should you hold what they were born into against them? When you were born did you instantly run off and live in the worst possible conditions just to avoid the 'easy' life?
- FKnight, on 05/14/2009, -2/+11@harry8227:
If a single decision of mine could affect the lives of tens of thousands of workers or if I was responsible for a company where my decisions can affect monetary amounts in the billions, you better believe I want a big ***** check. Heart doctors aren't cheap. - norman619, on 05/14/2009, -1/+10WOW.... You have no clue. The board represents the shareholders. They board dictates how these COE's get compensated. If you aren't a shareholder (own stock in the company) then your option is meaningless since you have NOTHING invested in the company.
- ModernDayDarwin, on 05/14/2009, -0/+7I would like to agree with you, and wasn't sure I could until the last sentence. In a lot of companies the CEOs are amazing. Heck, sometimes just the managers, not even the CEOs. If they decided to give my boss anything, she would deserve it. However when the company is being run into the ground, that's another story. I guess at that point though the board needs to get a clue.
- ShiftyBizniss, on 05/14/2009, -0/+6Diamond studded toilet paper would be a painful price to pay for glamour.
- Bleue, on 05/14/2009, -1/+7The notion that normal business practices should concern only the business's shareholders is both very dangerous and extremely stupid.
Golden parachutes aside, which i'm not opposed to as long as they are tied to performance in some way, these large corporations not only employ tens of thousands of people but pump money into, and drain money out of in some cases, economies worldwide. This has a very direct effect on people who have never owned, and never will own, shares in the business. If we take a hypothetical, lets say GM goes completely bankrupt and sells all their assets and completely dissolves, then it's not just the shareholders that are affected, in fact the case could be made they they would arguably be one of the least affected groups. Employees, subcontractors, communities, etc etc. none of whom necessarily hold stock, would be very affected and have a right to voice opinion on the subject.
The issue, BTW, is not that huge golden parachutes or golden coffins or CEO salaries exist, it's that they seem to be paid out to CEOs that have done a terrible terrible job almost as often, if not more, as they are to CEOs that actually build value and strengthen the companies.
But that's besides the point. Commenter's who say that non shareholders need to butt out and have no right to their opinions on the matter need to take a deep breath and turn their brains back on. - salstress, on 05/14/2009, -2/+7i sense you've never had to be in charge of anything but have always been in a lowly position where you bitch all day about the people above you. try leading something. it is very difficult. especially when you have to lead people like you.
- MaryCait, on 05/14/2009, -0/+4People can do all sorts of crazy stuff and run their businesses however it happens....that being said, what's up with having such a huge sense of ridiculous entitlement?
- FKnight, on 05/14/2009, -9/+13Egregious my ass. Buy some stock in the company, then you can bitch -- otherwise, STFU n00b.
- Jrod65, on 05/14/2009, -0/+4Behaving responsibly ≠ Loss of freedom
The notion that folks can chose not to work for these huge corporations if they don't like their practices is becoming less and less a reality. As these companies eliminate competition, and as a result choice is reduced, those who are often affected the most have the least say, and the fewest options. The only way to try to get these companies to behave responsibly is to expose the warts. Hopefully we won't soon get to a point where they don't care if you do see their warts. - LordVance, on 05/14/2009, -0/+4@pub - that's not a choice for companies this large though... you most obviously require both to operate any any major level.
Digg: FOOD CRISIS! NO MORE FOOD FOR YOU!
publiclurker: Meh, given the choice between no food and no air, I'd have to say you are better off with the no food anyway. - publiclurker, on 05/14/2009, -0/+4I had a boss like that. He couldn't afford any raises and it turned out it was because he wanted a larger kitchen in his new house he was building. Within 3 months, 75 percent of his employees left. I managed to get three times the raise at my new company, and the ex boss was forces to sell to a competitor.
- slippeh, on 05/14/2009, -3/+6I believe you, I really do... /s
- Jrod65, on 05/14/2009, -0/+3dugg up for having more in common than not.
I just believe that it has become acceptable in this country to eliminate your competition — not by being better at what you do than them, but by any (often times illegal and immoral) means necessary.
That creeps away from free-market and toward fascism. - norman619, on 05/14/2009, -1/+4My god ar you purposfully ignoring the topic of this conversation? We are talking about CEO compensation and how people who DO NOT own any stock in a company have say in how said company compensates their CEO.
Your reading comprehension is WAY off or you are trolling. - norman619, on 05/14/2009, -4/+7Ah yes and I bet you are one of those fools who think their managers do nothing all day as well. You are either very young or incredibly stupid. COE is the captain of the ship. A ship w/o a captain goes nowhere. I laugh everytime I hear an idiot who has no idea what the job of CEO entails yet feels they know enough to assume a company can function w/o a CEO.
- norman619, on 05/14/2009, -0/+3It's all about the bling baby!
- imronburgundy83, on 05/14/2009, -0/+3I hate how everything on Digg becomes a debate between Conservative and Liberal fanboys. Gets old. You're not going to change anyone's mind in here.
- GRANDPAMUNSTER, on 06/11/2009, -2/+5It's amazing that these ceo's don't have problem spending $80,000 on two chairs until someone says something about it. I understand that these are privately owned companies, but I'm sure if you worked for one of them you would care about these lavish expenses. Good luck asking for a raise, they can't afford it because they have to provide limo service for the ceo for the rest of his life.
- KMartSheriff, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2To a degree, maybe, but it's not so "the sky is falling" like you make it out to be.
- KMartSheriff, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Can someone show me where the "digg twice" button is?
- ladykba, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2QUIET down old man and give me some money in your will!
- geekee, on 05/15/2009, -0/+2The forgot U.S. President: Own personal 747 airliner, Camp David, stay in a historical mansion, personal chef, etc.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -2/+4Is this what we're calling "golden parachutes" now?
- Zoshchenko, on 05/14/2009, -4/+6Nobody is worth the amount of money these guys make. It's a club where they just move from job to job, failure to failure, but everyone is afraid to say "no" to them. They are completely out of touch with mainstream America, which is why so many of their companies are in trouble.
- KMartSheriff, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2I could not find the reply button.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2Sorry guy your million is what they are using to light their cigars and burn in the fireplace to heat their big houses.
- TruthKid, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2Don't forget crowd number three who simply can't stand anyone in a position of authority. I'm a hater, that's my job, so let me do what I'm here to do.
- zombiecarlin, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2Most of these guys pay little or no tax in relation to their respective incomes and benefits. I for one think they should have to pony up the same percentage of their income towards tax as I do.
- boozedrinker, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2I love it how digg users think they are so Liberal Democrat. Most of the time, the comments section is full of Libertarian (at best), semi-right leaning comments. You people need to remember that a true Conservative on the far right wants LESS GOVERNMENT.
There's is a severe identity crisis going on. - wmuldoon, on 05/14/2009, -1/+3You're just too conservative.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -7/+9Being a CEO at one of the worlds largest corporations is not a job its the new royalty.
- joe8pack, on 05/15/2009, -0/+2I think there was a typo in the 1st sentence of that article instead of saying " Running big public companies is hard work" I think they meant:" Ruining big public companies is hard work."
- TruthKid, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1Well the moneys have to come from somewhere...
- scootinger, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1On #10: "After decades of tireless service, CEOs deserve a comfortable retirement."
After decades of tireless service, doesn't *EVERY* hard-working American deserve a comfortable retirement, not just greedy CEOs? I'd like to see the capitalists over at Marketwatch answer this one. - publiclurker, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1Or outsource to India and hide four people at one tenth the pay.
- Modulo, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1Well why don't you make a giant puppet and protest about it then?
- Jrod65, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1I couldn't agree more. The notion that accountability stops with the shareholders is short-sighted and extremely irresponsible.
- johnnyg113, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1No, digg is a community full of lots of different people with lots of different viewpoints. I'd say the two most prevalent political parties represented are liberal and libertarian. That's why you see a lot of liberal democrat posts and a lot of libertarian posts. I've seen posts have 100+ diggs that have praised Obama and slammed Obama.
- Restil, on 05/14/2009, -1/+2The whole purpose of paying CEOs a lot of money is that they ultimately either save more than that, or make more than that for the company they preside over. Paying a CEO $10 million a year seems like a lot to most people, but if the company profits $100 million a year as a direct result of the leadership of the CEO, then it's worth every penny.
As for you the consumer, they only sell things for what you're willing to pay for them. There's always a cheaper option. - sgvprelude, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1All these millions being tossed around, I'm just looking for one.
- KMartSheriff, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1It's all relative. If you were a CEO and used to that lifestyle, $80,000 wouldn't seem like such an insane amount as it does to you and I. But this is Digg where rich people are always wrong, so digg me down.
- efolgate, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1this war on CEO's is getting old and tiring. It's not a news flash that they get tons of needless perks, but since Obama has put it into the limelight, we act all outraged like we never knew this stuff was going on. Give me a break. If these corporations want to spend money on stupid crap for their overpaid CEO's, go ahead and let them. The free market will punish them at some point for their careless spending, bad reputation, and lack of good customer service. These are private companies and they can spend their money how they want. They'll find out later in bankruptcy court that their spending habits were stupid and greedy.
- scootinger, on 05/14/2009, -0/+1I'm sure many people could spam Digg better, too.
- norman619, on 05/14/2009, -1/+2You DO have the option of not buying the products or services of companies you disapprove of. Quit trying to sound like a victim. You always have options. Get off your ass and focus on your own finances. Your time would be better spent there.
- mredamon, on 05/14/2009, -1/+1i could not agree more.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is