"HK" wrote in message
...


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...


See? I sometimes choose my words carefully also.

Eisboch

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:33:17 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward that you
can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch

Do you consider honestly is defined by legality or some other measure?

I can tell you that the year Michael Eisner gave himself $500M out of
Disney was a good year for Disney and Eisner did have a huge hand in
Disney's revival.

But it was glutinous and a horrible precedent to set.

The greedy assholes who get paid enormous sums to ride a company into
the ground don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on, but for now
at least, it's still legal.

Is that what you consider honest?

Not intended as a slight to you, I'm truly interested.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:33:17 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward that
you
can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch

Do you consider honestly is defined by legality or some other measure?

I can tell you that the year Michael Eisner gave himself $500M out of
Disney was a good year for Disney and Eisner did have a huge hand in
Disney's revival.

But it was glutinous and a horrible precedent to set.

The greedy assholes who get paid enormous sums to ride a company into
the ground don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on, but for now
at least, it's still legal.

Is that what you consider honest?

Not intended as a slight to you, I'm truly interested.


That's a tough question to answer because who is qualified to assign
morality to a number?
I am not. I don't think you are either. You may have an opinion, as well
as I, but I'll bet the numbers are different.

"Honest" to me means that you earned what you did legally AND did not take
advantage of or gain your success at the expense of someone else. You run
a business. You must have heard the corny cliché about the best contract is
one that is fair to each party.

Eisboch

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:22:11 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:33:17 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward that
you
can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch

Do you consider honestly is defined by legality or some other measure?

I can tell you that the year Michael Eisner gave himself $500M out of
Disney was a good year for Disney and Eisner did have a huge hand in
Disney's revival.

But it was glutinous and a horrible precedent to set.

The greedy assholes who get paid enormous sums to ride a company into
the ground don't have a moral or ethical leg to stand on, but for now
at least, it's still legal.

Is that what you consider honest?

Not intended as a slight to you, I'm truly interested.


That's a tough question to answer because who is qualified to assign
morality to a number?
I am not. I don't think you are either. You may have an opinion, as well
as I, but I'll bet the numbers are different.

"Honest" to me means that you earned what you did legally AND did not take
advantage of or gain your success at the expense of someone else. You run
a business. You must have heard the corny cliché about the best contract is
one that is fair to each party.

Eisboch

Contracts between business entities aren't usually fair but there's an
attempt to distribute the potential pain reasonably.

Employment agreements, specifically those negotiated with a BOD's
compensation committee are done in the spirit of friendly accord with
folks who run in the same circles. They look out for one another. In
that case, I think the board likely serves the needs of the executives
over the needs of the company and shareholders.

That's what happened with Eisner and what happens with each of these
greedy *******s whose self-worth is measured against other egotistical
buffoon's compensation. It has spiraled out of control.

$500,000,000 could pay 10,000 people $50K/yr. Is one person worth
that much in other than a fantasy world? F-No. It's as Obama has
described it, shameless.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:25:28 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or
the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

IMO, this mentality that is killing us now started in the dot com
balloon. (that burst)
I remember companies going public within a year of incorporation and
having stock being valued and sold for astronomical prices although
they had never turned a profit. In fact, some had never produced a
product or service. It was the beginning of the get-rich-quick using
other peoples' money thought process and everyone was in on the
game.

Greed is as American as apple pie.

I suppose that's true, but I don't confuse greed with genuine, honest
attempts to better one's self financially or otherwise. Quite
often the
ambition someone has opens opportunities for others as well.

Dreams of and setting goals for success is also as American as apple
pie. Part of success includes financial reward for many, and there's
nothing wrong with that, IMO. To gain financially at the expense of
others is wrong, and that's what we are witnessing.

We're on the same track. Nothing wrong with dreams, setting goals and
achieving them, and attaining some financial reward. That's not greed.

Some financial reward?

What's "some" financial reward? Who defines what "some" is and what
"greed" is?



In my mind, you are entitled to whatever amount of financial reward
that you can honestly earn.

What you do with your financial reward is a different subject.

Eisboch


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...

This down turn is very similar to the dot com balloon, and hopefully the
recovery will be similar. Both were cause by worthless paper, paper
companies then and bad loans now.

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...


See? I sometimes choose my words carefully also.

Eisboch


Well, I can't argue with "honestly" earn.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jan 30, 11:59 am, jps wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:27:19 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:







"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:38 -0800, Frogwatch wrote:
Not content to
thumb their noses at their parents sacrifices, the boomers chose to
embrace immediate gratification via massive debt to fuel their every
whim. Now that the bill has come due, in true boomer fashion they are
now trying to pass the bill onto their great grandchildren via Obama’s
“Stimulus Plan” that will be paid by successive generations.
Up until Reagan, according to Dick Cheney, "proved deficits don't
matter", there were only two reasons for deficit spending, fighting a
war, and fighting a recession. There were 55,000 announced job cuts
on
Monday alone. Frankly, I'm praying Obama's "Stimulus Plan" is enough.
This is already going to be a severe recession, without Obama's plan,
it
could very well be a depression. Oh, and if something like the Great
Depression were to hit today, it would cost this country upwards of
$20
trillion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8?language=pri...
Back on my bandwagon:
I noticed something in Obama's public statement after the House vote on
the
$819B stimulus package yesterday.
At one point he said that stimulating small business is essential for a
recovery. He then said, "Private business is the economic growth
engine of
the country, not the government."
Those are key words. Maybe he is catching on.
That is the biggest reason no Republicans voted for the package and 11
of
the Democrats voted against it. The package is laden with earmarks and
pork, with only a small portion of it dedicated to lowering taxes on
small
business or providing other economic incentives.
The Republicans want a much bigger portion of the package to go towards
tax
relieve for small and private business.
Article written last January. Look at what stimulates the economy in
the short term, which is what we need. It's not small business
investment.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/articl...sp?cid=102598- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

snip
The President and Congress are quickly coalescing around a fiscal
stimulus plan to shore up the flagging economy. As currently
envisioned, the plan is expected to cost at least $150 billion and
include a sizable tax rebate, short-term tax incentives for business
investment, and temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits
and food stamps.
/snip

150 billion? What numbers is this guy looking at? I think he is off
by about 95%, coincidentally, about the same as the amount of pork in
the porkulous package... But he said it, so it must be true


Article written in January 2008...take a remedial reading course.

And that stimulus solved what?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:14:08 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:44:38 -0800, jps wrote:



The bill sucks but don't blame Obama for the **** we're in or the debt
our progeny will shoulder.

I suspect that bill will be radically changed in the Senate.
Too much resistance to the debt incurred.
And too many pieces that aren't "stimulative."
We got burned when the pols rushed TARP, and public resistance
against hurriedly tossing money is pretty high.
What I'm enjoying seeing is tentative jabs at "free trade."
We need more PERMANENT jobs.
Without addressing that need none of this stuff is good long term.
Cheap consumer goods and crass materialism is what got us here.
Wall Street bull**** telling everybody they could be rich without
labor.

--Vic

I haven't confirmed but rumor is that many of the layoffs at Microsoft
were blue badge (permanent hires) US citizens and few were H1-B's.

If so, I don't think it's a good formula for enticing congress to
relax H1-B quotas, as Microsoft has long argued.

We need a more educated workforce. While manufacturing would be a
good thing, we need more engineers and programmers.

But why go into engineering or programming when the jobs are being outsource
for $40k a year? Or less. I figured H1-B's kept our salaries down about
40%. When you could get a guy with a MS-electronics engineering for $50k a
year, why would they pay us American engineers $80k to start? And max out
at about $100k. Good sounding salary but when you go to school for 6 years
and take courses to keep up on the latest, the money starts to pale.

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...


See? I sometimes choose my words carefully also.

What is the value of a chief executive who employs 150,000 people,
increases the share holder's value and shows a profit?

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...


Ahhh...honestly earn...well...


See? I sometimes choose my words carefully also.

What is the value of a chief executive who employs 150,000 people,
increases the share holder's value and shows a profit?

No more than 10 times the average earnings of the average employee.