Does giving CEO's Stock Options cost jobs?

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
True Panda. Sad isn't it?

Almost all have bought into this.

It's why we have a rich country.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: ZZman
True Panda. Sad isn't it?

Almost all have bought into this.

It's why we have a rich country.

Thus you're thinking distills to greed = prosperity.

Now I understand how you've arrived at the rest of your ideological views, and why you cling to them so tightly.

-Spyder

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

Thus you're thinking distills to greed = prosperity.

Now I understand how you've arrived at the rest of your ideological views, and why you cling to them so tightly.

-Spyder

Self interest = prosperity without doubt. Or do you believe the general population too incompetent to handle their own affairs?

Do you not better yourself so that you make more money? If so, then you are greedy by your own definition.

 

[3311]

To desire more or better is human nature.

 

[JHZR2]

Apparently not per the goodbye middle class thread. Apparently people like sub-par conditions and cant learn any better...

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Spyder7

Thus you're thinking distills to greed = prosperity.

Now I understand how you've arrived at the rest of your ideological views, and why you cling to them so tightly.

-Spyder

Self interest = prosperity without doubt. Or do you believe the general population too incompetent to handle their own affairs?


That is one of those statements that has inherent truth, but becomes false when reduced to such a simple equation. I'm not going to go into all of the whys on why its false when reduced to that, but I will state that the general population has - many times - shown itself, time after time, to act against its own self-interest.

Quote:
Do you not better yourself so that you make more money? If so, then you are greedy by your own definition.


Its not my definition, its your definition. I better myself not only to make more money, but because knowledge has its own intrinsic value - separate from whatever dollar figure you put on it - and I enjoy learning for its own sake.

So on the one hand, yes I better myself to make more money, but on the other I do so also to create more options in terms of future job opportunities. In looking at a job opportunity, there is more involved for me as well than the bottom line salary equation. I will, and have, taken pay cuts to move to positions where I took more gratification from the work and enjoyed it more. I won't take a job - at any salary - that I'll be miserable in, not when I can choose alternatives where I'm not.

When you factor in that a week is 168 hours, that you spend about 56 of them sleeping, you're left with 112 waking hours. Spending 40-60 of them doing something I'm miserable doing simply because it pays more is the kind of math that works only when you attempt to distill it to pure mathematics.

There are other factors that a dollar sign can't be placed on, and which can't be quantified. Your views eliminate or ignore the many variables that can't be quantified, but are no less important despite that fact.

-Spyder

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Your views eliminate or ignore the many variables that can't be quantified, but are no less important despite that fact.

Not at all. I said self interest = prosperity. Prosperity doesn't have to be money...but is sure does help to make a rich country.

You said that you have sacrificed better paying jobs for the work that you prefer doing. To you, this is prosperity. To others it is making money or, most likely, a combination of many things.

Everybody will have a different definition.

 

[ZZman]

To want better or more is human nature.

But to what length will we go to obtain it?

Will we crush the weak to obtain it or keep it?

If you were promised 1 million dollars more in your paycheck if you let go 10 hard working employees would you? How many would? When I was younger I would say I probably would have said yes. i see things differently now.

When is enough....enough?

 

[ZZman]

I think when more companies were owned and run by the people that built them, and they knew the people in the company as truly people and not a number, there was more concern for the worker.

There used to be a love and respect for long term dedicated employees.

 

[ZZman]

Laying off or letting go say 10,000 people does not affect only those people. Many have families who are also affected. This could easily triple the number of people whose lives are affected. Many times whole communities are affected in a negative way.

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Apparently not per the goodbye middle class thread. Apparently people like sub-par conditions and cant learn any better...


I am confused. Is middle class subpar?

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
To want better or more is human nature.

But to what length will we go to obtain it?

Will we crush the weak to obtain it or keep it?

If you were promised 1 million dollars more in your paycheck if you let go 10 hard working employees would you? How many would? When I was younger I would say I probably would have said yes. i see things differently now.

When is enough....enough?

I don't know.

When is enough enough with respect to greedy, thugish unions?
When is enough enough with respect to Federal/State/Local employees and their ridiculous benefits, salaries, and pensions made on the backs of the tax payer?
When is enough enough with respect to taxes?
When is enough enough with respect to 49% of us working class supporting the rest?
When is enough enough with respect to free market manipulations in order to promote "green energy" and other radical agendas by socialist politicians?
Did I miss anything?
All of the above has cost more jobs, stolen more futures and crushed more dreams than any amount CEO compensation could.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
I think when more companies were owned and run by the people that built them, and they knew the people in the company as truly people and not a number, there was more concern for the worker.

There used to be a love and respect for long term dedicated employees.

Good idea! Go start one of those companies, my family and I did. But good luck trying to find a dedicated employee no matter how well you treat them.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Laying off or letting go say 10,000 people does not affect only those people. Many have families who are also affected. This could easily triple the number of people whose lives are affected. Many times whole communities are affected in a negative way.
What about when corporations move over seas because a hostile/over regulated/over taxed environment here? Is that different? Are those families affected less?

 

[dwendt44]

Quote:
Does the fact that they get stock cause them to do whatever it takes to get the stock price as high as possible?


It may not be the main consideration, but it does enter into a CEO's thought process and planning.

 

[dwendt44]

Quote:
When is enough enough with respect to greedy, thugish unions?
When is enough enough with respect to Federal/State/Local employees and their ridiculous benefits, salaries, and pensions made on the backs of the tax payer?
When is enough enough with respect to taxes?
When is enough enough with respect to 49% of us working class supporting the rest?
When is enough enough with respect to free market manipulations in order to promote "green energy" and other radical agendas by socialist politicians?
Did I miss anything?
All of the above has cost more jobs, stolen more futures and crushed more dreams than any amount CEO compensation could.


Largely nonsense.
thuggish unions? Which ones? Unions are only asking for fair treatment and a share of the pie they helped create.

Public sector employees get decent benefits to offset the lower pay they get versus private industry. That the gap is a close as it is is due to outsourcing run wild during the last 10-12 years.

Taxes under Clinton was about right. The largest economic expansion in recent history; more millionaires created in recent history; real wages actually went up; the budget was balanced in 2000; 22,000,000 jobs created.

Given the income distribution curve, it looks like 75% is supporting the top 5%.

There is no 'free' market. The 'Green' revolution is our future. We need it to get off the addiction to petroleum.
You don't seem upset at the Billions we subsidize the oil industry with. You aren't ranting against the Billions in agricultural subsidies that go corporate farmers.
Why not be upset with the thousands of lobbyists that buy their way through Congress; most to the detriment of the middle class.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: dwendt44
Quote:
When is enough enough with respect to greedy, thugish unions?
When is enough enough with respect to Federal/State/Local employees and their ridiculous benefits, salaries, and pensions made on the backs of the tax payer?
When is enough enough with respect to taxes?
When is enough enough with respect to 49% of us working class supporting the rest?
When is enough enough with respect to free market manipulations in order to promote "green energy" and other radical agendas by socialist politicians?
Did I miss anything?
All of the above has cost more jobs, stolen more futures and crushed more dreams than any amount CEO compensation could.


Largely nonsense.
thuggish unions? Which ones? Unions are only asking for fair treatment and a share of the pie they helped create.

Public sector employees get decent benefits to offset the lower pay they get versus private industry. That the gap is a close as it is is due to outsourcing run wild during the last 10-12 years.

Taxes under Clinton was about right. The largest economic expansion in recent history; more millionaires created in recent history; real wages actually went up; the budget was balanced in 2000; 22,000,000 jobs created.

Given the income distribution curve, it looks like 75% is supporting the top 5%.

There is no 'free' market. The 'Green' revolution is our future. We need it to get off the addiction to petroleum.
You don't seem upset at the Billions we subsidize the oil industry with. You aren't ranting against the Billions in agricultural subsidies that go corporate farmers.
Why not be upset with the thousands of lobbyists that buy their way through Congress; most to the detriment of the middle class.
Is this a serious post?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
To want better or more is human nature.

But to what length will we go to obtain it?

Will we crush the weak to obtain it or keep it?

If you were promised 1 million dollars more in your paycheck if you let go 10 hard working employees would you? How many would? When I was younger I would say I probably would have said yes. i see things differently now.

When is enough....enough?


It depends like you said on the age of the person, how desperate he or she is, and the law and regulation.

Say what you like about how much you trust the human nature to do the right thing, we as survival of the fittest thrives on benefiting at the expense of other, as well as the general fittest of our gene pool (family, comrades, fellow citizens, overall humanity, in that order) so we setup laws and regulation to encourage overall positive behavior. Even those who say "government causes everything to go bad" has to agree that some form of government at least to protect against violent crime, is necessary.

Remove that entirely, you'll get warlords like in Somalia. How much is enough? Depends on the tolerance of the people suppressed and how much they want to change, and how much influence and power they have. In a democracy, you only need 50.00001% to win and in a warlord run society, you probably need 95% to get rid of the 5% that's suppressing everyone else.

 

[genynnc]

To the topic, I don’t know the numbers or correlation between public companies who’s CEOs are given stock options and their attrition rates vs. those in the private sector or other public companies who have different executive compensation plans. So I can’t really comment one way or the other on it’s effect.

However, as some have stated, it was to align the interests of the company and the folks in senior management. It’s certainly not perfect and it definitely can be improved on, but it’s a start nonetheless.

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
but I will state that the general population has - many times - shown itself, time after time, to act against its own self-interest.
-Spyder


Spyder, I understand what you are getting at, to some extent. However, you must realize this is a slippery slope, to assume from your own perspective, that people/communities/populations vote, purchase, waste, accept trade-offs which go against their own self interest. There is a great possibility of observational error there. As you and Tempest pointed out, subjectivity not only guides purchase prices but our vocabulary and also the many ways each individual goes about life. So, while you may 'feel' people act against their own self interest in some instances, it may not be so. By the same token, people do 'shoot their own foot' because they/ we are not always rational when we ignore the opportunity cost and other externalities/ factors.

Originally Posted By: ZZman
To want better or more is human nature.

But to what length will we go to obtain it?

Will we crush the weak to obtain it or keep it?

If you were promised 1 million dollars more in your paycheck if you let go 10 hard working employees would you? How many would? When I was younger I would say I probably would have said yes. i see things differently now.

When is enough....enough?


ZZ, this is a impossible scenario. You give no acceptable reason to fire them? Who would ever toss 10 good employees just for a $1 million dollars? The labor of 10 individuals exceeds some small businesses. Ten workers could be an entire shift for a business. 10 workers could be 10 loan officers for a mortgage broker shop and if they were all gone, well your business shuts down because no one is pre-qualifying borrowers.

Here, I’ll give you a valid scenario so we can get rid of the ‘touchy, feely’ and get to some details that help make the decision. If I was a shop manager and had the ability to boost productivity 50% by bringing in a CNC cabinet mill; would I continue to employee an extra 10 manual machinist? No, they would all be gone tomorrow. However, if the 10 men/ women were the only manual machinist in the company, no way, the business would have no way to prototype.