You miss the point raiders... People like you and I DO NOT pay the fee.
So the rates are increased so the poor pay a higher fee.
It's a never-ending relentless attack on people who can least afford the fee.
Goose---that IS my point. Stupid people make poor choices. That is why they stay poor. Don't pay ATM fees. Just another example, if nobody paid the fees then they would go away, or at least be there just for idiots or at the very least as a last resort.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
You miss the point raiders... People like you and I DO NOT pay the fee.
So the rates are increased so the poor pay a higher fee.
It's a never-ending relentless attack on people who can least afford the fee.
Goose---that IS my point. Stupid people make poor choices. That is why they stay poor. Don't pay ATM fees. Just another example, if nobody paid the fees then they would go away, or at least be there just for idiots or at the very least as a last resort.
LOL.....if the employees are so inefficient, how is the company making millions? Truth is, the CEO's are out of touch. Look at how bad customer service has gotten in most industries (don't tell me you haven't heard about the Comcast debacles).
In many situations, the employees will bust their fools to help a company be productive.......the company has a stellar year..........& the employees are rewarded by having the head count cut. CEO's work for Wall St & no one else.
Because they are so big they can hide the inefficiency. For example, the US govt is the best example of it. If you and I ran a 6-7 man shop we couldn't afford inefficieny; everyone has to carry their load. That is why when a new CEO comes in one of the first things they do is try to fix inefficient things; and this usually will result in layoffs. Even shareholders and analysts realize this; normally this will result in a rise in share price---because it is seen as streamlining the company.
At a big company (and some smaller) people are not busting their butts I have worked at big companies and small ones. Big ones have more folks that feel entitled and sense that they can be carried. People do not have the work ethic your parents and grandparents did. Some people still feel thankful to have a great job and do work hard.
I don't know of what examples you refer to when companies have a stellar year and 'reward' employees by laying them off? It is, obviously, usually the other way around. A lot of businesses offer profit sharing etc. Of course, CEOs working for Wall Street is partially true. It is all about bottom line. A good CEO will cull dead weight. For example, they called Jack Welch--Hacksaw Jack--- because every year he would let the bottom 10% of his managers go. It is all about constant improvement and finetuning. If people want complacency and mediocrity then they should get a monotonous, assembly line type job. If you worked at a mom and pop hardware store and did a half-hearted job you would expect to get fired. But at a big company you never expect to be fired---only eventually laid off if you are in bottom tier. Which probably meant you should have been fired way before you got laid off.
And as the guy above mentioned most people here are referring to a handful of CEOs that make this exorbitant pay; the majority make much smaller salaries.
0
Quote Originally Posted by THEMUGG:
LOL.....if the employees are so inefficient, how is the company making millions? Truth is, the CEO's are out of touch. Look at how bad customer service has gotten in most industries (don't tell me you haven't heard about the Comcast debacles).
In many situations, the employees will bust their fools to help a company be productive.......the company has a stellar year..........& the employees are rewarded by having the head count cut. CEO's work for Wall St & no one else.
Because they are so big they can hide the inefficiency. For example, the US govt is the best example of it. If you and I ran a 6-7 man shop we couldn't afford inefficieny; everyone has to carry their load. That is why when a new CEO comes in one of the first things they do is try to fix inefficient things; and this usually will result in layoffs. Even shareholders and analysts realize this; normally this will result in a rise in share price---because it is seen as streamlining the company.
At a big company (and some smaller) people are not busting their butts I have worked at big companies and small ones. Big ones have more folks that feel entitled and sense that they can be carried. People do not have the work ethic your parents and grandparents did. Some people still feel thankful to have a great job and do work hard.
I don't know of what examples you refer to when companies have a stellar year and 'reward' employees by laying them off? It is, obviously, usually the other way around. A lot of businesses offer profit sharing etc. Of course, CEOs working for Wall Street is partially true. It is all about bottom line. A good CEO will cull dead weight. For example, they called Jack Welch--Hacksaw Jack--- because every year he would let the bottom 10% of his managers go. It is all about constant improvement and finetuning. If people want complacency and mediocrity then they should get a monotonous, assembly line type job. If you worked at a mom and pop hardware store and did a half-hearted job you would expect to get fired. But at a big company you never expect to be fired---only eventually laid off if you are in bottom tier. Which probably meant you should have been fired way before you got laid off.
And as the guy above mentioned most people here are referring to a handful of CEOs that make this exorbitant pay; the majority make much smaller salaries.
Goose---that IS my point. Stupid people make poor choices. That is why they stay poor. Don't pay ATM fees. Just another example, if nobody paid the fees then they would go away, or at least be there just for idiots or at the very least as a last resort.
You don't get it. Some people do not have a choice but to pay the fee. As impossible as that may sound to you, THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
Goose---that IS my point. Stupid people make poor choices. That is why they stay poor. Don't pay ATM fees. Just another example, if nobody paid the fees then they would go away, or at least be there just for idiots or at the very least as a last resort.
You don't get it. Some people do not have a choice but to pay the fee. As impossible as that may sound to you, THEY DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.
Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
Raisers doesn't have a problem with this. There's no reasoning with someone with his mindset. He isn't reasonable.
0
During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.
Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
Raisers doesn't have a problem with this. There's no reasoning with someone with his mindset. He isn't reasonable.
So the American way is to take advantage of stupid people? I think that is actually true but it is also quite pathetic.
Push down those who make bad decisions or are not able to think through solid decision making methods..
For sure businesses feast off stupidity and all these stupid people equal higher corporate profits.
Not just stupid people. People that don't care. If people waste money through ignorance or complacency, it is a them problem. As I have said many times, fiscal responsibility is not taught to our kids today. Many people get by on WAY less than other people do. It is a matter of priorities. There is no way our parents or grandparents would have gotten into money problems like this. Because they grew up in depression era they valued money choices. If you don't have it; don't spend it. Plan ahead. Plan to get old. Plan to retire. People don't do it largely because they have a get-it-now attitude. That is not the companies and banks fault. I am never condoning unethical or illegal behavior. But companies are in it to survive and make money. Look at how many businesses fail. Businesses feast off of people spending money, period. Stupid people; smart people, both spend money.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So the American way is to take advantage of stupid people? I think that is actually true but it is also quite pathetic.
Push down those who make bad decisions or are not able to think through solid decision making methods..
For sure businesses feast off stupidity and all these stupid people equal higher corporate profits.
Not just stupid people. People that don't care. If people waste money through ignorance or complacency, it is a them problem. As I have said many times, fiscal responsibility is not taught to our kids today. Many people get by on WAY less than other people do. It is a matter of priorities. There is no way our parents or grandparents would have gotten into money problems like this. Because they grew up in depression era they valued money choices. If you don't have it; don't spend it. Plan ahead. Plan to get old. Plan to retire. People don't do it largely because they have a get-it-now attitude. That is not the companies and banks fault. I am never condoning unethical or illegal behavior. But companies are in it to survive and make money. Look at how many businesses fail. Businesses feast off of people spending money, period. Stupid people; smart people, both spend money.
During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.
Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
Raisers doesn't have a problem with this. There's no reasoning with someone with his mindset. He isn't reasonable.
You are wrong. If I were on the board I would NOT have voted for it. But I am saying it is their RIGHT to vote to pay him that. That is what I am okay with. They obviously felt they were getting bang for their buck. The companies that did NOT hire him did not see him as worth that. Same as Kobe. At this point in his career will someone else pay him what the Lakers are? Maybe; maybe not. I know people that say no one person is worth 30M a year. But if they are to someone, who am I to say they aren't. They just aren't worth it to the ones that don't hire them is all.
My business model probably wouldn't work because I don't see the bang for the buck at that price. If I ran the show I would hire a younger up and coming CEO type so I wouldn't have to pay. He would be ambitious and trying to prove himself. Then when he did and got better offers---I would rinse; repeat.
0
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.
Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
Raisers doesn't have a problem with this. There's no reasoning with someone with his mindset. He isn't reasonable.
You are wrong. If I were on the board I would NOT have voted for it. But I am saying it is their RIGHT to vote to pay him that. That is what I am okay with. They obviously felt they were getting bang for their buck. The companies that did NOT hire him did not see him as worth that. Same as Kobe. At this point in his career will someone else pay him what the Lakers are? Maybe; maybe not. I know people that say no one person is worth 30M a year. But if they are to someone, who am I to say they aren't. They just aren't worth it to the ones that don't hire them is all.
My business model probably wouldn't work because I don't see the bang for the buck at that price. If I ran the show I would hire a younger up and coming CEO type so I wouldn't have to pay. He would be ambitious and trying to prove himself. Then when he did and got better offers---I would rinse; repeat.
Hot Forum Topics
