Let the Good Times Roll: Another Lousy CEO Gets $140 Million for Getting FIRED

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Az

But it needs to be quite high to attract the best.

or the best will do what? take up their old pottery habit?

... they should be so lucky.

[Japher]

I would definitly need at least $200MM to be fired... that's fer sure.

[Az]

Originally posted by General Ludd


... they should be so lucky.

I knew I'll get a response out of you on that one.

[rah]

But if I was offered a job by a pyscho and leaving a well paid position, I'd want something up front to make sure if they fired me after 3 months, I'd be covered. Not many deny that he's not a pyscho. This guy was supposedly a bud of his, so I think he knew. Now was 140 mil too much, probably so, but if you can negotiate that type of serverence when you're hired, you probably worth every penny of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Every buisness should have a cause beyond greed

No, they shouldn't. They are created to make money and that's their cause. That's how they benefit society.

Not buy a computer? Bad example. Technology is something that alot of CEO-types can really believe in. Likewise, providing quality and affordable appliances for people to use is something that a person could easily believe in. (and, indeed, I'm sure that's how they all began)

Oh please, do you really think that most executives believe in the dream of providing computers to everyone or appliances for everyone? If that were the case, they would get back far less profit. The cause they believe in is making money.

There are CEOs who haven't completed college, too...

Who work for Disney? You were the one that said read the OP. How does Ovitz compare to a Mom&Pop store?

[Sava]

Originally posted by elitist Siddiqui
No, they shouldn't. They are created to make money and that's their cause. That's how they benefit society.

benefit society? I'd laugh if it wasn't so disturbing...

how does maximizing profit by fleecing the public benefit society?

I guess concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands is good for everyone, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
benefit society? I'd laugh if it wasn't so disturbing...

how does maximizing profit by fleecing the public benefit society?

I guess concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands is good for everyone, right?

You are typing on a computer right? Who made that, Sava? I think it may have been.... a corporation! *gasp*

And we all know that computers have had no benefit to society at all... nosiree!

[Az]

Now was 140 mil too much, probably so, but if you can negotiate that type of serverence when you're hired, you probably worth every penny of it.

Dude, if I hypnotize you and tell you to give all your money, or get you in a cult, and make you give me all your money, would I deserve the money?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You are typing on a computer right? Who made that, Sava? I think it may have been.... a corporation! *gasp*

And we all know that computers have had no benefit to society at all... nosiree!

nice strawman

I didn't say corporations are bad...

I said concentration of wealth is bad...

there can be a happy balance of profits and a more egaltarian concentration of wealth

the problem with your pathetic arguments is that you are saying the more money corporations make from profit, the better it is for society... and that simply isn't true. I thought you were smarter than that, but I guess you are just blinded by your misguided ideology. I don't know why that's a surprise to me though.

[Sava]

btw imran, if you want to talk about computers, let's look at some computer companies...

Dell and Gateway: two of the biggest, most successful computer companies... also, the worst and cheapest computers on the market... the same for other companies that sell PC's like Bestbuy, Circuit ****ty, etc.

Most of the best hardware comes from other companies that don't make as much money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
nice strawman

I didn't say corporations are bad...

I said concentration of wealth is bad...

there can be a happy balance of profits and a more egaltarian concentration of wealth

How by government mandating it? Of course that doesn't stifle innovation or anything; but of course, getting you to see the facts Sava would be harder than getting Michael Moore into a 30 inch waistband jeans. But bleat on with your blinded statements. It just makes you look all the more foolish.

In every single economic boom, the difference between rich and poor gets bigger, because the rich get richer greater than the middle class and poor get richer (and richer they do get).

What, you think that IBM, Apple, and other companies that created computers in the early days weren't motivated by insane profits? You think Steve Jobs took a pittance and gave most of the money to his 90 hour a week workers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sava
btw imran, if you want to talk about computers, let's look at some computer companies...

Dell and Gateway: two of the biggest, most successful computer companies... also, the worst and cheapest computers on the market... the same for other companies that sell PC's like Bestbuy, Circuit ****ty, etc.

Most of the best hardware comes from other companies that don't make as much money.

Dell and Gateway, also responsible for a far higher percentage of people owning PCs than otherwise would. They are in it for the money, but in doing so, they have greatly expanded the number of people with computers.

The companies with the 'best hardware' charge more for them. The lower income people can't afford them. So much for being against concentration of wealth, eh, Sava?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Every buisness should have a cause beyond greed

No, they shouldn't. They are created to make money and that's their cause. That's how they benefit society.

No, that's how they benefit themselves.

Oh please, do you really think that most executives believe in the dream of providing computers to everyone or appliances for everyone?

Not many do thesedays, I'm sure... mostly they all believe in is geting a 10 million dollar salary and pinching as much money out of other people's pockets as they can.

If that were the case, they would get back far less profit.

The cause they believe in is making money.

Exactly... pure greed. Swindlers, the lot of 'em.


An organization doesn't need to make obscene profits to benefit society... take my previous example of non-profit organizations, for example - typically the most beneficial of all buisnesses.

There are CEOs who haven't completed college, too...

Who work for Disney? You were the one that said read the OP. How does Ovitz compare to a Mom&Pop store?

Do you consider AOL Time Warner, Oracle, and Microsoft (to name only a few) to be "mom&pop stores"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

An organization doesn't need to make obscene profits to benefit society... take my previous example of non-profit organizations, for example - typically the most beneficial of all buisnesses.

Yet even when they take obscene amounts of profits, they've benefited society. IBM has benefited society so much they should give them a freaking medal.

Do you consider AOL Time Warner, Oracle, and Microsoft (to name only a few) to be "mom&pop stores"?

Time Warner?! It's kind of hard to be a managing partner of a law firm before becoming CEO without a college degree. Yes, CEO Richard Parsons was a managing partner in the firm of Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler. His graduated from University of Hawaii and Union University's Albany Law School.

Ellison (Oracle) and Gates (which I assumed you meant when talking about Microsoft - their current CEO, Steve Ballmer is a Harvard Graduate) are very different than what we are talking about and are the exception, not the rule. Both are the founders of their respective companies (ie, haven't been brought in by some Board to a massive salary) and created companies in a vastly new field which wasn't being taught sufficiently in universities. Both of them did indeed spend a few semesters at highly respected universities (Ellison at University of Illinois and University of Chicago and Gates at Harvard). Furthermore, since they created their companies and put together their massive empires, I think they deserve every penny they can get out of it.

Ellison and Gates are making the money they are because they founded those companies. If those will similar training want to form their own company, then they can go right ahead. But you seriously can't say they deserve as much as Ellison and Gates because they have the same training. Ellison and Gates have obviously shown greater skills. And how have they done so? By building their empires.

CEOs that are brought in, however, are highly educated and/or have demonstrated great skills (by running their own business).

When Ellison and Gates pass on, Oracle and Microsoft will turn over the CEO position to those who have been highly educated in the more prestigious schools of the day.

[Patroklos]

Most of the best hardware comes from other companies that don't make as much money.

And of course it is priced our of the range of proles because they are not big corporations.

I suppose if the average person can't afford the best, they shouldn't have anything at all.

You are are just jealous.