Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No more money to IBM
- Thread starter moby1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah okay so he is greedy.
Boo hoo. IBM loses some money. Currently they are only making iBook chip and old old old CRT iMac.
Boo hoo. IBM loses some money. Currently they are only making iBook chip and old old old CRT iMac.
Beyond greed.
Payouts of this scale are beyond greed. CEO's like this are intent on wrecking the company (and our economy).
Also, SJ was given that jet but I'm not sure it's his to keep/sell.
Payouts of this scale are beyond greed. CEO's like this are intent on wrecking the company (and our economy).
Also, SJ was given that jet but I'm not sure it's his to keep/sell.
Get over it....
By your logic, we should boycott sports, cinema, music, & books, as top people in these fields make comparable incomes.
A compensation package of that size does NOTHING to drain the resources of a company that did 80BN last year.
Furthermore, were IBM to offer a package of, let's say, 1M total, the talent pool from which they'd be selecting a leader would be:
Less experienced
Less driven
Likely less intelligent
By your logic, we should boycott sports, cinema, music, & books, as top people in these fields make comparable incomes.
A compensation package of that size does NOTHING to drain the resources of a company that did 80BN last year.
Furthermore, were IBM to offer a package of, let's say, 1M total, the talent pool from which they'd be selecting a leader would be:
Less experienced
Less driven
Likely less intelligent
Your kidding?
Has everyone in America become so apathetic that a few million dollars here or there means nothing?
Irresponsible officers of industry have now done irreparable harm to our economy and our nation.
Please, let's not sit idly by and take it.
Has everyone in America become so apathetic that a few million dollars here or there means nothing?
Irresponsible officers of industry have now done irreparable harm to our economy and our nation.
Please, let's not sit idly by and take it.
Re: Your kidding?
IBM is not your local struggling merchant. A few million means nothing to IBM.
Think of it this way. If you were Bill Gates, would you stop to pick up a dollar bill?
No, because in the time you spent picking up that dollar, you'd have lost $50.
It is similar with IBM. If they were to save a few million hiring an inexpensive CEO, they'd stand to lose billions in revenue, which would lead to job losses, and further economic despair.
Communism doesn't work (ask the countries which have tried). Therefore, IBM must pay large packages to upper management to survive.
And for record, there are irresponsible officer's of industry everywhere, but individual investors running like chickens to get out of the market did just as much as Enron to screw the economy. This "harm" you speak of is nothing, it happens all the time, the economy is cyclical. Period. It's a recession. It's not even a depression. Get over it.
And the nation? Unless you're implying that somehow corporations were responsible for 9.11, you're off base here too. Bad things happen in business, good things happen too. There is nothing permanent that will change the nation.
I don't know if you remember the '80s, but similar greed and corruption ended the yuppie boom. Remember Milken? Prolly not, but my point is, by the late '90s it was all wine and roses again. So it will be again in a few years.
Don't blame the very smart, perserverant, educated hard working people who claw their way to the top for ruining the economy. For every Enron CEO, there are 50 Jobs, Gates, etc. For every bankrupt company, there are many that will survive and prosper.
IBM is not your local struggling merchant. A few million means nothing to IBM.
Think of it this way. If you were Bill Gates, would you stop to pick up a dollar bill?
No, because in the time you spent picking up that dollar, you'd have lost $50.
It is similar with IBM. If they were to save a few million hiring an inexpensive CEO, they'd stand to lose billions in revenue, which would lead to job losses, and further economic despair.
Communism doesn't work (ask the countries which have tried). Therefore, IBM must pay large packages to upper management to survive.
And for record, there are irresponsible officer's of industry everywhere, but individual investors running like chickens to get out of the market did just as much as Enron to screw the economy. This "harm" you speak of is nothing, it happens all the time, the economy is cyclical. Period. It's a recession. It's not even a depression. Get over it.
And the nation? Unless you're implying that somehow corporations were responsible for 9.11, you're off base here too. Bad things happen in business, good things happen too. There is nothing permanent that will change the nation.
I don't know if you remember the '80s, but similar greed and corruption ended the yuppie boom. Remember Milken? Prolly not, but my point is, by the late '90s it was all wine and roses again. So it will be again in a few years.
Don't blame the very smart, perserverant, educated hard working people who claw their way to the top for ruining the economy. For every Enron CEO, there are 50 Jobs, Gates, etc. For every bankrupt company, there are many that will survive and prosper.
IBM is more fiscally responsible that the majority of large companies. You want to be angry, be angry at Merrill-Lynch which kept pushing Enron stock even though they knew it was in huge trouble. Most stock brokers don't seem to be as good ethically as the stereotypical used car salesman.
Didn't Apple just clean house on their Board of Directors? What about Gap? There seemed to be a lot of friends (and some of the same people) on both boards.
You're going to find that even the best of companies will have some wasted money.
When was the last time you bought an IBM-branded PC? If you don't buy an iBook, you're not really sending IBM a message, you're sending Apple a message. If you don't buy the mythical Apple machine with a PPC 970 in it, you're hurting Apple because IBM doesn't know.
Didn't Apple just clean house on their Board of Directors? What about Gap? There seemed to be a lot of friends (and some of the same people) on both boards.
You're going to find that even the best of companies will have some wasted money.
When was the last time you bought an IBM-branded PC? If you don't buy an iBook, you're not really sending IBM a message, you're sending Apple a message. If you don't buy the mythical Apple machine with a PPC 970 in it, you're hurting Apple because IBM doesn't know.
Nipsy said:
How many of these investors "ran like chickens" from the market because of all the accounting frauds that were willfully perpetrated by these corporations?
How many of these investors "ran like chickens" from the market because of all the accounting frauds that were willfully perpetrated by these corporations?
Well, for me the bottom line is getting a new, faster cpu from IBM. We're not going to get it anywhere else. You can choose to boycott IBM, that's your own right. Me, I want my 970! 
Oh, and you need a subsciption to see that article - which I don't have. If someone could post it, I'd be thankful. It really doesn't matter how much he gets, its what they can give him and how much difference do you think it makes to a company like IBM?
D
Oh, and you need a subsciption to see that article - which I don't have. If someone could post it, I'd be thankful. It really doesn't matter how much he gets, its what they can give him and how much difference do you think it makes to a company like IBM?
D
Re: Your kidding?
What are we advocating here, Moby? Corporations owe a duty of care to one group of people, and one group only - the shareholders. Not prospective sharholders, not its employees and certainly not the general public. Likewise, potential investors and individual shareholders have an obligation to research and remain informed about the companies in which they invest. Stocks are not some product corporations offer for sale and must stand behind - they are a means by which individuals can raise money in order to engage in a buisness that would otherwise be beyond their means, while spreading the risk (key word, risk) among several investors, and limiting the risk of those investors to an amount of money (i.e., the number of shares they choose to purchase) of their choosing, rather than their entire wealth. An attempt by the officers of a corporation to defraud shareholders is a breach of trust, and the law provides ample remedies.
Given that corporations are (and should be) only answerable to shareholders (through the Board of Directors that they elect), issues of employee compensation are ultimately none of our business. If Acme, Inc wishes to pay its CEO an excessive salary or bonus, then that is the concern of the shareholders, whose stock price and dividends will suffer as a result. Jack Welch, whatever his compensation may have been, more than earned that back from the shareholders by increasing confidence in GE and maintaining profitablity.
I do not wish to sound jingoistic, but I really have no patience for those who do not understand the market and corporate structure advocating some sort "correction" or action to "rectify" the situation. Corporations and markets drive the economy (find one on earth that works without a sound corporate/market system), and you only have to look at the long-sluggish economies of Europe to see what "a little socialism" can do. Despite the one or two bad cases of Enron, Global Crossing, etc, impuning the entire system because of them would be akin to asserting that because "Battlefield Earth" stinks, all movies stink. The Corporation is the greatest tool for economic growth concieved by man.
Sorry I rambled so...
What are we advocating here, Moby? Corporations owe a duty of care to one group of people, and one group only - the shareholders. Not prospective sharholders, not its employees and certainly not the general public. Likewise, potential investors and individual shareholders have an obligation to research and remain informed about the companies in which they invest. Stocks are not some product corporations offer for sale and must stand behind - they are a means by which individuals can raise money in order to engage in a buisness that would otherwise be beyond their means, while spreading the risk (key word, risk) among several investors, and limiting the risk of those investors to an amount of money (i.e., the number of shares they choose to purchase) of their choosing, rather than their entire wealth. An attempt by the officers of a corporation to defraud shareholders is a breach of trust, and the law provides ample remedies.
Given that corporations are (and should be) only answerable to shareholders (through the Board of Directors that they elect), issues of employee compensation are ultimately none of our business. If Acme, Inc wishes to pay its CEO an excessive salary or bonus, then that is the concern of the shareholders, whose stock price and dividends will suffer as a result. Jack Welch, whatever his compensation may have been, more than earned that back from the shareholders by increasing confidence in GE and maintaining profitablity.
I do not wish to sound jingoistic, but I really have no patience for those who do not understand the market and corporate structure advocating some sort "correction" or action to "rectify" the situation. Corporations and markets drive the economy (find one on earth that works without a sound corporate/market system), and you only have to look at the long-sluggish economies of Europe to see what "a little socialism" can do. Despite the one or two bad cases of Enron, Global Crossing, etc, impuning the entire system because of them would be akin to asserting that because "Battlefield Earth" stinks, all movies stink. The Corporation is the greatest tool for economic growth concieved by man.
Sorry I rambled so...
Re: Re: Your kidding?
I'm 99.9% with you there, Foxer. The public (no doubt stirred by the popular press that likes to portray things in simple black and white terms) see corporations as some kind of evil incarnation supposedly "stealing" the wealth of society. Well, corporations are no more than entities made up of pooled resources to produce goods and services efficiently through economies of scale. Of course, we may wonder whether tens of millions is an appropriate compensation for a chief executive, but that is up to the shareholders to decide. The workers themselves are paid a salary and wage they agreed upon. If the company goes down the tubes, the worst that can happen is that they lose their jobs--their past wages don't get confiscated. For shareholders, they lose their entire investment.
As I have said once, one economist has basically described Europe as a continent that has lost its competitive edge. The European economy does not grow via greater efficiency or production. GDP growth in Europe essentially comes down to "I cut your hair, and you make me coffee." This system is sustainable as long as the services rendered are of similar value. However, many Europeans (like many others in industrialized countries) want modern amenities like appliances, electronics, health care, etc. How many cups of coffee will someone need to make in order to see a doctor or buy a DVD player?
I think Americans can indeed learn alot from the Europeans, but building a welfare state isn't one of them.
I'm 99.9% with you there, Foxer. The public (no doubt stirred by the popular press that likes to portray things in simple black and white terms) see corporations as some kind of evil incarnation supposedly "stealing" the wealth of society. Well, corporations are no more than entities made up of pooled resources to produce goods and services efficiently through economies of scale. Of course, we may wonder whether tens of millions is an appropriate compensation for a chief executive, but that is up to the shareholders to decide. The workers themselves are paid a salary and wage they agreed upon. If the company goes down the tubes, the worst that can happen is that they lose their jobs--their past wages don't get confiscated. For shareholders, they lose their entire investment.
As I have said once, one economist has basically described Europe as a continent that has lost its competitive edge. The European economy does not grow via greater efficiency or production. GDP growth in Europe essentially comes down to "I cut your hair, and you make me coffee." This system is sustainable as long as the services rendered are of similar value. However, many Europeans (like many others in industrialized countries) want modern amenities like appliances, electronics, health care, etc. How many cups of coffee will someone need to make in order to see a doctor or buy a DVD player?
I think Americans can indeed learn alot from the Europeans, but building a welfare state isn't one of them.