Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it it that some people think that every decision made by a wealthy person is always right? Greed is the root of the income inequality that we have today. In the 40s and 50s, employees were rewarded for thier hardwork. Not anymore.
If there are layoffs and middle class workers do not get raises neither should CEOs. If the company is cutting costs, they should do so at all levels and if those at the top actually had the company's best interest at heart, they would not be giving 5, 6 and 7 figure bonuses out while laying off others and offering them chump change.
I am not sure why the same people who blame everything on social programs blindly defend some of the unethical behavior of the wealthy. It isn't easy for everyone to find a new job. Some of these people will be dependent on the government while the CEOs are enjoying their bonus money in Tahiti. Yet those of you who worship greedy CEOs want to cut social programs. When you are the one who needs it, you'll see things differently.
If we keep it up, there will be no middle class and those of you who think you are wealthy, will be standing behind the poor in the soup lines. Before you start the handout BS, I have a six figure household income and work hard for it, but I do understand that I'm a few paychecks away from poverty.
While some of you blame Obama for everything, the CEOs are getting away with murder. I don't see how anyone does not see an issue with the fact that the middle class is shrinking and CEOs now make 300 times more than the average worker, sixty years ago it was around 3 or 4 times more. Clearly we know where the profits go. If you think that what private businesses do does not impact the American economy, you are sadly mistaken. I don't see how anyone claiming to be a patriot can shrug their shoulders or encourage this. When the middle class is nonexistent, we will be a third world country.
I agree with you in principal but it's the delivery that rubs people the wrong way. Why is this about the wealthy instead of a shortsighted CEO who can only hit profit and incentive targets through layoffs?
As a conservative I find this type of behavior appalling. I don't begrudge the CEO from making money but you shouldn't get a bonus if you are laying off people.
As a CEO, your primary responsibility is your shareholders, not "the people". They don't have to abide by the preamble to the US Constitution.
I agree with you in principal but it's the delivery that rubs people the wrong way. Why is this about the wealthy instead of a shortsighted CEO who can only hit profit and incentive targets through layoffs?
It isn't, but that is a common misinterpretation. I don't think that most Americans have issues with the wealthy. It is the unethical behavior and greed of some wealthy people that is an issue. It seems that some people here defend these types of CEOs to no end.
We have established that when the middle class is hit hard, the economy is so the rich getting richer, the poor getting poor and the middle class shrinking is never a going to be a good thing for the country as the whole. I believe that anyone with common sense knows this, but it seems that some of us have tunnel vision. Why do some of us constantly blame the goverment and the poor while looking the other way when it comes to corporate greed? The government is also to blame, but just because something is legal or just because you can doesn't mean you should.
These CEOs should be held accountable. The people at top can make poor decisions which cause a blow to the company. Yet it is always the people in the middle and at the bottom that get hit the hardest and those at the top rarely take responsibility. They get raises, trips on private jets and bonuses while workers get laid off. It isn't that I think that they shouldn't have access to those things, but when they are trying to cut costs and when times are hard, they should cut costs at all levels.
I agree with you in principal but it's the delivery that rubs people the wrong way. Why is this about the wealthy instead of a shortsighted CEO who can only hit profit and incentive targets through layoffs?
Generally in a business, payroll is the highest expense and therefore the first place a business looks to cut if services can be met equally but more effeciently with fewer employees.
The thing that gets me is that if unions actually organized with the best interest of the members at heart they would be purchasing stock in the companies their tradesmen and women are employed and thus have even a greater place at the table as stoickholders when it comes to company policy. Likely a more efficient return on their investment than purchasing politicians election after election. They could invest the dividend returns either into more stock or into funding union pensions for those out of work.
As a CEO, your primary responsibility is your shareholders, not "the people". They don't have to abide by the preamble to the US Constitution.
Yes and as a shareholder I think his pay is excessive and the difference should accrete to shareholders. The rise in value should be based on the company finding positive NPV projects not laying off people. Any hack can do that and it certainly isn't worth $22 million
I think conservatives make a mistake thinking that the CEO is infallible that is poor way to invest and support capitalism IMHO.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see Verizon go completely bankrupt. It's a thieving, lying corporation that sucks people into 2-year contract, then changes the rules, screws people over, and rapes them if they try to get out of the contract.
Verizon can rot in hell. There are plenty of other up-start companies that can easily (and gladly) replace them.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see Verizon go completely bankrupt. It's a thieving, lying corporation that sucks people into 2-year contract, then changes the rules, screws people over, and rapes them if they try to get out of the contract.
Verizon can rot in hell. There are plenty of other up-start companies that can easily (and gladly) replace them.
I said that about AT&T and switched to Verizon where I have had no problems now for over a year.
I said that about AT&T and switched to Verizon where I have had no problems now for over a year.
Good luck with that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
