tbhv55
Well-known
Looking more widely than just Kodak, many "top executives" are paid annual salaries which comfortably exceed the OVERALL TOTAL that I earned in ≈40 years a professional engineer. I confess to finding it offensive that just a single year of such a person's time is worth more than my ENTIRE working life. This is not the politics of envy on my part... I actually don't aspire to such wealth; I'm simply saying that I don't see how these people are worth so much more than the rest of us. Over the years, many members of the cosy boardroom cartel have publicly assured us of their worth, but their supposed talents are looking increasingly like the Emperor's new clothes.
I have frequently heard interviews with top executives, in which they seek to justify these bloated remuneration packages as being necessary to prevent the top talent going elsewhere. To me, this suggests a worryingly thin commitment to their current employer. The "Pay me top-dollar, or I leave." threat should, in my view, evoke a short (probably two-word) response which, of course, I wouldn't use on a public forum.
I have frequently heard interviews with top executives, in which they seek to justify these bloated remuneration packages as being necessary to prevent the top talent going elsewhere. To me, this suggests a worryingly thin commitment to their current employer. The "Pay me top-dollar, or I leave." threat should, in my view, evoke a short (probably two-word) response which, of course, I wouldn't use on a public forum.
Nescio
Well-known
More than once the word ethics has come up in this thread. Nothing new, as there is too much talk already about the grabbing culture etc. But answers, be them right or wrong, only come from those that the establishment writes away with disdain while that same establishment has nothing better to say than "oh, it just will sort itself out", sort of, that is.
Money don't stink, meaning there's no morality in a bank note. But people aren't banknotes, though these days I wouldn't wager my head on that. Man is involved with ethics, if worth of the name. And as money is man made, it sure starts to get smelly these days.
Perhaps a year working in the salt mines would do this Son of Pedro and a few other mesianic CEO's some good. Because that's where the word salary comes from in the first place.
What reminds me of the fact that a few weeks ago there were some ads here on RFF of a Swiss or Austrian photographer selling some nice stuff to finance a documentary project on sea salt mining in India. I sort of lost him out of sight, as I couldn't afford nor wanted any of his gear. And though I don't know him, I really wish him the best of luck (and maybe make a small donation when my next check comes in; he has a crowd funding site somewhere, if I can find it).
Nescio
Money don't stink, meaning there's no morality in a bank note. But people aren't banknotes, though these days I wouldn't wager my head on that. Man is involved with ethics, if worth of the name. And as money is man made, it sure starts to get smelly these days.
Perhaps a year working in the salt mines would do this Son of Pedro and a few other mesianic CEO's some good. Because that's where the word salary comes from in the first place.
What reminds me of the fact that a few weeks ago there were some ads here on RFF of a Swiss or Austrian photographer selling some nice stuff to finance a documentary project on sea salt mining in India. I sort of lost him out of sight, as I couldn't afford nor wanted any of his gear. And though I don't know him, I really wish him the best of luck (and maybe make a small donation when my next check comes in; he has a crowd funding site somewhere, if I can find it).
Nescio
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
children are punished? how? by whom? it is their parents who are punishing them. "imagined deficiencies" of their parents? ask a school counselor if she/he imagines these "deficiencies." ask a social worker if these parents with imagined deficiencies don't know how to game the system - and teach their children the ropes.
that's enough from me. blame the rich. blame the poor. blame someone in-between. shoot, blame me ...
In most cases, I believe that it is the SYSTEM that is to blame. I work with the mental health/retardation population, and I have seen many families that are on welfare ( "the dole" ). Nearly ALL of them did not choose to be on it. Most are a bit ashamed of it, and are constantly trying to get off of it.
The problem is that the capitalist system that governs the US has been bought by the "parasite" class, and only works for them. They pass laws that benefit themselves to the detriment of the rest of the society. They run businesses into the ground for the benefit of themselves and the quick profit that they and their cohorts can make off of the backs of everybody else. I believe that most people want to live productive, fulfilling lives, bu they are handicapped by a system that is rigged against them from the very start.
And getting back to Kodak....
Perez doesn't give a rat's arse about the workers at the company, the other stockholders, or the customers who want to buy Kodak's property. All he cares about is himself and the exorbitant amount of cash that he will squeeze out of the company. He could care less whether the company prospers or not.
TXForester
Well-known
Can the upper management of this forum please add a sarcasm smiley?
Sincerely,
Dazed and Confused
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
I agree completely. I've always said that it's simply the "good 'ole boys club", and if you're in, then you're in. If not, too bad.
Perez will just move to another top position and screw yet another company's workers. These parasites move from one CEO position to the next. "Job creators" and "top talent" my arse.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
And returning to the issue at hand....
When Perez became the head of Kodak, he should have recognized what was going on and resolved the issues that the company had, getting it back on it's feet. If he was unable to do this, he should have been canned (or stepped down). Instead, he's made ( and will stand to make, I'll bet ) a hell of a lot of money, regardless of whether Kodak survives or goes down.
Whoever is running a business should run it with the intention to make it better, or make sure that it continues to make money. The problem with current corporate management is that most don't run the company for long-term profits, but for short term gains so that they can increase the stock, enrich themselves, and "get while the gettin's good". It's all a casino.
When Perez became the head of Kodak, he should have recognized what was going on and resolved the issues that the company had, getting it back on it's feet. If he was unable to do this, he should have been canned (or stepped down). Instead, he's made ( and will stand to make, I'll bet ) a hell of a lot of money, regardless of whether Kodak survives or goes down.
Whoever is running a business should run it with the intention to make it better, or make sure that it continues to make money. The problem with current corporate management is that most don't run the company for long-term profits, but for short term gains so that they can increase the stock, enrich themselves, and "get while the gettin's good". It's all a casino.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
No question about that, but we are veering close to "First up against the wall when the revolution comes." The REALLY interesting question is what shape such a revolution can/will take.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Mentor
Roger ... all that's needed in any system is that the moral hazard should impact the decision makers in the same way it does on the shareholders and workforce
Revolution simply brings new faces to the top of the pile ... a bit like turning a compost heap
Revolution simply brings new faces to the top of the pile ... a bit like turning a compost heap
Unfortunately the revolution within Kodak has bought the faeces to the top of the pile!
Sparrow
Mentor
Unfortunately the revolution within Kodak has bought the faeces to the top of the pile!
I restricted my metaphor to the compost heap but yes others did cross my mind
DtheG
Established
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Eminently true --. as in the verb 'revolve'.
But things can change. Sometimes for the better.
Cheers,
R.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
It seems to me that, for those of us in the west, things have changed very much for the better. The problem is, now we've seen what's possible, we want more.
We want silly toys like leaders who are honest, silly us.
I've said it before: power does not corrupt. It is the corrupt who seek power.
zauhar
Mentor
"Defraud" means to deceive or mislead. I contend that Kodak and its management made bad decisions but not "defraud" anyone.
Important is that we must not punish businesses and management for making bad decisions. Doing so stops them from trying to make any decisions. Then the entire economic system stops and we all lose.
Allowing businesses to win / lose or succeed / fail is absolutely critical to our economic model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Michaels
Do you think that Kodak and its management "defrauded" others?
Bob, that highlighted quote is from you or someone else?
We live in a world where the people at the top demand "accountability" of every employee. They are assessed, evaluated, measured, treated like machines. And you can actually produce that quote, apparently with no irony?
The employees do indeed have a "choice" and can leave. Perhaps when enough people understand the nightmare that is developing, the whole f-cking house of cards will come down.
Randy
zauhar
Mentor
Looking more widely than just Kodak, many "top executives" are paid annual salaries which comfortably exceed the OVERALL TOTAL that I earned in ≈40 years a professional engineer. I confess to finding it offensive that just a single year of such a person's time is worth more than my ENTIRE working life. This is not the politics of envy on my part... I actually don't aspire to such wealth; I'm simply saying that I don't see how these people are worth so much more than the rest of us. Over the years, many members of the cosy boardroom cartel have publicly assured us of their worth, but their supposed talents are looking increasingly like the Emperor's new clothes.
I have frequently heard interviews with top executives, in which they seek to justify these bloated remuneration packages as being necessary to prevent the top talent going elsewhere. To me, this suggests a worryingly thin commitment to their current employer. The "Pay me top-dollar, or I leave." threat should, in my view, evoke a short (probably two-word) response which, of course, I wouldn't use on a public forum.
You point up a big lie that is promulgated in our system - that "everyone" is greedy, and acts as a self-absorbed economic unit. They do not . Most people such as yourself want to live decently. Talented people want to use their talents, that is their prime motivation for working.
It is the class at the top which is different. They think the people "under" them are merely envious of them - they are not.
But they do have good reason to hate them.
Randy
sanmich
Mentor
The problem starts when you reward businessmen and management even after making borderly insane decisions, and punish workers, shareholders, suppliers for these decisions they have not taken.
I have to admit to have been very surprised how deep is the feeling of such a large portion of US citizens that the best for an economy is a total lack of supervision from central government.
zauhar
Mentor
Michael, when I was a child the general attitude was the polar opposite - whatever the government said was "right".
I am not saying that extreme position was justified either, but it has required decades of brainwashing to eradicate it.
Randy
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Highlight: indeed. I almost added "As they have in my lifetime" after "..for the better."
I'm not sure that it is the corrupt who seek power. At least, not directly. The trouble is, it costs money to be elected, and we reward the corrupt and greedy with money, so they can afford to buy political office...
Do we want more? Possibly. But equally possibly, craving security (which is what most sane people crave -- no bankruptcy, a roof over our heads, food on the table...) and seeing a society hell-bent on destroying security, we go for MORE at all times, to provide a cushion. As do the greedy and corrupt, who, in their quest for MORE, are destroying security. What else is praise for 'a flexible labour market' if not praise for job insecurity? It doesn't affect people like Perez, who walk away with millions and never have to worry about heath care. In affects Kodak workers and pensioners.
Cheers,
R.
sanmich
Mentor
Randy, I was thinking more about economic regulation vs leaving it all to the market. Any federal government intervention or regulation, specially economic, seems to be unbearable for a good part of Americans.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Randy,
Indisputable. Wealth does not necessarily breed arrogance -- we all know intelligent, rich, decent people -- but the stupider a wealthy person is, the more arrogant (and noisier) they are likely to be.
Cheers,
R.