The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: Pedro Picasso on March 30, 2005, 08:18:25 pm
-
According to NPR's "On Point" last night, 10% of public companies' profits go to the top five executives in each company. TEN PERCENT. That's ungodly. If they were worth it I'd understand, but the show was about how these executives get this money whether they produce measurable results or not basically because they're on the board or are chummy with the board so boardmembers don't mind handing out stockholder money.
Do you people consider this ridiculous? That 10% of the profits to be had in this country go to five guys per company? I just found a locally owned oil change place. I'm never going to Jiffy Lube again. I want my dime to stay in Raleigh. Do you find it difficult to give your patronage to local companies?
-
I'm never going to Jiffy Lube again. I want my dime to stay in Raleigh. Do you find it difficult to give your patronage to local companies?
In some cases. If I know I want a CD I'll buy it from Amazon or Best Buy because it's cheaper but if I need to listen to it then I go to a mom & pop (Revolution Records on Connecticut). But for my car locals all the way. Simply because the garage I go to has no mininum labor charge. Last time I took my car in the bill came to $14 because there was only like 9 minutes labor.
-
I tend to buy most things at local shops because I also tend to know the owners of said shops.
Electronics, some computer equipment (i.e. this laptop) and DVDs I'll buy online or at the mega stores if they're cheaper. The local CD/DVD store has decent prices but lousy selection, so I'll usually pick up the bigger titles there, but lately I've only been buying the essentials and Netflixing everything else, so it's hard to find a Mom&Pop around here that will carry something like the new "Laura" disc for cheap.
Having said that, I still do most food shopping at the big mega mart called "Giant" (which itself is a fairly small east coast chain anyway) and will pick up deli stuff and meat at local shops.
-
Having said that, I still do most food shopping at the big mega mart called "Giant" (which itself is a fairly small east coast chain anyway) and will pick up deli stuff and meat at local shops.
No longer true. Giant used to be owned by a Maryland family but a couple years ago they sold it to a Dutch coporation. That's when the self checkout lanes and Toys R Us section suddenly appeared in all the stores.
-
I think indignation is called for but resistance is futile and token at best.
I know a man named madman dan who drives a black VW Van with anarchist stickers all over it and he fixes my truck in my driveway and I pay him cash.
He's always cheaper, more thorough, and never fucks around with me or my truck. I never have to take it to a shop and leave it there. It's awesome.
For most everything else you consume, sorry to say, unless you grew it yourself or obtained the raw materials yourself and built it yourself, you are somebody's bitch.
-
Having said that, I still do most food shopping at the big mega mart called "Giant" (which itself is a fairly small east coast chain anyway) and will pick up deli stuff and meat at local shops.
No longer true. Giant used to be owned by a Maryland family but a couple years ago they sold it to a Dutch coporation. That's when the self checkout lanes and Toys R Us section suddenly appeared in all the stores.
Jough might be shopping at a different Giant - I have the idea that there's a different chain in New Jersey with the same name. Is such a thing possible?
-
Yeah, we're http://giantpa.com
Different Giant. I was confused by that too.
-
According to NPR's "On Point" last night, 10% of public companies' profits go to the top five executives in each company. TEN PERCENT. That's ungodly. If they were worth it I'd understand, but the show was about how these executives get this money whether they produce measurable results or not basically because they're on the board or are chummy with the board so boardmembers don't mind handing out stockholder money.
Do you people consider this ridiculous? That 10% of the profits to be had in this country go to five guys per company? I just found a locally owned oil change place. I'm never going to Jiffy Lube again. I want my dime to stay in Raleigh. Do you find it difficult to give your patronage to local companies?
i think it's ridiculous too, when applied to large corporations.
but, take a small business, such as mine. 2 people on payroll, 2 additional partners/owners....
in a small situation, it does nto seem unreasonable that 10% of the profits would go to management. in a large situation, wherein the profits are in the millions/tens of millions/ hundreds, etc., it does seem unreasonable.
and from the owners/shareholders point of view, it would seem unreasonable as well.
however, what if the members of those 5 are shareholders.
take, for instance, microsoft. if Mr Gates owns 35% of the stock, and has MS pay him 4% of the profits that MS makes, is he screwing over the shareholders? are the board of directors?
but, i agree with you about keeping money in the community.
however,
here locally, we have business owners, land owners, etc, who make up "local" business, who don't end up keeping the bulk of their money in the local economy anyways.
it's very difficult to "keep money local", but, it is something i attempt to do, no matter how badly i may be at it.
-
I think indignation is called for but resistance is futile and token at best.
...
For most everything else you consume, sorry to say, unless you grew it yourself or obtained the raw materials yourself and built it yourself, you are somebody's bitch.
I agree that a boycott would be silly. This is really two issues.
1) I think executive compensation (at the companies I own stock in through mutual funds) is way out of hand due to dirty dealings and requires government oversight.
2) I would like my money to benefit myself and those around me moreso than people far away from me. Especially ridiculously rich and shady people.
This isn't really a form of protest. It's more of me looking at each little dollar I've earned and saying "You will stay in this town and continue circulating in the economy that supports my family." It's a miniscule difference, but perhaps it is enough for me.
-
i think it's ridiculous too, when applied to large corporations.
but, take a small business, such as mine. 2 people on payroll, 2 additional partners/owners....
I agree. I'm talking specifically about public companies exchanged on the standard markets. I don't think over-the-counter stocks and private companies were considered in generating this statistic.
take, for instance, microsoft. if Mr Gates owns 35% of the stock, and has MS pay him 4% of the profits that MS makes, is he screwing over the shareholders? are the board of directors?
I think that if you own stock in Microsoft, you should get an equal share of the profits. I find distastful a system whereby stockholder/employees can set their own salaries or coerce those who set them. Mr. Gates making 4% may be a bit of a different situation. He may be worth that much because he's the only one who has ever done his job (CEO or CTO, he's doing pretty much the same thing), he has been incredibly successful at it, and he is such a public figure that if he were to retire/resign, the stock price would drop immediately and be shaky for a long time thereafter. The company would have to prove itself without him. That might be worth 4% to other shareholders, but I don't think he should be allowed to decide.
-
I agree that a boycott would be silly. This is really two issues.
1) I think executive compensation (at the companies I own stock in through mutual funds) is way out of hand due to dirty dealings and requires government oversight.
2) I would like my money to benefit myself and those around me moreso than people far away from me. Especially ridiculously rich and shady people.
This isn't really a form of protest. It's more of me looking at each little dollar I've earned and saying "You will stay in this town and continue circulating in the economy that supports my family." It's a miniscule difference, but perhaps it is enough for me.
Government regulation is a step toward socialism that we can't take. Besides, congress is full of rich businessmen and corporate lawyers. I don't think it could happen.
Buying locally benefits your local economy and that's admirable. An even better step would be to get people to not shop at giant retailers and bigbox stores. It's more expensive to avoid them and shop smaller places but it's really the only way to preserve the smaller businesses. The big stores compete on volume and basically dictating cost to suppliers, which I think is heinous because, to me, the market should be balanced between supply and consumption. When one starts calling nearly all the shots, it's bad for the economy as a whole.
The real problem is once you start following the money you wind up with a huge number of businesses and companies owned by gigantic corporations...sort of like the banks. You think you have a choice but there are only a few holding companies. So you're really paying those few bigtime execs and the same goes in the food industry (Beatrice) and the entertainment industry (Fox, Vivendi, etc.)
It's pretty tough to boycott virtually everything you need, especially things you need at work. It's harder even to boycott things you want.
-
I know a man named madman dan who drives a black VW Van with anarchist stickers all over it and he fixes my truck in my driveway and I pay him cash.
gawDAMMIT that is so fuck*ng cool.
-
He is also an animal rights activist. He is pretty effin' cool.
-
Government regulation is a step toward socialism that we can't take.
I'm sorry, I forgot. In capitalism, it's called oversight. We need more of that.
-
It's not oversight when you regulate how much money a person can make. That is control. Far different than oversight. There is a lot of oversight already in accounting and tax rules, and accountability rules to shareholders. And regulating trade and the stock market to ensure it's fair.
You want to make a difference? Rile up the shareholders - publicly held companies are a little like democracies that way. The majority shareholders are usually really rich too, though, if not board members. So what's the point? There isn't one.
Consume or don't consume, but change is not going to be swift as long as the rich guys run the government as well.
-
It's not oversight when you regulate how much money a person can make. That is control.
Would it be going too far to require that the company chairman cannot also be an employee? What about the rest of the board?
Corporations are like democracies who grant citizenship to anyone in their airspace. Sure there are major stake-holders, but there also tons of people coming and going at all times. Building a movement is difficult enough with life-long citizens? How would it be possible with the revolving door ownership of the stock exchange?
Naturally, I don't expect to make any corporate waves. I just want to be able to form educated opinions about what good corporate reform would look like.
-
I think the real reason you'll never see a movement is because the majority of stock in any given company is held by a few people who aren't about to sell it - they maintain control.
The movement has to come from without, and the best lever is market forces.
Good luck, Che', you're gonna need it.
-
I think the real reason you'll never see a movement is because the majority of stock in any given company is held by a few people who aren't about to sell it - they maintain control.
Indeed. I went to HS with a couple guys whose dad founded a then-major company (there was a stadium named after it). Between him, his wife, and the three boys the family owned something like 70% of the stock.
And Vince McMahon supposedly owns so much WWE stock that with a 12 cent dividend he makes several thousand extra dollars a year.