CEO Pay in 2010 Jumped 11%

Dethred

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,543
The CEO/Owner of the company for which I work was handed the position from his father, who founded the company and did 95% of the work to get the company to where it is today. Hell, many, many major corporations (IT aside) were formed in the 50's and 60's and are now owned by the children. Good thing we give them tax breaks, they make all these jobs everyone is struggling to fill.
 

computerpro3

LightningRod
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
8,705
That's nice, but it can't happen without both board and shareholder approval if it's a real corporation. And if the shareholders want it, ethically, legally, and morally, that's what should happen.

Looking outside of c level executives, the fact of the matter is that most millionaires did not inherit their wealth. Google it.
 

00011

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
290
Until you send off two of your eyefinity monitors to less fortunate members here, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Share the wealth, man.

I believe you meant to say he would have to give them away. Selling them wouldn't do much as he would still have their value, no? That said, I believe your example is flawed on so many levels. I will try and keep it simple. His monitors total value will do little to change anything and his computer may be the only great thing he owns as well. It's all assumption though at this point. Either way, you can't compare apples to oranges either way.

If the top 15% of the whole world were to donate to 25% of their wealth to any and all charities than I'm sure he (the guy you made that statement to) would gladly follow suite as would anyone I know. I would easily give up 25% of any and everything I own to the greater good of humanity if the people that actually matter did it too.

If I give away 25% of what I own, it will not change anything. Actually, I'm in debt (yes, debt is owned) so if you factor in that, I'd be giving away $10,000 worth of student loans...lol

Get the point? Don't try and tell a poor person that's possibly in debt to give away something of little value when it really comes down to it. It could be the only thing of value that he even has. Is that really how you think you're correct? Rich people drive airplanes and have 5-10 homes. Their 25% reduction has way less of a negative impact on their life. It's just greed. Comes with the nicest attitude too but it's pure greed.

Also: Ask yourself this question. What would a rich person say to you if you said I'll give away 25% of my wealth if you do too. What do you think their answer to you would be?

What I think they'd say: "You don't have shit though to give"
See... even they would know what you can give won't do shit!

My point is that the elite have too much wealth but it will never change because they control everything. Which to me makes the term "Unfair" valid since they would say the same thing if I shoved a gun in their mouth and electronically made their money mine. Oh, this is illegal you say...lol..really? So is half of the worst shit I've seen some bankers do, they just paid off the right people. I've watched presidents of the united states make their friends billions right in front of the American people like "FUCK YOU DIRT-BAGS, GO BACK TO YOUR SHITTY WORK"!

Also, a lot of what the rich have done is immoral crimes to get a head in my eyes, doesn't necessarily have to be illegal for it to be wrong either. Alcohol was legal one day, illegal the next, than legal another day. Laws are misplaced and used as a means all the time. You say war over terrorists, I say a war over oil, drugs, and natural resources (finite I might add)!

White collar crimes seem to fit in this category of immoral more than any other crimes though (except the obviously evil ones). If you can buy a boat that cost $40,000,000.00 while poor people die of contaminated drinking water or lack of basic food than I no longer consider you one of us. You're an elitist greedy evil asshole and I only hope bad things happen to you and soon.

I guess my point is you're out of your mind calling someone a hypocrite because he won't get rid of his worthless monitors on the grand scheme of things. Now ask him or I if we would give 25% of what we owned if the people that matter did too. Now call someone a hypocrite!

Rich people are usually extremely greedy people from my short knowledge of them. My brother is friends with a dude that is within a extremely wealthy family. The father more than likely has billions (I kid you not). My brothers friend is a flat out millionaire from his stake in the family business. This dude claims he's broke when he's only making $100,000 a month. My brother looks at him like fuck you, get out, no, seriously, get the fuck out!

Guess what, you wouldn't believe me if I told you some of the stories I've heard of about the crimes that this family has gotten away with. Money talks and poor people suffer. Inflation is one of the worst crimes ever against the money supply. It robs from millions to make the people controlling it billions.

Not fair seems pretty damn valid a statement to me. Stop stealing what little money I have through inflation if you want me to feel even remotely better about a monetary system! Before I try the gun in the mouth way of redistribution of wealth. Yeah, I know, it's illegal. Wish I had investment money, it's how you make money duh. I wonder why the people controlling the printing presses of countries are so fucking rich? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

If the federal reserve bank (and all that followed) was stopped the week after it was started it would've been two weeks too late. How long has it been now?
 

Soarin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
2,491
No, that's completely incorrect and you are clueless. Taxation does not stop at 25%. If you can't even understand basic facts, what makes you think you are qualified to make economic decisions such as whether the rich should be taxed more?

"cuz its just not fair, dude" is not a valid answer.

Did you even read what i posted???? I said from what I heard and was told.
If you cant undertsand basic facts like that then QFT. I even stated thats what i was told.
 

Soarin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
2,491
Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates
Marginal Tax Rate[5] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,375 $0 – $16,750 $0 – $8,375 $0 – $11,950
15% $8,376 – $34,000 $16,751 – $68,000 $8,376 – $34,000 $11,951 – $45,550
25% $34,001 – $82,400 $68,001 – $137,300 $34,001 – $68,650 $45,551 – $117,650
28% $82,401 – $171,850 $137,301 – $209,250 $68,651 – $104,625 $117,651 – $190,550
33% $171,851 – $373,650 $209,251 – $373,650 $104,626 – $186,825 $190,551 - $373,650
35% $373,651+ $373,651+ $186,826+ $373,651+

By this data people with less than 45551 income per year are hit harder than people with 373651+ a year which was the point I was trying to make and IF (again by the data) you make more the 371K you are still only taxed for 35% of federal. So if some asshole made 1mil he is taxed for 350K still FAR BETTER OFF THEN MOST
 

Renegade_Azzy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
326
Yeah I really no legitimate reason to raise taxes on the over 1 millions back to...lets see...1970's percentage. Remember? Because Reagan and S&L? When rich people paid the same taxes we do?

That would be awesome, because right now they pay more than most people do percentage wise to their income.

And not all CEO's make bajillions of dollars, say your corp inst the biggest and employs about 15 people. So just because you have a title you automatically have no soul and are out to screw everyone?

I say most poor people are out to screw others, because they always seem to want someone with a gun to take their" fair share" from the rich "bastards". Freaking looters.
 

Renegade_Azzy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
326
By this data people with less than 45551 income per year are hit harder than people with 373651+ a year which was the point I was trying to make and IF (again by the data) you make more the 371K you are still only taxed for 35% of federal. So if some asshole made 1mil he is taxed for 350K still FAR BETTER OFF THEN MOST

You leave out federal dividends taxes, local taxes, state taxes, sales taxes on big ticket items, property taxes... etc.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
Please, most CEO pay and those who are truly rich don't make it via their paycheck and thus don't pay those rates. Most are probably paying dividends taxes and little else. Thus Warren Buffet's statement that his secretary pays a higher percentage on her taxes than he does.

Talk to any "consultant" making around $300,000 or so and see how much of a % they actually pay. Last one I talked to was paying around 12%.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,486
No, that's completely incorrect and you are clueless. Taxation does not stop at 25%. If you can't even understand basic facts, what makes you think you are qualified to make economic decisions such as whether the rich should be taxed more?

"cuz its just not fair, dude" is not a valid answer.

While true, taxation does not stop at 25%, it's kind of hard to think otherwise when the upper 1% paid 23% of their income in taxes, on average. Its not a matter of the rich should be taxed more, they're taxed fine, there needs to be less loopholes for for the rich if they can find a way to only be taxed for 23% (on average, and you know some ultra stinking rich people brought that percentage UP to 23%, a good number of the 1% pay less pay less than that)

And before someone starts pulling the 47% number out of their ass, fine bring EVERYONE up to their income tax levels dictated their income, and their income alone. The poor will certainly feel it more, the rich will be taxed more as a result (and that's without changing any percentages)
 

00011

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
290
That would be awesome, because right now they pay more than most people do percentage wise to their income.

And not all CEO's make bajillions of dollars, say your corp inst the biggest and employs about 15 people. So just because you have a title you automatically have no soul and are out to screw everyone?

I say most poor people are out to screw others, because they always seem to want someone with a gun to take their" fair share" from the rich "bastards". Freaking looters.

Where did anyone say tax small business to death. I think we all assumed big business and corrupt banking, government out of control spending, etc. Minimize, go ahead, just minimize. No ones rich right? Even people that are worth 500 million are not bajillioniares. Wait... they pay more! How is it that someone with a lot more pays a little more. I just don't understand!!! (sarcasm)


You leave out federal dividends taxes, local taxes, state taxes, sales taxes on big ticket items, property taxes... etc.

Last time I checked we all (poor and rich) pay most of these taxes so I'm not sure how that comment could possibly strengthen your argument.

As for the looters comment. Look around and you'll start to notice how a lot of the really rich got there, it wasn't by being nice people. They made others suffer so they could live lavishly. I'll give you an example: Intel CPU's being made in Malaysia. Why do you think they're made in Malaysia (assuming they still are, haven't checked a cpu for that in awhile)?

Let me guess, it's not to exploit a weaker more than likely tax exempt economy, right! Oh, but Bill donates to charity...lol... Great... He monopolizes a country and than makes a small (comparatively speaking ) donation of 1% of the wealth acquired doing it that way to charity. Oh wow, my fucking hero!

I wanted someone to respond to my gun analogy so I could say this (a fact).
“More money, it has been noted, has been stolen with the point of a pen than at the point of a gun.” - Warren Buffett
Renegade_Azzy, I think you missed the point from the posts above . The rich do it all the time but you would cry a river if the poor did it back!


If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.
Warren Buffett
The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.
Warren Buffett
I'm not going to lie, I find it fucking funny as it gets when the elitist rich are saying the same things I am (the view from the "don't have enough crowd but still trying"). It makes me think anyone arguing against it must be complete fools!
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,750
How about we just abolish the income tax completely and live like we did 10-12 years ago? I blame the government, not the CEO's.
 

00011

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
290
How about we just abolish the income tax completely and live like we did 10-12 years ago? I blame the government, not the CEO's.

Last time I checked the top of both of these entities go hand in hand.

Why do you think there are lobbyists?
I blame both!
 

Outamyhead

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
4,259
So now we know where the trillion dollar bailout went. Since not to much has changed at Wall street, the next melt down should happen in within the next seven years.

CEO and exec wages have been on a constant increase for decades, while regular staff are are stuck at the same level of worth, the only thing that has changed is the currency value.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,750
Last time I checked the top of both of these entities go hand in hand.

Why do you think there are lobbyists?
I blame both!

Well abolishing the income tax makes this whole discussion irrelevant :D
 

shizzdizzle

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
198
@j32p,
Are you serious or was your last post just one big joke?
Go reread your posts because I didn't say it, you did.
To back up your point you first quote me out of context, then quote me on things I never said, but you would like to imagine I said?
I encourage anyone who may care to go back and read all of my posts. My stance on the issues never changed an inch. If you are unable to infer that I am talking about either a true free market or the market we have now, I'm not sure what you want. I'm sorry for explaining what form of economy would solve certain issues?

And to your last point, the numbers show that the redistribution of wealth goes from the rich to the poor. Regardless if you think that is good or bad, thats how it is. I happen to think that the currect tax rate for the rich is too high, and I'm sure you think its too low. That's a different discussion. If you think that certain socialistic programs are good, I have no problem with you having that opinion, and I will debate my case against it. I would hope that nobody else has a problem with me having an opinion.

Also, I thought it was hilarious how you said you were done arguing because of some bullcrap explaination. If you can't refute something, then dont. If you can, go right ahead, but don't wuss out like you did right there.
 

XacTactX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
4,109
Talk to any "consultant" making around $300,000 or so and see how much of a % they actually pay. Last one I talked to was paying around 12%.

This. Watching TYT and NBC, I remember Maddow and Uyger commenting several times that the effective tax rate, that is, the amount government actually gets, from the top tax bracket is ~17%. That is considering the fact that the government has set the bracket at 35%. Yes, there is something wrong with this. The top tax bracket has access to so many tax loopholes through dividends and other methods, that they're paying half of what they're supposed to.

Now, consider this: the GOP budget plan, which has been abandoned over this week, would lower the top tax bracket from 35% to 25%. That's 10% MORE legitimate tax cuts, to people who are paying around 17%. How would that effect the effective tax rate, would it come down to 7%, or around there? Yes, it would, costing $1 T over a decade. That's where economics and ideology collide, and economics kicks the shit out of ideology.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
We're currently in 3 wars, and our troops are going through longer combat duty than they did in WWII. In WWII you had people growing vegetable gardens and giving their scrap metal to the gov't to help. This time around we actually cut taxes in a huge way, despite not having the money to pay for any of it.

Now, the same party that sent us to 2 of those major wars is saying that the government is asking for too much and the rich are too overburdened - god forbid they pay another few % out of the hundreds of millions they currently have. I just don't get it.
 

J32P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,881
@j32p,
Are you serious or was your last post just one big joke? (Big joke, all at your expense!)


To back up your point you first quote me out of context (No, you just don't like the truth) , then quote me on things I never said (Oh, but you did, just don't like the truh), but you would like to imagine I said? (Because you did)

I encourage anyone who may care to go back and read all of my posts (me too). My stance on the issues never changed an inch. If you are unable to infer (a better word would be "understand", not infer/conclude) that I am talking about either a true free market (no such thing, never was, it's an illusion, which is a fact that you later agreed with) or the market we have now (which is what I was always talking about, you needed the refresher), I'm not sure what you want (for you to stop talking to me). I'm sorry for explaining what form of economy would solve certain issues?

Don't apologize for being wrong, just accept it. Denial is the first phase, it gets better from there. Also, it wasn't a question so the question mark wasn't needed, it was a statement!

^
|
|
You stated it as fact/correct/real when it's not. Of course I can't conclude what you're talking about, you can't either!



Wow... You said there was a free market here.

There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.
I stated there's not a free market and never has there been one.

You than agreed with me that there is not a free market by having said this:

"Yes, we are not a true free market, and regulation/bailouts continue to step in the way of the free market solving problems".


And to your last point, the numbers show that the redistribution of wealth goes from the rich to the poor (You mean water flows downhill! Well, no shit, but damns stop water from flowing. It becomes more of a drip. A Warren Buffet quote was just above saying the same damn thing, WTF don't you get, it doesn't work!). Regardless if you think that is good or bad, thats how it is (wow, telling me reality is reality, thanks for the clarifcation on that mister free market!). I happen to think that the current tax rate for the rich is too high (well, your clueless! Although I mean the extremely wealthy, not just the wealthy), and I'm sure you think its too low (as does Warren Buffet and more than likely his best friend Bill Gates) . That's a different discussion (?). If you think that certain socialistic programs are good, I have no problem with you having that opinion, and I will debate my case against it (where are we going to now?). I would hope that nobody else has a problem with me having an opinion (Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't state it as a fact, than change it, and still claim it to be a fact).

Also, I thought it was hilarious how you said you were done arguing because of some bullcrap explaination (We clear now?). If you can't refute something, then dont. If you can, go right ahead, but don't wuss out like you did right there.


Dude, seriously!


 

J32P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,881
And if you stand don't get it, I'll explain it one last time.

Stop telling me what should be, tell me what is!
The monetary system is corrupt because if was designed to be that way from it's genesis. The rich getting richer was not a design flaw in the system, it was the number one priority for the design of the system.

It's not a trickle down effect, it's a funnel down effect. The problem is the rich are on the bottom and the poor are on top. Think of it like this.





Whoever has the gold, has all the power. Now ask yourself why a government would ever make owning a certain amount of gold at any point illegal? Of why at the same time they removed the "redeemable in gold" from paper money? Or why gold has gone up the worse the economy has gotten (silver too)?

Get a clue. The elites are evil fuckers that designed the system to be this way on purpose. Wars have made millionaires billionaires. Don't tell me about poor people crying it's "unfair". That's like me telling someone I'm killing to stop crying murder you bitch! Otherwise don't cry when poor people get sick of the way things are now and change it back!

Because it's coming, it's why they're slowly eroding our constituation, they're afraid of it because at this current pace, it's inevitable. Same thing with paying off Americas debt now, it's impossible!

:D

Stop quoting me, this topic is old and boring. I'm trying to play Crysis 2 for god damn sakes.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,750
:D

Stop quoting me, this topic is old and boring. I'm trying to play Crysis 2 for god damn sakes.

To be fair this discussion is providing much more enterainment value than Crysis 2 :p
 

shizzdizzle

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
198
Wow looks like I just made someone angry... :) Glad to see you are back, I thought you were done?

Again I encourage anyone to read my past posts... everything I said still stands, and my opinion has never changed. And may I say one more time, if you inferred (anyone want to criticize my word choice again? Because I mean inferred, not understand) something I said incorrectly, I apologize...

None of my opinions were stated as facts, but of course I state facts as facts. Not sure why I need to clarify that. I find it a little hypocritical that after someone accuses another of representing personal opinions as facts goes on an incoherent rant where all their opinions could most definitely be perceived to be intended as facts, filled with a few pointless analogies.

Anyone can feel free to quote me, as this is posted in a forum and it would be a little outrageous for a person to demand that someone not quote them. (Especially if that person demanding not to be quoted previously quoted a certain person out of context, made up quotes, denied doing any of that, and then again quoted out of context)

If anyone would like to engage in a civil discussion where we would accept the facts, at the very least respect each others opinions, and avoid calling a group of people "evil fuckers", then I, and I'm sure most people on here, would be happy to.
 

Cyrilix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
2,188
Fair would be where CEOs and executives actually have risk and not just reward for the type of position that they command. As it is, assuming 80K is a good base salary with little risk (except that you might get fired for doing a crappy job).

If you do well, you get 80K, if you do poorly, you get 80K. Moving one step up in the management chain should be more like... you do well, you get 120K, you do poorly, you get 60K. Another step up would be something like, doing well nets you 250K, doing poorly nets you 20K. Beyond that, if you do poorly, you should be deducted money, because of your negative contribution to the company in such large-scale terms.

CEOs, if they're making millions should be able to lose millions (ie., you better have enough to cover your debt or we'll throw you in prison). This is equality in terms of risk vs. reward.
 

J32P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,881
shizzdizzle:

That was a rant my man, that was a rant! smh

You sound like a lawyer, give it up man. I've shown you at least twice now you changed your stance and you still insist on acting like a weasel. You haven't made me mad, you made me think you're stupid. I was just trying to be nice about it and not actually have to say it. Everything I said, applied, you just don't want it to.

Enough is enough. Go be more productive with your time. I have to say I find it ironic that my last two posts gave what I consider to be facts to the best of my knowledge with little to no bias and you reply saying it's a rant than go on to rant your whole post.

Dude, you thought the market was really free (like you had your eyes closed your whole life). Go read a book! You remind me of the guy that gets punched in the face and still insists on saying something until he gets punched in the face again. If I can't show you changed your stance with your own words than no one can and everything after is a waste. Dude, last time, I showed you with your own words. It was sarcasm taking it as far as I did but the point still stood. Didn't you catch that? Didn't your genius of a man see what I was doing? Oh, you must be up in space meditating right now!

FYI.. you took yourself out of context (I showed you...lol). I proved you wrong and than mocked you pretty nicely but it's whatever at this point.
 

J32P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,881
No wonder my family friend just bought $80,000 worth of silver. Thanks for the info.

If you're serious than you have a smart friend and should take heed. He'll be sitting on (my unprofessional opinion (not a fact)) at least $200,000 -$250,000 in like a year and a half to two years off of that one investment alone, possibly more.

Silver is still down a lot while JP Morgan is slowly releases their grip (manipulation) of silver prices. Silver will, I repeat WILL go up A LOT more than where it is right now. Just no one knows where to.


To be fair this discussion is providing much more enterainment value than Crysis 2 :p

Duly noted

:D:D:D
 

shizzdizzle

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
198
@J32P
Are you sure you weren't angry? Are you really sure about that? Because it still sounds like you're angry, but I will leave that for everyone else to decide. :)

You misquoted me, made up quotes, and misquoted me again, I mean, I don't have much more to say about that. People can go back and see what I meant. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying so I elaborated on my opinions to clear up any confusion. Also, I am not sure why me finding middle ground between our opinions made you so angry.. errr... whatever you are right now.

This seems to be giving you quite a lot of confusion so let me again clearify.
If the business is paying everyone on market value, then the executives are doing (part of) their jobs, so the executives market value goes up. There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.

Yes I did say free market, god forbid! As everyone knows the United States is based(keyword based for all you critical people out there) around a free market liassez faire system. What I was talking about were basic free market principles. Thankfully there are still traces of a free market. Of course we have never been a true free market, as we have always had a certain amount of regulation. But now to my point, NONE of this needs to be explained to anyone who wants to have a reasonable, calm, fair discussion. If you honestly think that needed to be explained, well then good for you, because I have explained it again and again.

You've dug yourself into a hole (yes I know... I'm sure you think its just the opposite buddy) and have slowly reduced to nothing but correcting grammar and personal attacks. Sorry I choose a word that you don't prefer and I am also dearly sorry that I don't vigorously proofread all of my posts. I would guess that you probably made one or two spelling errors too, or used a word that I don't prefer, but if you did, I honestly couldn't care less. Who knows though maybe you are perfect in everything grammatical. I would also like to apologize to everyone that my opinion differs from, because of course that makes me stupid.
 

J32P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,881
Oh, I get it, your an official troll! There, without correcting your spelling.
LOL, good day!
 

veterator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,909
@urielDagda,
If you seriously think the fed is printing money because the wealthy are "vacuuming" it up too fast, then you have no clue of even the basics of the US economy. I suggest you go read up on the subject before you make a fool of yourself.

Also, something you refuse to understand, if you aren't getting paid your market value for your particular skill or service, its your own damn fault. Go get a job somewhere else for more. If you can't, then you are already getting paid your market value, or more. If you happen to be in a situation where you are getting paid over your market value, then the executives aren't doing their jobs, and their market value is lower. If the business is paying everyone on market value, then the executives are doing (part of) their jobs, so the executives market value goes up. There is nothing wrong with this, the free market creates an efficient economy. If something isn't efficient it fails.

Have to agree with J32P, just using this post as an example of a constantly changing viewpoint in which you still claim you never change and are always right. In this one post you indicate that you understand the basics of the US economy and call someone a fool. Then go on to indicate that the job market is a free market (non-competes, contractual agreements to not discuss salary with co-workers, etc) which if it were who you know wouldn't matter more than what you know and you would see no signs of nepotism or favoritism because a company would need the best to survive as it has LOTS of competitors and many more ready to fill any weakness it sees. Of course....people based in reality know this is false. You as a lower middle class employee can't just throw up your cell tower and join the cell phone industry as a small provider. You as a chemist can't just make your own aspirin variant and sell it. You as farmer can't simply grow crops anymore, because they might be some variant of some big conglomerate and they will sue you into oblivion. You can't show up in court as someone's lawyer without credentials. Hell you can't even notarize a piece of paper without the credentials as a notary public of the state and most likely only the county in which you reside.


The last line of the quote is of particular note, we've all heard of "Too big to fail" by now. It simply looks like you will grasp at any straw and say anything to try to appear as if you have meant that all along.......so.......
Mr. shizzdizzle, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 

djgizmo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
1,429
No, before ten years ago they were stored in large cabinets. Now over four billion images are stored in his company's (well, used to be his company's - they were acquired) archives. They were the first company on the scene, have never lost a single image, and have over 85% marketshare.

For a person who doesn't work his father... you know an awful lot about a business that isn't yours. And to say the company has never lost a single image file... doubtful at best, and complete lie at worst.
 
Top