|
On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary.
But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
|
On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it?
If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary.
This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
|
On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed".
Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
|
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed". Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
That's the problem of the really free maket system. I don't blame big CEOs and such for abusing the system, it's said system that needs changes to become fairer. Otherwise it just becomes a game of supply and demand, and at some point it becomes abusive to many people.
|
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed". Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust.
No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise?
If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all.
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary?
What does "necessity" have anything to do with it?
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means.
|
On May 02 2013 01:31 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. Exactly this. Why are we not hearing about stock options for the other workers? This man is not solely responsible for all that profit. Even if he was the decision-maker, there are a whole lot of marines, SCVs, hydras, drones, probes, and zealots that go into make this stuff happen. (See what I did there?)
It doesn't make sense with stock options for workers lower in the hierarchy for two reasons;
1) More risk-averse, which means they have lower utility and needs to be compensated with higher average wages which redues shareholder value.
2) Less impact on value of the company.
Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
Too much? I disagree that there is such a thing as "too much" as long as there has been proper corporate governance (if the board for instance is independant and is qualified in the skill of optimizing exectuvie salaries).
|
On April 30 2013 11:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 11:08 sunprince wrote:On April 30 2013 04:25 Klondikebar wrote:On April 30 2013 04:22 lazyitachi wrote:
If your salad decisions make millions for other... maybe someone will give u money and honey.
But then again.. no one cares much about those salads.. so no one give u the holla dolla. :3
I am quite certain that Mr. Kotick's decisions don't make any money either. It is the people below him actually making decisions. Do you have any facts backing up your "certainty"? Its fair to say Koticks decisions did make the company money. Its pretty easy to see this, many of the decisions he made are clearly visible, and only he would have the power to make tactical or strategic decisions that Activision have made. However it is whether these decisions are acceptable or not as consumers. Firing entire departments, and milking out franchises while not investing into creativity is a very risk free way of making money and is not substantial grounds for a bonus in a "Games Company". It also only benefits the company in the short term, and does nothing in the long term.
Whether his decisions are acceptable or not as consumers is not really his concern. The ceo's responsibilities lie to the stockholders, not the consumers, and he certainly has made the company and its stockholders more money, and by extension himself since he is awarded that same stock he is helping make valuable. While I as a gamer would prefer if companies cared more about those consumers and the long term, realistically I have to look at how it actually works, and not how I want it to be, and realize that all I can do as an individual consumer is not buy their games and not add more value to the stock by a miniscule amount through my lack of support. It sucks to be an individual voice that matters proportionally so little, but railing against a working system as an individual would be little more than delusions of grandeur; "in [internet forums], no one can hear [us] scream".
|
On May 02 2013 01:47 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed". Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? What does "necessity" have anything to do with it? Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources? You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means.
So educate me. I'm not really here to talk about economics, I guess. I find it unethical. I don't even think movie stars should get paid as much as they do. There's a definite imbalance in the distribution of resources all around the world, and stuff needs to get redistributed.
I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
|
I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
If someone is (significantly) underpaid, wouldn't other firms be willing to hire him for a higher wage (assuming he is very valuable for the firm)?
|
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:47 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed". Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. No, it's not. Nothing in economics suggests that equality will result. On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? If you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with. Despite seeming relatively powerless compared to my employer, I am nevertheless able to get them to pay me a substantial salary. If I had no power, they would pay me nothing at all. On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? What does "necessity" have anything to do with it? On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:
Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources? You don't seem to have any idea what "economics" means. So educate me. I'm not really here to talk about economics, I guess. I find it unethical.
What exactly do you find unethical? What ethical principle is being violated, exactly?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:I don't even think movie stars should get paid as much as they do.
Why not?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:There's a definite imbalance in the distribution of resources all around the world, and stuff needs to get redistributed.
Why does "stuff need to get redistributed"?
On May 02 2013 03:29 wUndertUnge wrote:
I disagree too with your idea that "if you have value, then you have economic power to negotiate with." A lot of people are undervalued in their jobs, just as some people are overvalued.
If you truly are undervalued, you can ask for a pay raise or find another job where they will pay you appropriately. If you cannot do so, then you are not actually undervalued.
|
On May 02 2013 01:42 wUndertUnge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 01:36 sunprince wrote:On May 02 2013 01:33 wUndertUnge wrote:On May 01 2013 09:48 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:02 Shiori wrote:On May 01 2013 07:10 gamerdude12345 wrote:On April 28 2013 14:25 wUndertUnge wrote:http://kotaku.com/activisions-boss-got-an-800-raise-and-a-watchdog-doe-483773785"Activision has a lot of money. Bobby Kotick has fat stacks, too. The publisher's CEO saw his total cash-and-prizes compensation jump from $8.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012, reports Bloomberg, a figure that would make him the second-highest paid CEO among publicly traded U.S. companies. Kotick is due for another $16 million if the company hits performance targets, too. The bulk of his compensation came in the form of stock awards valued at $55.9 million. (Though they vest over the next five years, Activision is required to report them all at once, now.) The cash salary he got was roughly the same as always, $8.33 million." How about reinvesting some of that money back into the company instead of feeding that fat double-chin of his? Sorry, but this kind of thing makes me so angry. Rarely does anyone actually deserve to be making this kind of money, not to mention the fact that no one could spend this much money in one lifetime. Has Kotick actually made any innovations, or did he just figure out how to turn it into a money machine? It makes me sad that Blizzard got into bed with these guys. Wow, you're upset because the CEO is doing a damn good job of running the company? WoW, COD, and many other activision-blizzard products have been superb over the past few years. He took over the company and he's making record amounts of profit. I think it's okay to compensate him for his hard work It's OK to compensate Kotick for his hard work, but not the millions of other hard workers in the world? Does Kotick work 90 hours a day, or something? People are upset at the exorbitance, not that he's being paid. The value of a person's work is not determined by how hard they work or how many hours they work. It is determined by how much others will pay for that work. Manual laborers work much harder and many more hours than, say, dentists, but the former is paid minimum wage while the latter is paid an upper-middle class salary. But that value and that willingness aren't fixed, right? It's all a matter of people's perspective and greed, isn't it? If you want a higher salary, you negotiate for it. If they need you badly enough, they choose to pay you that higher salary. This is an economic calculation, not a matter of "perspective and greed". Well it's exactly this that I find disagreeable. It's not a matter of economics for me, it's a matter of ethics. Economics is supposed to equalize at some point right, where the market takes care of everything. But freemarket ethics have shown that people are still being left in the dust. How are people supposed to negotiate when they have no power, economic or otherwise? Are $60 million dollars in stock options really necessary? Doesn't economics bust if too few people have too many of the resources?
Maybe.
Boards and shareholders didn't decide to pay executives more, and more via stock options for no reason. There are lots of reasons why the change occurred, but one of the core issues is that shareholders didn't think executives were acting in their best interest. Stock options were seen as a way to get shareholders and management on the same page. It was somewhat effective.
|
He makes this money, because the company is willing to do it. If it was too much for what he does, he wouldn't get paid as much.
He is obviously creating enough value for the share/stockholders to be able to recieve this much compensation. it's really basic economy..
It's not like Kotick decides to get paid this much, it's the people who are paying him. The only power Kotick has is the power of negotiation.
Besides, it's mostly shares. So yeah, if he is able to increase the value of his own shares as well, he is obviously making more money. And like the post above me explains, the payment of shares is to reduce agency costs. By giving shares to the CEO, the CEO will for his own benefit increase the value of the shares, which is in line with what the other shareholders want, thus reducing the differences between the 2 parties.
|
Rawr rawr pitchforks. Yeah, I know. I'm getting a bit overidealistic. It's just 60 million dollars, even in stock options for a guy that's kind of reviled in the gaming community.
Anyways, these are my true colors. I'm a socialist goddammit.
And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by. You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else. It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
Then again, I'm a privileged, liberal living in NYC. What do I know?
Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
|
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by.
That's not an ethical principle. You still haven't explained what ethical principle is being violated.
Why is that wrong? What did Kotick do, to merit the term "fat pig"? Because it sounds like to me you just hate him because he's wealthy and successful, while you played video games instead of going to college.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else.
You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose.
You're making unsubstantiated arguments. "Not actually looking with both eyes open" is not a logical argument. If you think that it is "unfair" or "immoral" that some people are paid more than others, please explain why this is the case, and what ethical principles this is violating.
Also, you're doing the blaming thing again. Certain people are paid more because their work has more value, and that means they're "getting away with it" to you?
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
Then again, I'm a privileged, liberal living in NYC. What do I know?
Privilege is simply a Marxist form of ad hominem. Don't worry about it.
On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know?
The problem is that you throw around a lot of words without seeming to know what they mean. "Ethics", for example. "Ethics" implies a set of coherent ethical principles, whereas you seem to simply be pointing at things you personally don't like and declaring them "unethical".
|
Activision/Blizzard does $4 billion in revenues with just 7,000 employees and has 30% profit margins.
And people complain he gets the equivalent of a 3rd tier NFL quarterback ~ Tony Romo type money? (yes I know in stock options not cash, and he is already worth like $2 billion).
NASCAR does around $4 billion in revenue.
NBA does around $4 billion in revenue.
The Premiere League does just under $4 billion.
I don't see the problem. He probably delayed his compensation until this year so his ex wife couldn't get it in their divorce.
|
On May 02 2013 09:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
And to sunprince, the part that I find unethical is that there are fat pigs like Kotick and other cats who get exorbitant amounts of money while other people starve and can barely scrape by. That's not an ethical principle. You still haven't explained what ethical principle is being violated. Why is that wrong? What did Kotick do, to merit the term "fat pig"? Because it sounds like to me you just hate him because he's wealthy and successful, while you played video games instead of going to college. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else. You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
It's not so black and white. I'm not saying it has to be fair, but to say that it isn't unfair or immoral what some people get away with is just not actually looking with both eyes open. Not everyone actually gets compensation based on merit. Some people just get lucky, I suppose. You're making unsubstantiated arguments. "Not actually looking with both eyes open" is not a logical argument. If you think that it is "unfair" or "immoral" that some people are paid more than others, please explain why this is the case, and what ethical principles this is violating. Also, you're doing the blaming thing again. Certain people are paid more because their work has more value, and that means they're "getting away with it" to you? Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
Then again, I'm a privileged, liberal living in NYC. What do I know? Privilege is simply a Marxist form of ad hominem. Don't worry about it. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
Then again, you're kind of just throwing questions at me without actually providing sound arguments yourself. So what do you know? The problem is that you throw around a lot of words without seeming to know what they mean. "Ethics", for example. "Ethics" implies a set of coherent ethical principles, whereas you seem to simply be pointing at things you personally don't like and declaring them "unethical".
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash. I, however, don't blame Kotick, C. Ronaldo, Paris Hilton, or whatever other insanely rich person you could think of. I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor. I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
|
Don't be so technical. Basically what he's saying is that he believes it's unfair for some people to win absurd amounts of money while people who work just as hard can barely get enough cash to live.
1. Bobby Kotick "won" his money? Did the Activision board hold a raffle to be CEO?
2. Could these people, being hard-working that they are, be the CEO of Activision as successfully as Bobby Kotick has?
I tend to agree. I think nobody should make such obscene amounts of cash.
Why is that amount of money "obscene" for a person to make? Bobby Kotick is captain of the ship when the ship is bringing in billions of dollars in revenue. And is the only major video gaming company on the content end to see it's stock go up since the 2008 crash.
Most of the time on a ship, the captain stays not quite in the background but also not (usually) dominating the bridge. Until there's a storm. Look at how beat up all those other ships are. SS Activision has weathered it well. Should Activision not make enough money to pay Bobby Kotick that much money?
I blame the system that allows such ridiculousness to happen. It's only natural for people to find ways to use the system in their favor.
Blame modern agriculture and medicine, it isn't capitalism's fault that there are hundreds of millions if not billions of people alive and capable of buying a computer or console and some games. Oh wait yes that state of prosperity actually is capitalism's fault.
I wish my country at least, operated under a system that allowed a more even distribution of wealth.
Try some real capitalism there then. Redistribution of wealth succeeds at lifting the lowest out of squalor but past that it's pretty worthless.
|
On May 02 2013 09:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 08:16 wUndertUnge wrote:
You keep putting the onus on people, but it's amazing to me that people deny that there are forces, economic or otherwise, that actually make it difficult for people to just go get a job somewhere else. You're instead putting the onus on the wealthy. You're blaming them for the problems of the less fortunate, and demanding them to pay restitution for nothing that they did wrong.
I think the problem with the current system that everyone is alluding to, is the fact that the supposedly "Free market" is not really "Free" in the truest sense and people with more money are able to "rig" the system in order to keep tipping scales in their own favor. Now this is a separate topic on it s own and probably doesn't merit a discussion here, but I would suspect that that is the root cause of frustration that is being vented.
|
Canada11378 Posts
I mean I guess, but why this year? Did he really increase the value of the company 8xs over and in particular in the last couple years?
The main thing is that guys like Bobby don't make it likely to get the sort of games with the sort of features I like. On the contrary, whenever he opens his mouth I get the impression that he is one of the guys that is leading videogames in the exact opposite direction I would want. It is therefore irritating to see such a guy getting an increase in compensation rather than getting turfed. Irritating because it suggests to other AAA game companies that Bobby's method is the right track which further cements my dismay at his direction.
I get the "if he can demand, he made it, that's just capitalism." But I don't particularly care how much money he can squeeze out of the gaming market. I just care about better games.
|
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a meh answer. I mean this is a thread about a CEO having a large amount of money in stock options. If we made a thread for every CEO having lots of money in the stock of their company, we should just rename the website to LiquidFinances.com.
B) Why does this thread have 20 pages? Oh, I see, socialism vs capitalism. Fun.
Edit: I guess the relevant line of conversation is like what the above poster said - why did he get so much this year? (which is why the watchdog is concerned) - but it is still pretty meh as a topic. I think the thread just serves as a self-affirmation for people who hate Bobby Kotick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
