|
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote:
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously 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.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so.
Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it.
|
On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote:
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously 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. Back to question A again.
Apparently everyone else feels the same way since the thread basically turned into socialism vs capitalism because they had nothing better to talk about.
Yeah, you're right. This is stupid. Someone shut down this thread. There's nothing we've learned here.
|
On May 02 2013 12:44 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote:
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously 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.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so. Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it.
Yeah, I edited out some of the condescension; I was too heavy-handed about the way I worded my point.
|
On May 02 2013 12:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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? Show nested quote + 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. Show nested quote +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.
I think that amount of money is "obscene" because there are no earthly needs that require such absurd amounts of cash (for an individual/family). You can live a life of luxuries with a fraction of that, It's just an opinion though, there is no objectivity here.
Regarding the "blame". I blame capitalism for forcing medicine to be commercialized to the point in which it is right now, which makes it unfair. Access to state of the art medicine should be a right, and not something you access according to your economical power. People shouldn't die waiting for procedures, diagnoses, or medication because they're poor. People shouldn't suffer more from X disease because of their lack of wealth. Medicine has become a commodity, that just shouldn't happen.
Same with education. Quality education should be a given for everyone, no matter your wealth.
I don't care if some people get better cars, better clothes, fancier homes, jewelry, whatever. But there are some things that are basic needs and shouldn't be subject to brutal market treatment, it just makes people's life unfairly worse.
Like I said, I don't blame or hate Kotick for being rich, he's just done well under this system's rules.
|
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".
Ok, well let me start by saying that I'm a moral realist. I think ethics and morals are subjective. So coherent won't necessarily mean objective. So already we have a contradiction because if ethics are supposed to guide groups or even individuals, the implication is that there's some universality, right?
So to answer the first question: the ethical principle is that there is an unmerited and unjustified distribution of a certain resource, in this case, stock, which translates into money. It's a posession. It's one man having a shit ton on of haves while others basically struggle.
Maybe I was overstating the case. Maybe I was resorting to personal attacks. But it's only because when I feel there has been injustice, it inflames me in a visceral, subjective way. It's moral repugnance.
Now, maybe I am putting the onus on the wealthy. What I'm aiming at isn't so much the people but the circumstances. But can we just let them off the hook? I like to give people more credit than that. People do shitty things knowingly. We have the capability to be compassionate, giving, fair, etc or we hoard, act in self-interest, with greed. Either extreme is dangerous. Imagine if Kotick just gave with open hands everything he had, not holding onto anything for himself, compassionate without boundaries. He depletes himself. No sustenance, no reserves to take care of himself.
In the opposite extreme, he takes advantage of every situation he can through cunning, good business sense, but then doesn't stop. Okay, the board of stock holders gives him that much more control of the company through those stocks, which will pay him out that much more.
But why is no one else being recognized? Sure, the 99.9% of employees working for Activision probably aren't capable of making shrewd business decisions, but what's left? Maybe a lot. Maybe there's plenty to go around. I probably should do more research.
My ethics, though, tell me that that much money could go a long way to taking care of your employees that not only will help them individually, but also boost the morale and show that the company invests in them. The employees (theoretically) do the same in turn.
Anyways, I'm kind of done with this thread because as the last guy said, it's starting to turn to bullshit. I could go on longer, and sorry that my arguments weren't cohesive enough. But when my sense of injustice gets inflamed, reason has no part to play in this. I'm out for blood. And the wealthy are an easy target to be certain, perhaps too easy.
|
On May 02 2013 12:46 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 12:44 Piledriver wrote:On May 02 2013 12:38 dcemuser wrote:
A) Why does this thread exist? If the answer is "it's a forum primarily for a Blizzard game", then it is still a shit answer. I mean seriously 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.
Last I checked, this is the General forum. People can discuss whatever they want here, without requiring your consent or permission to do so. Now I agree with you that this thread is quiet pointless because people have strayed away from the central question about the value of a CEO within an organization and moved on to a general debate about Socialism vs Capitalism. But there is nothing wrong with discussing the original question itself, and there is no need to act all condescending about it. Yeah, I edited out some of the condescension; I was too heavy-handed about the way I worded my point.
No, you were right. This derailed. It stopped being about Activision and Kotick and more about people's ideals. There's nothing to be learned here. The human race is destined to shit on each other regardless of whether Kotick's bonus harms the employees or not.
This thread has me feeling downright cynical.
|
. Deleted because this post was stupid. Sorry.
|
Canada11378 Posts
Also triple posting. Please use the edit button instead next time.
|
On May 02 2013 13:02 wUndertUnge wrote:
The human race is destined to shit on each other...
Why do you think capitalism is so popular? =)
|
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
Ok, well let me start by saying that I'm a moral realist. I think ethics and morals are subjective. So coherent won't necessarily mean objective. So already we have a contradiction because if ethics are supposed to guide groups or even individuals, the implication is that there's some universality, right?
Not necessarily. A group can agree to being guided by a shared ethical system even if those ethics aren't universal. For example, vegetarians can refrain from eating meat without thinking that this is universally correct for everyone.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
So to answer the first question: the ethical principle is that there is an unmerited and unjustified distribution of a certain resource, in this case, stock, which translates into money. It's a posession. It's one man having a shit ton on of haves while others basically struggle.
Why is it unmerited or unjustified? Who are you to say that what a company chooses to pay it's employee is unjustified?
In your ideal world, do you deny others the right to agree to certain amounts of pay? What would make a just world to you, one in which a mob forcibly takes money away from people who earn more to give to people who earn less?
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
Maybe I was overstating the case. Maybe I was resorting to personal attacks. But it's only because when I feel there has been injustice, it inflames me in a visceral, subjective way. It's moral repugnance.
No, what you're feeling is merely an emotional reaction (jealousy) to something you don't like. And considering that after high school you played video games, while Kotick started working with Steve Jobs in college, I think it's apparent where your emotional reaction comes from.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
Now, maybe I am putting the onus on the wealthy. What I'm aiming at isn't so much the people but the circumstances. But can we just let them off the hook? I like to give people more credit than that. People do shitty things knowingly. We have the capability to be compassionate, giving, fair, etc or we hoard, act in self-interest, with greed. Either extreme is dangerous. Imagine if Kotick just gave with open hands everything he had, not holding onto anything for himself, compassionate without boundaries. He depletes himself. No sustenance, no reserves to take care of himself.
You're still putting wealthy people "on the hook" without explaining what it is you think they did wrong.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
In the opposite extreme, he takes advantage of every situation he can through cunning, good business sense, but then doesn't stop. Okay, the board of stock holders gives him that much more control of the company through those stocks, which will pay him out that much more.
You still haven't explained what exactly he did wrong.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
But why is no one else being recognized? Sure, the 99.9% of employees working for Activision probably aren't capable of making shrewd business decisions, but what's left? Maybe a lot. Maybe there's plenty to go around. I probably should do more research.
It doesn't matter. You get paid what you agree to get paid. If your services are valuable enough that you can demand a share of the pie, then you'll get it. If not, then you'll get whatever salary you agreed to.
On May 02 2013 13:00 wUndertUnge wrote:
My ethics, though, tell me that that much money could go a long way to taking care of your employees that not only will help them individually, but also boost the morale and show that the company invests in them. The employees (theoretically) do the same in turn.
That's up to the company to decide, not you.
|
On May 02 2013 12:53 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 12:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. I think that amount of money is "obscene" because there are no earthly needs that require such absurd amounts of cash (for an individual/family). You can live a life of luxuries with a fraction of that, It's just an opinion though, there is no objectivity here. Regarding the "blame". I blame capitalism for forcing medicine to be commercialized to the point in which it is right now, which makes it unfair. Access to state of the art medicine should be a right, and not something you access according to your economical power. People shouldn't die waiting for procedures, diagnoses, or medication because they're poor. People shouldn't suffer more from X disease because of their lack of wealth. Medicine has become a commodity, that just shouldn't happen. Same with education. Quality education should be a given for everyone, no matter your wealth. I don't care if some people get better cars, better clothes, fancier homes, jewelry, whatever. But there are some things that are basic needs and shouldn't be subject to brutal market treatment, it just makes people's life unfairly worse. Like I said, I don't blame or hate Kotick for being rich, he's just done well under this system's rules.
I think education is always a really good point to bring up.
Imagine if America treated Education the same way it did with things like Healthcare. Most people wouldn't even be able to write. Many of the arguments used today against taxing, and free healthcare, are rehashed arguments of what people used against free education. If you think the arguments against free education are absurd, that's what the arguments against many other socialist principles (free education is socialist) sound like to us.
The main problem I see is that about 90% of the population actually pay too much tax, while the top 1% hardly pay anything at all in comparison. Unfortunately politicians aren't prepared to protect their asses from billionaires even though they would have the majority of the population on their side.
For the top 10% of wage earners, they probably worked hard for it, but the top 1%? A lot of that was due to luck. Do you think it takes skill to be the son of the owner of a massive oil company? Microsoft would still be a tiny company if it wasn't for IBM. Yes Bill Gates did work really hard, but luck was still the main factor for his massive earnings. For many software developers who became rich, it wasn't skill or effort, its almost pure luck. For every rich software developer, there are poor ones who have worked much harder and are still rolling the dice with each new project, waiting for a big company to sponsor them with huge amounts of money.
Regardless of whether Bobby Kotick made good decisions, without developers there would be no games. Currently many game company employees are living very tough lives, financially and physically.
If you want my opinion, the result of Blizzard has nothing to do with how good Kotick's decisions were, it was how ruthless they were. Sever a few arms out of your company and re-neg on promised bonuses, and in the next 3 years you are going to make a ton of profit. I mean running a game studio costs a shit ton of money, each time you fire a whole studio that's millions in savings.
Other companies were just not prepared to do that, that's it.
Oh yeah and I think people need a reminder that before Kotick ran Activision, he ran 4Kids entertainment. Its not a coincidence that both these companies have terrible reputations.
|
On April 29 2013 06:31 phar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2013 06:06 turdburgler wrote:On April 29 2013 06:01 Euronyme wrote:
It's kind of weird American CEOs get payed so well. Swedish CEOs operating companies with twice the revenue have salaries in the 500.000-700.000 USD range. how many swedish companies have twice the revenue of actiblizz? According to that guys link, 30-40 have more. The ridiculous CEO pay is a very American thing. China has copied us, but most of Europe isn't like this. CEO may get 10-50x more than an average worker, not 1000x.
Very interesting.
I've always thought this was one of those "it's messed up but it's just how it is". Nice to see otherwise.
|
On April 28 2013 16:10 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The biggest difference is forced unpaid hours which is very common. What these companies like to do is say, you can "voluntarily" spend the nights sleeping in the office and work over hours for zero pay, however in the "fine print" they say if you don't do that you will get fired, so in the end its not voluntary at all.
Where I come from, such clause would be illegal and hence void.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow. i really didnt't know the american kids were such blind fanatical fundamentalists when it comes to their capitalism.
i am, as always, astonished that anyone in their right minds can't see that surplus is generated by people NOT receiving the fruits of their labour (americans like using the phrase "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow" as if it would give support to this kind of purely evil thieving capitalism, when getting the sweat of your brow is the opposite of that), and thus that all bosses are stealing the fruits of the lower workers labour.
but to aggressively defend someone like kotick.. it's perverse. i understand it if you are in his position and then you are my, and everyone elses, mortal enemy. but for common people to defend this atrocious evil? why?
|
No one deserves to earn more than 10 times the amount the lowest paid earns.
Call me a communist all you like, but there is no way talent, motivation and hard work can explain millions of dollars earned compared to 30.000 dollars earned on a yearly basis.
|
On May 10 2013 21:32 CYFAWS wrote:
wow. i really didnt't know the american kids were such blind fanatical fundamentalists when it comes to their capitalism.
i am, as always, astonished that anyone in their right minds can't see that surplus is generated by people NOT receiving the fruits of their labour (americans like using the phrase "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow" as if it would give support to this kind of purely evil thieving capitalism, when getting the sweat of your brow is the opposite of that), and thus that all bosses are stealing the fruits of the lower workers labour.
but to aggressively defend someone like kotick.. it's perverse. i understand it if you are in his position and then you are my, and everyone elses, mortal enemy. but for common people to defend this atrocious evil? why?
As I've said in other posts, there is actual rational thought behind CEO pay in the US.
You'd do better to understand the issues at hand rather than simply spouting out your own personal politics/morality.
|
On May 10 2013 21:41 Callynn wrote:
No one deserves to earn more than 10 times the amount the lowest paid earns.
Call me a communist all you like, but there is no way talent, motivation and hard work can explain millions of dollars earned compared to 30.000 dollars earned on a yearly basis.
Anyone who tries to argue this is going to get nowhere, because effort isn't exactly quantifiable.
Capitalism isn't based on what people deserve. Those millions of dollars (or even billions) are simply the result of the decisions they made in a capitalist market. The whole point is to encourage people with innovative ideas to follow through, because there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
