[Info-vax] HP Cuts Salaries

[AEF]

On Feb 21, 11:37 pm, Michael Austin <maus... at firstdbasource.com>
wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
> > Michael Austin wrote:
>
> >> the "corporate jet" this is just more left-wing liberal idiots class
> >> warfare they have been perpetuating for far too long.
>
> > Yes and no. When you look at the full package paid to CEOs, accountants
> > can justify the biz jet by stating that any hour wasted by the CEO at
> > airport costs the company more than the biz jet.
>
> The one thing left out of the equation when we are trying to save jobs,
> is that by whining about the jets, they forget that people make their
> living from those perks - it is more than just a "perk" to the pilot and
> ground staff (some have their own ground crew, mechanics and on an on)
> and now they are all out of a job because of the whining.  Sorry it
> becomes much more than just a perk for the Cxx.

The gov't (or anyone else, for that matter) could hire far more
workers for the price of one of these jets than is lost here. On the
other hand, I read that it may somehow actually cost the corporation
more to stop using the biz jet. Still, it looks pretty bad.

>
> > BUT
>
> > If you consider what a CEO's pay should reasonably be, then his hourly
> > rate is nowhere near enough to justify private corp jet, especially when
> > you consider today's teleconferencing and the fact that a CEO can still
> > use his laptop and mobile phone when outside his office.
>
> Again - what is "reasonable"? If you or I were in the position to

Far less than what they're getting. Many get humongous severance
packages for running companies into the ground. You're going to tell
me this is fair or reasonable?

> negotiate AND get these kinds of salaries, who is anyone to begrudge us
> that package?  You? Me? Congress? If you are a shareholder and you
> disagree you have 3 options.
>
> 1) Let the board know that you as a shareholder agree/disagree with the
> package given to them and the C-level execs. (You do this by casting
> your vote as to who you want on the board, writing the board etc).
>
> 2) Sell your stock and let the rest of the stock-holders deal with it
>
> 3) (most popular option taken) - do nothing but whine about it. (Want a
> little cheese with your whine?)

Funny, none of these have actually worked.

>
> Is this "right"? well that depends on your perspective. I still have
> corporation that I "run" (it actually turned a profit last year - not
> much of one, but to the IRS a profit none-the-less).  If it was as

Well, that's pretty damn good in today's economy! The only others I
know that are making a profit are McDonald's, Walmart Mart, and some
of the oil companies (I think at least one of oil companies recently
posted a quarterly loss).

> successful as say - WalMart (bad analogy but, whatever...) - I would not
> want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with my hard earned $$$ -
> especially since I am going to get taxed on that profit.  If I needed a
> corporate jet, it is another business deduction and provides me with the
> flexibility ***I*** deem necessary - and not you nor the gov't has a
> right to say otherwise.

Corporations are legal entities and as such have rights and
responsibilities. They have certain advantages (such as limited
liability) and therefore I don't think it is unreasonable to demand
something in return.

Including those in corporations taking gov't
> money - companies have been taking Fed funds for decades - you think
> they have parked their jets? give me a break!  Not to mention that most
> of the travel given to congress/senate have been on those very same
> aircraft they have recently so vilified.  How hypocritical. One
> congressman flew to England on a commercial flight -- first class at
> $14K.  You and me - we get stuck with coach.

Well, there are some differences here. The "normal" taking of Fed
funds is one thing. Taking billions upon billions to save your sorry
ass, in addition to the fact that your sorry ass caused a worldwide
financial debacle, that's another thing. Moreover, it's also much more
visible than the "usual". And just because they don't make certain
demands in the "usual" cases doesn't mean its wrong to do so in the
current environment. Remember: These corporations ran themselves into
the ground, causing millions to lose their jobs, wreaking havoc in the
markets, threatening the stability of the world's financial system,
and so on. I think it's quite fair to make substantial demands in
return, esp. since it effectively gives the gov't a large percentage
of ownership.

>
> If you begrudge their "package" - you can't tell me that if it were you
> (collectively everyone) you would not take all that you could get.

Some would, others wouldn't. Those who do shouldn't really be
surprised at a rather negative reaction.

Let's see, if you were saved from drowning and then found yourself in
the position to rob your savior blind ("tak[ing] all that you could
get"), would you?

AEF