Top 20 pensioners cite city service

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]
I do have an issue with a CEO taking millions out of a company at a time when revenues are shrinking and quarterly earnings are actually quarterly losses. Unfortunately, that is what happening at many large companies – including the one I work at. At a time when employees have been told that raises are on hold indefinitely (last 2 years have been 0%), 401k match is gone, workforce cut by 25%… but the CEO bonuses and RSUs keep increasing. It really is obscene. It’s on a scale not seen in the public sector. The money being transfered from the stock holders to the CEO and his cronies is NOT helping the overall economy. (Share price is a fraction of what it was).[/quote]

Of course it is not on the scale of the public sector nor should it be. The public sector does not generate wealth. Why is it so hard to factor that difference in? Often times, a vast majority of the CEOs income is tied to the success of the company, but you seem to be arguing that the board should not honor his employment contract if he does a bad job. That’s not how it works and a company would be poorly run and at a disadvantage if they said, “Well Bob, we’re not going to pay you if we’re not profitable this year.” That’s not how it works for any employee or we would all be seeking government jobs. He can certainly get fired and if the board continually rewards failure the company will tank. That happens and that is OK in the private sector. There are bad apples and bad companies that fail…a company must provide value to the free market or that is what happens. If the market feels that the company is exercising poor judgment , including executive compensation, then the market will not invest and the practices of the company will play out in the free market economy.

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]Talk about a broad generalization. You assume all government IT folks are incompetant? My brother switched to IT after working in another professional sector (architecture). He went back to school and had his previous job experience of maintaining his employers servers, workstations, and tool-chains. After learning his new field he spent 10 years in private sector then switched to working for the government (a state that isn’t CA). He switched because the challenges of maintaining server farms, writing enterprise wide apps, etc, for various state agencies, was more challenging than what he was getting as an IT schlub at HP.

I’m not saying all government IT folks are good. But I wouldn’t say all private sector IT folks are good. Lets not generalize.[/quote]

No, I never said all…just a vast majority of them. Talent is in a high demand and it does not gravitate to the public sector. If one truly has a passion for the work in the changing tech field, they usually do not look for satisfaction within the public sector. Good for your brother leaving HP, I mean it, but the challenges he is seeking exists to a greater degree in the private sector, but we don’t have a guaranteed pension, so he’ll have to weigh that.

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]Talk about a broad generalization. You assume all government IT folks are incompetant? My brother switched to IT after working in another professional sector (architecture). He went back to school and had his previous job experience of maintaining his employers servers, workstations, and tool-chains. After learning his new field he spent 10 years in private sector then switched to working for the government (a state that isn’t CA). He switched because the challenges of maintaining server farms, writing enterprise wide apps, etc, for various state agencies, was more challenging than what he was getting as an IT schlub at HP.

I’m not saying all government IT folks are good. But I wouldn’t say all private sector IT folks are good. Lets not generalize.[/quote]

No, I never said all…just a vast majority of them. Talent is in a high demand and it does not gravitate to the public sector. If one truly has a passion for the work in the changing tech field, they usually do not look for satisfaction within the public sector. Good for your brother leaving HP, I mean it, but the challenges he is seeking exists to a greater degree in the private sector, but we don’t have a guaranteed pension, so he’ll have to weigh that.

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]Talk about a broad generalization. You assume all government IT folks are incompetant? My brother switched to IT after working in another professional sector (architecture). He went back to school and had his previous job experience of maintaining his employers servers, workstations, and tool-chains. After learning his new field he spent 10 years in private sector then switched to working for the government (a state that isn’t CA). He switched because the challenges of maintaining server farms, writing enterprise wide apps, etc, for various state agencies, was more challenging than what he was getting as an IT schlub at HP.

I’m not saying all government IT folks are good. But I wouldn’t say all private sector IT folks are good. Lets not generalize.[/quote]

No, I never said all…just a vast majority of them. Talent is in a high demand and it does not gravitate to the public sector. If one truly has a passion for the work in the changing tech field, they usually do not look for satisfaction within the public sector. Good for your brother leaving HP, I mean it, but the challenges he is seeking exists to a greater degree in the private sector, but we don’t have a guaranteed pension, so he’ll have to weigh that.

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]Talk about a broad generalization. You assume all government IT folks are incompetant? My brother switched to IT after working in another professional sector (architecture). He went back to school and had his previous job experience of maintaining his employers servers, workstations, and tool-chains. After learning his new field he spent 10 years in private sector then switched to working for the government (a state that isn’t CA). He switched because the challenges of maintaining server farms, writing enterprise wide apps, etc, for various state agencies, was more challenging than what he was getting as an IT schlub at HP.

I’m not saying all government IT folks are good. But I wouldn’t say all private sector IT folks are good. Lets not generalize.[/quote]

No, I never said all…just a vast majority of them. Talent is in a high demand and it does not gravitate to the public sector. If one truly has a passion for the work in the changing tech field, they usually do not look for satisfaction within the public sector. Good for your brother leaving HP, I mean it, but the challenges he is seeking exists to a greater degree in the private sector, but we don’t have a guaranteed pension, so he’ll have to weigh that.

[pjwal]

[quote=UCGal]Talk about a broad generalization. You assume all government IT folks are incompetant? My brother switched to IT after working in another professional sector (architecture). He went back to school and had his previous job experience of maintaining his employers servers, workstations, and tool-chains. After learning his new field he spent 10 years in private sector then switched to working for the government (a state that isn’t CA). He switched because the challenges of maintaining server farms, writing enterprise wide apps, etc, for various state agencies, was more challenging than what he was getting as an IT schlub at HP.

I’m not saying all government IT folks are good. But I wouldn’t say all private sector IT folks are good. Lets not generalize.[/quote]

No, I never said all…just a vast majority of them. Talent is in a high demand and it does not gravitate to the public sector. If one truly has a passion for the work in the changing tech field, they usually do not look for satisfaction within the public sector. Good for your brother leaving HP, I mean it, but the challenges he is seeking exists to a greater degree in the private sector, but we don’t have a guaranteed pension, so he’ll have to weigh that.

[pjwal]

This comparison to executive compensation is just wrong on so many levels. The company can only afford to pay it’s employees what it earns (unless it’s unfairly bailed out by the government). Sure, they can sell bonds, but the market weighs that risk (sometimes poorly) with the assumption that the loaned money will be paid back as the company earns. If not, they declare bankruptcy, in which case bond holders are paid back before any executive compensation. A CEO’s job is to cut salaries and lay off employees at times. That is what they are compensated for.

What we are peeved about is that this isn’t happening in the public sector. They are paying it’s employees more than they can afford. This is coming out of our taxes and we have no recourse.

What the company pays its employees is not coming out of my paycheck. Just as you have a right to be upset at an individual company for their compensation practices, we have a right to be angry at a particular municipality.

[pjwal]

This comparison to executive compensation is just wrong on so many levels. The company can only afford to pay it’s employees what it earns (unless it’s unfairly bailed out by the government). Sure, they can sell bonds, but the market weighs that risk (sometimes poorly) with the assumption that the loaned money will be paid back as the company earns. If not, they declare bankruptcy, in which case bond holders are paid back before any executive compensation. A CEO’s job is to cut salaries and lay off employees at times. That is what they are compensated for.

What we are peeved about is that this isn’t happening in the public sector. They are paying it’s employees more than they can afford. This is coming out of our taxes and we have no recourse.

What the company pays its employees is not coming out of my paycheck. Just as you have a right to be upset at an individual company for their compensation practices, we have a right to be angry at a particular municipality.

[pjwal]

This comparison to executive compensation is just wrong on so many levels. The company can only afford to pay it’s employees what it earns (unless it’s unfairly bailed out by the government). Sure, they can sell bonds, but the market weighs that risk (sometimes poorly) with the assumption that the loaned money will be paid back as the company earns. If not, they declare bankruptcy, in which case bond holders are paid back before any executive compensation. A CEO’s job is to cut salaries and lay off employees at times. That is what they are compensated for.

What we are peeved about is that this isn’t happening in the public sector. They are paying it’s employees more than they can afford. This is coming out of our taxes and we have no recourse.

What the company pays its employees is not coming out of my paycheck. Just as you have a right to be upset at an individual company for their compensation practices, we have a right to be angry at a particular municipality.

[pjwal]

This comparison to executive compensation is just wrong on so many levels. The company can only afford to pay it’s employees what it earns (unless it’s unfairly bailed out by the government). Sure, they can sell bonds, but the market weighs that risk (sometimes poorly) with the assumption that the loaned money will be paid back as the company earns. If not, they declare bankruptcy, in which case bond holders are paid back before any executive compensation. A CEO’s job is to cut salaries and lay off employees at times. That is what they are compensated for.

What we are peeved about is that this isn’t happening in the public sector. They are paying it’s employees more than they can afford. This is coming out of our taxes and we have no recourse.

What the company pays its employees is not coming out of my paycheck. Just as you have a right to be upset at an individual company for their compensation practices, we have a right to be angry at a particular municipality.

[pjwal]

This comparison to executive compensation is just wrong on so many levels. The company can only afford to pay it’s employees what it earns (unless it’s unfairly bailed out by the government). Sure, they can sell bonds, but the market weighs that risk (sometimes poorly) with the assumption that the loaned money will be paid back as the company earns. If not, they declare bankruptcy, in which case bond holders are paid back before any executive compensation. A CEO’s job is to cut salaries and lay off employees at times. That is what they are compensated for.

What we are peeved about is that this isn’t happening in the public sector. They are paying it’s employees more than they can afford. This is coming out of our taxes and we have no recourse.

What the company pays its employees is not coming out of my paycheck. Just as you have a right to be upset at an individual company for their compensation practices, we have a right to be angry at a particular municipality.

[CA renter]

[quote=pjwal][quote=CA renter]Again, I despise the fact that **workers of all stripes** are being made (brainwashed) to turn agaist each other when the culprits who created our problems are sailing away on their yachts, unscathed.[/quote]

More class warfare from the left. Oh, don’t look at the public sector that doesn’t have to answer to the free market, whose employees are living off a pension that only a few million dollar investment fund could reasonably return. No it’s those evil CEOs and fund managers of the private sector that are creating all of our problems. As if failure in the private sector and losing investment dollars is automatically a crime. There is no arguing that on the whole private sector companies BIG and small, have created the standard of living today. What are you arguing exactly? That we should have some laws to punish CEOs and their families when they fail?[/quote]

We disagree completely about the benevolence of the private sector. Without the public sector that provides the physical, legal, and social infrastructures, private industry could not thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Show me a **SINGLE** country without a strong socialist bent that has a high standard of living. It doesn’t exist, and it’s high time we free ourselves from the dogma of the supply-siders and “capitalists” who willingly destroy everything in their path for their own exclusive benefit.

Those obscenely rich CEOs are paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS, especially those in the financial sector. Without the govt’s help, many of the financial firms wouldn’t be around today, and those that would have survived would be a fraction of their current size.

Absolutely, those CEOs are paid handsomely enough that they should be held accountable for their actions. That means that if they cause the company to fail, they need to be held **personally** responsible. If not, why are we paying them so much? Where is the personal “risk” we hear so much about that supposedly warrants their outrageous rewards?

We disagree about the “free market” determining prices in the private sector as well. There are so many monopolies and networks, that we are not free to choose from whom we buy goods or services — especially the things we need the most. Choosing between two large monopolitic companies (who are in control of many policies via their lobbies) is NOT a “free market.”

Privatizing profits while socializing gains is NOT “free market.”

[CA renter]

[quote=pjwal][quote=CA renter]Again, I despise the fact that **workers of all stripes** are being made (brainwashed) to turn agaist each other when the culprits who created our problems are sailing away on their yachts, unscathed.[/quote]

More class warfare from the left. Oh, don’t look at the public sector that doesn’t have to answer to the free market, whose employees are living off a pension that only a few million dollar investment fund could reasonably return. No it’s those evil CEOs and fund managers of the private sector that are creating all of our problems. As if failure in the private sector and losing investment dollars is automatically a crime. There is no arguing that on the whole private sector companies BIG and small, have created the standard of living today. What are you arguing exactly? That we should have some laws to punish CEOs and their families when they fail?[/quote]

We disagree completely about the benevolence of the private sector. Without the public sector that provides the physical, legal, and social infrastructures, private industry could not thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Show me a **SINGLE** country without a strong socialist bent that has a high standard of living. It doesn’t exist, and it’s high time we free ourselves from the dogma of the supply-siders and “capitalists” who willingly destroy everything in their path for their own exclusive benefit.

Those obscenely rich CEOs are paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS, especially those in the financial sector. Without the govt’s help, many of the financial firms wouldn’t be around today, and those that would have survived would be a fraction of their current size.

Absolutely, those CEOs are paid handsomely enough that they should be held accountable for their actions. That means that if they cause the company to fail, they need to be held **personally** responsible. If not, why are we paying them so much? Where is the personal “risk” we hear so much about that supposedly warrants their outrageous rewards?

We disagree about the “free market” determining prices in the private sector as well. There are so many monopolies and networks, that we are not free to choose from whom we buy goods or services — especially the things we need the most. Choosing between two large monopolitic companies (who are in control of many policies via their lobbies) is NOT a “free market.”

Privatizing profits while socializing gains is NOT “free market.”

[CA renter]

[quote=pjwal][quote=CA renter]Again, I despise the fact that **workers of all stripes** are being made (brainwashed) to turn agaist each other when the culprits who created our problems are sailing away on their yachts, unscathed.[/quote]

More class warfare from the left. Oh, don’t look at the public sector that doesn’t have to answer to the free market, whose employees are living off a pension that only a few million dollar investment fund could reasonably return. No it’s those evil CEOs and fund managers of the private sector that are creating all of our problems. As if failure in the private sector and losing investment dollars is automatically a crime. There is no arguing that on the whole private sector companies BIG and small, have created the standard of living today. What are you arguing exactly? That we should have some laws to punish CEOs and their families when they fail?[/quote]

We disagree completely about the benevolence of the private sector. Without the public sector that provides the physical, legal, and social infrastructures, private industry could not thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Show me a **SINGLE** country without a strong socialist bent that has a high standard of living. It doesn’t exist, and it’s high time we free ourselves from the dogma of the supply-siders and “capitalists” who willingly destroy everything in their path for their own exclusive benefit.

Those obscenely rich CEOs are paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS, especially those in the financial sector. Without the govt’s help, many of the financial firms wouldn’t be around today, and those that would have survived would be a fraction of their current size.

Absolutely, those CEOs are paid handsomely enough that they should be held accountable for their actions. That means that if they cause the company to fail, they need to be held **personally** responsible. If not, why are we paying them so much? Where is the personal “risk” we hear so much about that supposedly warrants their outrageous rewards?

We disagree about the “free market” determining prices in the private sector as well. There are so many monopolies and networks, that we are not free to choose from whom we buy goods or services — especially the things we need the most. Choosing between two large monopolitic companies (who are in control of many policies via their lobbies) is NOT a “free market.”

Privatizing profits while socializing gains is NOT “free market.”

[CA renter]

[quote=pjwal][quote=CA renter]Again, I despise the fact that **workers of all stripes** are being made (brainwashed) to turn agaist each other when the culprits who created our problems are sailing away on their yachts, unscathed.[/quote]

More class warfare from the left. Oh, don’t look at the public sector that doesn’t have to answer to the free market, whose employees are living off a pension that only a few million dollar investment fund could reasonably return. No it’s those evil CEOs and fund managers of the private sector that are creating all of our problems. As if failure in the private sector and losing investment dollars is automatically a crime. There is no arguing that on the whole private sector companies BIG and small, have created the standard of living today. What are you arguing exactly? That we should have some laws to punish CEOs and their families when they fail?[/quote]

We disagree completely about the benevolence of the private sector. Without the public sector that provides the physical, legal, and social infrastructures, private industry could not thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Show me a **SINGLE** country without a strong socialist bent that has a high standard of living. It doesn’t exist, and it’s high time we free ourselves from the dogma of the supply-siders and “capitalists” who willingly destroy everything in their path for their own exclusive benefit.

Those obscenely rich CEOs are paid for with OUR TAX DOLLARS, especially those in the financial sector. Without the govt’s help, many of the financial firms wouldn’t be around today, and those that would have survived would be a fraction of their current size.

Absolutely, those CEOs are paid handsomely enough that they should be held accountable for their actions. That means that if they cause the company to fail, they need to be held **personally** responsible. If not, why are we paying them so much? Where is the personal “risk” we hear so much about that supposedly warrants their outrageous rewards?

We disagree about the “free market” determining prices in the private sector as well. There are so many monopolies and networks, that we are not free to choose from whom we buy goods or services — especially the things we need the most. Choosing between two large monopolitic companies (who are in control of many policies via their lobbies) is NOT a “free market.”

Privatizing profits while socializing gains is NOT “free market.”

[Author]

Posts