[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for 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.

[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]

[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]
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.

[Author]

Posts