Going Galt: Producing Less, Enjoying Life More

Bird of Prey said:

Dm, if there's anybody here veering off point. . . . And "villifying" - I find that word in this context so funny - people who have the GDP of some nations, well I don't know what to say. They're hardly being "villified." You obviously find them admirable on a level that I simply don't. I don't dislike them, but I'm well aware of certain elements of their conduct, thus they're not exactly Gandhi to me, but what the heh. This thread is about people who resent more taxation even if they make a lot. It's really simple, Dm. It seems you're comfortable with the status quo, despite all the injustices and inequities, despite the fact that it doesn't work for a significant percentage of the global population. To underscore it all, you'd rather have HP own a company than the company have an international shot on its own. O.K. But I'd rather companies innovate and compete, not be swallowed up by somebody who can then siphon off another few billion and stick it in his pocket.

When you start spewing "soapbox" etc. I know it's time to quit. And it doesn't seem that you really want to debate the point, although in this case, it seems you made my point for me. I appreciate that. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I'll ignore most of this (except for the bolded part), because this is exactly the soapbox I talked about. I am just going to say that you have no idea what I do and don't find admirable in people, so you shouldn't even try guessing.
As for the bolded part. You simply don't get it. Really. It isn't a matter of "rather having HP own a company than the company'd have an international shot on its own". It is a matter of facing reality. The owner (now the owner of my company) built this company from nothing. From several people in his kitchen. It was his all life, just like our current company is his all life today (the guy is a multi-millionair, over 60 and spends almost every single day from 8:00 to 20:00 at the company, working with us). He dreamt Indigo (this is the companies name) would be the next HP, not be owned by it. Selling it was the hardest thing for him. But he realized at some point that it was the best thing for the company. HP was already partners with him. It could take Indigo to the levels he couldn't. And it happened. HP opened doors for Indigo that were closed. So, as I said, I suggest you stick to what you know.

dmytryp said:

I'll ignore most of this (except for the bolded part), because this is exactly the soapbox I talked about. I am just going to say that you have no idea what I do and don't find admirable in people, so you shouldn't even try guessing.
As for the bolded part. You simply don't get it. Really. It isn't a matter of "rather having HP own a company than the company'd have an international shot on its own". It is a matter of facing reality. The owner (now the owner of my company) built this company from nothing. From several people in his kitchen. It was his all life, just like our current company is his all life today (the guy is a multi-millionair, over 60 and spends almost every single day from 8:00 to 20:00 at the company, working with us). He dreamt Indigo (this is the companies name) would be the next HP, not be owned by it. Selling it was the hardest thing for him. But he realized at some point that it was the best thing for the company. HP was already partners with him. It could take Indigo to the levels he couldn't. And it happened. HP opened doors for Indigo that were closed. So, as I said, I suggest you stick to what you know.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I would suggest you follow your own advice.

HP, Calif. Settle Spying Lawsuit
State Exploring Deal With Dunn

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 8, 2006; Page D01

California's attorney general announced a $14.5 million civil settlement with Hewlett-Packard over its corporate spying scandal yesterday and said in an interview that he was exploring a possible settlement of criminal charges against the firm's former chairman. . . .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701067.html

Cornell Wins $184 Million in Lawsuit Against Hewlett-Packard
June 5, 2008 - 11:20am
By Donial Dastgir

For the past two decades, Cornell has been embroiled in a tense legal conflict with Hewlett-Packard, Co., over a dispute involving HP’s use of technology developed in Cornell’s processors to dramatically increase the performance of their computers. On May 30, the jury hearing the case in a Syracuse court found in favor of Cornell, awarding the University $184 million in damages for HP’s violation of intellectual property. . . . http://cornellsun.com/section/news/...n-intellectual-property-lawsuit-against-hewle

Just thought I'd add this for informational purposes, in case you might be tempted to add HP to your list of acceptable corporate titans.

Bird of Prey said:

Yes, and I would suggest you follow your own advice.

HP, Calif. Settle Spying Lawsuit
State Exploring Deal With Dunn

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 8, 2006; Page D01

California's attorney general announced a $14.5 million civil settlement with Hewlett-Packard over its corporate spying scandal yesterday and said in an interview that he was exploring a possible settlement of criminal charges against the firm's former chairman. . . .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701067.html

Cornell Wins $184 Million in Lawsuit Against Hewlett-Packard
June 5, 2008 - 11:20am
By Donial Dastgir

For the past two decades, Cornell has been embroiled in a tense legal conflict with Hewlett-Packard, Co., over a dispute involving HP’s use of technology developed in Cornell’s processors to dramatically increase the performance of their computers. On May 30, the jury hearing the case in a Syracuse court found in favor of Cornell, awarding the University $184 million in damages for HP’s violation of intellectual property. . . . http://cornellsun.com/section/news/...n-intellectual-property-lawsuit-against-hewle

Just thought I'd add this for informational purposes, in case you might be tempted to add HP to your list of acceptable corporate titans.

Click to expand...

What exactly is your point? That corporations do not very nice things? You find them unacceptable, I suggest you don't use their techology (though that might be somewhat tougher than you think). It doesn't however change the good things they do. But since they are "unacceptable corporate titans"...

dmytryp said:

What exactly is your point? That corporations do not very nice things? You find them unacceptable, I suggest you don't use their techology (though that might be somewhat tougher than you think). It doesn't however change the good things they do. But since they are "unacceptable corporate titans"...

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, corporations that are allowed to become too large pose as serious a threat to both innovation and the global economy as do monopolies. Monopolies, however, have been somewhat addressed. I also believe that allowing individuals to amass such enormous fortunes that they can literally bend governments to their will is a threat to certain nations and populations as a whole, which brings us back to taxation. The question in my mind is how much money is enough??

Bird of Prey said:

In a nutshell, corporations that are allowed to become too large pose as serious a threat to both innovation and the global economy as do monopolies. Monopolies, however, have been somewhat addressed. I also believe that allowing individuals to amass such enormous fortunes that they can literally bend governments to their will is a threat to certain nations and populations as a whole, which brings us back to taxation. The question in my mind is how much money is enough??

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Which is what I think we're seeing right now, actually. The problems we are seeing are happening in the upper echelons of our society and they are making the rest of us feel their pain.

Bird of Prey said:

In a nutshell, corporations that are allowed to become too large pose as serious a threat to both innovation and the global economy as do monopolies. Monopolies, however, have been somewhat addressed.

Click to expand...

That depends on the field (how it operates), whether there are other competing corporations etc.
Since we've talked about HP, lets stick with it. In the home printing market it has several other corporations competing with it. The field is super innovative and competitive, and the consumer only benefitted from it.
Your point is also problematic since it is a global market. You (as in US) have no control of what other countries do (or even on what US based corporations do in other countries), so restricting your own corporations is only going to put them at a disadvantage. You want to protect smaller businesses? Great. Work on finding ways of doing so without hurting other businesses

Bird of Prey said:

I also believe that allowing individuals to amass such enormous fortunes that they can literally bend governments to their will is a threat to certain nations and populations as a whole, which brings us back to taxation. The question in my mind is how much money is enough??

Click to expand...

This one is simply a load of ideological bull.
No person, not even Bill Gates can bend US to his will. Their fortune is still minuscule compared to US annual budget. You fear their influence on the politicians, work on making honest politicians (good luck with that, though). Furthermore, there is no level of taxation, barring taking everything from a certain point (which would be beyond repugnant in my eyes), could have prevented the uber rich from becoming uber rich. Even if they had half of what they do, or even one tenth, they would still wield the same power. What, you think anybody cares whether Buffet has ten billion or a hundred billion? WTF is the difference? And again, US is not alone in the world. You think you can tax some uber rich for 90% of what he's worth without him leaving? Really?
And to your final statement. The real question is who are you to decide? Who made you or anybody else G-d? This is simply ideology and has zero to do with economy.

James81 said:

Exactly.

Which is what I think we're seeing right now, actually. The problems we are seeing are happening in the upper echelons of our society and they are making the rest of us feel their pain.

Click to expand...

I work for myself and am making a comfortable living, so the only pain I have is knowing that others are suffering.

Since I'm not in the upper echelon, that makes me part of "the rest of us." Don't you think, James, that we are responsible for allowing the problems caused by the upper echelon to happen?

Money talks. Stock prices talk. If the shareholders of these mega-corporations are ill-informed, elect a board of directors who share the same bed and allow the board to approve ungodly salaries for the CEO and other executives, my reasoning tells me the fault lies with the shareholders, aka, the rest of us, those of us who invested their retirement money with these companies. All was well when the shareholders and the companies were making money. Not many of us questioned the ungodly salaries then. But when we lost half of our retirement money, we needed to blame someone. We, after all, weren't the greedy ones. Have any of us turned down a raise?

My understanding is that the stimulus package is meant to create and preserve jobs. What if that money is being used to pay overtime for those who already have jobs? Is time and a half considered greed when others don't have a job? Has anyone turned down overtime so that another person could be hired?

And the banking crisis - were the rest of us not responsible for making loans when we weren't qualified? Isn't that really what initiated this crisis? Sure, the government pushed for more affordable loans for the poor and the banks were forced to comply, but that doesn't mean we were forced to act irresponsibly. It's human nature to want a better life. And, it's human nature to take the path of least resistence, but that doesn't mean that path is always best. IMO, irresponsibility and greed on every level have driven us to the present economic situation.

dmytryp said:

That depends on the field (how it operates), whether there are other competing corporations etc.
Since we've talked about HP, lets stick with it. In the home printing market it has several other corporations competing with it. The field is super innovative and competitive, and the consumer only benefitted from it.
Your point is also problematic since it is a global market. You (as in US) have no control of what other countries do (or even on what US based corporations do in other countries), so restricting your own corporations is only going to put them at a disadvantage. You want to protect smaller businesses? Great. Work on finding ways of doing so without hurting other businesses


This one is simply a load of ideological bull.
No person, not even Bill Gates can bend US to his will.

Click to expand...

Who said the US?? Do you know anything about Gates and his battles in Europe??

And I'll tell you what, Dm. I have no intention of resorting to all your assinine rebukes like "who made you G-d?" You weaken your argument when you look so defensive as to resort to these tactics, as you utter them without couching them in humor or even attempting clever repartee. If you were at least funny about it, perhaps it wouldn't come across as so - in my opinion - immature.

MoonWriter said:

f the shareholders of these mega-corporations are ill-informed, elect a board of directors who share the same bed and allow the board to approve ungodly salaries for the CEO and other executives, my reasoning tells me the fault lies with the shareholders, aka, the rest of us, those of us who invested their retirement money with these companies.

Click to expand...

Wonderful in theory, woefully inadequate in practice, because most shareholders ultimately are people with IRAs, 401Ks, and mutual funds, managed by financial services who trade these investments the way I traded baseball cards when I was a kid. Ultimately, it's some big financial confabulatory organization who holds the real share-voting power, and these outfits are cut from the same cloth as the people who sit on the Boards of Directors. In fact, it might be the very same people.[/quote]

MoonWriter said:

All was well when the shareholders and the companies were making money. Not many of us questioned the ungodly salaries then.

Click to expand...

The precipitous rise since about 1980 in CEO compensation relative to worker compensation has been criticized for years. It has just seemed unstoppable, like AIDS. Now we have anecdotes of executives pouting and refusing to work unless it continues (see other threads here). Funny how these same people are the ones demanding that unionized workers take pay cuts, layoffs, reduction in benefits, etc. Until this "us vs. them" mentality (which goes both ways, but dates from the early robber-baron days of the Industrial Revolution, when laborers were treated like cattle) changes, and it sinks in that we're all in that same leaky boat, we'll continue to have this as a big problem.

caw

Bird of Prey said:

Who said the US?? Do you know anything about Gates and his battles in Europe??

And I'll tell you what, Dm. I have no intention of resorting to all your assinine rebukes like "who made you G-d?" You weaken your argument when you look so defensive as to resort to these tactics, as you utter them without couching them in humor or even attempting clever repartee. If you were at least funny about it, perhaps it wouldn't come across as so - in my opinion - immature.

Click to expand...

Really?
I weaken my arguement by pointing out that neither you nor anybody else should be entitled to say when a person has enough money?
Ok
P.S. We all know that "asinine rebukes" are just a mature way to make a point.

blacbird said:

Wonderful in theory, woefully inadequate in practice, because most shareholders ultimately are people with IRAs, 401Ks, and mutual funds, managed by financial services who trade these investments the way I traded baseball cards when I was a kid. Ultimately, it's some big financial confabulatory organization who holds the real share-voting power, and these outfits are cut from the same cloth as the people who sit on the Boards of Directors. In fact, it might be the very same people.

The precipitous rise since about 1980 in CEO compensation relative to worker compensation has been criticized for years. It has just seemed unstoppable, like AIDS. Now we have anecdotes of executives pouting and refusing to work unless it continues (see other threads here). Funny how these same people are the ones demanding that unionized workers take pay cuts, layoffs, reduction in benefits, etc. Until this "us vs. them" mentality (which goes both ways, but dates from the early robber-baron days of the Industrial Revolution, when laborers were treated like cattle) changes, and it sinks in that we're all in that same leaky boat, we'll continue to have this as a big problem.

caw

Click to expand...

You know, you make a good point except with the bolded part
You made the claim, you show the case. And no, when people say that they'll cut down on their work (or "go Galt") if taxes are raised is not the same thing.

blacbird said:

Wonderful in theory, woefully inadequate in practice, because most shareholders ultimately are people with IRAs, 401Ks, and mutual funds, managed by financial services who trade these investments the way I traded baseball cards when I was a kid. Ultimately, it's some big financial confabulatory organization who holds the real share-voting power, and these outfits are cut from the same cloth as the people who sit on the Boards of Directors. In fact, it might be the very same people.

Click to expand...

I have Roth, Traditional, and Sep-IRA's, but know nothing about 401k's. I'm free to invest my IRA money in individual stocks, mutual funds, CD's, bank savings accounts, etc. Do 401k investors not have the same choices, or are thier options limited?

But the question remains, if people are not happy with CEO's making ungodly salaries, why contribute to a 401k? To receive a company's matching 4 or 5%? Is the desire for free money at the comprimise of one's principles/morals/beliefs/values not an example of greed? Most working folks - the rest of us - qualify for Roths. Post-tax dollars that are free to grow, accumulate capital gains and dividends, and taken out at retirement free of all taxes. We are also free to forego 401k's and invest for our own retirements as we see fit in instruments that don't compromise our values.

To me, greed is greed. A CEO won't turn down 10 mil if offered. When I was thirteen, I gave an old man a price to cut his grass - $15.00 for a big yard. He told me he would never let me cut his grass for 15 bucks - he insisted I take $20.00. I didn't turn down that 33% increase and I don't think anyone would turn down what's offered. I'm as guilty of greed as the CEO, but to a lesser degree.

And what about those who took the cheap loans?

What about those who declare bankruptcy because they run up outrageous credit card debt and can't pay it back?

What about those who abuse welfare?

What about those who cheat on their taxes?

What about those who don't give their employer an honest day's work for their pay?

What about those frivolous lawsuits?

To me, these are examples as to how "the rest of us," by our greed and irresponsibility, more to blame for the current economic collapse than a few CEO's.

So far as I can tell, the CEO's making incredible wages don't generally come in saying they'll work for a mere 40 times what the average worker gets and then get surprised with an offer of 400 times what the workers get.

Not only will they negotiate for it, but they'll get on some boards and vote for other CEO's to get that sort of deal--wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, say no more--and that's not the half of it.

dmytryp said:

You know, you make a good point except with the bolded part
You made the claim, you show the case. And no, when people say that they'll cut down on their work (or "go Galt") if taxes are raised is not the same thing.

Click to expand...

A day or two ago, somewhere else on the site, someone (and I don't recall who) made a point that the executives in an insurance firm where they worked were pretty unanimous about working less hard if their taxes went up. It's a sentiment I've seen elsewhere, including, obviously, from you. I'm not saying necessarily that it wouldn't happen. I'm mainly trying to make the point that for an executive to respond this way, and expect employees to work just as hard as always while accepting forced pay cuts, etc., is damn hypocritical.

caw

MoonWriter said:

And what about those who took the cheap loans?

What about those who declare bankruptcy because they run up outrageous credit card debt and can't pay it back?

What about those who abuse welfare?

What about those who cheat on their taxes?

What about those who don't give their employer an honest day's work for their pay?

What about those frivolous lawsuits?

Click to expand...

I think you're carrying your logic far beyond the focus of my post. I have no intention of justifying anyone's outright abuses, although I would say that the people involved in the first category above ("took the cheap loans") are to be reviled a good deal less than the tax cheats and welfare abusers. They weren't outright trying to do something wrong. They were more analogous to the kid who goes trick or treating and later finds a needle in the apple. Maybe the kid should have been more careful about accepting the apple, but doesn't the real blame go to the person who put the needle there?

caw

Monkey said:

So far as I can tell, the CEO's making incredible wages don't generally come in saying they'll work for a mere 40 times what the average worker gets and then get surprised with an offer of 400 times what the workers get.

Not only will they negotiate for it, but they'll get on some boards and vote for other CEO's to get that sort of deal--wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more, say no more--and that's not the half of it.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the point I was making, unless you are also trying to say that this practice is okeydokey.

caw

MoonWriter said:

I have Roth, Traditional, and Sep-IRA's, but know nothing about 401k's. I'm free to invest my IRA money in individual stocks, mutual funds, CD's, bank savings accounts, etc. Do 401k investors not have the same choices, or are thier options limited?

But the question remains, if people are not happy with CEO's making ungodly salaries, why contribute to a 401k? To receive a company's matching 4 or 5%? Is the desire for free money at the comprimise of one's principles/morals/beliefs/values not an example of greed? Most working folks - the rest of us - qualify for Roths. Post-tax dollars that are free to grow, accumulate capital gains and dividends, and taken out at retirement free of all taxes. We are also free to forego 401k's and invest for our own retirements as we see fit in instruments that don't compromise our values.

Click to expand...

In general in a 401K the only individual stock you can invest in is your employer's. There is usually also a menu of mutual funds available. The problem is not if you disagree with the salary/bonuses the CEO gets, it is that as individual investors we don't have enough clout to change anything. My vote for my piddly 100 shares of whatever have no impact when large investors or mutual funds are voting 10s if not 100s of thousands of shares. How Warren Buffett votes his shares makes a difference, mine don't.

MM

blacbird said:

A day or two ago, somewhere else on the site, someone (and I don't recall who) made a point that the executives in an insurance firm where they worked were pretty unanimous about working less hard if their taxes went up. It's a sentiment I've seen elsewhere, including, obviously, from you. I'm not saying necessarily that it wouldn't happen. I'm mainly trying to make the point that for an executive to respond this way, and expect employees to work just as hard as always while accepting forced pay cuts, etc., is damn hypocritical.

caw

Click to expand...

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed that they said if the trend of increasing disparity between the CEO's and regular workers wouldn't continue at an exhilirating pace, they'd rtefuse to work (I am obviously somewhat paraphrasing). The two aren't synonimous. Not even in the same ball park.

As for the sentiment -- it is a simple truth. It always happens to some extent. People just don't always advertise it.
By the way, I am not a CEO and if I were and if I were to ask my employees to take a paycut ("ask" is the key word) due to hard times, I would be the first one in line with a larger cut than the rest. Of course, raising taxes comes on top of such things, and it is certainly not voluntary. If you don't see any difference and still call my stance hypocritical, there is little I can add

And we are back to discussing CEO's and their pay, while they minuscule minority of people who'd be hurt by these tax raises. Pretty convinient.

dmytryp said:

But that's not what you claimed. You claimed that they said if the trend of increasing disparity between the CEO's and regular workers wouldn't continue at an exhilirating pace, they'd rtefuse to work (I am obviously somewhat paraphrasing).

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. But, to clarify, I meant to say that a disturbing number of our business leaders, of various positions, not just CEOs, remain committed to getting back to "business as usual". Which means back to the paradigm prior to the fall 2008 meltdown. At this point, they'd be happy to continue to get, say, 400 or 500 times the compensation of the mail-room person in their companies; it wouldn't need to continue to escalate. I think most of them are plenty smart enough to realize that the escalation has reached its practical limit. What they don't want is any retrenchment in that ratio. The mail room person will get laid off before that happens.

caw

blacbird said:

Yes, you are. But, to clarify, I meant to say that a disturbing number of our business leaders, of various positions, not just CEOs, remain committed to getting back to "business as usual". Which means back to the paradigm prior to the fall 2008 meltdown. At this point, they'd be happy to continue to get, say, 400 or 500 times the compensation of the mail-room person in their companies; it wouldn't need to continue to escalate. I think most of them are plenty smart enough to realize that the escalation has reached its practical limit. What they don't want is any retrenchment in that ratio. The mail room person will get laid off before that happens.

caw

Click to expand...

Ok.
And with this I agree, and too think it is hypocritical for them to demand that and demand others take paycuts. But, again, as I already said, it is easy to focus on a small number of CEO's as compared to large number of people affected by this reform.

Don said:

Wolverines!!!

Click to expand...

You liked it, heh?