Okay, so this guy makes 11ty beeeelion dollars a year...

[shilala]

Here's the setup...
Ed goes to work for a software firm. He's the best there is, highly recruited industry-wide.
The company agrees to pay him 11ty beeelion dollars a year.

A year passes, and the company's bottom line increases by three dollars.
That's to say that Ed has increased the company's income by 11ty beeelion and three dollars.

Along with this minimal increase in income, Ed has also brought a handful of awards, a never-ending stream of interest in the company's product, and an "aura" of success.

On the downside, he's a total asshole. He's been photographed kicking his dog, spitting on the Pope, and screwing around on his wife.

Did the company get what they paid for?
Does Ed deserve the salary he's getting?

 

[acemcmac]

 

[Anubis]

yes yes

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Stretch your mind, nipplehead.
It's a fvckin moral conundrum.

 

[Sheepathon]

I don't know, but there are various tribes of anthropomorphic flightless birds in the Antarctic more interesting than a silly hypothetical.

 

[Tiamat]

Yes and Yes. In capitalist society, all that is important is that the stock holders are happy. They could not care less if their dividends came from an ass, a machine, or a normal person.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
I don't know, but there are various tribes of anthropomorphic flightless birds in the Antarctic more interesting than a silly hypothetical.

How much are they pulling down a year? What's their employment level?
How many coconuts can they drag?

 

[BigJ]

If it's not hurting the company, WTF do they care? If it starts hurting the company, there's a problem.

As long as he's not fvcking my wife, kicking my dog, or spitting on the spiritual leader I don't have, he's fine by me.

 

[Hammer]

yes

 

[computeerrgghh]

Originally posted by: shilala
He's been photographed kicking his dog

 

[PingSpike]

$3? Thats it?

Oh wait I was wrong, I just reread it.

Ed should now be fired because he has outlived his usefulness and is very expensive.

However, I agree that his personal life should not be a factor so long as it doesn't effect the quality of his work.

 

[dquan97]

no and no

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: shilala
Here's the setup...
Ed goes to work for a software firm. He's the best there is, highly recruited industry-wide.
The company agrees to pay him 11ty beeelion dollars a year.

A year passes, and the company's bottom line increases by three dollars.
That's to say that Ed has increased the company's income by 11ty beeelion and three dollars.

Along with this minimal increase in income, Ed has also brought a handful of awards, a never-ending stream of interest in the company's product, and an "aura" of success.

On the downside, he's a total asshole. He's been photographed kicking his dog, spitting on the Pope, and screwing around on his wife.

Did the company get what they paid for?
Does Ed deserve the salary he's getting?

hell i'd give him a bonus for kicking the pope....

 

[LeiZaK]

he makes that much money with his pole? That's great.

 

[astralusion]

so he's not a good person...how does this affect work...i mean i'm assuming this isn't affecting his work...consider he raised revenue by more than 110 billion dollars...

 

[Aharami]

he's getting paid to code. not to be a moral person. so yea, he deserves his salary

 

[Anonemous]

is this somehow related to that ebbers guy?

 

[Sheepathon]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
I don't know, but there are various tribes of anthropomorphic flightless birds in the Antarctic more interesting than a silly hypothetical.

How much are they pulling down a year? What's their employment level?
How many coconuts can they drag?

They are pulling down enough to be comfortable, their employment level is roughly 100%, and they have no need for coconuts, since their purpose in life is to await the development of opposable thumbs so they can operate their world destroyers stored in the glacier ice. One day mankind will become too corrupt, and they will respond accordingly.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: Tiamat
Yes and Yes. In capitalist society, all that is important is that the stock holders are happy. They could not care less if their dividends came from an ass, a machine, or a normal person.

haha but this isn't a capitalist society...

if news of ed's behaviors got out, there'd be a scandal...c'mon it's AMERICA!

 

[ggnl]

The company didn't get a return on their investment. They didn't get what they paid for.

 

[dullard]

No because in the mean time, they could have used the 11ty beeeelion dollars to hire 10 other highly regarded people. Then together all 10 may have raised the bottom dollar by $11ty beeeelion + $4. So doing that hurt the company by $1. It is not a smart move and hurt the company.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: dullard
No because in the mean time, they could have used the 11ty beeeelion dollars to hire 10 other highly regarded people. Then together all 10 may have raised the bottom dollar by $11ty beeeelion + $4. So doing that hurt the company by $1. It is not a smart move and hurt the company.

Turns out the other 10 highly regarded coders were crackhead schizos who refused to answer the phone.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: dullard
No because in the mean time, they could have used the 11ty beeeelion dollars to hire 10 other highly regarded people. Then together all 10 may have raised the bottom dollar by $11ty beeeelion + $4. So doing that hurt the company by $1. It is not a smart move and hurt the company.

Turns out the other 10 highly regarded coders were crackhead schizos who refused to answer the phone.

Plus one of them filled that bag on your head with dogdoo and lit it on fire.

 

[MustISO]

Personally, I think all high salaries are rediculous. This includes athletes, actors and CEO's of major corporations. I think it's a waste of money and none of the people are worth their salary. Sports should have a cap on max salary. Directors should look for actors willing to work for a modest salary and companies will do just fine with a CEO making $350,000 vs. 6.2 million.

 

[Mrvile]

Yes and Yes.