Say what you want about the New York Times, but this is a great story. "Best boss in America?" Not only is he a sexual predator, according to this article, he was a terrible boss. And yet he was lionized in the media and in Hollywood because he filled the air with tweets about corporate greed and how his company was doing great because he raised everyone's minimum salary to $70,000.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/techn...media.html
Social Media Was a C.E.O.’s Bullhorn, and How He Lured Women
Dan Price was applauded for paying a minimum salary of $70,000 at his Seattle company and criticizing corporate greed. The adulation helped to hide and enable his behavior.
It says you have to subscribe to read the link?
But I remember this guy a while back and thinking there's no way he's paying that much to everyone. I can't remember what kind of business it was though. Doesn't surprise me it was a slight of hand trick.
(08-19-2022, 05:05 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]It says you have to subscribe to read the link?
But I remember this guy a while back and thinking there's no way he's paying that much to everyone. I can't remember what kind of business it was though. Doesn't surprise me it was a slight of hand trick.
Sorry, I thought they still gave a few free articles.
It's Seattle. Situation normal.
(08-19-2022, 05:05 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]It says you have to subscribe to read the link?
But I remember this guy a while back and thinking there's no way he's paying that much to everyone. I can't remember what kind of business it was though. Doesn't surprise me it was a slight of hand trick.
You know, there’s actually a way around that. On an iPhone in the address bar there’s a “aA” that brings up a menu when you tap it. The menu has a “show reader” option that brings up the article regardless of paywall. Not sure how android handles this.
You are all welcome.
My wife met the guy a couple of times. She said he was nice. He definitely didn't try to show her porn or get her to take edibles, but, they were in a group of 5 or 6 both times, not one on one.
(08-20-2022, 11:56 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2022, 05:05 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]It says you have to subscribe to read the link?
But I remember this guy a while back and thinking there's no way he's paying that much to everyone. I can't remember what kind of business it was though. Doesn't surprise me it was a slight of hand trick.
You know, there’s actually a way around that. On an iPhone in the address bar there’s a “aA” that brings up a menu when you tap it. The menu has a “show reader” option that brings up the article regardless of paywall. Not sure how android handles this.
You are all welcome.
Ah ha! Thanks.
(08-21-2022, 09:18 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2022, 11:56 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]You know, there’s actually a way around that. On an iPhone in the address bar there’s a “aA” that brings up a menu when you tap it. The menu has a “show reader” option that brings up the article regardless of paywall. Not sure how android handles this.
You are all welcome.
Ah ha! Thanks.
Actually I think the NY times may have figured it out or perhaps there’s a limit to how many times you can pull up the article because it’s only showing part of the article to me now though it did provide the full article when I posted my reply the other day. Anyway, that trick works quite well and quite often on paywalled articles.
Anyway, I get irritated with people who go on and on about "corporate greed," as if corporations are supposed to do something other than earn money for their shareholders. This guy is a prime example.
(08-23-2022, 05:53 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]But you support the wec?
No. I'm not for them or against them.
You are referring to the World Economic Forum, right?
You are for them. If you support establishment policies, you are for the WEC, and they don't advocate for shareholder capitalism.
(08-23-2022, 07:22 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You are for them. If you support establishment policies, you are for the WEC, and they don't advocate for shareholder capitalism.
Which particular "establishment policies" do you think I am supporting?
I think I stated in this very thread that I think corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. What argument do you have with that? Or do you think I am being insincere?
I'm saying that the WEC doesn't share that point of view. They advocate for stakeholder capitalism, in which the corporation is not just responsible to the shareholder, but to create the change in the world they want to see. The WEC is propped up and supported by the establishment in DC. There is no more meritocracy. There is no more individualism. There is only the elites and the vision they have for the rest of us. The elites are running the corporations, who are determining our policies, and making themselves wealthy for our own good.
(08-23-2022, 01:29 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm saying that the WEC doesn't share that point of view. They advocate for stakeholder capitalism, in which the corporation is not just responsible to the shareholder, but to create the change in the world they want to see. The WEC is propped up and supported by the establishment in DC. There is no more meritocracy. There is no more individualism. There is only the elites and the vision they have for the rest of us. The elites are running the corporations, who are determining our policies, and making themselves wealthy for our own good.
Well, I mean, you
are just little people.
(08-23-2022, 01:29 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm saying that the WEC doesn't share that point of view. They advocate for stakeholder capitalism, in which the corporation is not just responsible to the shareholder, but to create the change in the world they want to see. The WEC is propped up and supported by the establishment in DC. There is no more meritocracy. There is no more individualism. There is only the elites and the vision they have for the rest of us. The elites are running the corporations, who are determining our policies, and making themselves wealthy for our own good.
Okay.
I believe corporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist to make money for their shareholders. Period.
I think corporations actually don't do enough for their ordinary shareholders these days. Too many shareholders are satisfied with simple increases in share price. A long term investor should be ambivalent about if the share price went up or down for the year. But profitable companies really should be sharing more of their profits in the form of dividends.
(08-23-2022, 03:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think corporations actually don't do enough for their ordinary shareholders these days. Too many shareholders are satisfied with simple increases in share price. A long term investor should be ambivalent about if the share price went up or down for the year. But profitable companies really should be sharing more of their profits in the form of dividends.
Not if they have a better use for the money.