From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: John Hannon Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/11/28 Message-ID: <347EF4EC.5046@cpqm.saic.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 293428880 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <347C92F0.152B@mWilden.com> <65k6jg$e6b$2@NNTP.MsState.Edu> <347DEBB2.5B6A@mWilden.com> <65lbe1$ond@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <347E4203.2A5E@mWilden.com> Organization: Sci. Applications Int'l. Inc. Reply-To: john.p.hannon@cpqm.saic.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mark Wilden wrote: > > Craig Franck wrote: > > snip > > > Profit margins can rise > > fast enough to satisfy owner's desire for profits > > Are owners' desires for profits ever satisfied? :) My own desire for > salary certainly isn't. > > > and, at the same > > time, allow them to share the wealth with the employees. > > The _only_ reason they'd do that is to make sure they kept valuable > employees. They'll pay the absolute minimum necessary to do this. To do > otherwise would simply be philanthropy, and they'd probably go out of > business. > > > This is > > especially true when people are compensated with stock that later > > goes through the roof. > > As a beneficiary of such compensation, I understand that very well. But > where I made a paltry quarter of a million, the owners of the company > made much more. > > > It is also true with bonus plans tied to > > windfall profits. Some very talent intensive organizations consider > > the signing and keeping of key people almost as an investment in > > infrastructure. > > Absolutely. We're not talking slave labor, here. My point is simply that > it's the employer's job to reduce costs, other things being equal. After > a minimum point at which the employee is "satisfied," it's indeed > zero-sum: the more the employee gets, the less the owner gets. One situation not addressed in this is employee owned companies, such as mine (Science Applications International Corporation.) All stock is in the hands of employees, so there are no owners other than us. Decisions that are good for the company are usually good for me, and vice versa. John -- John Hannon Principal Systems Programmer john.p.hannon@cpmx.saic.com =============