Obviously. Nor do you, however. I'm therefore dismissing your latest weak excuse as irrelevant. You're making a lot of noise about how this extravagant compensation is somehow OK, but you've done a frankly inept job of actually supporting your position. You've used straw men, distractions, and (as in this case) weak, irrelevant rebuttals of points raised (IMO, of course). Perhaps you've been more successful persuading others ... but I don't see any evidence of it.Meaningless to you, but you're not the authority on what does and doesn't have meaning or relevance.
Obviously. Nor do you, however. I'm therefore dismissing your latest weak excuse as irrelevant. You're making a lot of noise about how this extravagant compensation is somehow OK, but you've done a frankly inept job of actually supporting your position. You've used straw men, distractions, and (as in this case) weak, irrelevant rebuttals of points raised (IMO, of course). Perhaps you've been more successful persuading others ... but I don't see any evidence of it.
That's the whole point you're so disingenuously dodging. When the CEO is on the board and has stacked the board with "buddies" (for lack of a better term), that CEO is not "negotiating" with the board at all. He is colluding with it. That's all the difference in the world.The mechanism is not entirely different. Management negotiates with unions like CEOs negotiate with boards... and unions strong-arm the management by threatening strikes while CEOs strong-arm boards by, essentially, attaining majority support.
That's the whole point you're so disingenuously dodging. When the CEO is on the board and has stacked the board with "buddies" (for lack of a better term), that CEO is not "negotiating" with the board at all. He is colluding with it. That's all the difference in the world.
Yes. And ... ?
Who said it was exactly the same? I didn't. It is the same, though, in the way I indicated.
Of what relevance is that? It competes for Medicare/Medicaid dollars like any other medical supply company.
And their profit margin is 2%. Whats your point?
Go find another medical supply company that has the capabilities to do such volume they can make a 1% profit margin and still make money.
Oh, thats right, that requires the "doers" to make something, something liberal hippies don't understand.
My comment was in relation to the company receiving public money.
Their profit margin is 2% AFTER their profits get raided by their executive leeches.
$145M per year for a CEO of a 2% margin company is obscene.
Their profit margin is 2% AFTER their profits get raided by their executive leeches.
$145M per year for a CEO of a 2% margin company is obscene.
Or others already refuted them and I feel no compulsion to repeat them. I'll also point out you haven't responded to many of my posts, particularly the ones where I lay out specific reasoning and positions rather than merely rebutting others. Can I therefore assume you accept them?And you haven't replied to all of my posts. If you have any responses to the points raised in them you should post them. Otherwise it appears that you either didn't read them or accept them.
None of these are actual income for the year. In fact, FORBES puts him at #14 in compensation for 2011 at $32.46 mil in total compensation.
How much do his stock options "cost" the company?
(Because that is what this outrage is about, stock options)
Bullshit. "Force" doesn't look very different from"collusion"? On what planet? Why are you so stubbornly clinging to such a ridiculous and dishonest premise? Ego?... which is no better than what unions do. They don't negotiate, they force. Doesn't look very different from collusion at all.
His total compensation reflects the value of the stock options. Are you arguing that dilution is not a cost to shareholders?
How much of that money came from the tax payers through medicare and medicaid payments?
Does the company manufacture a product? If so, what country is the product manufactured in?
Depends on how it was set up. We dont know.
So don't invest in them. It is literally that simple. End of story.
Or others already refuted them and I feel no compulsion to repeat them. I'll also point out you haven't responded to many of my posts, particularly the ones where I lay out specific reasoning and positions rather than merely rebutting others. Can I therefore assume you accept them?
Bullshit. "Force" doesn't look very different from"collusion"? On what planet? Why are you so stubbornly clinging to such a ridiculous and dishonest premise? Ego?
Unions typically have an adversarial relationship with companies during negotiations. That is exactly the opposite of a CEO colluding with a friendly board.
This planet. They both abuse a position of power to extract from the company exactly what they want.