Sandeep1
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2018
It's so easy to give other people's money away.
Well the money is being given away regardless. The question is who gets it.
It's so easy to give other people's money away.
Well the money is being given away regardless. The question is who gets it.
So if you get a bonus at work, is it given to you or did you earn it?
I worked at trading firms where the bonus pool was evenly distributed among the entire team of traders. Even if Trader A made $1,000,000 and Trader B made $20,000, they would receive the same bonus. It encouraged team work and cooperation, rather than focusing on the individual.
So I'm not really the right person to ask.
That is really interesting, did it work?
What I find funny is seeing someone who is worth a half-billion dollars and does not get up to go to work every day, criticizing someone who gets up and goes to work every day to earn his money.
They are both right - they're just right about different things.
Iger is doing what he's supposed to, and doing it exceedingly well, in accordance with the rules, standards and other expectations that prevail in our society.
I see Abigail Disney as using her position as a member of the family of the founder to bring attention to an issue, but her focus on Iger and on The Disney Company, alone, doesn't hold water. Abigail Disney is highlighting a very valid problem with western capitalism, overall. However, it is literally unreasonable to expect The Disney Company to be different from the expectations of our society, different from its competitors, and different from all the other big companies in our society.
Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. She's right if she can prove that increasing the pay of the bottom 10% of Disney employees would increase profits and therefore drive Disney's share price even higher. If she does a study like that, and presents it to the board, then that's worth a discussion.
I disagree.
The "bottom 10%" of the employee pool is not directly charged with increasing profits and share price - Iger is. If she were to prove that paying them more increased profits, then should could make the case that they are worth more and should directly benefit in that way. But, if she can NOT directly prove a correlation, then what? Pay them less?
Until and unless merit increases and bonuses are part of any individual's specific role and are directly tied to the company's revenue and/or share price (with a legitimate way to measure their contribution to either/both), then there should never be payment of bonuses or increases for those reasons. THIS is the problem for CEO's of today... There is absolutely no specific way to measure how their leadership contributed to those things other than "well, it happened while they were at the helm."
It's so easy to give other people's money away.
I worked at trading firms where the bonus pool was evenly distributed among the entire team of traders. Even if Trader A made $1,000,000 and Trader B made $20,000, they would receive the same bonus. It encouraged team work and cooperation, rather than focusing on the individual.
So I'm not really the right person to ask.
I disagree.
The "bottom 10%" of the employee pool is not directly charged with increasing profits and share price - Iger is. If she were to prove that paying them more increased profits, then should could make the case that they are worth more and should directly benefit in that way. But, if she can NOT directly prove a correlation, then what? Pay them less?
She's discussing a company based on her family heritage - that holds a lot of water. Hopefully it will overflow and drown a bunch of greedy capitalists making money off of other people's labor.
Screw shareholders. Screw increasing profits that way.
Screw share price.
It's so easy to make money using other people's labor.
Screw traders. Making money gambling with other people's money.
She's discussing a company based on her family heritage - that holds a lot of water. Hopefully it will overflow and drown a bunch of greedy capitalists making money off of other people's labor.
Screw shareholders. Screw increasing profits that way.
Screw share price.
It's so easy to make money using other people's labor.
Screw traders. Making money gambling with other people's money.
What if you threw in the profits from the Avengers movie?It won't hurt my feelings if someone corrects my math but according to the article, the top six executives combined made $62 million in bonuses and the lower ten percent of employees consisted of 200,000 people.
If the top six employees give if half of their 62 million bonuses and give the money directly to the bottom employees, they wold each receive $155.
This is a non story to me.
Team Iger
What if you threw in the profits from the Avengers movie?
It won't hurt my feelings if someone corrects my math but according to the article, the top six executives combined made $62 million in bonuses and the lower ten percent of employees consisted of 200,000 people.
If the top six employees give if half of their 62 million bonuses and give the money directly to the bottom employees, they wold each receive $155.
This is a non story to me.
Team Iger
Companies should have a larger responsibility than making money for investors.Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. She's right if she can prove that increasing the pay of the bottom 10% of Disney employees would increase profits and therefore drive Disney's share price even higher. If she does a study like that, and presents it to the board, then that's worth a discussion.