OT: Things I hate in life

Submitted by sedieso on
I feel that we all need some serenity and peace in our minds and souls, and resorting to the bottle can only lead to bad things (at the very least it is empty calories). In order to reach that fine state of numbness and carelessness for all that surrounds you, let us vent here about all the things that piss us off in life: Arm Hair on women Recruiting Dogs Hamsters Semi Trucks Arm Hair on women Careless parents Spoiled children Anyone under the age of 14 who has a cell phone Traffic Snow Arm Hair on women Rascal Flats CEOs White Collar criminals Arm Hair on women Mark Dantonio Ed Werder ESPN Arm Hair on women
MGoBoard

WolvinLA

December 30th, 2008 at 5:17 PM ^

I don't think that's what he's saying. But the post he was replying to made a blanket statement that certainly screamed economic ignorance to me as well. Especially since the first comment was "I hate CEO's." A corporate CEO is the pinnacle of achievement, I think I'm going to side with MBAgoblue on this one.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

Promote RichRod

December 30th, 2008 at 5:34 PM ^

This has nothing to do with economic efficiency. Anyone would take the money if allowed. The question is whether it is efficient to put these clauses into CEO contracts. Some argue it is efficient because CEOs will not take the job without the clause and such perks enable companies to choose from the widest talent pool possible...which could lead to better prospects and therefore better returns to shareholders. Others (me) argue that such clauses allow greedy CEOs to externalize their failures to shareholders. Poor management is rewarded instead of punished. Maximum return to shareholders is not being incentivized in the most efficient manner. Also, it is terrible PR, though you could argue that this doesn't matter too much when a company goes under...but CEOs are often forced out of live companies for a replacement and still get millions for their failures...this pisses people off. Finally, I don't think the absence of this clause would narrow the talent pool much. There's no shortage of talented people out there willing to run a company and get a bonus based on performance and shareholder returns. Since I can make valid arguments on both sides, anyone making either argument is not economically ignorant.

Joined: 11/11/2008

MGoPoints: 772

WolvinLA

December 30th, 2008 at 6:33 PM ^

Now you, Promote RichRod, are not economically ignorant. This is because you are able to defend your statement intelligently. You understand why CEO's are allowed the perks that they are. And from your statement, it seems that it's the ill-deserved perks that you hate (or dislike), not the CEO's. The original poster implied that a CEO is doing something wrong by accepting the perks which were promised to him. This is what I took issue with.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 875

MBAgoblue

December 30th, 2008 at 7:10 PM ^

Great points. However, having recently been through this situation, I can say that recruiting talent to small or shaky companies would be difficult without these packages. You are absolutely correct that there are many willing to run a company, but I disagree that there are scads of talented people. They are very hard to find. I've worked for two venture backed companies that have hired two external CEOs. We recruited executives at well-known, established companies in our industry. Let me tell you that solid packages are the only way to pry such executives from cushy corporate jobs. Stock and bonuses on the upside; golden handshakes on the downside. For both CEOs that was rational and the only way we could have got them. One of these guys failed, was fired by the board, and collected his pre-agreed cash on the way out. Sucked for us, sucked for him (I doubt he will work again in our industry), but that was the gamble.

Joined: 07/09/2008

MGoPoints: 2623

MBAgoblue

December 30th, 2008 at 6:46 PM ^

Pay packages exist to draw talent to situations that it would otherwise avoid. Why leave your old job unless you gonna get paid for the new one? Boards of directors must make it worthwhile for talented CEOs to at least give it a try, and they agree on these packages before hiring. So, if you want to affix blame, look to the board of directors. At some point they screwed up with the hire, or with governance, or with supervising the CEO. Also, eventually the blame must redound to the shareholders who control the board. You hear about these packages usually from sick companies, not from successful ones. Now if you are talking about CEOs who defraud or steal or lie AND get the big packages, then I can see the point. But those situations are less common than perceived. Hold contempt for weak, roll-over boards that let CEOs push them around.

Joined: 07/09/2008

MGoPoints: 2623

The BlackHand

December 29th, 2008 at 1:29 PM ^

People with 20+ items at a check out that has a 10 item limit. Old people in huge cars doing 10mph in a 30mph zone. Stopping at McDonald's expecting it to taste as it did when I was younger. Crappy customer service.

Joined: 12/16/2008

MGoPoints: 67

TMos53

December 29th, 2008 at 5:23 PM ^

-Rap & Hip-Hop music -When someone says they like something to just sound cool and not really know anything about it -Fascists and National Socialists -Communists -Capitalists -Government -Hippies -Body hair on women -Hot, sunny weather

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 30

TMos53

December 30th, 2008 at 2:25 PM ^

oh LOL, I hate those bitches, they have problems, but I meant like equal at jobs and stuff, if a chick wants to do something and is more qualified than a guy, I totally think that chick should be hired...but yeah, the chicks you're talking about suck

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 30

Other Chris

December 29th, 2008 at 5:52 PM ^

Wet socks Squabbling children Miller Lite Places that offer you Pepsi when you ask for Coke People who lean on the horn when you don't run a red for them to follow you through Cheap Kleenex knock-offs that won't contain snot worth a damn When good restaurants change hands and go downhill

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1219

CPS

December 29th, 2008 at 7:44 PM ^

I don't have anything against ML. Just not my beer of choice. The only one that I truly hate is Keystone. That shit is awful. It's the only beer I've had where I felt like throwing up after drinking it. And I was stone sober and not sick when I drank it. Otherwise, I don't really hate anything. Although, I don't like the service at the post office. It's all rush rush; get ya in, get ya out. Then they've got those machines in the lobby. They're even faster, no help there. You might even say, I hate the post office. That, and my parents. Lousy beatniks.

Joined: 10/20/2008

MGoPoints: -405

wlvrine

December 29th, 2008 at 6:37 PM ^

buckeye trees buckeye nuts buckeye fans buckeye coaches buckeye players buckeye stickers the buckeye state Buckeye, AZ. buckeye smell the word buckeye...

Joined: 09/25/2008

MGoPoints: 1702