Exactly. Their "crime" was in putting through a change order
surreptitiously: "Let's hope no one notices that we made this
change to a component". Prior to that, there doesn't appear
to be anything other than incompetence or simple ignorance.
I don't know. I can't believe you wouldn't bury it deep in the woods,
grind it to dust on a grinding wheel, drop it in the ocean, etc.
I.e., you can't protect against someone *seeing* you commit the
crime. But, holding onto key evidence seems a no-brainer. Like
driving *your* car to rob a bank! :-/
[There was a Columbo episode about this -- the murderer unable to
part with his "beloved" weapon and, in doing so, leaving himself
open to arrest]
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 5:25:35 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
I think you'll find that in the case of GM, they continued to use
the bad switches for years after they knew there was apparently
a problem. Only later did they put through that change order
to use a different switch and still not do a notification/recall.
The difference in the switches was a pin that was ~1/8" longer.
If you watch the first 48 show, there are dummies doing the
pawn shop thing and worse. Like using a cell phone from the
guy they just murdered to call friends and family. Or using
the murder victims credit cards to make purchases. A lot of
it comes down to greed. Burying the gun, you get nothing for
it and the are so dumb or desperate to get high that the
$100 looks worth it.
This is the consequence of our comparatively recent preference for
short-term careers with any particular employer. In the past, most
people worked their way up in the organization and spent much if not
most of their career with the same company. Result: terrific loyalty,
plus in-depth knowledge of the product and the corporation's structure.
Nowadays, the ideal is to spend but a few years at any company, then
move on. There's no value anymore placed on loyalty or institutional
knowledge. The result: execs are free to foul their current nest, then
move on before the shit hits the fan. Once it does, they're long gone,
so they won't be held accountable. Knowing they won't be held
accountable makes it very easy to make or approve incredibly stupid,
short-sighted ideas like this one at Volkswagon.
That may usually be the case, but not always. The owner of that peanut
butter factory in Georgia just got a very long jail sentence - so
long, he'll probably die inside. It would only be just, since his
decisions to ignore the health hazards of his plant and products
directly led to the deaths of a number of people.
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
It would seem there was a lot of loyalty of some kind at VW.
Otherwise how do you explain the conspiracy working? One person
could have blown the whistle, but no one did. And to pull this
off a substantial number of people would have to have been involved.
It's not done with just one or two rogue employees.
You know what happens to whistleblowers, right? Instant unemployment
in the vast, vast majority of cases. Plus, they're blackballed within
that industry. NOBODY will hire a snitch. And NOBODY believes a
'disgruntled employee' which is how their employer will describe them
after the media gets the story. Worse, all of you outsiders will
believe the company's claim that it is just a disgruntled employee
making up shit.
That's why the US has whistleblower protection laws in place, but in
reality they help very little. After all, once you've blown the
whistle, your superiors are simply not going to like you or want you
around. Even if they don't fire you, they will make your work life a
living hell until you give up and quit.
At some point, people who find themselves in this position have to
choose between their current/future employment prospects and doing the
right thing. Doing the right thing is always simple and obvious when
it's someone else in the hotseat. When it's yourself, and you suddenly
realize all the personal repercussions - losing your job, losing
friends, losing references, fights with your spouse ("Why did you have
to do that? Couldn't you see what it would do to our family?") it is
perfectly understandable why most people in these circumstances just
shut up and go along. If they really can't stand it, they'll find
another job and quit.
You can "fix" the problem, somewhat, by delaying compensation to the
higher ups in an organization. E.g., give them a cash salary equal to
that of their "average" employee. The rest of their compensation paid
in stock -- that can not be executed (is held in trust on their behalf;
it's not even a tangible asset for them!) for 10 years from the
date of the "paycheck".
Make short-term decisions that hurt the company in the long run?
Well, your "deferred compensation" will reflect that and *you*
will bear a large portion of those costs! Make *smart*, long-term
decisions and you will reap the rewards!
I.e., remove the incentive to focus on the short-term, "quick fix"
(which inevitably comes at the expense of long term health).
Or, change the tax laws regarding investments so anything short term
is treated as regular income. (how can you call something with a
1-3 year timeframe an "investment decision"? What do you call folks
making "investments" in education - far longer timespans??)
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:44:06 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
Another nutty idea. How would you like it if they paid you that way?
Or to be bound to stock that you can't touch for 10 years and could
be screwed by a depression, poor future management, etc. As usual,
the "fix" is worse than the problem.
They already are. Wise up before you start fixing problems that
(how can you call something with a
A one or three year CD isn't an investment now? Or how
about my brother wants to start a business, so I make a
loan or take an equity position for 3 years. That's not
an investment? Good grief.
What do you call folks
Why wouldn't I? I'd receive cash *today* in an amount that was
*apparently* "good enough" for all the other folks in the organization
to live on (or, is the CEO screwing over his workers and paying them
LESS than a living wage??). If this wasn't my *first* job, I'd have
deferred income from the job(s) prior to it that was elevating my
*actual* pay to a level above what the other folks in my current
organization were making -- and my *wise* efforts in my current
position would "pay dividends" (so to speak) when those future
stocks became payable. If I'd truly made good decisions at this
(and previous) positions, my stock would be on an *upward* trajectory
(unless my replacement was an idiot).
Can you think of another way to avoid REWARDING short-sighted decisions?
A bank robber makes excellent short-term decisions: as long as he
doesn't get SHOT while committing the crime, his IMMEDIATE REWARDS
Would you advocate retroactively prosecuting past corporate officers
for all malfeasance committed while they were in office? Even if they
weren't directly to blame (Hey, you're an officer! That's one of the
risks you take!!)? Or, even just *fining* them? (Gee, sorry, but
I've already spent the money...)
Yeah, and what we have now is SO GREAT! How many scandals can *you*
recall in YOUR lifetime that were driven by short-term goals?
Imagine what would have happened to the folks at Enron had they not
been paid until AFTER their scandal was disclosed. Ooops!
How is a depression in the future any better/worse than a depression
today? Or, are you claiming CEO's should be innoculated against
losses? And, only Average Joes should be at the risk of The Market??
"I got mine. Tough luck for you!"
Investment income carries LESS of a tax burden than EARNED (as in,
"through direct efforts/actions"). E.g., an "investor" sees a tax
rate often 10 percent less than a "worker". If you're in the 39%
tax bracket, your gains are taxed at *20%*! Only "short term"
capital gains are taxed as "ordinary income". (we'll ingore
carried interest, here)
So, how do you benefit from these preferential LONG TERM tax rates?
Ah, hold onto an asset for "more than a year"! Wow! And we consider
that an *investment* worthy of preferential tax treatment? To the
tune of reducing the tax rate by HALF?? So, if I make a *truly*
long term "investment", should the government PAY ME instead of
taxing me? Or, do I just get the same treatment as if I'd held onto
it for a year or two??
(what incentive do I have to make ANY long term decisions??)
You might want to talk to a tax accountant to see just how
perverse the tax laws actually are! "Wise up"
In the tax laws, it's considered "long term". A CEO
making decisions with 1 year timeframes is similarly
thought of as making "long term" decisions. Cheating
an emissions test and expecting NOT to get caught in that
year looks like a WISE CHOICE -- in terms of the
Most folks own *cars* for longer periods than the "short term"
period. You're starting to sound like Charlie Brown...
So, "spending" on an education is a silly thing for a doctor,
lawyer, etc. to do. He should, instead, invest in financial
instruments with 1 year time periods and reap those rewards
from the monies he would have SPENT on his education.
Loaning your brother money is an investment. Anything else
is an *expense*?
(sigh) Yup. Partisan. I can see why others find spots in their
killfiles for you...
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:26:19 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
OK, you're the exception. I don't think anyone else here would
want their compensation to be in stock that they can't touch for 10 years
instead of cash. You see that happening much by you? Good grief.
And who sets this "good enough" magic number? You, the govt?
And why would anyone take a job in a company run this way when
all the other companies don't pay you in stock you can't touch
for 10 years?
Now you're getting even nuttier. Prosecute everyone, even if they were
not directly to blame? You're actually proposing to prosecute the head
of HR or IT because the CFO cooked the books or engineering cheated the
pollution test? Again, how would you like it if it worked that way
where *you* worked, where they could prosecute you for something someone
Why does all this concern you so greatly? What deal Enron execs
had with the company was up to the board of directors and the
stockholders. And historically shysters will cheat, no matter
what you do. Ken Lay and the CFO could have siphoned money off
illegally directly into their pockets, for example. That's what
Bernie Maddoff did, it's not hard.
How about the put your salary into that 10 year out stock, exactly
like you're advocating. You didn't commit any fraud, do anything
wrong. Yet there is a depression, the company falls on hard times
and now the stock that was worth $100, is worth $10. Or how about
you're 65 years old, get cancer and don't live to collect the 10 year
Who ever said that? The average CEO is far more at risk in
the market than the average joe.
You continue to show that you don't know WTF you're talking
about. You made the claim that short term investment income
should be taxed like ordinary income. IT ALREADY IS. It's
taxed exactly like salary income would be. So is interest
income. There is an exemption for tax free bonds, which are
state and municipal issued.
Long term investment (that was the kind you liked, right?)
gains on that are taxed at a max of 20%. So, yeah in that
class of investment gain, an investor would be paying a lower
rate than some other tax payers with salary income, providing
their salaries are high enough to wind up with an effective
rate above 20%. It's not the typical worker with a family
making $50K though. People in the lower incomes, somewhere
around 45%, pay no income tax at all.
That investment generates capital that fuels America's economy,
builds factories, creates jobs. And having a holding period
longer than a year, any honest economist will tell you it's a
bad idea, because it hinders efficient markets. You want investors
able to switch horses, fund the next great idea, not be stuck
holding some poorly performing stock for 5 or 10 years just to
pay less tax when they sell it.
For examples of that just look at the $450 bil deficit, with $3.9 tril
in spending. That's where the govt is already paying you.
Or, do I just get the same treatment as if I'd held onto
You're the one that claimed short term investment should be
taxed as ordinary income when it already is. That gaff alone
shows that you have no experience at all with what you're
lecturing us on.
Wrong again. A CD is not long term, never was. Interest on
a CD is always taxed as ordinary income, just like a salary.
You really should just stop.
THE CEO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAY SCALE USED IN HIS ORGANIZATION!
If he wants to pay folks peanuts and drive the "average wage"
(you *did* read my post, didn't you? Oh, my fault! I forgot
about your problem with READING COMPREHENSION!) down, then his
pay will be JUST AS GOOD as he thought was appropriate for HIS
organization! No gummit involvement at all. Let The Market
sort that out, right??
OTOH, if he wants to pay his folks lavishly, then his "good enough"
wage will likewise be increased.
AND, he still has that future stock to look forward to -- along with
the stock that is now "coming due" from his *previous* jobs! Something
that his employees probably DON'T have!
"Good Grief, Charlie Brown."
Because the other companies would eventually encounter "problems"
and incur losses from their mismanagement. No more "government
bailouts" -- let The Market take care of those poor performers.
(I'm sure all the secretaries at Enron were thrilled when the
company folded -- AND, they lost their stock as well!)
I *didn't* suggest prosecuting them! I'm asking you, Charlie Brown,
what alternative schemes *you* can come up with to encourage/promote
healthy LONG TERM decision making. Would you prefer caps on executive
pay? Holding them criminally liable? Going after any of their
assets "spent" or otherwise distributed (kids' college funds!)
to discourage this bad behavior?
Or, do you think same ol', same ol' is the path to long term success
as a society? (Or, are you just concerned about the Individuals
getting their "deserved rewards"?)
And what has changed to prevent these sorts of abuses? What are
*you*, SPECIFICALLY advocating? Or, is everything fine and dandy
by your read of the situation? Would you support a law that FORBID
the government from getting involved in bailouts, etc.? I.e.,
"To big to BAIL?" Or, do you prefer the corporate welfare that we
now have? (it's only *people* who shouldn't be entitled to
Goes to my estate. What happens to that mansion that the CEO
is living in when he dies? "Gee, why can't I take it WITH me?
No. CEO's have control over how their organizations are operated.
An "Average Joe" only gets a *glimpse* from the outside. He has
no idea what the corporate culture is ACTUALLY like, what they
are ACTUALLY doing at the current time, what their ACTUAL potential
liabilities are, etc. If a CEO doesn't know these things, then what value
does the CEO have to his organization?
Let's see how many folks cashed out of VW before the sh*t hit the fan.
No. We have different ideas as to what "short term" means.
I don't consider 1 year to be LONG TERM! Yet the tax code
does. So, there is no incentive for "investors" & CEO's to
look beyond that 1 year window. All they have to do is hope
to make money IN THE SHORT TERM (where "short" is what an
average Joe would consider "short"... not the tax code!).
Do you buy an appliance with the expectation that it will
be a "long term (investment)"? If it crapped out in 1 year,
would you consider that to have been a GOOD (investment)?
What about your car? Would you expect it to JUST last
1 year to qualify as an "investment" in your mind?
Would you expect to turn a profit on your home in just 12 months?
Long term is 1 year. I.e., next annual report. I don't consider that
long term in the sense that an Average Joe would consider a
"long term" investment.
"I've been at work, here, for 1 year. Do I get to be CEO, now?
Look at all that time I have INVESTED in this company..."
Sure! They can buy and sell at will! I'm just NOT giving them
preferential treatment for selling off quickly.
Tell me what a company can *do* in a 1 year time frame. Yet,
you want to reward the investor for "being in there for the
long haul -- all 12 months!"
Yea, and I profitted greatly from the Iraq, Vietnam, Afghan, etc. wars.
You've again missed what I wrote. IF I HOLD ONTO SOMETHING FOR A *TRULY*
"LONG TIME" (like the timescale of gettng an education, buying a home, car,
major appliance, etc. -- basically, anything other than a loaf of bread!),
how should I be rewarded BEYOND those who made a 12 month commitment?
No, I complained that what the tax code calls "long term" is, in
fact, SHORT (by any Average Joe's concept) term. So, those "long
term" investments are not treated as ordinary income.
Do you make *all* your purchases with a 12 month window? ROI? etc.
In terms of tax laws, anything beyond 12 months is treated as
long term wrt capital gains.
Simple exercise, Charlie Brown. Ask your friends to define "long term".
Don't qualify it with anything (e.g., "capital gains", "tax laws", etc.).
Take WHATEVER answer they give you and ask them what they would call
a period of time DOUBLE that. Then, half that. Ask them how they
look at their home purchase decision. Their decision as to
where to school, etc.
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:12:46 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
And the CEO doesn't want anything to do with your silly 10 year
plan. Neither does the board. Nuff said.
Yes, in your nutty arrangement, the CEO doesn't even get paid as
much as senior execs or managers. He gets paid the average for
the whole corporation with the rest held in the form of stock
that he can't touch for 10 years. Of course all the best CEOs
would have none of this and would go to work at a company that
didn't have this bizarre system. So, there's that. OF course
the solution for you libs is to then *force* it on everyone.
Oh, my fault! I forgot
No, there is a range of "good enough", ranging from minimum wage
for some part time help, on up to executive level. Under your nutty
system, the CEO gets paid the middle of the pay scale for the
whole company, the rest held in stock for 10 years. No CEO is
going to sign up for that pay plan.
What a complete idiot. The govt bailed out a handful of companies
out of millions. There is no widespread "problem" that needs your
fixing. And the govt also got back almost all of it's money, with
interest from the bailouts. In other words, it cost the taxpayers
very little. Last time I checked there was the possibility the
taxpayers could come out even or ahead. Now tell us what happened
to the $700 bil Obama stimulus money? What happened to the solar
loan program that lost billions? Neither one of those was ever
structured with even the possibility of a profit. The first was
pure spending, the second had zero upside, only downside. It's
the kind of stupid, lousy govt deal Trump is haranguing about.
So, instead of focusing on corporate bailouts that cost the
taxpayers very little, why not focus on the real inefficiencies
and stupid ideas?
It's bizarre to say that the other companies that didn't adopt
your plan are all going to encounter problems and that the ones
that follow your plan wouldn't. But it is typical lib thinking,
focus not on the overall great economic system that works, but
instead on the nits, then claim that you can fix those nits, and
in the process screw the whole thing.
- let The Market take care of those poor performers.
Grow up. It's the real world. Sometimes bad things happen.
But you're the typical liberal, Romney on the brain, you don't
know anything about existing business or taxes, yet you're gonna
fix all the worlds problems with one more set of your new laws,
You sure seemed to be. YOU brought it up and it fits in with your
other screwy ideas.
I'm asking you, Charlie Brown,
I'd just leave what's working and not broken, alone.
Now, that's the specialty of you lib loons, who don't even
understand that short term investment is taxed as ordinary
income, that interest on a CD isn't a capital gain, etc, yet
you're going to fix all the world's problems.
What we have now has built the greatest economy in history and
made the USA the only superpower. I'd call that long term success.
Why should we let you fiddle with it?
I'm telling you again, that you're blowing everything out of
proportion. It's what libs do. You find a .01% problem, bitch
about it, claim it's the worst thing ever, without even understanding
the underlying issues, and then claim that your new law, new rule,
new regulation is going to fix it. In fact, it usually makes things
worse. There is always going to be some bad CEOs, some shysters,
some frauds, no matter what laws you have. Even the VW fraud, it
was ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. They did it anyway.
The 90% decline in value due to conditions beyond your control
over those 10 years in my example doesn't go to your estate,
it goes where the woodbine twineth. It's gone. And while *you*
might be OK with the 10% remaining going to your estate, who are
you to speak for execs, CEOs or anyone else? Oh, and while you're
at it also factor in that estate tax would get deducted from the
What happens to that mansion that the CEO
The CEO wouldn't have a mansion in your system, how's he
going to pay for a mansion on an average workers salary?
An employee is working there and he has no idea what the corporate
culture is? Obviously you never even worked in a corporation.
Who said the CEO doesn't know those things? Another attempt
at a strawman.
When you have some facts, instead of pulling stuff out of your ass,
let us know. If they did, in the USA they would be guilty of insider
trading. There, see, you already have a law covering it, but here
you are, still complaining.
It's not an idea. You were talking about it with regard to
income taxes. It's codified in the tax law, short term is less
than a year.
Of course there is idiot. To start with, what CEO think's
he'll be there for one year? A CEO and senior execs are compensated
in large part with stock options. They vest over many years.
Typically you're granted X shares and then they start to vest
starting in 2 years and are totally vested over the next few
years. In addition, typical CEOs don't cash them in, they
hold a lot of them, ie they are typically heavily invested in
the companies stock. And every year or two, they get another
grant of new stock options extending the process out into
All they have to do is hope
Wrong, per the above. They can make a lot more money by
growing shareholder value and staying at the company long
term. Would you rather have 1 mil, bailing in a year, or
50 mil at the end of 10 years? Good grief, this is simple.
If it crapped out in 1 year,
Another bizarre question that shows you don't know WTF you're
talking about. None of those are investments.
Irrelevant. The implication is that CEOs have a 12 month horizon.
Show us the CEOs that are expecting to just make all their
compensation in one year or of a compensation plan that's
structured that way.
It's long term as defined by the tax code. YOU were bitching that
short term investment isn't taxed as ordinary income. In fact
There has never been preferential treatment for selling
quickly. Boy are you confused.
You're in way over your head here. You're telling us what
tax policy should be, you wanted short term capital gains
taxed as ordinary income - It is. You claimed interest on
1 or 3 years CDs is taxed as long term - It's not, it's ordinary
income. You're telling us what CEO compensation plans should
be, while you clearly don't even know what they are today, you
have some bizarre idea that CEOs are only focused on the next
year. Please, just stop.
You shouldn't, there is no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
And as I tried to explain to you, encouraging investors to lock in
long term leads to market inefficiencies. Ever take some coursed in
economics? It hinders the flow of capital into the best investments.
It's not hard to understand. With no restrictions, if an investor with
a capital gain sees a better investment opportunity, he sells what he
has and moves it to the better investment. If he has to factor in that
he can stay with the lesser performing investment for another two years,
but then pay half in taxes, investors will tend to hold onto the poorly
performing investment. Simple.
"Or, change the tax laws regarding investments so anything short term
is treated as regular income"
Existing tax law already treats short term as regular income. IF you
knew what you were talking about, you would have said they should
change the tax laws so the long term holding period is changed from
1 year to whatever it is that you want. But it's still a lousy idea
to fix a non-existent problem.
You were talking about short versus long term in regards to
tax policy, so of course the context is relevant.
My last comment to Charlie Bozo Brown...
On 9/24/2015 10:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Wow! Somehow he's able to assume he knows my political leanings,
voting history, etc. Or, makes an ass out of himself by ASSuming
Again, "libs". How do you know I'm not a wackjob, right wing
Clearly, I'm a bit better mannered than you! I thought only liberals raised
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem. The CEO has
had PRIOR JOBS! The stock from *those* jobs is available to him
at the later date when he's sucking down an "average salary"
at his NEW job.
You really should speak to someone about your reading comprehension
problem. It makes you look naive and clueless.
Did the Enron employees know what was happening in THEIR culture?
Did the VW employees know? You really seem to have your head so far up
your ass that you're staring out your navel!
Welcome to my killfile. I --like others before me -- have determine
that you're a total clown. Silly to waste my time arguing with
someone who only sees the brown (of his own shit) around his eyes...
Trump 2016! Yay! Yet another Bozo on the Bus.
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:01:26 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
A lot of what you've posted so far puts you on the same page
as Bernie Sanders, so there's that.
Because right wing types don't have the penchant to put more regulations
on companies, tell them how they have to compensate their CEOs or
think that there is a significant problem with corporate fraud like
happened at VW and the solution is more big govt "fixes". And in typical
lib fashion, you don't come out and say it would take the govt to
force what you want. But it's obvious. No company is going to freely
adopt your nonsensical plan. If any thought it was a good idea, they
would have done it long ago. But the folks who actually run the business
now that with your nutty compensation plan, they could not hire and retain
senior execs. And they know that what they have now works and they are OK
Is that how you live? You only rely on past jobs to pay today's bills
and acquire today's assets?
You're the one that told us short term investments should be taxed
as ordinary income - They are. You're the one that told us the interest
on a 1 or 3 year CD is taxed as long term - It's not. You're the one
telling us that CEOs only have a one year horizon because of their
compensation plans - You're wrong, they already have stock option plans that
reward performance 3 to 5 years and beyond. And yet ironically,
it's precisely those areas that you're here telling us how
it should be. Obviously you're the one that's clueless and making an
ass of yourself.
A couple of execs committing fraud and corporate culture are two
different things. Looks like you've never worked for any significant corporation or you'd know. But that's typical, tell everyone how things
should be without even knowing how they are.
I'm sure I'll be in good company there. Your killfile explains why
you're so obviously ignorant.
There is no incentive to do so. Nor any real deterrent to NOT
When I take on a project, I insist on control over my efforts.
*I* write the specs, design the hardware/software, build the
test suite, etc. So, the project meets its *stated* goals
instead of just being a stab-in-the-dark *at* those goals.
Clients have mixed attitudes towards this. They see it as
extra cost, time, etc. "up front": "Why can't we just *try*
something like this and see how well it is received, what
problems people find with it, etc.?"
"Sure, *you* can do that. But, my involvement stops when we're
done with that first pass. I have no desire to waste my time
getting jerked around because you don't know what you want,
haven't done your market research to know what your *customers*
"And, as you want to skimp on the specification phase (because
that takes time/money), I'm going to reserve the right to do
anything that isn't formally specified in whatever manner is
EASIEST and MOST CONVENIENT for me! Which will also save you
time/money (isn't that YOUR goal).
"Of course, if one of those unspecified details you've overlooked
allows me to simply 'reset' the product when one of those conditions
occur (probably not what your USERS will want) then you might wish
you'd spent that extra time up front on nailing down all those pesky
details! Or, at least *that* one!"
A consequence of my approach is that I can contractually bind myself
to repairing "bugs" in my implementation "for free" -- with very little
risk of ever having to "pay up" on that commitment.
(Isn't this the ideal type of insurance? You KNOW you won't have any
problems down the road...)
And, you *don't* have to come out with a "version 2" that has the features
you forgot to put in "version 1".
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:03:22 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
Keep lying. As I pointed out to you, top exec compensation plans
include stock options and it's a big part, usually the largest part
of their compensation. They vest over 2 - 5 years. And every year
or two, they get more stock options that similarly vest out in the
future. Also, the typical CEO holds significant stock in the company,
that's the whole purpose of those stock options, to align the CEOs
financial interest with that of the company. Consequently, they
aren't focused on just the next year, it's a total BS claim.
Just the facts.
I guess there are a number of ways, but the one that jumps into my mind
first is this:
- Executive A issues an edict to his underlings: "Get this TDI engine
ready for market by such-and-such an arbitrary date or people are
going to lose their jobs. No excuses, just *do* it."
- Somebody further down on the food chain realizes that it's not
possible to make that date and panic sets in.
- Somebody on the programming side comes up with the idea of turning
emission control off except when hooked up to an emissions test
- The code gets written, the code works, Executive A is placated,
and nobody loses their job.
- Fast forward N months or years.... and the guys who actually did it
have been seeking employment elsewhere - before the whole thing
- Executive A got his quarterly bonus for "Bringing the engine to market
on time" and, since he has plausible deniability, he retires to
a gated community with it's own golf course - on more money per year
than most of us will earn in a lifetime.
Call me paranoid.... but that's how I think.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.