A letter from the CEO of my company.

[GaryC 7]

the need to tear down this guy to berate him for being positive/sentimental and nostalgic/conservative/friendly/saying something negative about the media (quick, someone call Oprah!)/whatever has taken this debate into such ridiculous territory. For the people who have such a massive problem with the fact that guys like this exist, and they are happy, and they have workers who enjoy going to work...well they *maybe not you* need to get over that.

His argument or the argument being made is that if you complain about your quality of life, then you're just being ungrateful for what you've got and that it is entirely up to you the individual, whether you become financially secure or not. While I realize you and many others buy into that viewpoint, there are many Americans who not only call it BS, but can demonstrate personally why it's BS. Lisa, you always talk about your disdain towards people blowin daisies up your #######, but interestingly you don't approach this syrupy, feel-good rhetoric with the same contempt. It's an ideological argument and his preposition has polarized the issue. Can people move up the economic ladder through their own perserverence and hard work? To a degree, yes. Is it entirely up to the individual? No. Shall we discuss why?

Good point - I don't see why people are complaining that this isn't a "cat thread" and are surprised that some of us want to discuss it seriously. Why did Gary post this on the forum if he didn't want (and certainly if he didn't expect) people to comment on it?

I am not trying to start the argument up all over again and I am certainly not slamming anyone here but I honestly didn't expect some of the reactions that were posted. I am not blind to the problems that the US has but the point of all this was that even with the problems we live in a great country. Regardless of who you are or what your station in society is this country offers so much to be thankful for. I honestly do not think that ####### was talking down to anyone, at least it didn't feel that way to me. I see nothing wrong with giving thanks for what we have and at the same time working to make it better. I also see nothing wrong with a CEO pointing all this out. He is just as much a part of America as I am and is entitled to voice his opinion. Some are saying he is abusing his position for sending out a global email with a political slant. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

[rebeccajo 14]

................. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

He wouldn't get mad and maybe fire you or something like that?

[GaryC 7]

................. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

He wouldn't get mad and maybe fire you or something like that?

No, he was at the orientation and he made it clear that his door was open to any problem. That was the other thing he made clear about the companies core values. Everyones opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I really do not think he would fire anyone for speaking their mind.

[Heracles 417]

What also really worries me is the willingness to accept that the CEO is better than his employees. The CEO has more money than his employees, therefore the CEO is better and deserves respect? The other missing link in the logic is that it's entirely based on the assumption that people deserve exactly as much respect as they have dollars in the bank. The psychology that allows this economic injustice to go on is not uncommon but is still very scary to me. The CEO fed into that psychology with his e-mail.

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

[Heracles 417]

Is it entirely up to the individual? No. Shall we discuss why?

Of course it is. I am all for giving people the basics but the system fails when you have illegal immigrants leaching off it. Or a system where certain groups blatantly prefer to use the race card as their right to bum around and leech off the system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

Edited February 2, 2007 by ET-US2004

[dalegg 143]

I got this exact letter at work. I think we are victims of spyware or something.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

Clearly it isn't justifiable - and certainly not when "rank and file" workers get a piss poor annual wage raise as a result of poor company performance, while at the same time the top executives at the same company have a mandatory annual raise written into their contracts.

Not to mention, the golden parachutes. Is there really any justification for being rewarded when your company does badly?

[peezey 0]

That is my point!!!!! In America anyone that wants to succeed and is willing to work for it then it will happen! I wasn't talking about PI! Anyone in America that spends his life at the bottom is there because he chose to. Anyone, anywhere in America can succeed here. That doesn't happen in to many countries.

Steve you see social and economic differences in the American population and see it as unfair. You see it as something to become an activist about and to seek to change through laws and regulations. I see that even our lowest of the low in terms of standing or lifestyle has it better that most outside of the 1st world. The lower class was where we start in life. Get a job and experience or get an education. Then after you work and gain life experience you move out of lower class. If someone spends his entire life at the bottom then it is his own fault. If we make it to cushy then they have no incentive to improve and move up in the world. We are really keeping that person down if we make the bottom to easy. It's like welfare. We found that if we make it to easy then entire generations live off of it. The bottom is there for a reason. To give people an incentive to improve. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We do have room for improvement, yes, but nothing to be ashamed of.

This might just be the lowest of the low in terms of ignorance. You have heard the term "working poor" have you not? There are people who work three jobs and still can't pay their utilities. Anyone in the US cannot do anything they want. And these people working their butts off just to survive don't choose to spend their lives at the bottom. I am honestly disgusted to read this, and I wasn't even going to say anything about how you said I'm a lib who is bi!tching, I wasn't then, I'm not now. Now I'm just shocked at how blind you are to how the US economy really works. A market that determines the value of goods and services the way ours does ONLY operates when there are people at the bottom. And you are saying those people choose to be there? Astounding.

[Alex+R 0]

That is my point!!!!! In America anyone that wants to succeed and is willing to work for it then it will happen! I wasn't talking about PI! Anyone in America that spends his life at the bottom is there because he chose to. Anyone, anywhere in America can succeed here. That doesn't happen in to many countries.

Steve you see social and economic differences in the American population and see it as unfair. You see it as something to become an activist about and to seek to change through laws and regulations. I see that even our lowest of the low in terms of standing or lifestyle has it better that most outside of the 1st world. The lower class was where we start in life. Get a job and experience or get an education. Then after you work and gain life experience you move out of lower class. If someone spends his entire life at the bottom then it is his own fault. If we make it to cushy then they have no incentive to improve and move up in the world. We are really keeping that person down if we make the bottom to easy. It's like welfare. We found that if we make it to easy then entire generations live off of it. The bottom is there for a reason. To give people an incentive to improve. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We do have room for improvement, yes, but nothing to be ashamed of.

This might just be the lowest of the low in terms of ignorance. You have heard the term "working poor" have you not? There are people who work three jobs and still can't pay their utilities. Anyone in the US cannot do anything they want. And these people working their butts off just to survive don't choose to spend their lives at the bottom. I am honestly disgusted to read this, and I wasn't even going to say anything about how you said I'm a lib who is bi!tching, I wasn't then, I'm not now. Now I'm just shocked at how blind you are to how the US economy really works. A market that determines the value of goods and services the way ours does ONLY operates when there are people at the bottom. And you are saying those people choose to be there? Astounding.

Agreed. The part I've bolded is what doesn't make sense to me. Not everyone starts out in the lower class. Some of us start out with trust funds and a huge cushion. That person doesn't have to work very hard to get what they want. Are you really saying things are no easier for that person than someone with the same goal who has two kids, a crappy education from a poor public high school, and bills to pay?

[peezey 0]

................. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

He wouldn't get mad and maybe fire you or something like that?

No, he was at the orientation and he made it clear that his door was open to any problem. That was the other thing he made clear about the companies core values. Everyones opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I really do not think he would fire anyone for speaking their mind.

So if I worked for this company and replied to all on this email with my opinion about it being elitist and ignorant, I wouldn't have any repurcussions?

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

How are CEOs let go for poor performance yet they leave with hundreds of millions?

Bringing this back in line with reality doesn't equate to communism.

[Boiler 47,483]

................. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

He wouldn't get mad and maybe fire you or something like that?

No, he was at the orientation and he made it clear that his door was open to any problem. That was the other thing he made clear about the companies core values. Everyones opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I really do not think he would fire anyone for speaking their mind.

So if I worked for this company and replied to all on this email with my opinion about it being elitist and ignorant, I wouldn't have any repurcussions?

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

How are CEOs let go for poor performance yet they leave with hundreds of millions?

Bringing this back in line with reality doesn't equate to communism.

Reminds me so much of Victorian Paternalism.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the US will squeeze out the middle class, the them and us is becoming more and more obvious.

It will all end in tears, maybe not in my life time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

................. It's his company, (literally, he is the major stock holder) and if he wants to treat us to a daily dose of his political views then that is his right. Emails are very easy to ignore if you don't like it and if it really offends he does have an open door to go in and tell him so.

He wouldn't get mad and maybe fire you or something like that?

No, he was at the orientation and he made it clear that his door was open to any problem. That was the other thing he made clear about the companies core values. Everyones opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I really do not think he would fire anyone for speaking their mind.

So if I worked for this company and replied to all on this email with my opinion about it being elitist and ignorant, I wouldn't have any repurcussions?

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

How are CEOs let go for poor performance yet they leave with hundreds of millions?

Bringing this back in line with reality doesn't equate to communism.

Reminds me so much of Victorian Paternalism.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the US will squeeze out the middle class, the them and us is becoming more and more obvious.

It will all end in tears, maybe not in my life time.

An underclass will not sit back idly unless they are convinced that for one, it's their own doing and entirely up to themselves to change, and that economic mobility is within their reach if they only work hard enough for it. I would love to see labor unions form in jobs that so far have no representation (Walmart and other retail jobs, restaurants). If the free market proponents want to let the job landscape of this country go from production to service oriented jobs, then they better damn well be prepared when those workers organize for livable wages and benefits. It is inevitable.

[Lewis 0]

OFF TOPIC:

Steven, I'm glad you got rid of those alien things in your signature. Thanks.

ON TOPIC:

I agree somewhat with your statement; economic, social and market driven change is inevitable in a dynamic and shifting free market system.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Why shouldn't a CEO earn more? It sounds like your ideal system would be communism where everyone earns the same pay.

Bringing top executive pay back in line and within reason does not equate to communism. It's just putting an end to the insanity that top executive pay has turned into. These guys get hundreds of millions regardless of company performance, they jack up their pay packages as the companies they work for file for bancruptcy protection and as they have courts order the rank and file staff to tighten their belts and even when they are fired for having completely failed the company. How is that to be justified?

Given the vast number of corporations there are in the USA, and consequently the number of CEOs, I think this statement is germane to only a small percentage of individuals. Nothing wrong with commenting on the few offenders, but it doesn't represent the whole very accurately, does it?