4 ms·

Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and any company that sells appliances made in China these days. I don't short stocks, requires way too much attention. >

Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and any company that sells appliances made in China these days. I don't short stocks, requires way too much attention. > The Soviet movies were not about profit at all. Why didn't they make better movies than Hollywood? Because they were propaganda, which is a lot of what Hollywood has been producing. Since it's failing, the execs are moving to squeeze out writers and actors rather than make better product. You read an awful lot into me being against ruthlessness in business. I'm not in favor of communism; it's been dangerous and a colossal failure everywhere it's been implemented. I am saying that today's Hollywood execs don't understand story, don't understand viewers, and don't care to build that kind of understanding. They only think in terms of knobs they can turn to get more money pouring in: "X marketing dollars yields Y revenue... Hmm... why didn't that work. Looks like we need to lower wages." I'm kind of echoing what David Simon (creator of The Wire) is talking about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C0c8rzOlUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C0c8rzOlUA

WalterBright 3y ago
> Because they were propaganda Quite a sweeping generalization. Besides, many Hollywood movies are good in spite of being rather excessive propaganda. > today's Hollywood execs don't understand story, don't understand viewers, and don't care to build that kind of understanding If someone is running a profitable business in X, I'd pause before concluding they are ignorant fools. It's a competitive business, the fools get squeezed out. It's the job of a CEO to generate maximum revenue while minimizing costs. It's also the mission of every worker to maximize compensation. It's how markets work. It is not inherently evil. Don't you want to get paid the most you can get? Don't you want to pay as little as you can when buying things? BTW, even the Beatles had a bunch of duds on their albums.
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  That didn't used to be the only job of the CEO, though. CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. It also used to be the CEO's job to ensure the health of his company in the form of the health of his workforce including their ability to stay in the middle class. Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. When you have $100 billion subject to his decisions, do you really want to cheap out and not get the best you can find? Take a look at Nadella's reign at Microsoft. The value of the company increase ONE THOUSAND PERCENT under his leadership. As a long term MSFT shareholder, I have no problem with his compensation. Besides, his compensation is coming out of MY pocket, not the employees. The shareholders pay his salary. > Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives. They don't grow if they are driven by short-term incentives, they collapse. Do you really think that companies grow into the S&P500 by sabotaging their prospects? > including their ability to stay in the middle class Worker pay was and is determined by the Law of Supply & Demand, not some expectation of the CEO.

WalterBright 3y ago

> Because they were propaganda Quite a sweeping generalization. Besides, many Hollywood movies are good in spite of being rather excessive propaganda. > today's Hollywood execs don't understand story, don't understand viewers, and don't care to build that kind of understanding If someone is running a profitable business in X, I'd pause before concluding they are ignorant fools. It's a competitive business, the fools get squeezed out. It's the job of a CEO to generate maximum revenue while minimizing costs. It's also the mission of every worker to maximize compensation. It's how markets work. It is not inherently evil. Don't you want to get paid the most you can get? Don't you want to pay as little as you can when buying things? BTW, even the Beatles had a bunch of duds on their albums.

slowmovintarget 3y ago
That didn't used to be the only job of the CEO, though. CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. It also used to be the CEO's job to ensure the health of his company in the form of the health of his workforce including their ability to stay in the middle class. Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > CEO pay used to be roughly 4 times the pay of the average worker, not 30 to 40 times the pay. When you have $100 billion subject to his decisions, do you really want to cheap out and not get the best you can find? Take a look at Nadella's reign at Microsoft. The value of the company increase ONE THOUSAND PERCENT under his leadership. As a long term MSFT shareholder, I have no problem with his compensation. Besides, his compensation is coming out of MY pocket, not the employees. The shareholders pay his salary. > Publicly traded companies end up being driven by perverse short-term incentives. They don't grow if they are driven by short-term incentives, they collapse. Do you really think that companies grow into the S&P500 by sabotaging their prospects? > including their ability to stay in the middle class Worker pay was and is determined by the Law of Supply & Demand, not some expectation of the CEO.