Lenovo CEO Shares $3 Million Bonus With Workers 169
hackingbear writes "Yang Yuanqing, founder and CEO of Chinese PC maker Lenovo, will share $3.25 million from his bonus with some 10,000 staff in China and 19 other countries. 'Most are hourly manufacturing workers,' Lenovo spokeswoman Angela Lee said. 'As you can imagine, an extra $300 in a manufacturing environment in China does make an impact, especially to employees supporting families.' In its annual review last year, Lenovo raised Yang's base pay to $1.2 million and awarded him a $4.2 million discretionary bonus and a $8.9 million long-term incentive award. Yang owns 7.12% of Lenovo's shares, equivalent to about $720 million in stock."
Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that he did this last year as well.
Good on him, especially considering that Lenovo has been quite successful recently in a contracting PC market
Re: (Score:3)
It's *definitely* better than nothing, but as the founder, CEO, and largest shareholder couldn't he just *pay* his factory employees better wages instead of turning it into a personal PR statement?
Re:Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's *definitely* better than nothing, but as the founder, CEO, and largest shareholder couldn't he just *pay* his factory employees better wages instead of turning it into a personal PR statement?
He could, but then if business started to get tight, he'd probably have to lay people off and/or cut wages; neither of which is particularly pleasant for people who were counting on money that it turns out they won't get.
By giving employees an unexpected bonus instead, he looks like a good guy while at the same time avoiding potential ill will in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Except if "business" truly started to get tight they'd have to lay people off in the future anyway - $3M would be peanuts in a significant downturn for a company Lenovo's size.
Or better yet - give the employees their own bonuses. That way they know in advance they are guaranteed extra money if they do their job well instead of relying on the benevolence of their bosses. Like you said, it's his opportunity to look like a good guy. And from the limited info we have, he probably is a good guy. But he clear
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand his intentions. He is trying to emulate the Japanese model where the CEO feels that the company is his family, and the workers feel that the company looks after them. If he is successful he recognizes that it is due in no small part to the rank and file employees, and treats them like, you know, he actually cares enough to share his wealth with them.
this. employees prefer bonuses to unexpected cuts (Score:2)
I do bonuses when the company can afford it for just that reason. Employees want a stable, guaranteed pay check. If they didn't, they'd be entrepreneurs. It would be cruel to give them a raise and have to take it be back six months later. Most would much rather have stable pay that won't be cut plus a bonus once a year than have their pay go up and down every month depending on company financials.
Re: (Score:2)
Only so long as the bonuses keep flowing. Once you've paid the Danegeld... stopping isn't so easy.
Re:Not the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
Only so long as the bonuses keep flowing. Once you've paid the Danegeld... stopping isn't so easy.
Okay, did you just seriously compare a CEO giving his employees bonuses with paying protection money to a hostile foreign power?
Re: (Score:2)
That sound you heard was my point going over your head. You win at knowing facts, you fail utterly at allusion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sound you heard was my point going over your head. You win at knowing facts, you fail utterly at allusion.
Or maybe it was just a really lousy allusion.
Re: (Score:2)
ok. 300 dollars spread out over a year comes to.....a 14 cent raise at 40/wk.
Basically unnoticable.
but a lump sum 300, easily seen and tossed where the employee needs it most.
and no its not about personal PR, it about employee morale. the company did well, he got a bonus, he shared it with the workers who made it happen. good managers acknowledge that they didn't do jack by themselves, its their team that made it happen.
and its happened twice in a row. i'll bet those emplyees keep it up and it happens again
Re: (Score:2)
I give more of my income to homeless, and I don't give a lot, neither do I benefit from their work. This kind of cheap PR operation makes me want to puke.
1% (Score:2)
These are peanuts for monkeys. It is less than 1% of the 500 millions of profit Lenovo did.
Next time you give some change to the poor, remind me to flame you because it's less than 1% of the hundreds of thousands your family makes (or whatever).
I seem to recall a recent ill-concieved socio-economic political movement asking for laws to be passed to make this sort of thing compulsory. Kudos to Yang for taking the initiative here - maybe others will follow his lead and we'll end up with a Rockefeller/Carnegie philanthropy competition going on. You may think of it as "cheap" PR, but examples like th
Re:Not the first time (Score:4, Informative)
A list of Foxconn's customers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn [wikipedia.org]
Acer Inc. (Taiwan)[39]
Amazon.com (United States)[7]
Apple Inc. (United States)[40]
Cisco (United States)[41]
Dell (United States)[42]
Google (United States)[43]
Hewlett-Packard (United States)[44]
Microsoft (United States)[45]
Motorola Mobility (United States)[42]
Nintendo (Japan)[46]
Nokia (Finland)[40][47]
Sony (Japan)[8]
Toshiba (Japan) [48]
Vizio (United States)[49]
Re:Not the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the point was that it's silly to single out Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly, Foxconn increased worker wages dramatically a couple of years ago. Partly under pressure from Apple. Another interesting fact is that the suicide rate amongst Foxconn is actually lower than the Chinese national average
Let't reward this! (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for the info. I will make it a point to buy / recommend Leveno products. I want to reward this behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let't reward this! (Score:4, Informative)
Lenovo 2012 profits : $472 millions
Yang's share of that : $33 millions
Lenovo's employees : 27 000
Lenovo profit per employee : $17,481
What Yang offers them : $300
I am not sure I want to reward that.
Re: (Score:2)
To put things in perspective :
Lenovo 2012 profits : $472 millions
Yang's share of that : $33 millions
Lenovo's employees : 27 000
Lenovo profit per employee : $17,481
Yang profit per employee : $1,222
What Yang offers them : $300
I added in what you left out.
Were you purposely being disingenuous?
Re: (Score:2)
mod up
A little goes a long way for productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't happen upon good employee morale and company stewardship.
It has to be grown. Quality and waste will decrease. When employees feel zero empathy for the company or it's future, a fall is sure to follow.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever met a McDonald's employee with empathy for the company and it's future? Of course not. It's a shitty part-time job.
And yet that didn't stop the company from making over $5.5 billion last year. But I'm sure they'll fail real soon now, right?
Re: (Score:3)
One reason for that is McDonalds doesn't give a shit about their shitty product. The company itself has no pride. How can you expect individual employees to care? Profit sharing plans won't help when no one at the company cares about the quality of the product they make.I don't see the existence of companies which we all would be better off without as a failure of capitalism, but as a failure of humanity as a species. Unfortunately greedy, unprincipled members of our species will probably always exist. It w
Re: (Score:2)
and you're making his point for him and not even realizing it.
Please notice the per employee amount. (Score:2, Insightful)
$3,250,000 / 10,000 = $325 per employee.
Keep that math in your brain for the next "Overpaid CEO" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please notice the per employee amount. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not quite sure what your point is. If you gave away $325 to individuals, how many people would you be able to be able to reach? Keep in mind that the $3m is less than one fourth his compensation this year.
That isn't to stray from the point that giving away personal benefits to his workers is something to encourage, no matter what the motivation was.
Re:Please notice the per employee amount. (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you read the fine print, you see that it only looked at the top 350 companies. If we were to cut these CEOs down to size and confiscated all the money they made last year and redistributed it to the 145 million workers in the U.S., each worker would end up getting ($14.1 million)*(350 CEOs)/(145 million workers) = $34 each. If you divide it by the number of workers in the Fortune 500 (24 million), it's $205 each.
The authors of the paper came up with the methodology for tracking trends in CEO pay over the years. Unfortunately it's been hijacked and misreported to fit the narrative that CEOs in general are siphoning off substantial amounts of money our economy is generating, and if it were fixed everything would be much better. That simply isn't the case. While the top CEOs may make enough money to afford themselves a lavish lifestyle, in terms of the overall economic output of their companies it's peanuts.
If you want a better, broader measure of income inequality, you should be looking at things like Gini coefficient [wikipedia.org]. But "Income inequality 50% worse in U.S. than other Western countries" isn't as great a headline as "CEOs make 273x more than their workers."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be correct, if the CEO was the only person that was over paid in each company.
The income inequality that you speak of comes from the top ~5% being over paid and there may be a another 10% that are paid a reasonable sum, so you take the top 1-5% and split it among the bottom 85% and it would be a lot more than $300 per person. I looked into this type thing in the past and it ends up being closer to $500/month per employee if you cut the top tier execs pay in half and redistribute.
Re: (Score:2)
your math doesnt add up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Please notice the per employee amount. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a different take on this matter. What exactly does a CEO do that provides so much more value to a company than an engineering team or assembly line laboring away at designing products? Sure, a CEO has a place and can be very instrumental in the effectiveness of the company, but then so too can a brilliant engineer or a factory foreman that can design the next Big Thing or improve efficiency because they know their work that well? Where are the brilliant engineers making CEO pay? Or the factory foremen? And don't think for a second that a CEO is so unique as to be irreplaceable. When a CEO is replaced, shockingly a company keeps running unless he is so bad as to drive the company into the ground. Being unable to attract good talented engineers or having your assembly line strike because of bad treatment can cripple a company just as badly as a bad CEO.
So, the lesson I'd like to give is that every level of a company, be it designers or sales or factory or CEO, has a place in a corporate team and no one entity is less crucial than the other. The only problem is that the CEO disproportionately earns that much more than everyone else. It is about time that the people that labor to make the products or to do the work, that serve as the face of the company moreso than the CEO does, share in the fruit of their efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
A good CEO can make a difference in a company. Getting a board of directors, shareholders, executives and employees all on the same productive page is not as easy as it looks. It's cat herding. And you can't just hire any dude with an MBA to do it. Demand outstrips supply. So they can get more money than the average person.
Then there are great CEO's. The stars or their profession. These guys are the super-athletes of their profession. Super rare. One way to look at it is they are pivotal. They might
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone that often comments on overpaid CEOs, I feel like I need to reply to this. There are many aspect to it and many different cases.
First of all, his salary (what ever you call it it is a salary) is not $3 million. It is $1.2M+$4.2M+$8.2M. That's actually more than 13 million dollar a year. I won't even talk about stock, because arguably it is not salary. (But let's be honnest, at these positions abusing stock options is not really difficult. Also you have a pretty good picture of where to invest.) H
Re:Please notice the per employee amount. (Score:4, Insightful)
Implying that a 3,25 million bonus isn't all that much because it would 'only' mean an extra $325 if distributed among employees can really only be the opinion of entitled, rich assholes who never have had to struggle at the end of the month. 8 years ago during my student years an extra 30 bucks a month would have meant the world to me. In Europe. And we are talking about mostly Chinese families here.
TEN THOUSAND OF THEM.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
$3,250,000 / 10,000 = $325 per employee.
Keep that math in your brain for the next "Overpaid CEO" argument.
So, you're only argument is that at $325 per employee, the CEO is a bargain? That's a crap argument. Everyone knows that you negotiate for a car based on the the total cost, not the monthly payment. Most CEO's are well overpaid for the value that the bring to the table. What's worse is they get guaranteed money even if they are fired for failing. On top of that, if the is a public company, that's money being taken away from shareholder value.
As for the $$$ per employee, I'm willing to bet that $325 or
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes down to it megawealth doesn't come from being a CEO so much as it comes from owning the corporation. A CEO is really just a very highly paid employee. The real wealth comes from owning the store.
A quick look at the Forbes top 400 and you find they are almost all store owners. Some may be CEO too, but these guys mostly founded the company their wealth comes from.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:3_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categor [forbes.com]
Psychology (Score:3, Interesting)
This guy is the CEO. He could just as well have Lenovo give this bonus directly to its employees, which it will probably (have to) do anyway. Instead he's trying to make himself look good. Might be worth the trouble; the (apparently) kinder the CEO, the more loyal the employees. But this is not an act of charity; it's just a normal bonus with a well thought-out psychological plan behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
I doesn't have to be charity. However, the implication that it is is what gets this on slashdot.
What is he a communist? (Score:4, Funny)
He's giving part of his bonus to be distributed to his workers? That's the path to socialism!
don't care if he's got ulterior motives (Score:2)
It's an act of generosity which he didn't have to do, for a company that puts out a laptop where Linux runs great. Lenovo was already probably going to get my next purchase based on how well Linux is running on this laptop (T61 purchased used FWIW), and this only makes it easier.
Ob Simpsons Quote (Score:3)
Don't think he cares what we think.... (Score:2)
Re:Philantropy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be a philanthropist when you're rich. Just sayin'
Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its also easy to not share your wealth with your workers.
It depends of company structure. For instance Huawei [wikipedia.org] is owned by its employees. Here the CEO cannot choose to give back some wealth created by employees, he just have to.
Re: (Score:3)
You sure about that? Huawei's status as an employee-owned company that it calls a "collective" is dubious; in theory it is owned by its employees, but its management structure is opaque and it is only rather recently that they even admitted who their board of directors were -- and its totally unclear how much real ability the employees have to accomplish anything.
The CEO of Huawei, the guy who founded it, is hugely secretive and has strong ties to the Communist Party. As do most of the other known bosses. I
Re: (Score:2)
Governance is one thing, profit distribution is another topic. If the employees are the shareholders, they get the profits.
Of course, there is still a weakness with opaque governance, since the head of the company can decide to give huge wage to the CEO, or to reinvest everything so that there is no profit left for employees. I do not know how Huawei does in that area, I just picked it as an example of a big employee-owned company.
Oddly such an abuse would be the exact opposite of what we usually see in wes
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly such an abuse would be the exact opposite of what we usually see in western megacorporations: no money for wages and investement, everything for the shareholders.
Yeah but in the end it's all the same. The people that break their backs for the company don't get anything but the shaft.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Note to Americans: this is a textbook example of socialism (workers own the means of production), not what you think socialism is.
Re: (Score:2)
He did the same thing last year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Philantropy (Score:5, Funny)
Actually all the empirical evidence seems to point to it being harder.
Re:Philantropy (Score:5, Informative)
Not as easy as you think. First you have to get over yourself. That's HUGE when you're rich because you tend to think you're better than those below you and your status and ability to rise to your level convinces you of it. So, no it's not as easy as you think. In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Re:Philantropy (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Bingo. Being rich insulates you from understanding hardship, the most generous people are generally the ones who can least afford it because they experience some level of poverty on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points you'd get one. It isn't hard for us in the middle class to be philanthropists, either. I wonder how much the OP has contributed to ease people's suffering?
Re: (Score:2)
So he gave $4 million to charity, but still had $8 million for himself.
That is still $8 million for seven human beings (him, his wife and five kids), which frankly is still quite indecent compared to the $10K-$20K of regular Joes who also have a family to support.
I'm not saying he's a bad person, I'm saying the distribution of wealth got screwed up somewhere along the way.
Re:Philantropy (Score:4, Informative)
Mitt Romney gave $4 million to charity in one year - 1/3rd of his income.
Giving money to your own social clubs like the mormon church and its affiliates like Brigham Young University, or the George W Bush Library, or the private school where 5 of his kids attended isn't charity, it's tax-deductible self-interest. Naked quid pro quo.
Before I posted I went and read up on his tax returns, just to make sure that my assumption of self-interest was true. That he hadn't made a liar out of me and my cynicism by really giving the bulk of his donations to organizations that would not benefit himself in one way or another. In the process I found out some interesting "character" related points:
1) His 2010 tax return showed only 11% of his income went to non-profit deductions. The mormon church directly gets 10% straight off the bat as tithing, leaving 1% for everything else. In fact, his own 20-year summary shows he averaged less than 12.6% until the 30% spike in 2011 brought the average up to just under 13.5%. Why such an outlier in 2011 when he had roughly half the income that he did in 2010? Seems to me that once he won the party primary his donations went up.
2) In 2011 he did not claim the maximum allowed tax deductions for his donations. He only claimed a deduction for $2.25 of the $4 million that was eligible. Why would he do that? Well, the guy who runs Romney's family trust said it helped to keep his campaign promise of paying at least 13% in income tax every year. Here's my question, now that he lost the election, did he go back and file an amended return to claim the entire $4M? We will probably never know, maybe a real man of character would not. A real republican would be happy to over-pay his taxes without a complaint, right?
My source for those two points is this article at The Blaze [theblaze.com] - I figured I'd go with a conservative news source to give Romney the benefit of the doubt in the reporting.
Re:Philantropy (Score:5, Funny)
Just sayin'
Say or say not. There is no just.
Re:Philantropy (Score:4, Insightful)
No its not, you dont get rich by sharing to begin with.
I beg to differ. Most of my money is from being (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a few really good reasons not to do business with me, but I've always had as many clients as I can handle. Most of my money (over a million dollars) has come from people who choose to do business with me BECAUSE of what kind of person I am.
When they see me being generous with my time and money, they know I'm the type of person they want to do a deal with.
Secondly, without a generous and grateful spirit, you can have $200 million and not be nearly as rich as someone with a spirit of gratitude and
Re: (Score:2)
Guys, guys. This is no place for philosophy. This is Slashdot. Let us graph generosity on the X axis, and success on Y. I posit that the curve is like a hill. In other words, there is some optimum level of generosity.
To find the optimum level of generosity, we should simply take the first derivative of the function that relates success to generosity, and solve for zero.
Get crackin'. I want those results by morning, and if I don't get them I'll bash your faces in. Those results are for a good cause.
Re:return what you don't deserve... (Score:5, Insightful)
In before 1000 Libertarians explaining that nobody works unless they're paid money, because nothing is important except accumulation of material tat.
Libertarian here. His stock is worth $720M, and he only gave away 0.5% of that. If his generosity boosts morale enough to generate just 1% more profit, then he has doubled the money. He is publicizing this gift, so the workers are aware of the source, rather than giving anonymously, so he is at least partly motivated by greed. This looks like a smart investment.
Re:return what you don't deserve... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is all about return on investment, why don't all CEs of multinationals do this?
Are they all that dumb? Are you saying they should all be sacked?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 23rd curse of the Libertarian is to reduce everything to some meaningless effiiciency calculation which ignores any inconvenient factors. It's the kind of thing you do as a dorky 15 year old (or college freshman if you're remedial), but mostttttt people grow out of by college.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the kind of thing you do as a dorky 15 year old (or college freshman if you're remedial)...
...or as a successful CEO. Sorry, I know you didn't want that pointed out but it needed to be said.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of clever people also do irrelevant (and sometimes outright dumb) things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it only works if your employees are living in impoverished places to begin with. Like they said, it's only about $300 each. To a factory worker in China, that's a big deal. If Steve Ballmer did the same thing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal, as they are a software company (mostly) and the majority of their workers probably don't see $300 as such a big deal. I mean, as a developer I would like an extra $300 at the end of the year, but it's not really going to change my life that much, especially after you subtract taxes.
Same with my tech company but we haven't had bonuses (or raises) for a couple years. I'd definitely take the free lunch money no matter the amount!
Re: (Score:3)
dont ignore the time difference.
the time difference is significant, as is the perception difference between lump sum and spread out.
an extra 8$ a week isnt much, your right. most people wouldnt notice it unless they already are financially smart enough to toss any extras like that into their savings (on top of their existing saving contributions). but most dont. and waiting a year for that extra to add up to something (300) decreases its worth substantially.
but if you give it to em lump sum instead of sprea
Re: (Score:3)
thats nice that you barely notice 300$ extra dollars.
I'm happy that you are so successful.
but $300 is a pretty big bonus for most people.
300$ is a couple months of credit card payments.
a car payment.
a couple months of gas in the car.
or something nice for the wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they all that dumb? Are you saying they should all be sacked?
Works for me!
Re: (Score:2)
i wouldnt say dumb per se.
its the same short term goal, long term blindness/ignorance type of thinking that dominates business.
bonuses are an expenditure.
expenditures are bad and must be minimized.
Re:return what you don't deserve... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clicked on comments to come and see all the folks who'd make negative comments about him for this. You, among others, didn't disappoint.
There is no indication he's motivated by greed whatsoever, and it's either ignorant or wilfully destructive to cast such aspersions without some concrete evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason folks are making negative comments is at least partly that it's an accounting trick. If the company had directly given the workers $300 bonuses, it would have been the same as if the CEO had been given millions of dollars and he then divided it up among the employees as $300 bonuses. But it wouldn't have made the news.
Re: (Score:2)
If the workers feel positive and more motivated about it then he's being a good CEO and leader. They know him from his track record whether it's just for show or that's just the guy he is.
A bean counter could pass the same amount of money to the workers without motivating them a bit. A bad boss could pass the same amount of money to the workers and make them feel cheated and negative about it.
You could use the almost the same words in a speech but with the wrong pauses, emphasis etc and produce far worse re
Re: (Score:2)
Clicked on comments to come and see all the folks who'd make negative comments about him for this.
Pointing out that something is mutually beneficial is not "negative". Life is not zero sum.
Re: (Score:2)
"so he is at least partly motivated by greed" is a negative aspersion against him. I refered to this statement quite specifically. That the ultimate effect may be at least neutral has no bearing on the impropriety of your statement. Unless you have evidence that he's partially motivated by greed, then you can't build a case around that presumption. At best, you might say "he MAY be at least partially motivated by greed", but even then the rest of your statements about possible advantages for the company are
Re: (Score:2)
"so he is at least partly motivated by greed" is a negative aspersion against him.
No it isn't. I already identified myself as a Libertarian, and we believe that greed is a force for good. So I was praising him, not criticizing him. If his workers benefit, and their lives are improved, then why is it "negative" if his company also profits? If someone does a good deed out of self interest, that is better than if they do it as pure altruism, because self interest is more sustainable and scalable. It is foolish to believe that if some wins, then someone else must lose.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that thing about lies and damn lies? *points up the thread*
It's far more arguable that his actions are circumventing the Lenovo rules on worker compensation by direct redistribution. That could be seen as anti-corporate or socialist, considering it a form of greed by reverse osmosis is... stretching reality*.
*or bullsh*t, if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
As his stock is currently supporting the same company of which he just gave that bonus to the workers, it's value is irrelevant in this discussion. What percentage of his actual liquid wealth did he just give away? That's the really important figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Your lactophilia is getting in the way of your point. Or two points, in your case. Please rephrase.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:return what you don't deserve... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Libertarian who thinks corporations should be outlawed in current societies and denied any form of special privileges like limited liability or any form of personhood in a utopian free society. What were you saying again about grossly overpaid CEOs? I agree that they are grossly overpaid. I suspect that most of them could be replaced with someone who makes less than 100k per year no problem.
Even if the company made a little bit less money it would be good for the morale of everyone else if one person were not so ridiculously overpaid.
I think you have to be blind to not see that a corporation represents an unhealthy concentration of power in the hands of a few. Power corrupts. Also the behavior of a corporation is indistinguishable from that of an individual sociopath. The last thing we need is more sociopaths in our or any society. We certainly should not be encouraging them as we do now.
Companies, as in groups of individuals working toward a common goal, which should not be to make a pile of money in any way they can, but to produce a product or service they can be proud of, while hopefully at the same time earning enough to live comfortably, are themselves necessary evils because when they grow large they grow powerful even without limited liability or legal personhood, but there is simply no alternative that actually works. Human beings have to work together in groups to produce useful things. Government owned corporations are no better than privately owned ones. In fact they are usually worse.
You know what else is a necessary evil? Governments. That's why we Libertarians like to keep them as small as possible. In general I'd also like to keep companies as small as possible, but large companies also have advantages in terms of more affordable goods and services for poor people. Human beings simply don't behave as well in groups, especially in large groups, but I don't think artificially limiting their size makes sense in the way it does for governments. The economic advantages for the poorest members of society are simply too great. Nevertheless I think it would have great non-monetary benefits on society as a whole if all companies or organized groups of any kind were limited to no more than 100 people.
Are you sure you weren't thinking of a Republican. Some of you pro-government types get us confused so easily but we actually have very little in common. Some very minor common ground in economic theory with a small minority of them, probably the ones who call themselves tea partiers, and that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree that we want small companies and small government to avoid the problem of having one entity that overpowers the rest.
The thing is, many endeavours require global supervision, global management. And I am not sure how to achieve that. Nuclear powerplants are ridiculously expensive. Phone infrastructure is ridiculously expensive. The LHC is ridiculously expensive. Very few people will argue we should not have build them. But with low power governments and companies with limited budget, I am not
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree that we want small companies and small government to avoid the problem of having one entity that overpowers the rest.
My point was not about one group overpowering others. It was a more basic one about human psychology. The larger the group the more people seem to drop their own moral compass and substitute that of the group [wikipedia.org]. The larger the group the worse the individuals in it tend to behave. At least that is what I have observed.
As far as society needing large companies for certain things I do agree. My point is that it would be nice if we could figure out a way to avoid such concentrations of (economic) power. I don't t
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that you are a Republican. Am I right? You clearly do not have the first clue about what Libertarianism actually is. First you have to learn to think in terms of principles. Then learn what 'voluntarism' means. Then note that Libertarianism is not about class warfare. Corporations behave like sociopaths. That sort of behavior is not good for society. The government helps and encourages them in this with the special privileges it grants them. The thing I hate most about Republicans is their anti
Re: (Score:2)
Get back to us when you learn what socialism is.
Re: (Score:2)
In before 1000 Libertarians explaining that nobody works unless they're paid money, because nothing is important except accumulation of material tat.
Those aren't libertarians, they're money worshipers. And look at comments above mine to see how "Libertarians" worship money.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm a libertarian and believe in the abolition of, or at the very least very strict control over, any entity which provides limited liability to those who control it. Corporations are not people. They exist at the whim of the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated, and should be subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary to keep them in line.
Re: (Score:2)
And is this CEO a Confucianist?
Re: (Score:2)
And is this CEO a Confucianist?
maybe not... Perhaps he's... confused
Re: (Score:2)
You and I have very different ideas of what "protestantism" means. Sorry the "protestants" in your personal experience are all such jerks.
Re: (Score:2)
I upgraded Thinkpads from an old IBM R51 to a Lenovo T530 with a Full HD IPS screen about 6 months ago. I'm very happy with it - even if it doesn't quite feel as sturdy as the old Thinkpads were they are still better than most other modern laptops.
I've got to the point where I'm kinda happy with the new keyboard to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? They're all Lenovo branded. The divide between business/consumer is ThinkPad vs IdeaPad (and the super cheap "Essentials" line).