Swiss Referendum Backs Executive Pay Curbs 284
gollum123 writes in with news that Switzerland may soon have the world's strictest corporate rules. "Swiss voters have overwhelmingly backed proposals to impose some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, final referendum results show. Nearly 68% of the voters supported plans to give shareholders a veto on compensation and ban big payouts for new and departing managers. The new measures will give Switzerland some of the world's strictest corporate rules. Shareholders will have a veto over salaries, golden handshakes will be forbidden, and managers of companies who flout the rules could face prison.The 'fat cat initiative', as it has been called, will be written into the Swiss constitution and apply to all Swiss companies listed on Switzerland's stock exchange. Support for the plans — brain child of Swiss businessman turned politician Thomas Minder — has been fueled by a series of perceived disasters for major Swiss companies, coupled with salaries and bonuses staying high."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The job doesn't justify the salary. They claim it offsets the high risks, but then they walk away with millions when it all goes wrong.
I do a good job as a matter of personal pride and professionalism, even though I'm not earning a massive salary and annual bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
They claim it offsets the high risks, but then they walk away with millions when it all goes wrong.
Don't underestimate the risk of having to walk away with a $5M golden parachute and look for another job while your peers are making $10M-$20M at the same time.
Maybe the law should state that you get absolutely nothing if the company tanks. Then we'll know that high salaries are given for performance.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't underestimate the risk of having to walk away with a $5M golden parachute and look for another job while your peers are making $10M-$20M at the same time.
$5M would let you live a quite comfortable life for 40 years ($125k/yr) - and that's assuming all you did with it was draw down the capital.
It's actually kind of hard to underestimate that risk. It's basically nonexistant.
Maybe the law should state that you get absolutely nothing if the company tanks. Then we'll know that high salaries are given for
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
"The job doesn't justify the salary."
Most people don't understand it's a matter of customer base (population size) and where you are in history, such salaries would be impossible in smaller societies. These exorbitant sums of money are artifacts of scale and historically large customer bases by which executives can exploit given their privileged position in society and history.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't so much about salary but bonusses.
IMHO the problem with executive bonusses isn't so much the amount or that they get bonusses at all, it's the fact that they can fail horribly and still recieve a bonus. A bonus can only ever be morally justifiable if the executive produces results significantly above expectations and certain due to the executive's actions.
How about only allowing bonusses when business results exceed official statements to shareholders. Now either the executive has really outperfo
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO the problem with executive bonusses isn't so much the amount or that they get bonusses at all, it's the fact that they can fail horribly and still recieve a bonus.
I can think of only one counter-example to prove this rule with....Alcatel-Lucent. Old time telephony is simply going away as an obsolete technology. Really, there is simply no way to make a twisted pair carry the data that can be pumped over coax, while obeying the the laws of physics. What happens to a company who's central product is no longer needed? Can a good CEO do a better job of milking the market for the few remaining dollars than a bad CEO? Is it worth paying an extra million, if the good CE
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Informative)
The difference between you and me is that you're anonymous and I am not.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Informative)
Try searching for that little tag [google.com].
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, dude? TMI. Seriously. I was half expecting to see naughty pictures of the wife. But then again, cool that you've got the balls to do that. I don't.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are you to say that another person's salary is unjustified
A voice representing the majority who are not rewarded (to excess) for failure.
I'm guessing you make a lot more than that, as do most slashdotters. But the difference between you and me isn't money. The difference is that I have accepted my place in life, as well as the fact that certain others will have orders of magnitude more than I have.
I am compensated by my employer based on my performance and contributions to my company. Should I be compensated by my employer if I take away from my company?
The difference is that I can see right through the smokescreen of moral superiority.
Your moral compass is out of calibration.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
"A voice representing the majority who are not rewarded (to excess) for failure."
A majority that often picks up the tab for those failures.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that I have accepted my place in life,
and ye shall forever be downtrodden as a result.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that I have accepted my place in life,
and ye shall forever be downtrodden as a result.
While I understand what you're trying to say to the parent and even, to an extent, agree with you the other side of the argument is that if you don't learn to accept where you are in life then you can never be content. I would imagine the parent is probably referring to having found a place in life that they are happy with. That's kind of an important bit of wisdom since for many people being at the "top" doesn't lead to happiness.
For an example I'm at the top of my game, but not at the top of earnings. Still, I make plenty of money, have no problem paying bills, buy anything I want, and do whatever I want (within reason). I don't let people walk over me but I don't need to walk over them, either. I find most people would be a lot happier if they'd take a few moments to realize that they don't actually want to be at "the top," it's just our media machine that blasts you with that.
Of course I could be wrong, I don't know for certain, none of us do. Maybe the parent's just a slacker.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I have no problems with founding entrepreneurs like Jobs and Zuckerberg making billions (Gates, a bit different because a lot of his wealth was directly tied to the way he flouted the antitrust laws in the '90s). And I'm not especially jealous of rich old men hanging around yacht clubs dousing themselves with single malt. But 8-digit compensation for CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is now routine, and I think this affects the way those companies are run. Exhibit A: the housing bubble and financial meltdown
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
As a shareholder of a given company, I have, or should have, the right to squeeze you by the balls as I take the money BACK out of your pocket and return it to the us, the owners of the company.
And I could give a rat's ass about moral superiority. You go do whatever your little heart desires, but keep your hands off of my money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately, it is the shareholders taking the risk, that assumption of risk should enable some say-so in the compensation of the management of the company.
If I choose to assign my risk by proxy to the board then I want them to make the decision for me and I get what I deserve. Or sue them for not doing their job.
Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, your solution is coercion.
No, our solution is give the right of determining the salary to the people that actually pay said salary.
Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)
A shareholder.
Libertarian Baloney (Score:5, Interesting)
"Jealousy" eh? The mating call of libertarians whenever the subject of who's getting paid to do what comes up.
From hard won experience, I know that attempting to debate this directly with a lib is as productive as arguing with my cat about it pissing on a wall. So, strictly for others who may be listening:
The pay of top executives is usually determined by a supervisory board. Getting on a board doesn't require much work, in exchange for which members enjoy a number of benefits determined by executives. Getting onto and staying on boards in the first place requires staying in the good graces of company executives. Thus, a positive feedback loop occurs, resulting in executive pay and departure packages determined not by metrics that benefit the owners, but by friends doing each other favors.
It's usually very difficult for the diffuse class of owners to organize themselves to bring company executives to heel. What the Swiss have done is to make life a little bit easier for shareholders to exercise their rights.
Re:Libertarian Baloney (Score:4)
Now, I consider myself a libertarian - primarily on civil grounds - but I also feel that given the same opportunities, people who put more work into improving their situation should get more reward out of it. I don't know when the libertarians became cheerleaders for highly paid executives (how did the Republicans pass that one on?), but I honestly don't know of anybody outside of members of the board who would disagree with you. We have whole classes of top paid executives right now who aren't worth the overpriced socks they walk around in, playing with other peoples money and raking in fortunes regardless of how well they perform. That's no Libertarian ideal - it's a leech club skimming off whatever they can. None of them try to stop it because, after all, it's mostly other people's money and they don't want to lose their own access to it by angering the wrong leech. At risk of making this a "no true Libertarian" debate, somebody who claims you're jealous of buddy-club wealth isn't a libertarian, they're just a wanna be leech.
As much as we love to heap the hatred on them, people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at least built and sold *something* and that's the path to wealth we need to encourage, not the marketplace gambling and executive back scratching.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote Plutarch (46 - 120 AD),
An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I do make more than that (modestly). I have accepted my place in life, and am quite happy about it.
What I do not accept is that there are people who work their asses off with 80+ hours a week to barely survive, and people who probably don't do even that in a month, and make over 100x what I make. I recently saw a CV of someone who had 3-4 CEO/BOD positions at a time, making between 350K and 750K each. Never less than $1M/year. That's absurd, and not horribly uncommon. Such people cannot be putting 40hr
Re: (Score:3)
If you boil this down, what you are left with is the disgusting stench of jealousy.
I'm going to ask my boss to increase my salary ten-fold (>> what he earns) and put that point to him.
Who are you to say that another person's salary is unjustified ... ?
As the salaries that we are talking about are exceptional (ie in the top ~0.5 percentile) it is those salaries that need to be justified, not their critics.
They try to justify these salaries either on a percentage of what they handle or by claiming "we need to get the best people". Both are bollocks. I am a senior engineer in the nuclear power industry. I make decisions that cost, or save, tens o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite rightly, sir.
Anyone who has the hubris to use the word "sheeple" is is effect saying "I alone understand the complexities of the world, my view is the correct one, and anyone who thinks differently than me does not deserve my attention."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the government controlling anything. It gives legal backing to the shareholders.You know, the ones that OWN THE COMPANY. Essentially this is giving more power via property rights and prohibiting the fleecing of wealth by deadweight managers.
If you do not understand why this is good both for society and the individual by reducing the damage done by incompetents, guess what camp you are rallying for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, if only there were a way shareholders could take executive compensation into account when they buy and sell shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can give me a decent selection of companies that curb executive compensation, I'll invest. Unfortunately, they're all doing it.
I believe you have that backwards: The problem is that nobody is curbing executive pay, not that they all are.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck that "take it or leave it" attitude. Owning something means having some control over it.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
You should probably look up the difference between Communism and Socialism before you post. Not to mention this isn't really Socialism. That would be equal sharing - not just reigning in the disparity between the top 1% and the other 99%.
You should watch http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2/ [upworthy.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
A) The government is not controlling anything in this case. it is just saying that shareholders be allowed to veto big raises and golden parachutes for outgoing failed executives.
B) The government in the US has lots of rules that may not "control" a deal but that do make sure things are handled in a way that is fair to the shareholders and to the public. For example, if all the makers of widgets got together and said - hey let's raise all of our prices by 100% - then that would be price collusion/fixing and illegal.
C) Just because the government has rules for deals doesn't mean it invalidates property and creates communism. I am not even sure how you made that creative leap.
D) Pro sports players aren't even in the ballpark (excuse the pun) of the folks we are talking about. They are high profile and get a lot of attention but the "1%" is worth 1000 times most athletes.
E) Socialism enforced by people with guns? First. There is no completely socialist country in the world. There are many that come close. Some, like Canada, are more socialistic than the US and I don't see them using guns up there to enforce it.
Socialism enforced by people with guns? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] capitalist private [wikipedia.org] property [wikipedia.org] requires the backing of guns [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that anymore. I said they didn't use guns to enforced their socializes policies.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
A large company with vast resources wants to do a deal with me, a puny individual with limited funds to spend on getting a lawyer to check it out and monitoring compliance. I want my government, on my behalf, to regulate the deal so that I don't get ripped off and don't have to be an expert on every single thing I want to deal in.
Before people scream socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Before people scream socialism, this rule is to make shareholders vote on the executive pay of the company they own shares in, not government bureaucrats. This is to protect shareholders from greedy upper management.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, they should be screaming, Direct Democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what's the "referendum" thing, and how did they ever get one on corporate wages/bonuses? Do Swiss pigs fly?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland
Basically, somebody gets support for some legislative change by collecting signatures. If sufficient signatures are collected, there will be a popular vote on it. Pretty neat, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
They're all rotten. The management is looking for the most acceptable way to embezzle the shit out of the company. The shareholders just want to just put their money somewhere where it will automatically increase without any work on their part, and so they are at odds with the management. It doesn't really matter who wins, since it's messed up either way.
Re:Before people scream socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case watch out for unintended consequences.
You mean, like a robust economy that's not dependent on these people?
Re: (Score:2)
Those are clearly the 'intended' consequences. Doubt that will happen.
More likely. Companies de-listing or moving their headquarters to avoid this step.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be an interesting one to sell to the shareholders.
Board/Execs: "We need to move the company to another country!"
Shareholders: "Why?"
Board/Execs: "So we can pay ourselves more without your permission!"
Shareholders: "Hm... maybe we need a new board instead."
Also, Switzerland doesn't have the same trade obligations that the EU nations do. They DO have free trade agreements, but they may not preclude taking action against companies that move to avoid Swiss laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, that's exactly what I think about sequestration. 2% cut in government employment? It's a start. A small start.
Bye bye parasites!
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a big old pain in the ass to vote on every executive compensation issue. Especially if they don't allow the usual proxies to hold force and mess with preferred stock's non-voting status. Depends on how low they define 'executive'. That definition will of course also allow gaming the system.
If the shysters get it down to a routine, boilerplate annual shareholder vote it will just add to the lawyer tax and, as you say, not change anything. If, however, every shareholder has to actually vote it w
Re:Before people scream socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why the Boards of Directors and all the three letter jobs should be held accountable when a company defrauds the shareholders and public.
Re: (Score:2)
If the company commits fraud then the "C" level people most assuredly can be held accountable and go to jail. It's what happened with Enron.
Not so much the Board, though, since they typically wouldn't be involved with the day to day operations of a company.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I always thought Switzerland was the model that at least some Libertarians dream of.
Re:Before people scream socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Switzerland has fucking hygene inspectors that have to OK your moving out of any apartment or house for fucks sake. Sink not clean enough to use as an operating room? You must stay and clean.
Bullshit. When you move out, your landlord checks that the apartment or house is clean, that's all. If not, they will retain a certain amount on your 3 month deposit.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be the same Singapore that has caning punishments, no freedom of assembly and draconian anti-littering laws? Aren't libertarians supposed to be socially liberal?
it's not even really a curb (Score:5, Insightful)
It provides a mechanism by which shareholders can set a pay limit for executives, and veto large pay packages which they don't think are in their interests. Since shareholders nominally "own" the company, I'm not sure why that would be particularly controversial, except that companies have been to some extent captured by their management.
There is nothing here that prevents high corporate pay if the owners of the company feel it's justified.
Re:it's not even really a curb (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, the shareholders *should* be able to do this already through the Board. I think the problem in the US is that few people invest in companies directly nowadays - instead they invest in mutual funds which in turn own companies.
I always suggest that people who work in publicly traded companies own stock and show up at annual meetings when possible. The problem is that for the normal worker they can't buy stock at the same pace that it's being given to the executives. My wife's former company was terrible about that - execs and even divisional managers were being given thousands of shares each year, either outright or as options that allowed them to buy the stock at a low price and sell it immediately at a much higher price, with the risk totally eliminated by the fact that they had no requirement to buy in the first place.
We really need to get back to free market principles here, instead of this crazy system where executives rape companies and get huge bonuses or parting gifts.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd also help if the boards were comprised of more independent people. The current status-quo is that executives are all on each other's boards, which gives an obvious disincentive to play hardball on things like compensation. Does the Board think that executives should be paid a lot, because they provide immense value? Why of course, this board made up of other executives thinks the proposition to be beyond question!
For example, here are the members of the board of directors of JPMorgan Chase:
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, the shareholders *should* be able to do this already through the Board.
Except that CEO of company A sits on the board of company B, and the CEO of company B sits on the board of company A. CEO A votes to raise B's salary, and vice-versa. When someone raises a conflict of interest issue, you just substitute a close family member to sit on the board of the other company. It's not like it isn't a close knit community.
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't be controversial, but I also don;t see the point. Shareholder already have authority over executive salaries. The shareholders are the real bosses (in aggregate). They are the ones paying the salaries (i.e. it is essentially deducted from their profits). If shareholders can't be bothered to ensure that they are paying their employees reasonable salaries, then it means this company is mismanaged by it's owners (the shareholders) who deserve to lose their shirts. If you are a small time inve
Re: (Score:2)
Bonkers "perceived disasters" (Score:2)
BBC gone bonkers? "Support for the plans - brain child of Swiss businessman turned politician Thomas Minder - has been fuelled by a series of perceived disasters for major Swiss companies, coupled with salaries and bonuses staying high"
Disasters, or only perceived disasters?
The US desperately needs this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Congress cannot make any decisions about the pay of the current Congress, thanks to the 27th Amendment [wikipedia.org]. That includes giving themselves a pay cut. The way the public punishes Congress for giving themselves a raise is to vote them out of office.
If it's the same as in the US. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The US needs this too. It should work like this. (Score:3)
This has been discussed in the US, but, as in Switzerland, as a "veto" by shareholders. Shareholders should determine CEO compensation. The US SEC tracks the total compensation of the top 5 employees of publicly held companies, and those should be the ones the shareholders set salaries for.
The highest paid person in the company should have a total compensation set by a shareholder vote. Each shareholder puts in a number, and the share-weighted median is the CEO salary. The CEO can suggest a number, but it's not the default.
Who gets to vote the shares? The party that pays the taxes on them. Funds that are now tax pass-throughs would have to pass through voting rights to avoid being taxed. No taxation without representation.
For funds with a big portfolio, the shareholders can pick a compensation number for the whole fund, and the fund managers can set the compensation for each CEO. But the total can't exceed the shareholder-chosen value.
Now that's shareholder empowerment.
Obsession with CEOs is cargo-cultism (Score:5, Interesting)
The vast majority of high-priced C-level hiring seems to be an exercise in some sort of magical thinking. Corporations see a success, and make a superficial attempt to imitate it. Throwing millions of dollars at one (or a handful) of executives is much easier than trying to understand their own internal dynamics.
"Steve Jobs turned Apple around, so what we need to do to make billions is find and hire the next Steve Jobs!" All while completely ignoring what Jobs actually did, leading to a situation where they'll pay millions for whichever executive wore more black turtlenecks over the last five years.
It's Cargo Cultism. Nice to see that the Swiss are taking a step away from it.
Re:Obsession with CEOs is cargo-cultism (Score:5, Informative)
Parent deserves more than +5. I've worked with the highest levels of management and there is so much magical thinking at these levels, it puts any witch coven to shame.
Just one example: In many sectors, there is the unquestioned belief that only X amounts of companies can survive in the market. So the CEOs main job is to make sure his company is in the top X. If he's at X+1 or X+2, he risks being canned. No matter if the company is successful, profitable, whatever - doesn't matter because higher ups believe in that mantra.
As a voter from the US (Score:5, Funny)
I support this move by Switzerland and vow to buy only Swiss cheese from here on out.
Re:As a voter from the US (Score:5, Funny)
There are holes in your plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt it, but it's worth noting that the quality of the decisions made by the electorate isn't uniformly high -- there was that embarrassing business with the minarets [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:3)
Their bankers will abide by that... (Score:2)
Either way - the Swiss Govt has the right idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Treat people like grown-ups and that's how they'll respond.
Here in NZ we had a private referendum to get the government to repeal a law. Vote was yes. Government ignored it, and the law is still in place. Any flights from Auckland to Zurich?
One law that everyone should implement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Next week's headline: Swiss mass exodous (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"this" has already passed. according to swiss constitution, a text that was validated in such a referendum MUST be written into law. guess the swiss will be able to get rid of those parasites...
No, some companies will restructure to move executive operations out of Switzerland; even if the executives physically remain in Switzerland. Large companies, by their very nature, have a global reach and will move operations to the most favorable climates. It may cause some hand wringing in Switzerland if Swiss companies, at least on paper, cease to be "Swiss;" then again given the interlocking nature of the senior levels of Switzerland's government, companies and Army officer corps no doubt some understan
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Leaving Switzerland because of this law is like running away from your parents because they only bought you a V6 Mustang instead of a V8.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Though I agree with you, the GP's hypothetical was between two fucked old rotten dogs. No good choices. Which one can I sell for more?
Re:Next week's headline: Swiss mass exodous (Score:5, Funny)
Then there's the part in Atlas Shrugged where all the creators leave the moochers behind and go off to Gault Gulch and live off their perpetual motion machines.
Re: (Score:3)
France isn't far from here. I don't see it falling apart. And Switzerland won't suffer, either.
The "everyone will leave, omg! Sky falling!" Is pure propaganda, nothing else. Doesn't happen. At most, some of the parasites will leave because they're not welcome anymore. If you have something useful to offer to the world, money is not your only motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
Moron.
You also come to mind. McDonald's is overpaying you. Hint: Gates left MS many years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, hey, cut the guy some slack!
OP probably wanted to call out Balmer, and would have, if not for the fact he's still nursing a head wound from the last round of flying chairs.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just being an unsuccessful karma troll.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, how many people need to work to pay a $alpha_male_manipulator | $psychopath
Re: (Score:2)
Gates also FOUNDED the company. There's a world of difference between him and someone brought in after it's already built.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else is not worth the money being paid.. M$ BG comes to mind...
PS.:
Something's definitely off in the perception of many, on either side of the spectrum...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that 46-bit version is unstable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not making yourselves beholden to the capitalists is neither anti-freedom nor socialist.
Allowing CEOs and other board members to give themselves huge salaries and payouts is.
It's only America who irrationally believes "profit at any cost" is a good diea.
Fuck you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. No it wouldn't have.
CEOs are scarce because you need to have experience being a CEO in order to get hired as a CEO. This means working your way up through another department usually, or VP/COO jobs or some such at the very least. Usually this means the person is really good at ass kissing, and probably good at picking someone else to do his work for him. Alternately you're just related to someone that is or used to be really important. Hell that one can take you all the way to the oval office.
Unfortunat
Re:Anti-capitalist is anti-freedom (Score:5, Informative)
There is already no shortage of foreign CEOs in Swiss companies. The proportion of foreigners working in the country in high-paid jobs is really high.
As for perceived disasters, I don't know where they got that idea as the Swiss economy is thriving compared to the rest of the western world right now. The last catastrophe was the bankruptcy of Swissair and that was back in 2002. Plus the company was immediately reborn as a new airline (Swiss) with very little disruption of operations. Banks have had a hard time but I don't think that this is registered in the mind of people as being a problem coming from board members. If anything ticked the balance towards a yes to this initiative, that was Daniel Vasela, ex-CEO of Novartis, receiving a 72M CHF (about 76M USD) severance package as he left the company a mere two weeks before the vote (he later declined it).
Re:Anti-capitalist is anti-freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
If the swiss economy is doing well, it's probably BECAUSE of decent regulations like this. We have a financial corruption and theft problem. A lot of things would be better if we hadn't deregulated in the US.
Re:Anti-capitalist is anti-freedom (Score:5, Informative)
What a bunch of bullshit. Perhaps if you knew anything about the wealth distribution in america you'd know otherwise.
The top bar is the ACTUAL distribution of wealth in america. Notice the next 40 getting a tiny bit and the bottom 40% getting next to nothing, so small is what they are paid they don't even register. This is real time slavery via the wage system.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif [ucsc.edu]
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html [ucsc.edu]
Re:Anti-capitalist is anti-freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So it could fly, it just need to
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
So lots of people are going to look at this page, including the ads displayed on it? Yeah, those Slashdot editors... idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Pageviews you dolt. Besides, it keeps them off the other topics.
The occasional political troll article improves the S/N ratio elsewhere, same function as facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you're here.