Well, in what was an excellent bit of journalism Fox News Sunday earned the award for best choice in guest for May 20th, 2012.
The question was "Isn't it the job of every CEO to making money for the investors in the business?" And their token Obama supporter succeeded in fumbling all over the question in a very stupid fashion, thus showing why Democrats know nothing about business theory.
Le Sigh. Look, this was an EASY one! The correct answer is, "Yes. That is the job of every CEO--HOWEVER, it is also the responsibility of the CEO to not treat their employees as though they don't have an investment in the company. Isn't it a responsibility of the employee to care about how the company does to ensure that they will have a job in the next ten or twenty years? And isn't it a failure by the CEO when they have to lay off a number of employees because the CEO wasn't able to look after all of the interested partners? The problem with the question you're asking, is that most employees are not monitary investors in the company. So while the CEO is catering to Wall Street, isn't it also possible that he's neglecting the employees who should hold an equal or greater amount of interest that the company continues to make a profit?
"Yes, Bain's job was to save companies that would otherwise go out of business, but at what expense to the employees? Those steel workers were working their asses off in that company and their employers paid them back with a pink slip from Bain. Why weren't the employees treated as investors? Just because they have no money involved? What does that say about our system when one person is allowed to make $10 million after putting in $5 million and the man who spent 20 years of his life actually creating the product is fired? Why couldn't Bain have taken a smaller profit (they're already multi-millionaires, right?) and invested the profits they would have taken to the bank back into the company to save more jobs?"
EDIT 11-22-12
After reading about what went down for Hostess this week, this seems to be an excellent example. And while it might have started an unwanted discussion at the dinner table earlier today, I stand behind what I said. While my family members seemed to think that Hostess is without fault for this bankruptcy, I've now read 3 articles saying that it could have been prevented with different managerial decisions (my stance on it without having paid very much attention this past week). Besides, while I don't care to dwell on the issue, it seems that Hostess wasn't a privately traded company, removing a healthy dose of "oversight committee" whose opinions some family members seemed to think pertinent. Maybe they should have brought in Bain?
The question was "Isn't it the job of every CEO to making money for the investors in the business?" And their token Obama supporter succeeded in fumbling all over the question in a very stupid fashion, thus showing why Democrats know nothing about business theory.
Le Sigh. Look, this was an EASY one! The correct answer is, "Yes. That is the job of every CEO--HOWEVER, it is also the responsibility of the CEO to not treat their employees as though they don't have an investment in the company. Isn't it a responsibility of the employee to care about how the company does to ensure that they will have a job in the next ten or twenty years? And isn't it a failure by the CEO when they have to lay off a number of employees because the CEO wasn't able to look after all of the interested partners? The problem with the question you're asking, is that most employees are not monitary investors in the company. So while the CEO is catering to Wall Street, isn't it also possible that he's neglecting the employees who should hold an equal or greater amount of interest that the company continues to make a profit?
"Yes, Bain's job was to save companies that would otherwise go out of business, but at what expense to the employees? Those steel workers were working their asses off in that company and their employers paid them back with a pink slip from Bain. Why weren't the employees treated as investors? Just because they have no money involved? What does that say about our system when one person is allowed to make $10 million after putting in $5 million and the man who spent 20 years of his life actually creating the product is fired? Why couldn't Bain have taken a smaller profit (they're already multi-millionaires, right?) and invested the profits they would have taken to the bank back into the company to save more jobs?"
EDIT 11-22-12
After reading about what went down for Hostess this week, this seems to be an excellent example. And while it might have started an unwanted discussion at the dinner table earlier today, I stand behind what I said. While my family members seemed to think that Hostess is without fault for this bankruptcy, I've now read 3 articles saying that it could have been prevented with different managerial decisions (my stance on it without having paid very much attention this past week). Besides, while I don't care to dwell on the issue, it seems that Hostess wasn't a privately traded company, removing a healthy dose of "oversight committee" whose opinions some family members seemed to think pertinent. Maybe they should have brought in Bain?
No comments:
Post a Comment