Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?

On 2/5/2012 12:24 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:43:49 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 4:21 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
PeterN writes:

Not at all an accurate statement. You may check discussion boards on
management compensation.

Management compensation is based directly on management's ability to generate
profits for the next quarter, even if it means destroying the company over the
longer term.

So, that is not a shareholder decision.

No, it's not a shareholder decision, but it is a shareholder-driven
decision. The company wants the share price to remain up or to
increase. That doesn't mean that all decisions are based on
short-term profitability, though.

If you mean that although management is appointed by the board, and the
board is responsible to the shareholders, management has a derivative
responsibility to the shareholders, I agree. If you mean something else,
please explain.

--
Peter

On 2/5/2012 2:36 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
Eric wrote:
On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
wrote:
There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01...rices#comments

Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
forces driving down costs"?

Whatever it is, its not capitalism.

Of course it is.

How about a variation of 'bad
money drives out good'?

That's capitalism. Free market.

Nobody said that capitalism, by itself, is smart. Unregulated
and unmoderated capitalism can be extremely destructive.


Not to the winner!

--
Peter

On 2/5/2012 2:40 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
Robert wrote:
On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: wrote:
:There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
:Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
:jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
:the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
:
:http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01...rices#comments
:
: Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
: forces driving down costs"?

Careful, Rich will call you a communist for saying that. ;^)

Yes, well, it does seem that his understanding of capitalism and
socialism are reversed.


When using mirror writing, it is easy to confuse left and right. (sorry
about that, couldn't resist.)

--
Peter

On 05 Feb 2012 19:36:59 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01...rices#comments

Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
forces driving down costs"?

Whatever it is, its not capitalism.

Of course it is.

How about a variation of 'bad
money drives out good'?

That's capitalism. Free market.

Nobody said that capitalism, by itself, is smart. Unregulated
and unmoderated capitalism can be extremely destructive.

You are changing the subject. You originally wrote:

'Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and
"market forces driving down costs"?'

I responded "Whatever it is, its not capitalism".

You can read more above if you have forgotten what you actually
replied.

You seem to believe that competition driving down prices is
capitalism. You label a free market as capitalism. You have a strange
definition of capitalism.

You seem to want to tie prices somehow so that they can't be undercut
by cheaper providers. I bet you don't believe in that when you go
shopping.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/5/2012 3:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:21:43 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 12:24 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:43:49 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/5/2012 4:21 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
PeterN writes:

Not at all an accurate statement. You may check discussion boards on
management compensation.

Management compensation is based directly on management's ability to generate
profits for the next quarter, even if it means destroying the company over the
longer term.

So, that is not a shareholder decision.

No, it's not a shareholder decision, but it is a shareholder-driven
decision. The company wants the share price to remain up or to
increase. That doesn't mean that all decisions are based on
short-term profitability, though.

If you mean that although management is appointed by the board, and the
board is responsible to the shareholders, management has a derivative
responsibility to the shareholders, I agree. If you mean something else,
please explain.

It is shareholder-driven in that the shareholders want and expect the
share prices to increase in value or, at least, remain stable. Share
prices are linked to earnings reports. As long as the shareholders
are happy, the board is happy, and management continues to receive top
compensation, bonuses, raises, and stock options. When shareholders
become unhappy, and evidence their unhappiness by selling off, the
executive compensation program becomes a severance check.

The connection is not some direct set of instructions from a cabal of
anonymous shareholders as mxsmaniac seems to think, but it would be
foolish not to acknowledge that "What will it do to the stock's
value?" is not part of corporate decision making.



OK I'll buy your meaning.

--
Peter

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 05 Feb 2012 19:36:59 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01...rices#comments

Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
forces driving down costs"?

Whatever it is, its not capitalism.

Of course it is.

How about a variation of 'bad
money drives out good'?

That's capitalism. Free market.

Nobody said that capitalism, by itself, is smart. Unregulated
and unmoderated capitalism can be extremely destructive.

You are changing the subject.

You're dodging.

You originally wrote:

'Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and
"market forces driving down costs"?'

I responded "Whatever it is, its not capitalism".

Which is a false claim.

You seem to believe that competition driving down prices is

You seem to believe that whining and insulting makes for a rational
rebuttal.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

Really? If I make myself a millionare why would I care about driving
jobs overseas? If the local economy tanks I still have the resources
to move to somewhere pleasant.

A million dollars doesn't last for very long. What then?

Make it ten million. A typical CEOs annual income.

Use your imagination.

Think. Don't quibble over irrelevancies.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 06 Feb 2012 02:21:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 05 Feb 2012 19:36:59 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 04 Feb 2012 20:16:50 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01...rices#comments

Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and "market
forces driving down costs"?

Whatever it is, its not capitalism.

Of course it is.

How about a variation of 'bad
money drives out good'?

That's capitalism. Free market.

Nobody said that capitalism, by itself, is smart. Unregulated
and unmoderated capitalism can be extremely destructive.

You are changing the subject.

You're dodging.

You originally wrote:

'Isn't "eroded by hacks" another term for "capitalism" and
"market forces driving down costs"?'

I responded "Whatever it is, its not capitalism".

Which is a false claim.

You seem to believe that competition driving down prices is

You seem to believe that whining and insulting makes for a rational
rebuttal.

Oh, in that case you win.


You missed quoting the next bit. I'm sure it was an accident,
otherwise you would have told us that you had snipped it. I've put it
back for you.

You seem to believe that competition driving down prices is
capitalism. You label a free market as capitalism. You have a strange
definition of capitalism.

You seem to want to tie prices somehow so that they can't be undercut
by cheaper providers. I bet you don't believe in that when you go
shopping.

How _do_ you decide between supermarkets whan they quote different
prices to you?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
Northwestern University's graduate school of business failed to
properly educate me, I guess. I wasn't taught that corporations were
required to compensate management personnel on a quarter-by-quarter
profitability scale. I left under the impression that all
corporations are free to determine management compensation according
to their own goals, and that those goals could be long-term.

Right, CAN be, but rarely are! Since the people making the salary/bonus
decisions are the ones who benefit from short term market gains and huge
golden parachutes when it goes wrong, that is the system which will
dominate. Same in politics.

Trevor.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
It is shareholder-driven in that the shareholders want and expect the
share prices to increase in value or, at least, remain stable.

Right, but don't always get what they want.


Share
prices are linked to earnings reports. As long as the shareholders
are happy, the board is happy, and management continues to receive top
compensation, bonuses, raises, and stock options. When shareholders
become unhappy, and evidence their unhappiness by selling off, the
executive compensation program becomes a severance check.

Right, and bloody **BIG** one in most cases relative to lower level workers
severence pay when the company goes under.


The connection is not some direct set of instructions from a cabal of
anonymous shareholders as mxsmaniac seems to think, but it would be
foolish not to acknowledge that "What will it do to the stock's
value?" is not part of corporate decision making.

Of course it is, usually the primary part these days, but the question is
for how long? The company should survive past the latest CEO and board
members. Some don't.

Trevor.