Again, you aren't really saying anything.

I see reality, I think about the solutions people come up with, then I think... people come up with terrible solutions.

The problem is that people want to see a connection where there is none.

Don't try to get emotional because on one hand employees get laid off and on the other the CEO gets a huge bonus. You lack the insight to say if that was a bad move or the right call. Therefore it's incredibly naive to say that Kotick should've taken a pay cut to keep the other branches open. There's no point in keeping them open when they're not useful for the company anymore.

YOU as a consumer wouldn't act differently. Even if you get a pay raise, you wouldn't spend it on stuff that you don't want, only that some store owner doesn't have to close his shop or lay off his cashier.

You are factually wrong.

And also, who said I wanted us to have a communist community? Oh, do you live in China because the government collects taxes to pay for road maintenance, park maintenance, public lighting, etc?

Please read and reflect on what I'm saying before putting words in my mouth please...

I mean, the only person truly saying nothing is the person refusing to acknowledge what I am saying. That is a typical ''counterargument'' from someone who really has no arguments. But thanks for giving me such an easy win...

Betting on 35 out of 36 numbers on roulette is a low risk play. I guess that isn't gambling too...

This is 100% false. Every events has a certain probability of occurring, better information will only allow you to have a more accurate picture on the actual probability of said event...

For example, we have perfect knowledge on a certain casino game called ''roulette''. We know exactly what probabilities for each bets are. That doesn't mean we can predict what the outcome will be, we can only know the odds and expected value of each types of bets are for this game.

And, even if you were correct which you're factually not, it is impossible to have all the information necessary for say a certain stock to know exactly where the stock will end up because there is always random events that could occur that you cannot ''see''. For example, how do you know if Activision will not suffer of a huge company wide hack that could incur huge losses on the company within the next year? 

You can't know it, and that's why it's called gambling. Of course, it's a ''very low risk'' gamble to invest in Activision but, just because it's low risk, doesn't make it any less of a gamble (see my response to the other poster to see why).

That's not really the point. The point is, it is incredibly inefficient for the economy (and for Activision) to pay it's ceo 200 million. If you care to read up my arguments, you can read my previous posts in this thread. It has nothing to do (for my arguments) with the morality of the situation even though I could also argue that as well if I wanted...

Love him or hate him, Jim Sterling is 100% spot on with this vid:

#FireBobbyKotick

I think there a huge misunderstanding of how CEO's are compensated. They almost never paid directly in cash when they get these huge bonuses but in shares of the company. This is the case here also and even saying he got 200 million worth of stock is actually quite questionable.

A article about how he was compensated
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78327/no-activision-ceo-bobby-kotick-didnt-get-200-million-bonus-payout/index.html

I not saying the system is not broken but CEO compensation is a side effect of what it wrong and not the actual issue. How CEO been paid have not changed in 50 years but what have is the importance of the stock market in how business run. Which on the plus have made people who have invested in the stock market a lot of money but for every day workers who not invested or cant afford to invest it have not worked out.

A chart to illustrate what am saying. CEO compensation have roughly track with the S&P since 1970. The problem is how much employees have been paid have not tracked and that is why CEO now is so much higher then every day employees but it all about a system that all about maximize stock and not about how CEO are paid.

Changing CEO compensation packages would not help a single employee. Changing how they achieve there compensation to not be base on Stock might but that not happening because no one owning companies and there stock want it to change. Stock holders complain and sue not to help employee but because it Dilutes there ownership of existing shares they own. The more Shares outstanding the less power each share have.

Fighting for employees rights, Minimum wage and government regulation to better prevent monopolies is far more useful then complaining about CEO pays.  CEO pay is a symptom of the system and it not going to help anyone making that the focus point.  It make good head lines and people can get all work up about it but in the end it not actually helping anyone or changing anything.

why aren't people, attacking the COO, He makes more money and shares than bobby and he is the one that gives the ok for his decisions, salary, bonuses etc