By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Activision Blizzard CEO Nets HUGE Bonus After Mass Layoffs

Ka-pi96 said:
Rab said:

This sounds all very defeatist, just accepting this unfair situation as being normal

Unions and employment laws exist for a reason, back at the beginning of the industrial revolution workers including many children were paid and could leave (not slaves) but were terribly exploited by the owners and managers, we live in a better working world today because people had so called "pity parties" to bring up and fight against these issues that for many was just normal business at the time, but some outstanding/brave people said 'that is not good enough', now we have a new normal, and even though better, it's still not good enough, we are an evolving society   

I also stand up for what I believe in  

What exactly do you want though?

The CEO to not have gotten a bonus? You can argue about the morals of it, that's fine. But if you're saying it shouldn't even be legal then you're saying the government should tell people what they can and can't do with their own money. That's even more unfair IMO. If the company wants to give him that money then they should have every right to do so.

The people shouldn't have been fired? So you think companies should be forced to employ and pay people that they don't want or need? That too is much more unfair as far as I'm concerned. If I had a house with a garden and employed a gardener to tend to it but then moved to a new house with no garden why should I continue to pay the gardener? That would be ridiculous.

That's also an apt comparison since Activision Blizzard are saying the layoffs are due to a transition to more digital distribution and events rather than physical stuff and live events. If they're not doing those things anymore then why should they still pay people to stand around and do nothing?

Besides, a lot of the layoffs are in Europe, and like you said there are employment laws for a reason so they'll probably be getting a big final paycheque that will help tide them over while they find a new job, plus Europe has plenty of welfare systems in place too so even if they struggle to find a new job for awhile it still may not be an issue.

Would society be better off with a CEO making a 200M$ bonus, or, a CEO making a 10M$ bonus and the 190M$ being paid as bonus to it's employees? (real economics question)

All of you who argue this dumbfounded logic that he got paid what the ''market equilibrium'' was offering for his position. The ultimate goal in economics is to maximize market efficiency, and thus, maximize society's utility surplus.

Real question, looking forward to your answer!

Last edited by benji232 - on 22 March 2021

Predictions for LT console sales:

PS4: 120M

XB1: 70M

WiiU: 14M

3DS: 60M

Vita: 13M

Around the Network
benji232 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

What exactly do you want though?

The CEO to not have gotten a bonus? You can argue about the morals of it, that's fine. But if you're saying it shouldn't even be legal then you're saying the government should tell people what they can and can't do with their own money. That's even more unfair IMO. If the company wants to give him that money then they should have every right to do so.

The people shouldn't have been fired? So you think companies should be forced to employ and pay people that they don't want or need? That too is much more unfair as far as I'm concerned. If I had a house with a garden and employed a gardener to tend to it but then moved to a new house with no garden why should I continue to pay the gardener? That would be ridiculous.

That's also an apt comparison since Activision Blizzard are saying the layoffs are due to a transition to more digital distribution and events rather than physical stuff and live events. If they're not doing those things anymore then why should they still pay people to stand around and do nothing?

Besides, a lot of the layoffs are in Europe, and like you said there are employment laws for a reason so they'll probably be getting a big final paycheque that will help tide them over while they find a new job, plus Europe has plenty of welfare systems in place too so even if they struggle to find a new job for awhile it still may not be an issue.

Would society be better off with a CEO making a 200M$ bonus, or, a CEO making a 10M$ bonus and the 190M$ being paid as bonus to it's employees? (real economics question)

All of you who argue this dumbfounded logic that he got paid what the ''market equilibrium'' was offering for his position. The ultimate goal in economics is to maximize market efficiency, and thus, maximize society's utility surplus.

Real question, looking forward to your answer!

EDIT: See previous post, accidentally posted twice.



Predictions for LT console sales:

PS4: 120M

XB1: 70M

WiiU: 14M

3DS: 60M

Vita: 13M

Rab said:

Hope you realise you just spewed out some serious BS, CEO's in the past didn't earn hundreds of times the average workers wage, now they do, real wages for workers has remained almost stagnant in years, the disparity is getting larger, "free" to also get those same jobs and earn that money, really that's a joke, almost no one is "free" to be in that position of privilege :/

It's an issue

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/nationwide-protests-planned-as-backlash-over-exorbitant-ceo-salaries-grows/news-story/8002afd30c2ea8b6eb4e4e3b5ee9d71b 

 

Nah.

Peh said:

LMAO, people deliberately misunderstand your point.

I think you made it clear in the context of what is being discussed here. But some just want to move the discussion somewhere else and ignore your point completely.

Yes, some companies see it as something normal. It's a disgusting gesture to the people who have been fired.

For some companies it is normal because some work is seasonal.

benji232 said:
Pemalite said:

It's not defeatist.
It's called turning it into an opportunity to use that work experience to open up new opportunities, it's turning it into a positive, not a negative.

You are being a dippy downer about it all, gotta' stop the pity party train and catch the next bus at some point in life, we all eventually do it.

benji232 said:

IT'S a plainly obvious problem if a CEO is allowed to make 200M$ from a bonus payment while his employees are all making peanuts. If you can't see the problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you. Obviously, I'm not saying everyone should be paid equally, but there is a fine line between being paid equally and being paid literal crumbs compared to the ceo. 

Point blank is NO one deserves 200M$ from a bonus. The fact that so many ceos DO get those grossly huge overpayments is proof that the current system is broken.

That's capitalism.
It is what the market (Job market is a market) is willing to pay for that particular skillset and experience.

If you wish to make $200 million from a bonus, you are free to work yourself up the ladder and offer a compelling equivalent resume in terms of qualifications and experience that would offer such an opportunity.
If you don't wish to do so, then don't hold others back due to your own lack of motivation or desire or force your ethics onto others.

Otherwise, why would anyone bother to strive to succeed in certain fields if we are all paid the same? It's an incentive. Money makes the world go round.

Thanks for the Macro class 101, anything else you want to teach me? You taught an economics PHD student a whole lot!

Have you ever heard of a certain concept called externalities that can cause distortions in the market equilibrium leading to inefficient market equilibrium wages? 

Do you want me to link you to a few research papers so that you can perhaps educate yourself a bit more before making a fool out of yourself?

The system is broken, and me pointing it out doesn't mean I'm some lazy ass who refuses to work. The only lazy person here is you for thinking 101 economics fundamentals was enough for justifying your dumbfounded argument.

Edit: Here is a research paper talking a bit about the diminishing marginal utility of wealth: (PDF) The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making (researchgate.net)

Something I have learned in fire and rescue is that... Just because you have a "Piece of paper" that says you are "Competent" at something, does not equate to you being "Proficient" at something.

However your qualifications or intellectual fortitude was never placed into question, so do not question mine... And as you have no idea what qualifications I have, they may exceed your own anyway. - Nor did I delve into ad hominem in order to undermine your position, but there you go.
Plus I never asserted that you were lazy or refused to work, I merely stated we should not hold others back to strive towards earning big money.

The EU is a very different job market to the one I am currently engaged in, so I cannot speak on the behalf of the EU and what is happening on the other side of the planet.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Rab said:

Hope you realise you just spewed out some serious BS, CEO's in the past didn't earn hundreds of times the average workers wage, now they do, real wages for workers has remained almost stagnant in years, the disparity is getting larger, "free" to also get those same jobs and earn that money, really that's a joke, almost no one is "free" to be in that position of privilege :/

It's an issue

https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/nationwide-protests-planned-as-backlash-over-exorbitant-ceo-salaries-grows/news-story/8002afd30c2ea8b6eb4e4e3b5ee9d71b 

 

Nah.

Peh said:

LMAO, people deliberately misunderstand your point.

I think you made it clear in the context of what is being discussed here. But some just want to move the discussion somewhere else and ignore your point completely.

Yes, some companies see it as something normal. It's a disgusting gesture to the people who have been fired.

For some companies it is normal because some work is seasonal.

benji232 said:

Thanks for the Macro class 101, anything else you want to teach me? You taught an economics PHD student a whole lot!

Have you ever heard of a certain concept called externalities that can cause distortions in the market equilibrium leading to inefficient market equilibrium wages? 

Do you want me to link you to a few research papers so that you can perhaps educate yourself a bit more before making a fool out of yourself?

The system is broken, and me pointing it out doesn't mean I'm some lazy ass who refuses to work. The only lazy person here is you for thinking 101 economics fundamentals was enough for justifying your dumbfounded argument.

Edit: Here is a research paper talking a bit about the diminishing marginal utility of wealth: (PDF) The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making (researchgate.net)

Something I have learned in fire and rescue is that... Just because you have a "Piece of paper" that says you are "Competent" at something, does not equate to you being "Proficient" at something.

However your qualifications or intellectual fortitude was never placed into question, so do not question mine... And as you have no idea what qualifications I have, they may exceed your own anyway. - Nor did I delve into ad hominem in order to undermine your position, but there you go.
Plus I never asserted that you were lazy or refused to work, I merely stated we should not hold others back to strive towards earning big money.

The EU is a very different job market to the one I am currently engaged in, so I cannot speak on the behalf of the EU and what is happening on the other side of the planet.

There's a difference between me saying ''I have a degree meaning I know more than you'' and the fact that this is literally the field that I am actively doing research in. You said that he's receiving 200M$ because ''that's what the market values him at'' and I'm telling you that it's really not that simple. Some markets are incapable of being efficient on their own and, therefor, require intervention by a third party entity (namely, often, the government) in order to restore the efficiency of said market. That is why we have minimum wages, that is why you are taxed in order to pay for street maintenance, public lighting, parks, etc. That's because markets, by themselves, would not be capable of offering those ''products'' in an efficient manner that would benefit our society. 

And then comes the jobbing market, where, once again, there are many externalities and variables that will affect a market's ability to insure that the equilibrium wage is an efficient one. I can absolutely tell you that paying your CEO 200M$ is not efficient, nor for Activision, nor for it's employees, nor for society. However, that is what they chose to pay him, but that does NOT make it efficient (and I'm not even arguing from a moral point of view here which is a whole other story). 

I do not live in EU as well but, yes, there are market distortions in the US too. The concept of diminishing marginal utility on wage is also not an exclusive EU thing, it's a universal thing that applies everywhere for any individual. For example, if I gave you 1 million bucks, your life would probably improve by a good amount. Now, if I gave you 9 million more after that, your life would probably still improve but, each additional million dollars would improve your life less than the previous million. 

Now, for this case, say split the 190M$ of the CEO's bonus among the workers and gave the CEO 10M$ instead, would society be better off? Or would society be better off with the CEO receiving the full 200M$?

Now, you argue that he ''deserved'' the 200M$ according to the market, but did he truly deserve it if he was paid in an inefficient manner for said job market? 

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing against rich people or capitalism. I'm arguing to maximize the efficiency of our society which can be done while having rich people... 

Tweaks to our current economy can be made while still preserving capitalism and also reducing severe market inequalities.

Edit: And I would like to say that I did reread my original statement and I did come off as rude to you, so I do apologize as I didn't intend to be insulting. 



Predictions for LT console sales:

PS4: 120M

XB1: 70M

WiiU: 14M

3DS: 60M

Vita: 13M

Bobby Kotick is a pos



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Peh said:

LMAO, people deliberately misunderstand your point.

I think you made it clear in the context of what is being discussed here. But some just want to move the discussion somewhere else and ignore your point completely.

Yes, some companies see it as something normal. It's a disgusting gesture to the people who have been fired.

For some companies it is normal because some work is seasonal.

What has seasonal work to do with the context of this threads opener?



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

benji232 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

What exactly do you want though?

The CEO to not have gotten a bonus? You can argue about the morals of it, that's fine. But if you're saying it shouldn't even be legal then you're saying the government should tell people what they can and can't do with their own money. That's even more unfair IMO. If the company wants to give him that money then they should have every right to do so.

The people shouldn't have been fired? So you think companies should be forced to employ and pay people that they don't want or need? That too is much more unfair as far as I'm concerned. If I had a house with a garden and employed a gardener to tend to it but then moved to a new house with no garden why should I continue to pay the gardener? That would be ridiculous.

That's also an apt comparison since Activision Blizzard are saying the layoffs are due to a transition to more digital distribution and events rather than physical stuff and live events. If they're not doing those things anymore then why should they still pay people to stand around and do nothing?

Besides, a lot of the layoffs are in Europe, and like you said there are employment laws for a reason so they'll probably be getting a big final paycheque that will help tide them over while they find a new job, plus Europe has plenty of welfare systems in place too so even if they struggle to find a new job for awhile it still may not be an issue.

Would society be better off with a CEO making a 200M$ bonus, or, a CEO making a 10M$ bonus and the 190M$ being paid as bonus to it's employees? (real economics question)

All of you who argue this dumbfounded logic that he got paid what the ''market equilibrium'' was offering for his position. The ultimate goal in economics is to maximize market efficiency, and thus, maximize society's utility surplus.

Real question, looking forward to your answer!

There wouldn't be a difference. Society is going to be just as good/bad regardless of who gets what bonuses.

Although if you're position is that the government should be able to dictate what companies can and can't do with their own money then I'd say society would definitely be worse. I'd much rather live in a free country than somewhere like China.



benji232 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Myself and many others who aren't rich have made thousands placing safe bets on the stock market.

Have you ever heard causal versus correlation? Even though you won, it absolutely does not mean YOU'RE the reason you made money. I have a better explanation for your winnings, it's called: luck.

And I have no problem with gambling, heck, I enjoy gambling a bit myself... But come on lol...

If you're gambling based on "luck" then you probably shouldn't be gambling.

If you want to gamble then you should put in the time and effort required. I'd argue that with sufficient knowledge one could predict any event with 100% accuracy. Sure, nobody would ever be able to get that level of knowledge, but the more knowledge one does have the more accurate they're going to be. Personally I only stopped gambling because it wasn't worth the time I spent on research to continue doing and without that research... well there's nothing "fun" about losing money.



benji232 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Myself and many others who aren't rich have made thousands placing safe bets on the stock market.

Have you ever heard causal versus correlation? Even though you won, it absolutely does not mean YOU'RE the reason you made money. I have a better explanation for your winnings, it's called: luck.

And I have no problem with gambling, heck, I enjoy gambling a bit myself... But come on lol...

Stock goes down, buy, it goes up, sell. Low risk if you play that way.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

benji232 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

You haven't really said anything.

Now it may not feel right to you, but that doesn't mean the system is broken. I think we often see more problems when politicians push to make things fair. That's why people leave certain cities and states in masses.

I did say stuff, did you even bother to read? Maybe, you're just the one who just WANTS to see something and refuses to acknowledge the reality.

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.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)