Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (53107)	1/3/2001 2:45:07 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

--Rather than allocating the top talent to the most profitable companies, our economy has directed these people to the company most likely to hoodwink dumbass investors with a really cool-sounding IPO. --- here is my example... ok i'm actually a good technician.... recently while looking for work, i toyed with the idea of putting on my online resume, something like, "want to work for company with overhyped ipo upcoming... company must have lots of venture capital to burn... company must give me 'ground floor' options, so i can bail along with the execs" i was seriously considering putting this on my resume.... andy

To: Thomas M. who wrote (53107)	1/3/2001 9:27:51 AM
From: sandeep	Respond to of 436258

Thomas, if a smart guy goes from being a janitor to Brocade, it does benefit the overall economy. Economy is benefited by the best people doing the most challenging jobs. The performance of the whole economy is maximized by maximizing the performance of each individual. I contend that a company like Intel probably needs less hungry people that Brocade to survive and prosper. Since Intel can sit happy making incremental improvements to its prospects, those improvements don't benefit the economy as much as the improvements Brocade must make to its prospects in order to survive. The best will help Brocade more than they will help INTC. This is of course as it stands today. INTC was probably in Brocade's situation a few years ago and options might have helped it attract better talent than IBM leading to its better performance. It is a widespread belief (maybe not shared by you) that the advances in technology (biotech and computer) have led to the productivity gains in the economy. Sure, some dot coms have hoodwinked people. But if you look at INTC, CSCO and MSFT (3 of the most profitable companies on the planet which can honestly say that they had something to do with the productivity gains) I would argue that creative ways of compensation have produced a better today than 20 years ago. Another point in favor of stock options is that they allow a little company to take on a mighty empire. Netscape could attract better talent than MSFT for a few months because it was seen as a company which could lead to more rewards. Companies like MSFT which are maturing in their current businesses have found that it is harder to attract top talent because the stock options rewards are not as high as a dot com. Now following your logic, one could argue that it has led to problems for the economy. I disagree. I think that this talent has had a chance to work in a very competitive environment where survival depends on success. They have benefitted, whether through riches or not. The economy has better prepared contributors in some ways. It has fostered competition and not allowed a company which can print cash to control everything.