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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (173347)	3/6/2003 5:42:28 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, Re: RE:"if the top 20 execs at Intel worked for free, how much more money would you get?" No problem, if the government just gave me $10 million how would you be hurt? So what are you trying to say, exactly? I thought your argument was that Intel execs were stealing from the shareholders. I'm asking you to calculate how much money could be distributed to the shareholders if the top 20 Intel execs worked for free. Or rather, how much would be returned to the shareholders if they worked for a typical engineer's compensation - say, $125,000.00? If you have a legitimate answer, please say so and don't evade the question. Otherwise, I think you realize that the answer is that the compensation for execs is relative. If you have a bone to pick, look at the recording industry, the world of professional sports, movie actors, etc. If you think that execs should be paid less because the market cap on a stock goes down, then how much less should they be paid? Are they doing any less of a good job, or is the state of the company due to current environmental reasons - the war, lower corporate spending, etc? Since you "know it all", how about telling me how much an executive at Intel really should deserve. If the board agrees to pay them less, will they stay? Probably not. There is a world of opportunities out there for someone who has lead the world's largest semiconductor company. The problem that you try to focus on Intel is more a result of the macro-economics of the entire industry. To people in most countries, engineers in the United States are vastly overpaid. Why else would so many companies want to move their operations to China, for example? Maybe your idea should be extended to cut the pay of everyone in this country. How else can you justify your logic and not apply it to everyone? Remember, it's all relative. Executives get paid what they get paid as an incentive to keep them doing what they do best. Stock options are the best incentive for growing a company over time. If the execs do a great job, they get to buy their shares 10 years later at a fraction of its price. If not, then their options expire worthless. It's how you retain talent, and it's completely fair. I'll accept that you might believe in compromising the situation, but for clarity, you should define where the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, your complaints seem like nothing more than the bitter whinings of someone who has made poor investment decisions and who is now looking for someone to blame besides themselves. Intel is not your scape goat, Jimmy; if this is not the case, then let's drop the one-liners and move on.