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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10992)	2/6/2006 6:17:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

It's like saying the homeless have the choice of sleeping in this doorway, or that. No it's not. You said yourself that your two guys were compensated equally. We're not talking about the homeless here. I don't think you are even closing to seeing the picture I am painting. No, I'm not. Because the picture you're painting shows a couple of guys doing their thing, making choices, being treated fairly, and doing just fine. If you want a different picture to emerge, try a different palette. It showed how the record companies would pay small flat fees to singer/songwriters, and then gain all the profits if the song was a hit. I wouldn't be surprised. What does that have to do with what we're discussing? People make bad choices. People take advantage. People get cheated. People have good luck or bad luck. It happens. It will always happen. There are anomalies. What does that have to do with the inherent fairness of the system.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10992)	2/6/2006 6:44:33 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541933

On one level it lays out the Jamaca record industry in the time that Reggae was becoming popular. It showed how the record companies would pay small flat fees to singer/songwriters, and then gain all the profits if the song was a hit. Either the demand in Jamaica for the rights to the song was low, or the writers where ignorant of the demand. If there was a mandate that a certain percent of future income be paid rather than a flat fee than the percentage would probably also be very low. Don't confuse a buyers market and/or shifty and highly effective buyers with the form of the compensation. Also don't confuse the form with the amount. The problem wasn't the flat fee. If the flat fee was a million dollars than the music company might have lost out. In reality the flat fee might have been $100, but the amount and the form are not the same issue. And in the case of an employee of a publicly traded company, if the amount is the same than the form is meaningless, since the two forms can easily be traded for each other. More choice? It's like saying the homeless have the choice of sleeping in this doorway, or that. They still can't get a roof. If the issue is not the amount of the compensation but its form than the forms should be considered equal. You have a choice between this nice house in the country and a nice condo in the city, or maybe you have a choice between a tiny rickety shed in the country and a small ugly rat-invested apartment in the city. Tim