Scandals lead execs to 'Atlas Shrugged'

USA Today ^ | 9/23/02 | Del Jones

[TomServo]

In these post-Enron days of corporate scandal, some of the millions of copies of Atlas Shrugged that have been sold over 45 years are being dusted off by executives under siege by prosecutors, regulators, Congress, employees, investors, a Republican president, even terrorists.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Sorry for the tripod pic.

Here is an even better one.

[scoopscandal]

Argh. I can't see the picture.

[Cable225]

This presumes that the employee can go anywhere with his skills and get a job. ----- It presumes nothing. If the employer is unhappy with performance, the employee is let go. It is not the employer's problem if the employee has another job to go to or not. If the employee is unhappy with the work conditions, he/she can quit. If the concern is not having another position lined up, then the current job is not bad enough to leave.

In my case, where I am highly skilled as an industrial electrician, I am limited in the number of places where I am needed. True, I could try to find another job in another place. But, these days I am at the mercy of the employer. ------ Just as I'm sure that there were periods when you could pick and choose the jobs you wanted to take on. That's just the ebb and flow of market forces on your position. I'm in IT. Five years ago I could throw a dart at a phone book and find a job, today not so. Am I happy about it? Of course not, and as you would expect, with the employers holding the cards, salaries are lower and benefits are less. When it changes again, salaries and benefits will go up. It's called supply and demand

For instance; we just hired a new electrician where I work. He revealed to me what they are paying him. He is starting at a lower wage than when I started 14 yrs ago ------ Did he take the job? If so, then the salary offer presented to him must have been acceptable on some level. Does it affect you? Only in the way that you what the price tag is if you go looking for something else. I was laid off last year from a telecom company. After doing some contracting to makes ends meet, I was able to land a full-time position. The salary is 15K less than I made last year, but that's the price today. Should the owner of the company I work for now take less from his business so I can make what I made last year? That's a ludicrous argument.

At the same time I know the management of the company has been getting regular raises and bonuses. ------ So what? I go back to the zero-sum theory. Did management getting a bonus preclude you from getting paid? Did it preclude the new guy from getting hired? What exactly is the problem here?

I am for market driven salaries. ------ Not from the arguments you are presenting, you're not.

It's just that the market in my field keeps dwindling due to reduction of industry here in the U.S. ------ So you are in favor of market driven salaries until it affects you. I'm glad we cleared that up.

[brewcrew]

I happen to think she's a fine actress. Very good as 7 of 9 in playing a part struggling to become human again after spending most of her life devoid of emotion as a Borg drone.

Also, strikingly beautiful but in a subtle way, making her a great choice for Dagney (who sports business suits all the time).

[brewcrew]

Well, hmmmm - nothing subtle about that picture. I'll see if I can find one of her as Seven and post it.

[scoopscandal]

Checked out the link. It was a little too sex-pot-ish for me...you must belong to the male-species...(not that there's anything wrong with that)...does she play a good solid character?

I don't get out to the movies much...I'm very selective about what I see...just in case no one has noticed.

Hey! Who is that girl who played Trinity in the Matrix...she's closer to how I've seen Dagny in my head...but with longer hair.

Regards,

[Bush2000]

You cannot convince me that a CEO making millions, while wanting to pay his employees minimum wage, is moral.

People deserve to be compensated relative to their worth to the organization. Do you comprehend the difference in responsibility between a CEO and a guy making minimum wage? One holds the entire company's future in his hands; the other has a minimal impact on the organization as a whole. Compensating somebody for his work -- and worth -- is moral. Screwing over employees and shareholders, on the other hand, is another story altogether. That's what happened in the Enron and Worldcom cases. My personal view is that shareholders should establish a CEO's salary. After all, they nominate board members. Executive compensation should not be dictated solely by the corporate board -- in the backroom. Let the people who reap the benefits (and costs) of a CEO's actions specify his or her salary.

[scoopscandal]

Hahaha! okay...yeah. What you describe does not go with that picture. I'll wait for yours :-)

We may never get to see actually see Atlas Shrugged on the silver screen in our lifetime but it's fun to imagine!

Regards,

[corkoman]

A nugget of wisdom the Randian zealots will stumble past and never see in the blind rush to an unworkable utopia. I don't fear ideas, even fanciful ideas of utopia. I do fear true believers in fanciful ideas of utopia. From the left to the right, they are dangerous people.

Oh Yeah, Keving the rascally totalitarian fears anything that could increase personal liberty. No, Kevin likes that fact that SOME people need to be controlled by the govt. And he is dead-set to make sure those folks are controlled. But because he cannot determine just exactly who those folks are ALL must be controlled.

[brewcrew]

Here's one:

Here's another:

[Chancellor Palpatine]

She put that white knit top on for breakfast (the top photo) when we went down to breakfast yesterday morning. Stunning as always even though we'd had quite the adventurous night.

The people in the restaurant couldn't stop looking.

[scoopscandal]

Much better, brew! Very pretty...you've lent credibility to choosing her for a the Dagny character.

I always pictured Dagny as no-nonsense, purposely masculine in her appearance and mannerisms (without being butch) so that she would be taken seriously in the man's world she operated in, but sexy at the same time and this woman has that look.

Good choice!

Regards,

[scoopscandal]

Are you daydreaming out loud?...lol

Regards,

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Just sharing a snippet of real life.

;~)

[jjm2111]

"I never asked a salaried employee to put in more than myself but I also put in over 70 hours a week for over 40 years."

There's a big difference between a boss/owner that appreciates and rewards commitment, industry, and initiative, and one who is a user.

Plus I hope you pay them well for their 70 hour workweeks.

[scoopscandal]

Oh my goodness!...ACK!...hey look!...your pants are on fire!

;-)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Everybody is just jealous of the love life of the cool guy.

;~)

[MJemison]

Yes! Trinity from Matrix would be good also, although seems somewhat lacking when softness is called for. But Judd and Kilmer were very good in Heat. Judd doesn't seem to have any of that sexpot goofy girl thing going on, while still appearing smart and sexy without compromising either attribute.

Billy Zane played Rose's husband on Titanic. Incredibly striking looks, totally masculine.

[WileyC]

Are there so many resources in this country that we could all be rich? Clearly not.

Get outside of the liberal box, dude. You have couched your question in the typical leftist mindset and therefore you have reached the wrong conclusion.

No, there aren't enough resources for everyone to become rich. This country wasn't build on resources, it was built on wealth. Wealth can be created out of hard work and brainpower where the physical product (if any) is a minor component.

[gnarledmaw]

#11, One of the most sensible things Ive ever seen posted on this board.