1487: Hate The Game

[Kultcher]

Originally Posted by sklXbns

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but Steve Jobs was only paid $1 per year as Apple's CEO. Sure, he made money from owning Apple stock as well as what money he made from Pixar. I don't know what the other Apple board members and executives make at Apple, but I do know some were just given stock in exchange for renewing/extending their contracts.

Also, revenues and profits aren't one in the same.

Seems like we're arguing semantics here. Steve Jobs made a fuckton of money from being the CEO of Apple. Does it really matter in what form that money was paid to him?

The only argument I was making in that post was that Steve Jobs isn't a "job creator" because he doesn't pay employee salaries out of his personal account.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Kultcher

The only argument I was making in that post was that Steve Jobs isn't a "job creator" because he doesn't pay employee salaries out of his personal account.

That's faggot.

[sklXbns]

Originally Posted by Kultcher

Seems like we're arguing semantics here. Steve Jobs made a fuckton of money from being the CEO of Apple. Does it really matter in what form that money was paid to him?

The only argument I was making in that post was that Steve Jobs isn't a "job creator" because he doesn't pay employee salaries out of his personal account.

You're right. It is arguing semantics for me to point out that Jobs was paid $1 per year as CEO rather than the millions of dollars per year as you claimed. And in no way is it arguing semantics for you to claim Jobs had nothing to do with employing anyone since that would clearly mean he paid them directly from his own personal account. (But honestly, you have to assume he had a lawn guy. He wasn't out there mowing his lawn himself. Can you imagine him out there cutting the grass in that black mock turtleneck? So, I guess he actually did employ someone. Well, unless he paid that person in Apple products. Let's just assume he didn't since I'm just speculating here.)

Without splitting hairs here, are you retarded? You can answer in generalities; no need to get hyper-specific.

[Kultcher]

I was responding to Amish J's point:

Originally Posted by Amish J

Aren't these the people that employ us though, wouldn't you want them to have the money to be able to pay you for that piece that you just wrote for their magazine for example.

Which seemed to be that unless Steve Jobs and other CEOs were worth millions or in some cases billions, no one would be able to employ anyone and we'd have substantially fewer jobs. As I understand it, what the CEOs get paid has relatively little to do with how many people a company employs. If Steve Jobs had made $500,000 a year in stock options instead of $1, I don't think anyone at Apple would be out of a job because of that, specifically.

[powderjester]

Joe's cynasism came off as angry and ignorant. What is the point in getting angry because others want change? If you're so jaded why would you give a fuck? Also a note, I wasn't sure what ows was all about so I looked it up on the Internet. If ya want one thing to hold onto look up the citizens united ruling.

[Norwegian_Fag]

I'm pretty much a politician, being the leader of a local branch of a youth party and sitting in the board of the local branch of the same party, and still I think Keith has a good point.
I wouln't say don't vote; I absolutely do think people should vote, get more active and I do believe the 'machine' can be changed. However, I think it's perfectly OK to cast a blank vote. That says that you care, but all the candidates are shit so you won't vote for them.

If there was a huge voter turn-out, but only 50% voted for an actual candidate, that would be a bigger story than people not caring. Because not voting seems like not caring, even though it might not be.
So I'd say vote, and vote blank if you have to.