CEOs that outsource are getting filthy rich!

[Elwood P Dowd]

http://www.tradealert.us/news_item.asp?NID=1196968

"From 2001 to 2003, the top 50 outsourcing CEOs earned US$2.2-billion while sending an estimated 200,000 jobs overseas," said the report called Executive Excess 2004.

The companies examined in the study include the 15 that outsourced the most service jobs, including United Technologies, Citigroup, Oracle, Bank of America, Cognizant Technology Solutions, Morgan Stanley, Intuit, SBC Communications and American Express.

"Bank of America, for example, cut nearly 5,000 US jobs while outsourcing up to 1,100 jobs to India in 2003," it said, noting the banking giant plans another 12,500 cuts over the next two years.

"Meanwhile, CEO Kenneth Lewis received US$37.9-million in compensation in 2003, nearly 110% more than in 2002," it said.

(more)

First the bad news on the numbers in poverty and lacking health care, now this. :(

[Fovea]

1. But what if they didn't

What if we taxed the motha freepin hell out of these companies?
What if top executives had to pay a surtax based on every 15 percentage points their salary was in comparison to the worst paid employee of their firm, with serious progressiveness, and no deferred escape clauses.

Then we roll healthcare out of the compensation package into national healthcare, and we roll education to the baccalaurate level off the middle and working class, and then our economy would roar, with a new middle class creation at the expense of the obscenely rich.


Get us back into making consumer goods again, and into a multilateralist world view, and we could have something like a 21st century democracy, instead of a 19th Century one.

[AP]

2. There's a lot of wealth in the US. It isn't really growing. But it's...

...certainly shifting. It's shifting to the top and away from people who work for a living.

I'd love to see an ananalysis of whether these outsources have used their newly reduced labor costs to lower the prices they charge their customers. Do they use these savings to compete with their "competitiors"? Doubt it. It's just a lot of money shifting to the top.

[CanIgonow]

4. The question really is:if they would not invest the money from the tax cut

Bush has given them in this country, why give them a tax cut at all?

[smirkymonkey]

3. I can't tell you how angry this makes me!

What drives people to such EXCESSIVE GREED???

I mean, how much money do you fucking NEED? Especially when it comes at the expense of other people and visits hardship upon those you employ.

They all deserve to be in jail. It's disgusting.

[CanIgonow]

5. If you ever hear some of these CEO types talk about the people who work

for them you will be appalled.To them, they are the ones being gypped out of their legitimate profits by people they think are parasites.That is exactly the word one CEO used in my presence.They believe that they took the risks that made the business what it is today.The workers are there simply to rob the owners.

[tXr]

6. CEOs like this make me sick!!!

They may have taken the 'risks' and had the 'entrepreneurial vision' that made their company successful initially, but just who the hell do they think is responsible for keeping it that way day in and day out??? Obviously not their employees! These greedy bastards apparently need their 'parasites' in order to get the work done or they wouldn't have hired them in the first damn place! :puke: :grr: :nuke:

[smirkymonkey]

7. I used to work at a dot com in San Francisco

(before it blew up) with a boss who used to say "If you aren't directly bringing in money, you don't deserve to get paid".

The stupid, F**ing pig didn't realize that if it weren't for the rest of us, they wouldn't be bringing in a cent. He thought that just because they actually went out and "brought in" business, that would be enough.

There are so many stupid fucks running companies, it really makes you wonder.