Petty? he called JBS out and what FF does here is obviously work. So, why is it not petty when FF says JBS is wrong, but when I prove FF is actually wrong it is petty?
Funny how you couldn't comment on the post about CEO pay either.
LOL Wow, sorry JBS, I thought you were capable of speaking for yourself, but apparently not. So, what appeared to be primarily a copy/paste insult you took to extremes? Not sure of details, but it seems that OWS was not supposed to work that day, but JBS said FF was “working” by posting. As you repeatedly pointed out, that is work. Now, I have never heard of a “don’t do any work including your own dishes or driving or anything else day” but have often heard of “don’t go to work day” meaning place of employment.
So, you going to extremes is indeed just petty. Any “no work” day clearly always means “employment work” and it is understood... apparently for anyone except you. Walking to the kitchen for coffee is work, drinking the coffee is work, digesting the coffee is work, my heart pumping so that I can do any of that is work. Do you really think that someone saying “no work” could possibly mean... in any frikking tiny way, to not do any work by the literal scientific definition of WORK?
As far as CEO pay. I read it, I thought about making a comment and didn’t bother. There are two components of CEO pay. Yes, shareholders should have a say, and technically they do. They have the non-binding vote that does not have to be paid attention to. Just like CITI. The raise was voted no, CITI is being sued by the shareholders so apparently they said f-- you to the shareholders vote. So, your lofty idea mans nothing, even if the technical point should be correct. The second is that CEO pay is not isolated but a part of society. I think it is immensely fair for society - non shareholder society - to have an input about what affects everyone.
Your conception that a new hire low level person is comparable to a supposed genius CEO is silly. Look at with baseball to make it clearer. You compare a superstar player who gets millions to the ordinary talent to a high school kid just drafted as if they are the same. The second part is that apparently there is only superstar CEO’s and no just everyday talents. In baseball you have those superstars, and a lot of players that are just good, but not superstars. They are paid less. Funny how CEO’s seem to not have the average player pay scale, just superstar. The secondary component of society does indeed have a place. It is appropriate to question at what level should baseball players overall be compensated.
Anyway, your whole thing was based that shareholders can control CEO pay and they can’t as has been shown with the non binding votes of many places so far. Didn’t I read that the shareholders voted no confidence in Murdock as head of News Corp and he is still there? Maybe not.
Anyway, even that is only there because of the Dodd-Frank bill. And as weak as a non-binding vote is, at least it guarantees that they have to do a shareholder vote. Odd that it took until 2010 for that much.
So, as far as your "funny how you couldn't comment" was because it was stupid. In a perfect work, yes, shareholders would be the ones to okay CEO pay packages and it would work correctly, but it isn't a perfect world and things don't work as they should. I have no wish to do one of your petty argument s that what I and everyone else sees as the way it is, ad what you want to argue by minutia is technically what something possibly sorta should be is pointless.
"no work" is "no job related work" and not the work of chemical change or energy consumption of anything and everything. CEO pay determined by shareholders is a nice concept, and probably the correct controlling factor, but that ain't the real world.