Yahoo CEO bonus!

[normiss 801]

Think she cares if her employees are pissed they can't telecommute?

BONUS!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Yahoo share prices have risen 46% since Mayer was named to the post in July.

[ManagingPrime 0]

She's done a good job. Should there be some cap on ceo pay as it relates to the pay of an entry level employee in the same company? That's a different debate.

[LeviStubbs 0]

Quote

Yahoo posted better-than-expected earnings in her first two quarters at the helm, and has announced turnaround plans that have the company's revenue growing again.

So what's your objection?

[normiss 801]

That sock puppets like you aren't hell banned.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Hey, at least he's not using deceased skydivers names .......it'd be pretty low to sink to even that level.....oh...wait

Performance Designs Factory Team

[muff528 3]

Quote

Think she cares if her employees are pissed they can't telecommute?

BONUS!

Is there a folksinger in the house!?!

[Shahzam 0]

Quote

That sock puppets like you aren't hell banned.

A "sock puppet" is just someone who is anonymous, and MANY people here have anonymous ID's and profiles. So what's wrong with that?

He certainly hasn't said anything that is in violation of the rules.

So what's the big deal?

Would you ban all anonymous users?

[Shahzam 0]

Quote

Hey, at least he's not using deceased skydivers names .......it'd be pretty low to sink to even that level.....oh...wait

Whose name did he use?

[tkhayes 348]

I wonder how many jobs were created by those wealthy CEOs......?

[kallend 2,027]

Looks like yet another sock puppet.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 801]

My bet is it's still the same one.

[labrys 0]

Quote

A "sock puppet" is just someone who is anonymous

Uh, no. A sock puppet is a sock puppet. Try Google

Owned by Remi #?

[normiss 801]

Not all, just the ones that haverepeatedly blown past the rules, multiple bannings, and multiple sock puppet accounts trying to circumvent the perma ban applied to said loser. Err....user.
Sorry.
No offense to losers.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Not all, just the ones that haverepeatedly blown past the rules, multiple bannings, and multiple sock puppet accounts trying to circumvent the perma ban applied to said loser. Err....user.
Sorry.
No offense to losers.

Yup. Kinda sad and a little scary.

Is his life so pathetic that he needs to be on here?
Is he so vindictive and immature that he needs to prove to everyone that they can't keep him out?

I know that he has a history of abusive and threatening PMs. The same questions come up about those.
I enjoy this place, but jeez people, it's an internet forum. Live life out in the real world.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wonder how many jobs were created by those wealthy CEOs......?

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many jobs were created by those wealthy CEOs......?

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

That's not an answer to the question. Jobs being created doesn't imply anything about the role of the CEO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many jobs were created by those wealthy CEOs......?

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

That's not an answer to the question. Jobs being created doesn't imply anything about the role of the CEO.

So ...uh .... never mind.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many jobs were created by those wealthy CEOs......?

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

That's not an answer to the question. Jobs being created doesn't imply anything about the role of the CEO.

Why do you care? Are you a stockholder?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

I have a couple of probably quite naive questions about this.

First, I thought the 46% growth was in stock value. How does stock revenue relate to revenue? If I buy stock in company X, and later sell it at a 46% increase to somebody else, it is my understanding that that 46% would come to me, not that it would go to company X. Now, company X may well hold some stock that they could use as collateral to raise capital, or maybe they could sell some of it. Nevertheless, I just cannot see how a 46% increase in stock value means 46% more money coming into Yahoo's accounts. What am I missing?

Second, I have read/heard from several news sources that a motivation for banning telecommuting is to reduce the Yahoo workforce by forcing those employees without the commitment or ability to physically come into the office to quit. Indeed, a constant mantra these days seems to be that companies are racking up huge profits but they are not hiring, which is why we have this crazy "recovery" in which the financial sector is doing great, business profits are way up, yet unemployment remains stuck at almost 8%. Why hire when you can threaten/bully your employees into working 60, 70, or 80 hour weeks for 40 hours of pay? People I know are required by their employer to clock out at 5, then go back to the office for another 4 or 5 hours "off the clock". And, they all know that even asking for vacation marks them as lacking in "company spirit", moving them to the top of the layoff list. So, why do you say growth in revenue means jobs are being created? As far as I can tell, the relationship between the two is tenuous at best, certainly not cause and effect.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

a 46% growth in revenue means, ye, jobs are being created.

I have a couple of probably quite naive questions about this.

First, I thought the 46% growth was in stock value. How does stock revenue relate to revenue? If I buy stock in company X, and later sell it at a 46% increase to somebody else, it is my understanding that that 46% would come to me, not that it would go to company X. Now, company X may well hold some stock that they could use as collateral to raise capital, or maybe they could sell some of it. Nevertheless, I just cannot see how a 46% increase in stock value means 46% more money coming into Yahoo's accounts. What am I missing?

Second, I have read/heard from several news sources that a motivation for banning telecommuting is to reduce the Yahoo workforce by forcing those employees without the commitment or ability to physically come into the office to quit. Indeed, a constant mantra these days seems to be that companies are racking up huge profits but they are not hiring, which is why we have this crazy "recovery" in which the financial sector is doing great, business profits are way up, yet unemployment remains stuck at almost 8%. Why hire when you can threaten/bully your employees into working 60, 70, or 80 hour weeks for 40 hours of pay? People I know are required by their employer to clock out at 5, then go back to the office for another 4 or 5 hours "off the clock". And, they all know that even asking for vacation marks them as lacking in "company spirit", moving them to the top of the layoff list. So, why do you say growth in revenue means jobs are being created? As far as I can tell, the relationship between the two is tenuous at best, certainly not cause and effect.

Don

i can answer the first part for you even though you are asking him to clarify. the share price has risen 46%. the second poster worded it wrong. so you are right to assume that your individual profit on a stock sale does not directly effect the underlying companies revenues or earnings. most likely he meant to say a 46% jump in share price.... not a 46% growth in revenues. if it was the later he is confused not you.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

First, I thought the 46% growth was in stock value. How does stock revenue relate to revenue? If I buy stock in company X, and later sell it at a 46% increase to somebody else, it is my understanding that that 46% would come to me, not that it would go to company X. Now, company X may well hold some stock that they could use as collateral to raise capital, or maybe they could sell some of it. Nevertheless, I just cannot see how a 46% increase in stock value means 46% more money coming into Yahoo's accounts. What am I missing?

Stock price (not "stock revenue") has no direct relation to revenue, though in the larger time picture, stocks tend to correlate to earnings (profit).

That said, a sustained spike of 46% is rather valuable to the company:
1- if it wants to do acquisitions using company stock, that's an obvious benefit.
2- current employees with options/RSUs/ESPP (stock purchase plans) benefit, and have higher retention.
3- Existing and perspective employees view this gain as a sign of company health, which increases retention and improves hiring (a key weakness for Yahoo).

As vaguely implied in my first paragraph, in the short term stock prices may have little relation to reality, to profits, to revenues, but rather the anticipation of the future (or even just a nice squeezing of the short bastards). If the CEO starts to stumble and no longer looks like a successful hail mary, then the price will revert to its prior flat line in the 15 range.

BTW, no one "clocks in" in Silicon Valley*. If you are doing 'second shift,' it typically is at home. Removing telecommuting doesn't mean you have to do all the work at the office. It just means you can't hide from the office. And their review of the VPN logs showed a pretty clear result about how much (or little) they were doing.

* nearly all IT people are classified as exempt employees, but there have been many successful class action lawsuits around this treatment for operations focused people, forcing them to be switched back to non exempt with overtime pay at past 40 hours. Most of these appeared to be at financial companies, or those were just the ones I was familiar with.