Quote from: teacher1988 on April 26, 2017, 02:10:05 AM

Huh? I don't understand what you're upset about? That she received a lot of money while working at Yahoo despite not being able to save the company? Nothing was given that wasn't promised to her before her joining Yahoo so what's the problem?

Are you upset that she was allowed to work at Yahoo in the first place? A quick wiki search of her resume shows that she very well worked hard and is one of the top talents in the world of IT to get to that position.

Sure, Ms. Mayer seems to have grown up in an upper middle class family which helped her excel to Standford and catapult her into the top 1% but why do you have to compare yourself to the top 1% thinking that they're the happiest people on Earth? Hint, the ultra rich have problems too.............

I like what is written above because I'm a product of this. My parents immigrated to Canada because my father was an employee of Korean Air at that time (like early 1980s) and there were job openings in Toronto. When he got to Toronto, more than half of the job positions disappeared and he found himself having to decide whether to try to be one of the lucky ones to get a job or be an entrepreneur and make money another way. He went with being an entrepreneur and started from the bottom and worked really hard. When I think about the hardships my parents had to go through in the beginning, I always get emotional. And it wasn't easy at first, especially with a newborn, but he made something pretty decent for himself in Canada. Thanks to my parents' sacrifice and hard work, I was privileged to receive my education in Canada.

I always hear Korean people saying to me, "You're lucky, you were born in Canada. I wish I was born in Canada". And I see comments made by people in groups about how they can't start a business because they don't have rich parents or whatever. My father couldn't speak English in Canada and he made something for himself. And I believe it is because of the idea of capitalism. The idea that you can work really hard for something and make some money for yourself. Of course there are some things that can be negative about capitalism, but my father was able to create something for our family because of it.

And I now have the opportunity to use the privilege that I received due to my parents hard work to create even more privilege for my children (if I do decide to have some). But it can only happen with hard work. You can always create something better for yourself. And over time, who knows what that can turn into.

The following is from my original post: I’m a capitalist at heart and strongly believe that there needs to be incentives to get many people to work hard.  In addition, that people who do such things as lead/manage, take risks, innovative, create and just plain work harder than others should be rewarded more than others.  There is nothing wrong with a person making lots of money. 

But, I also believe in accountability and responsibility and that is why I posted the article about the Yahoo payout, because in my opinion a new CEO culture has evolved where many CEOs want massive wealth whether or not they perform.  And, to me that is not really capitalism. My understanding has always been that under a capitalist approach financial benefit should be linked to performance.  Under a “collective” approach, you receive the same financial benefit whether you perform or not.

Under CEO Marissa Mayer, Yahoo resisted calls for greater funding and efforts to bolster security, according to a former member of Yahoo's security team who left before the breach is said to have taken place.

"Security was pushed to the back end," the former employee says. The reaction from higher-ups was "we just had other priorities."

Top security execs at Yahoo also felt boxed out of the company's decision-making process under Mayer, according to the former employee….

What is known is that these travails were a long time coming. The Yahoo hacks were not acts of God, falling from the sky and striking an unlucky victim; they were the direct result of the corporation's continual neglect of information security as a vital priority for doing business.
       

Doesn’t Yahoo have a corporate responsibility to try and keep Yahoo’s customer’s personal information from being hacked and made publically available on the internet?  Doesn’t the Captain of a ship set the “tone/guidance/environment/priorities” for everyone working on the “ship”?  If the people at the top of Yahoo are not overly concerned about security will that attitude not drip down through the ranks?  Why did Yahoo wait so long to inform its customers that their personal information may have been stolen?  Please be advised that you may need a Yahoo hack scorecard to keep track of how many hacks there were and when they occurred.

In conclusion, what is wrong with linking a CEO’s performance with their financial gain?  Further, what do you think security at Yahoo would have been like if “top” management had clauses in their contracts linking their financial rewards with how well they protected their customer’s information?

Did Yahoo do enough to prevent the massive hack?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/23/technology/yahoo-hack-timeline/

Yahoo and the Year of Living Dangerously

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/84246.html

By Mike Baukes
Jan 20, 2024 12:22 PM PT

The tragedy of Yahoo's troubles is not merely that its systems were compromised; that is a risk even the most secure online servicers may face. Rather, it is Yahoo's lack of attention to cybersecurity, such that it was unable to detect and respond to the breach, making a very bad situation into a nightmarish one.

How Russian hackers breached your Yahoo Mail account

http://bgr.com/2017/03/16/yahoo-mail-hack-explained/
Chris Smith  @chris_writes
March 16th, 2017 at 6:50 AM

Yahoo was hacked in 2014 but the company only disclosed it two years later, when it confirmed that more than 500 million accounts were breached….
The database the hackers stole contained personal data including phone numbers, answers to security questions and recovery email addresses.
                         

Immigration keeps the employment rate positive, so there is no free market for jobs. The demand is always on the employee side.   Other markets like health care 20 percent of the economy is not a free market.
Businesses hate competition and when they beat the competition they are usually so large and complex that it's difficult to get a new one to compete with them.   Technology can make some obsolete, but usually like Walmart they will just adapt by going online.

One reason why capitalism gets a bad rap is because so many people are bad.   Ask yourself what you can pay someone to do with just a thousand dollars.   

Corporatism is a natural evolution of capitalism if/when the government allows it to run rampant. 

Still nope.

Extremely specific decisions were made from around 1950-1970 which morphed legal entities into something that is not capitalism. Corporate personhood, shareholder primacy, etc. There is no requirement for capitalism to do that, but it was done, and now it's broken capitalism. All the theories of capitalism were written BEFORE these entities were created, now all new theories need to be written, as stuff like "invisible hand" only applies to capitalism, not corporatism.

I seem to be the first person in 300,000,000 to figure this out.