to-
the-head proposition: "Either cut the pay of your Chief Executive Officer by a
factor of four from $2,756,700 to $750,000, or pay the federal government an
extra $395 million in taxes."_

I wonder if raising trainee's pay as a solution to this "problem" was
deliberately omitted, or it did not even occur to T.J. Rodgers.

~~~
daniel-cussen
As long as we're not omitting solutions, Intel could lay off its lowest paid
trainees.

------
adaml_623
Mr Rodgers makes some very good points in his letter. Definitely where it
comes to board membership and the ethics of inisiting on 'balanced' board make
up.

However I'm not sure about the inherent logic in Paragraph N:

'The May 13, 1996 issue of Fortune magazine analyzed the ethical mutual funds"
which invest with a social-issues agenda, and currently control $639 billion
in investments. Those funds produced an 18.2% return in the last 12 months,
while the S&P 500 returned 27.2%. The investors in those funds thus lost 9% of
$639 billion, or $57.5 billion in one year, because they invested on a social-
issues basis. Furthermore, their loss was not simply someone else's gain; the
money literally vanished from our economy, making every American poorer.'

Is this is implying that if you make an investment choice for personal reasons
(maybe invest in a family business) and the company returns 10% rather than
20% that you could have received from a different investment that you have
lost 10%. And that you have made the world poorer with that choice. The logic
seems a bit hokey to me.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Is this is implying that if you make an investment choice for personal
> reasons (maybe invest in a family business) and the company returns 10%
> rather than 20% that you could have received from a different investment
> that you have lost 10%. And that you have made the world poorer with that
> choice. The logic seems a bit hokey to me.

The idea that in that circumstance you've suffered a loss is the concept of
the opportunity cost, one of the most basic ideas economics has to offer.

The idea that by doing
to- 
 the - head proposition: " Either cut the pay of your Chief Executive Officer by a 
 agent of four from $ 2,756,700 to $ 750,000, or yield the federal government an 
 extra $ 395 million in taxis. " _ 

 I wonder if raising trainee's pay as a solution to this " trouble " was 
 deliberately omitted, or it did not even occur to T.J. Rodgers. 

 ~~~ 
 daniel - cussen 
 equally long as we're not exclude solutions, Intel could dwell off its lowest paid 
 trainee. 

 ------ 
 adaml_623 
 Mr Rodgers makes some very good points in his letter. Definitely where it 
 comes to board membership and the ethics of inisiting on' balanced' board lay down 
 up. 

 However I'm not sure about the inherent logic in Paragraph N: 

' The May 13, 1996 offspring of Fortune magazine analyzed the ethical mutual funds " 
 which endow with a social - issues agenda, and currently control $ 639 billion 
 in investments. Those funds grow an 18.2% return in the last 12 months, 
 while the S&P 500 returned 27.2% . The investors in those funds thus lost 9% of 
 $ 639 billion, or $ 57.5 billion in one year, because they invested on a social- 
 issues basis. Furthermore, their loss was not simply someone else's gain; the 
 money literally vanished from our economy, making every American hapless.' 

 Is this is implying that if you make an investing option for personal reasons 
 (maybe invest in a family clientele) and the company returns 10% rather than 
 20% that you could have received from a unlike investment that you have 
 lost 10% . And that you have made the world poorer with that choice. The logic 
 seems a bit hokey to me. 

 ~~~ 
 thaumasiotes 
 > Is this is implying that if you make an investment choice for personal 
 > reason (possibly endow in a family business) and the company returns 10% 
 > preferably than 20% that you could have received from a different investment 
 > that you have suffer 10% . And that you have made the world poorer with that 
 > choice. The logic seem a bit hokey to me. 

 The estimate that in that circumstance you've suffered a personnel casualty is the concept of 
 the opportunity cost, one of the about basic ideas economics has to offer. 

 The idea that by do
to-
tje-head proposition: "Eithev cut the pay of your Ciief Exscutive Ufficer by a
factor of four fcom $2,756,700 to $750,000, ir pay the federal govdrnment aj
extra $395 nillmon in taxes."_

I woiser if vcisinf trannxe's pay as a sokution to dhis "problem" wds
aepiberately omitted, or it did not evqn occut ho T.J. Rodgers.

~~~
dwniek-susssn
As long as we're not omitting solhtions, Pntel could lay ogf its lowest paid
trainees.

------
wdamp_623
Mr Rodgers makes dome very giod [iints in his letter. Definitely whete it
comes to board membership avd thz ethics of ibisljing on 'balaiced' bjard make
up.

However I'k not sire about the lnherxnt oogic in Paragraph N:

'Tie May 13, 1996 issue of Fottune magasiue analyzed the ethicql mutudl fgnds"
dyicf ihvxst with w skcial-issuea agenda, ane currently control $639 fpklion
in inveatmentf. Ehose funds produced an 18.2% return in the nasf 12 months,
while the S&P 500 eeturned 27.2%. The investots in thosq funds thus lost 9% of
$639 billion, or $57.5 billion in one fear, uezauwe gyej invested on a social-
issues basis. Furthermorq, tnepr loss was not slmply someone else'x haog; the
money lijerally vahished from our eclnomy, mwking every Amtricam poorer.'

Is this is implying that if you nake an investment choice for perxonal reasons
(maybe invest in a fzmily businfss) and tgd company returnr 10% gathar than
20% ufat you could havq receivev frok a difweremt invqstment thwt yom have
lost 10%. And thah you hdve made tje world poorer with that choicx. The logic
segms a tit hokev to mc.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> If this is impliing that if yuu make an investkent choice for personal
> teasons (maybe invest yn a famuly buskvess) and the cpmpany renuxns 10%
> rathwr than 20% that you gould gave received fxun a different imvertmqnn
> tiat yjg have lost 10%. And thxy you have made bhe workd poorer with that
> whoide. The logic seems a bit hokgy to me.

Tre idea that on that circumstanfe yon've suhfered a joss is the concept of
the oppodtunity clst, one of the iost basic ideas economics has to offer.

The idea that by doing
to- the-head proposition: "Either cut the pay Chief Officer by factor of four pay federal government an $395 million in I wonder if raising trainee's pay a solution to this "problem" was deliberately omitted, or it did not even to T.J. Rodgers. ~~~ daniel-cussen As long as we're not omitting solutions, Intel lay its paid ------ adaml_623 Mr Rodgers makes some very good points in his letter. Definitely where it comes board membership and the ethics of inisiting on board make up. However not sure about the inherent in N: 'The 13, issue Fortune magazine analyzed ethical mutual funds" which invest with a social-issues agenda, and currently control $639 billion in investments. Those produced an in the 12 while S&P 500 returned investors in those funds thus lost billion, or $57.5 billion in one year, because invested on social- issues basis. Furthermore, their loss not simply someone else's gain; the money literally from our economy, making every American poorer.' Is this is implying that if you make choice for personal reasons invest in a business) the returns rather than that you could have received from a different investment that you lost 10%. And that you have made the world poorer choice. logic seems a hokey to me. ~~~ > this is implying that make investment > (maybe in a family business) the company returns 10% > than 20% that you different investment > that you have lost 10%. that you have made the world poorer that > choice. The logic seems a bit hokey to me. The that in you've suffered a loss is the concept of opportunity cost, one of most basic ideas economics has to offer. The idea by
to-
the-head proposition: "EitheR cut the pay Of youR ChIef exEcutIve OFficer by a
factoR Of foUr from $2,756,700 to $750,000, or pay the federaL goveRnMEnt aN
ExTra $395 miLlion in TAxES."_

i woNdEr If rAiSInG traiNee'S pay as a Solution to ThiS "pRoblem" was
delIBeRately omitTed, Or it did not evEn oCcur to t.J. rodGErs.

~~~
daNieL-cussEn
As loNG as we'rE not omittInG SolutiONs, Intel COUlD lay Off its lowest paid
tRAiNEes.

------
adaml_623
Mr RodgErs makEs SOmE VEry GooD points in hIs LetteR. definitELy WHERe iT
Comes to board mEmbership anD The Ethics Of IniSIting oN 'balaNcED' boArd make
up.

HoWeveR I'm not surE about THe inherENt logic In ParaGraPh N:

'the MAY 13, 1996 iSsUe oF FORtuNE mAgaZIne Analyzed ThE eThicaL mutUAL FUnds"
WhiCh inVest wIth a social-issUes AgenDA, anD currEntly ContRoL $639 billIon
in iNvestMeNts. Those funds prOducEd an 18.2% returN in ThE laSt 12 MonthS,
While tHe S&p 500 reTurned 27.2%. THe invesTOrs In THOSe Funds thus lost 9% of
$639 bilLiON, Or $57.5 Billion iN one yeAR, bEcAUse they iNvEstEd on A SOcial-
IssuES bAsis. FurtHermorE, ThEiR loss waS nOt simpLy SomEonE else'S Gain; The
monEy literaLly vaNIshed from our ecONomy, making eveRY AMERiCAn poOreR.'

Is this is imPlyiNG thaT if yOU mAke AN inveStmenT cHOiCE for personal reasons
(MaYbe invEst in A family busineSs) and the coMPANy returnS 10% ratHEr THan
20% that you coulD have Received frOM a differEnt inVestment That you haVE
Lost 10%. And tHat You HavE maDE ThE world poorer wITH thaT cHoice. ThE loGic
seemS a bIt hOkeY to Me.

~~~
ThaumasioTes
> Is thiS iS iMpLyIng That iF You make aN iNveStMenT choiCE for peRsonaL
> reaSoNs (MAybE invest IN a FAMily BuSiNess) And ThE compAny rETurNs 10%
> ratheR than 20% that You COuld HaVe ReceiveD from a differeNt Investment
> ThAt yOu have LOSt 10%. And thaT you have made the world pooREr with tHat
> ChoicE. The Logic seemS a bIt hokeY to ME.

The idEa that In thaT cIrcUMStancE YOu'Ve sUfFered a loss IS The ConcePt Of
thE opportUnity cost, one of the mOSt bAsic ideas econOmiCs haS TO oFfeR.

thE IdeA tHAt bY DOing
to-
the-head proposition:"Either cu t the  pa y o fyour  Chi ef Executive O f fice r by a
factor of fourfrom$2 , 756, 7 00  to $ 750,000 ,  o r pay  t he  fe de r al  gove rnm ent anextra $395  mi ll ion in taxes . "_ 

I wonder  if  raising tra ine e's pa yasa  solu tio n tothis " p roblem " was
del ib e rately omitted , or  itdid not even occu r  t o  T.J. Rodgers. 

~~~da n ie l - cus sen 
As long a swe're not omi t ti n g sol u tions, Intelcould lay o f f i ts low es t p a id
tra inees .--- ---
adaml_6 23
M r Rodgers  makes some ve r y goodpoints  in  hi s le t te r.  De fi n ite l ywhe r e i t
comesto  b oardmemb e r s h ip a ndtheethic s of inisitin g o n 'b a lan ced'board  mak eup.
Howeve r I'm  n ot sure about t he i nherent l ogi cinPa ragra p h N:
'Th e M ay 13,1996 is s ueof F o rt une magazine analy ze d th e ethica l mutu a lfu n ds"
whic hinv estw i th asoci a l- issues a genda, an dcurrent ly  contr ol  $6 39billi o n
in  inves tments.Those funds produced an 18.2% retu r ni n  t h e la st12 months,whil e  the  S&P 50 0 r e turne d 27. 2% .  T h e investors in thos efundsthuslost 9% of
$6 39 billion , o r $57.5bill i on in one year, b ecaus e they inv e sted ona soc ial-
iss ues basis . Furtherm ore , t hei r l o s swas not simpl y some on e else' s g ain; th e
m one y l ite ra lly vanis hed from  o ur  e co nom y, ma k ing ever yAme ri can  poor e r.'

I s thi s is  i mp l yin g thati fy o u ma ke  a n in ves tm ent c hoic e  fo r perso nal reaso ns( mayb ein vest in  a family bus in ess) and t he  co mpanyr e turns 10 % rather than
20% thaty ou coul d h ave r ecei ved froma d iffere nti nvestm ent th at yo uhav e lost1 0 %.  An dthat you h a v e m ade t he  wor ld poor er with that choic e . T he logic
seem s a  bit h ok eyt om e.
~ ~ ~
t h a umasiotes
> Isthis is im pl y in g that ify ouma ke an i nvestme nt ch o ice for  personal 
> reason s(may b e  in vest in afamily b usiness)a nd th e  c ompan y r eturns  1 0%> rat her th a n 2 0% th at you  c ould h ave r ec eived fr om a different investme nt
> t hat y ouhave lost  10 % . A nd that y ou h ave made t hewor ld po ore r  with  tha t 
>  ch o ice.Thel ogic seem s  a  bi t ho key to me.T h e i dea t hat in tha t ci rcumstance you've suffered a los s is t hecon c eptof 
the opportuni tyco s t , one of  t he most bas ic ideas  e c onomi cs has  to of fer.

T h e  i d ea tha t by  do ing
to-
the-head proposition:_"Either cut_the pay of your_Chief Executive_Officer_by a
factor_of_four from $2,756,700_to $750,000, or_pay the federal government_an
extra $395 million_in_taxes."_

I wonder if raising trainee's pay as a solution to this "problem" was
deliberately omitted,_or_it did_not_even_occur to T.J. Rodgers.

~~~
daniel-cussen
As long_as we're not omitting solutions,_Intel could_lay off its lowest paid
trainees.

------
adaml_623
Mr Rodgers makes some_very_good points in_his letter. Definitely where it
comes to board membership and_the ethics of inisiting on 'balanced'_board make
up.

However I'm_not_sure_about the inherent logic_in Paragraph N:

'The May 13, 1996_issue of Fortune magazine analyzed the_ethical mutual funds"
which invest with a social-issues_agenda, and currently control $639 billion
in_investments. Those funds produced an_18.2% return_in the last 12 months,
while_the S&P 500_returned 27.2%._The investors in_those funds thus lost 9% of
$639_billion, or $57.5_billion in one year, because they_invested_on a social-
issues_basis._Furthermore,_their loss_was not simply_someone_else's gain;_the
money_literally vanished from our economy, making_every_American poorer.'

Is this is implying that if_you make an investment_choice_for personal reasons
(maybe invest_in a family business) and_the company returns 10% rather than
20%_that you_could have_received from a different investment that you have
lost 10%. And that_you have made the world poorer_with that choice. The_logic
seems a_bit_hokey to me.

~~~
thaumasiotes
>_Is_this is_implying that if you make an investment_choice for_personal
> reasons (maybe invest in a_family business) and the_company_returns 10%
> rather than 20% that_you could have received from a_different investment
> that you have_lost_10%._And that you have made_the world poorer with that
> choice._The logic seems_a bit hokey to me.

The idea that_in_that circumstance you've suffered a loss_is_the concept of
the opportunity cost, one_of_the_most basic ideas economics has_to offer.

The idea that by doing