"He’d created a lot of franchise value, and we were going to pay him for that," Conard said, adding: "We had a very complicated set of negotiations that took us about two years for us to unwind. During that time a management committee ran the firm, and we could hardly get Mitt to come back to negotiate the terms of his departure because he was working so hard on the Olympics."
Conard’s comments are the latest in a growing pile of evidence that contradicts Romney’s repeated claims that he ended his active role at Bain in 1999. On Sunday, The Huffington Post reported on a corporate document filed in December 2002 that lists Romney as a “managing member” of Bain Capital Investors. Earlier reports show Romney listed as CEO on 2002 Securites and Exchange Commission filings, attending board meetings for Bain-affiliated companies after 1999, and receiving an at least $100,000 salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002.
Yeah, that sounds like he definitely continued his “active role”. Active CEOs always let management committees run their companies while they’re off at other jobs. The fact that he was on the books and attended some board meetings definitely proves that he was running the show all along.
(Source: The Huffington Post)
I totally get it now! Government is required for progress! Quick question though…if government is required for progress, how’d we progress to the point where a government was possible, without a government to help us along?
My favorite part:
Worker groups say the code itself isn’t the issue. “If the code is complicated, it’s because our society is complicated,” says Bernard Vivier, director of the Higher Institute of Labor in Paris, which studies labor relations for unions and companies. “Cars are much more complicated today than they were 40 years ago. Why shouldn’t the labor code be?”
Fact: College graduates of all majors earn more money throughout their lifetimes than those who do not possess a degree.
Fact: There is a correlation between education and happiness.
Question: Does graduating college make you smarter and better prepared to enter and succeed in the workforce, or are smart and prepared people more likely to graduate college, and therefore more likely to succeed?
It’s probably way more likely that because the people entering college are generally smarter and more capable than the general population - and those who graduate smarter and more capable still - that what you see is selection bias. Is it really a useful comparison? Not really. In one group you have 90% of the country’s smartest and most able people. In the other is the remaining 10%, plus everyone who wasn’t smart enough or a good enough student to get into (or get through) college, and most 1st generation immigrants. You seriously think we should compare the incomes of these two groups and attribute the difference only to a college degree?