Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft The Almighty Buck

The Microsoft Millionaires Come of Age 360

iseff writes "The NYTimes is running a story about the ways in which Microsoft millionaires are putting their money to use. According to the story, there is somewhere around 10,000 Microsoft made millionaires spending money on various pet projects. For example, former programmer Chris Peters bought the PBA (Professional Bowlers Association), while Stephanie DeVaan founded a political action committee and Rich Tong founded Ignition Partners, a VC firm."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Microsoft Millionaires Come of Age

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:26PM (#12672667)
    That is just obscenely absurd for one company.
  • by hacker ( 14635 ) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:33PM (#12672697)
    Too bad that list stops at 1997. I wish there was one that remained current... I'm sure their acquisitions accellerated over the last few years.
  • by kalislashdot ( 229144 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:34PM (#12672700) Homepage
    but that just proves they charge too much for their software. But since these are all guys who own stock I guess that is unrelated to income.

    What I don't get is why these people still work. Bill can never "cash out" so he is not really worth that much. If he sold it all the stock would drop big time.

    Of course. If I had several million I would not work and live comfortably on some tropical beach for thr rest of my life. Ok I got 10 million, I am out of here, I could give a damn about my company politices or charities. Let me relax the rest of my life drinking in some south pacific beach.
  • by Dr. Weird ( 566938 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:38PM (#12672731)
    The same reason some of us would do our jobs for free, as we either enjoy them enough or think they are important enough.
  • by Neopoleon ( 874543 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:41PM (#12672757) Homepage
    "And one William Gates put $53 million back into the economy the old fashioned way by building a house."

    Along with over $25 billion to charitable causes.

    http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm [gatesfoundation.org]

    He deserves the house, I say.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:42PM (#12672762)
    Tried shopping for a house in New York City? Being a millionaire used to mean you were rich. Now it just means you are middle class with some savings.
  • by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:45PM (#12672776)
    Apparently you don't understand what it means to charge too much.

    Charging too much puts you in the poorhouse. Charging what the market is willing to bear makes you wealthy.

    It sounds to me as if they are charging correctly. Now, if you want to argue that they have monopolist tactics and such, well, you could build an argument, but to say that charging too much made them wealthy merely shows that you are arguing that MS should be some sort of charitable organization.

    I don't think that I would ever go to any company VP (and I know a few) and tell them "You know, we make too much money around here, lets lower prices."
  • by Neopoleon ( 874543 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @07:48PM (#12672800) Homepage
    "What I don't get is why these people still work."

    Most of us sign on to Microsoft because we *want* to work for Microsoft.

    Although I'm not one of these millionaire people, I know a couple, and they come to work every day because they love their jobs.

    "Bill can never 'cash out' so he is not really worth that much."

    Um.

    He's, uh...

    Well... ...not really hurting for cash. There are limits to how much money you can spend in a day, you know?

    Plus, he worked his ass off to build the company. Why would he want to "cash out" of that? It's obvious that his interest in the company goes well beyond the dough.

    "If I had several million I would not work and live comfortably on some tropical beach for thr rest of my life."

    And that, my friend, is probably why you don't have $10 million :)

    The few wealthy people I know are all workaholics.

    Unless they inherited the stuff. God, those people are annoying.
  • by wft_rtfa ( 882194 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @08:10PM (#12672922)
    Well at least people in the software industry spend there money more wisely than people in the entertainment industry.

    After all, Gates said he's going to give away all his money to charity before he dies. Most millionaires would spend this money on their childern to have many generations of wealth, fancy cars with spinning rims, or gambling in Las Vegas. I'm sure you've all seen MTV Cribs.

  • Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @08:38PM (#12673043)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @08:40PM (#12673052)
    "Whatever Bill Gates' flaws, and he has a lot, he has been very generous with his money."

    Have you ever payed the Microsoft Tax even though you didn't want to? Part of "his" money is "your" money. Thanks for your charitable donation.
  • It's our money. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Dzimas ( 547818 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @08:45PM (#12673070)
    The sad truth is that the billion$ earned by microserfs are ours. We're the ones who own the mutual funds that invest in Microsoft. We're the ones who buy MSFT because we believe their Xbox 360 hype. And, until recently, we haven't seen anything in return (in the form of dividends, that is). It's incredible how we buy into the stock market shell game.
  • by Jononon ( 856369 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @08:48PM (#12673090)
    But these are people with a million in liquefiable assets. If you're a property millionaire (like me) you can only realise that money by refinancing your home (bad idea, interest rates are on the up) or selling (err, where would I live, the median price here is $1.2m ?) The M'soft employees can realise a million dollars in real money, that still makes them very wealthy by most standards.
  • Re:It's our money. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @09:13PM (#12673227) Journal
    The sad truth is that the billion$ earned by microserfs are ours

    Remember kids, economics is not a zero-sum game. This is how wealth is created.

    Love MSFT or hate it, this is what "makes America great".

    My first computer cost $2500 - if I had bought MSFT at that time, and sold it at the peak, I'd be a MSFT millionaire too (just not as an employee).

    Yup, hard work, good luck, and the lack of brutal warlords means anyone in the US can make millions - but it takes years and years of hard work, don't forget that part.

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @09:32PM (#12673324)
    $75,000 under $100,000 - 8,903,894 returns
    $100,000 under $200,000 - 8,469,199
    $200,000 under $500,000 - 2,018,372
    $500,000 under $1,000,000 - 355,617
    $1,000,000 under $1,500,000 - 85,479
    $1,500,000 under $2,000,000 - 36,492
    $2,000,000 under $5,000,000 - 52,157
    $5,000,000 under $10,000,000 - 12,266
    $10,000,000 or more - 6,836

    21% of the tax returns pay roughly 55.9% of the Federal Income Tax, the 6836 at the top, pay 3% of the Federal Income Tax

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0, ,id=96981,00.html [irs.gov]
  • by johansalk ( 818687 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @09:33PM (#12673331)
    Can someone tell me the tax advantages of "charitable causes"? I often heard the philanthropic interests of the rich often had more to do with managing their taxes. Also, to what extent are his charitable donations are "real", either by not being tax write-offs, or, for example, software to schools that really costs FAR less than its advertised value and is actually of strategic benefit.
  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @09:58PM (#12673436)
    If you believe that Microsoft is a legitimate business earning a fair profit for its products, then his donations to charity are a wonderful example of philanthropy. OTOH if you believe that Microsoft gouges consumers by leveraging its monopoly OS position to stifle competition and keep software prices artificially inflated, then the $25 billion he's donated to charity probably would've done more good if left in the hands of the people who were overchargd. It'd be like a shop charging $5 per bottle of water for firefighters after 9/11, then donating the excess proceeds to charity. Yeah they donated a ton of money, but the firefighters were robbed of money that could've been put to other (better from a market standpoint) uses. A more accurate assessment would be that the firefighters were coerced into unwillingly making a donation to charity. Course we can argue forever about which view is correct; and in truth both views may be partially correct.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:28PM (#12673525)
    That is just obscenely absurd for one company.

    I don't understand why this is a problem. A "company" has goals. They figured out, as a company, how to achieve those goals. The people rewarded are the owners, and sometimes the employees. If the employees didn't get the cash, it'd have just gone to the owners. This should be perceived as a great thing!

    The wealth of the company, and their employees is a testiment to the fine job they did, as measured by the votes of their customers, in the form of money spent.

    Any comments that this is obscene is pure jealousy.

  • by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:28PM (#12673530) Journal
    FTA:
    As Mr. Sage put it, "It's like a little bit of Bill Gates came with us when we left."


    So that's how they climbed up the corporate ladder. Good advice I suppose, if your boss is into that kind of thing.
  • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:30PM (#12673541)
    Hunger is a problem of distribution and politics. Remeber the famine in ethiopia in the 80's? How about the irish potatoe famine? How about the famine in the unkraine a few decades back? During all those crisis those countries continued to export food. The problem isn't just moving food there, it's making sure those people recieve the food. Other agencies like local war lords, corrupt governments, and bandits will always try to control the flow of essential goods because that is how they maintain power. If you want to stop hunger, simply buying enough food isn't enough. You need to transport it like the above posts says, as well as defend it, then find a means to avoid stampedes/riots when it's delivered. None of this is cheap. 100 billion wouldn't do it. Ask the US government how much it costs to wage that kind of war in one countr, your basically asking MS to do it in 100 more countries.
  • by Behrooz ( 302401 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:35PM (#12673561)
    the $25 billion he's donated to charity probably would've done more good if left in the hands of the people who were overchargd. ...or the people who were 'overcharged' could have chosen not to purchase the product, if they happened to think that it wasn't cost-effective. There are always alternatives.

    Just a thought about free markets.
  • by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:50PM (#12673640)
    I wonder where Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman will put their millions of dollars?

    Oh wait!

    Rather than Linus and Richard taking money out of your and my pockets to become millionaires, they instead worked hard, earned true respect, and gave back to the common community. And they did it all without forming a monopoly, engaging in illegal practices, and lobbying governments to enact repressive laws to bolster their ability to take money out of our pockets.

    Who are the real people that are helping both themselves and humanity: the "Microsoft millionaires" or people like RMS and Linus?
  • Keep it hush-hush (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @10:53PM (#12673659) Homepage Journal
    But by 2002, she was itching to do more, so she put her wealth to work in support of abortion rights and helped to found a political action committee called Washington Women for Choice.

    Although Republicans are usually pro-business, if it becomes common knowledge that Microsoft employees are dumping money into "abortion rights" groups, that could make the current administration's position on antitrust a lot less friendly towards Microsoft.

    LK
  • by Main Gauche ( 881147 ) on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:23PM (#12673799)
    "the people who were 'overcharged' could have chosen not to purchase the product, if they happened to think that it wasn't cost-effective. There are always alternatives.

    Just a thought about free markets."


    Not if there weren't enough alternatives.

    Just a thought about monopolies.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29, 2005 @11:53PM (#12673913)
    Now there have to be "enough" alternatives? Even one alternative is automatically not a monopoly. Last time I checked Apple was doing decent business, and there's countless Linux distributions and not to mention the BSDs and some commercial Unices. The last Microsoft product I bought was Windows 95 yet I've managed to compete successfully in the IT marketplace.
  • by Mydron ( 456525 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @01:01AM (#12674213)
    Not only do you get the tax advantages of being able to write off a portion of the charity, but if you happen to be so rich to afford your own "charitable foundation", there are other benefits as well!

    For example, you can afford to pay your friends and family handsomely for their management of the foundation. (In politics this would be called a patronage appointment) In Bill's case, his Dad and a former Microsoft executive. Although I'm sure they just happen to be exactly the right kind of people to lead such an esteemed organization.

    Also, you get the glamour and praise of fellow socialites and the plebs at large. This is especially helpful if you are battling an unfortunate image as a cold-hearted corporate capitalist. Now, folks like the grand-parent poster will kindly note your philanthropy at every turn. This is true even if your foundation does very little charitable work.

    For example, if you check out the financials [gatesfoundation.org] of the foundation you can see that they pay out three times less in contributions than what they make from investments!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2005 @01:22AM (#12674295)
    How in the hell is the stinking hippie RMS helping humanity? Envisioning an operating system he couldn't get off the ground and writing an overcomplicated text editor, then living off award money and telling other people that they don't deserve to earn in the software industry? And your definition of not helping is a guy that, in all likelihood, doubled the American economy? Interesting thinking.
  • by Neopoleon ( 874543 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @02:17AM (#12674481) Homepage
    "Can someone tell me the tax advantages of 'charitable causes'?"

    Yes.

    When you're very, very poor - like most of us - it means that you get to save a few hundred dollars at the end of the year by giving to, say, the Salvation Army.

    When you're very, very rich - like Gates - it means almost nothing. He has more money than he could ever possibly spend, with or without tax breaks. If he weren't really into this, then he wouldn't be doing it. Period.
  • by Neopoleon ( 874543 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @02:27AM (#12674516) Homepage
    "Giving to charity in order to make up for bad business conduct, a bad reputation, and/or illegal conduct has a long, long history."

    Wow.

    I'd argue that famine and disease also have a long, long history.

    Unfortunately, it seems that most of us have somehow gotten so wrapped up in our silly little arguments about which browser is better to be able to care.

    I don't want to sound like Mr. Sourpants, but I'm guessing that if you're one out of four people living in Zimbabwe infected with HIV, you probably don't care about AJAX, plug-ins, or standards compliance - you're just glad that somebody's doing something.
  • Any comments that this is obscene is pure jealousy.

    I am jealous of the money they have. I do not make a lot of money, like a lot of people, and would really love to be at least a little better off. It is not the money itself that is obscene, but the way in which it was made. You state that their richness is a sign of the 'fine job they did'...

    I disagree. It may be like that with some consumers, but they have systematically rigged it so they cannot be toppled and you are required to purchase their products with every computer you buy. In a business sense, that is a 'job well done', but if thats what it takes to be rich, I'll pass.

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand

Working...