Miscellaneous desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

Why aren't the largest companies by revenue mostly Oil and Gas companies' bosses not in the list of top billionaires?

Why aren't the largest companies by revenue mostly Oil and Gas companies' bosses not in the list of top billionaires? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnf1 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Buffett is fourth on Forbes. His company owns most of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company and they own what you see listed. Keep clicking down the ladder and there's plenty of oil and gas business. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that while the CEO of a company runs the business (and is paid handsomely for it), he doesn't own the business. That is, when YoYoDyne Inc makes eleventy gajillion dollars of profit, that eleventy jajillion dollars doesn't belong to John Q. Bigwig, CEO. Instead, it belongs (ultimately) to the shareholders of the company. That's a large part of why when you look at the list of wealthiest people, they tend to be private owners of companies or the heirs of company owners. For the most part, oil and gas companies are publically owned, that is, no one person or small set of people own the company, but rather thousands to millions of ordinary citizens own them. If you have a retirement or investment account it's a good bet you're one of the owners of an oil or gas company, as you probably own stock in them via mutual or index funds. John D. Rockefeller got insanely rich from Standard Oil, but when it was broken up and public stock was sold, the wealth generated from the companies was distributed to investors (the new owners), rather than the person running it. -- 71.35.105.42 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The "boss" of a company usually means the chief executive officer (CEO). Sometimes the CEO owns a large part of a company, but in most cases he or she is only an employee, chosen and overseen by the board of directors who represent the shareholders. A top CEO might be paid millions of dollars a year and receive a substantial number of shares of stock, but that is very far from enough to make somebody a billionaire. In short, you become a billionaire by owning a company, not by running it. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, we do seem to have a problem that the Board of Directors sets the CEO's salary, and that CEO is likely also on the Board of Directors of other companies, where members of his Board are executives. Thus, the Boards can ignore the stockholders' interests and keep giving each other raises, seemingly without limit. I imagine eventually the stockholders would sell off shares in such a company, but only when executive salaries seriously damage the profitability of the company. At that point, the executives will indeed be taking a good portion of the corporate earnings home with them. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Johansen - Queen of the Tearling book deal

An author by this name has apparently just landed a big movie deal for her upcoming book trilogy. However I can't seem to find anything about her on wikipedia or google. Does anybody know what nationality she is?? It says she went to uni in Iowa, but not whether she's American or not. Anybody got any further info on her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.202.211 (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Daily Mail story. I doubt Wikipedia will cover her until there's more than just that source, and probably not until she's actually published a book (which, looking at Amazon, it doesn't appear that she has yet). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read that...but all the news reports are basically saying the same thing...she has just landed major book deals for UK and US and most other parts of the world and at the same time Warner Bros have bought the rights to all of the films for a massive sum of money (and already have Emma Watson lined up for the lead, if the rumours are to be believed), and all of this before any of her works have even been given a publish date. This kind of thing doesn't happen often, does it? I mean neither the publishers nor the film makers know how any of this is going to be received by the general public so they must have a lot of faith in them. I just thought it weird that we don't know anything at all about the author in question.--91.49.13.174 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think that her publisher has put out some grandiloquent press release, and a succession of lazy journalists (of which the Daily Mail has no shortage, but no monopoly) have repeated it as if it were news. Reports that famous actor X is attached to pre-production film Y should be taken with massive scepticism - right now Emma Watson's management people will be planning her 2016 schedule and will be in talks on far more films than she could ever actually do - but the producers of all those films will be going around saying how she's definitely doing their film (as leverage to recruit other stars and scrape up more financing). So I think what you've heard isn't false, but it's likely to be an amplification of the truth. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a female version of Game of Thrones" mean? There are both male and female protagonists on GoTs. RNealK (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Landover, Maryland

My map (Google Earth) seems to be telling me that the former CDP of Greater Landover, Maryland contains Landover, North Englewood, and Palmer Park. Can someone confirm this? The Landover and Greater Landover articles say they have has 4.1 sq mi, which would seem to disprove one being part of the other, but this old version (from before the 2010 cencus) of the Landover article says it's part of Greater Landover. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just figured out what's going on here. If I'm right, the Greater Landover CDP contians the unincorporated community of Landover, North Englewood, and Palmer Park. IN the 2010 cencus, the census bureau renamed Greater Landover "Landover", despite the existence of the unincorporated community Landover. Can someone confirm this? Confusingly, both our Greater Landover article and our Landover article (which was about the unincorporated community) became about Greater Landover, and that's what threw me off. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to mix range voting system with condoncert one?

It is possible to mix range voting system with condoncert one? If yes, would it produce different results?201.78.151.111 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a better question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics|Mathematics desk]]. But looking over range voting and Condorcet method, it seems like you could mix them somehow. At a quick glance, it seems like they'd result in roughly the same outcomes, but that question is above my pay grade. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]