
Distressed by Baby Controversy, AOL’s Armstrong Reverses 401(K) Policy - protomyth
http://recode.net/2014/02/08/aol-reverses-401k-policy/
======
auctiontheory
I'm baffled by Tim Armstrong's rise to the top. I think he got there by virtue
of having founded Patch, which never did anything before getting (nearly) shut
down .... he seems to constantly piss everyone off, while accomplishing
nothing, and yet ... CEO of a major brand?! (Other unpleasant CEOs - I can
point to what they've accomplished.)

What am I missing? Does he have some other claim to fame and fortune that is
not documented? Or is AOL making a technology or market share comeback that
I'm unaware of?

~~~
aheilbut
It wasn't Patch. He built up advertising sales at Google starting in 2000.

~~~
dredmorbius
He _did_ found Patch in 2007, though I don't suspect that was instrumental in
his pick as AOL CEO.

------
Scorponok
It's great that he apologized, but I think it shows how crappy things are that
such a decision was made in the first place. An outstanding Q4, and yet they
were planning to take benefits away from employees? That doesn't seem very
"employee-first" to me.

~~~
yummyfajitas
According to Armstrong, Obamacare forced them to increase benefits for
employees in healthcare. So reducing retirement benefits commensurately seems
like a reasonable way to make sure comp stays the same.

This is exactly what you should expect when you mandate employers provide a
benefit to employees - they will cut something else to make up the difference.
Employees who liked the other thing more are screwed.

A single good quarter is NOT a reason to increase employee comp. Maybe a bonus
(note: AOL has bonuses which are based mainly on profit sharing, not
individual performance), but not a permanent comp increase.

------
dredmorbius
Makes me wonder what the missing word or phrase between "employee-first" and
"culture" is. "To be cut"? "To be scapegoated"?

------
RexRollman
I know it will sound unfeeling but I have to wonder why, in a world with
billions of people, we would spend a million dollars to keep just one human
alive?

~~~
mikeash
All the other points about morality and such aside, a million dollars isn't
even that much. Even from a pure cold-hearted rational perspective, the kid
can be expected to contribute two or three times that much in economic
activity over his life, so it's actually worth the money too.

~~~
w1ntermute
Right, it might make sense to save an infant (although it makes a lot more
economic sense for women who cannot have healthy children to adopt instead).

But the bigger question is why we spend so much money to prolong the life of
someone who's in their 70s or 80s (and often suffering and in pain) for
another couple of years, or even just months.

~~~
ars
That's part of what makes us human and not computers or animals. Some things
are not rational yet we do them anyway.

~~~
w1ntermute
Human folly has lead to a variety of illogical practices, many of which have
been stamped out over the centuries. There's no reason the same couldn't be
done here.

------
nradov
While his comments are rather insensitive they do serve to illustrate the
madness of the current employer paid health insurance system in the USA. We
need to get employers out of the system. Require everyone to purchase
individual policies on the private market and provide government subsidies to
those who can't afford it.

------
brudgers
Karrie is married to my cousin Kyle. In 2005 their first child, Kathleen was
born. Kathleen's birth was covered by insurance via Karrie's employer. Her
employer was AOL.

Kathleen was named after Kyle's mother [my aunt]. She was killed in an
automobile accident. At her funeral, I was ten. Kyle was in second grade.

Kathleen was what Mr. Armstrong would call a distressed baby. Medical costs
associated with her treatment exceeded a million dollars. Insurance paid. She
died from cancer anyway.

Logically I admit that there could be worse events to befall a human than the
death of a child, but I am certain Mr Armstrong's abstraction doesn't capture
the tears and pain and sadness of the events it references.

Imagine being the parent of one of the infants who Mr. Armstrong held
responsible.

