Are liberals pro equality?

[BULLDOG]

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

I have no Idea what silliness you were trying to present to her, and my comment was just an interjection to your one particular post. Obviously, double talk and ignorance are prized as intelligent to the average teabagger, but it just doesn't stand up to normal discussion among the sane.

 

[Spare_change]

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a $10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

 

[Spare_change]

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

I have no Idea what silliness you were trying to present to her, and my comment was just an interjection to your one particular post. Obviously, double talk and ignorance are prized as intelligent to the average teabagger, but it just doesn't stand up to normal discussion among the sane.

Now, as for this bullshit ... Brenda was running around here squawking about what I said. When I challenged her to put forth a liberal position - any liberal position ... she continued to produce nothing but noise. Despite my repeated requests, she gave us nothing but noise. Clearly, she didn't know what she was talking about - she only knew that she was supposed to attack me (and, frankly, she wasn't very good at that, either).

Now, you come riding in on your white horse - trying to defend her and an indefensible position. When you get slapped off the horse, rather than showing me where I was wrong, you resort to the classic leftist position ...

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

I'm sorry --- I don't know what made me think liberals could put forth a cogent argument. I must say, I'm not surprised ... but I am disappointed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.

I have no Idea what silliness you were trying to present to her, and my comment was just an interjection to your one particular post. Obviously, double talk and ignorance are prized as intelligent to the average teabagger, but it just doesn't stand up to normal discussion among the sane.

Now, as for this bullshit ... Brenda was running around here squawking about what I said. When I challenged her to put forth a liberal position - any liberal position ... she continued to produce nothing but noise. Despite my repeated requests, she gave us nothing but noise. Clearly, she didn't know what she was talking about - she only knew that she was supposed to attack me (and, frankly, she wasn't very good at that, either).

Now, you come riding in on your white horse - trying to defend her and an indefensible position. When you get slapped off the horse, rather than showing me where I was wrong, you resort to the classic leftist position ...

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

I'm sorry --- I don't know what made me think liberals could put forth a cogent argument. I must say, I'm not surprised ... but I am disappointed.

Don't know, and don't care what your discussion with another poster might have been. I've read enough of your posts to assume it was just more of your silly right wing doubletalk.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Of course liberals are pro equality, but I might be willing to reevaluate that in your case. It would be no use to tell you that all that crap rush told you was not true, but I will say you are an idiot for believing it.

You know I have not heard Rush in a decade NOR do I watch TV since 1995. My points are mine UNLIKE the drivel YOU post.

I'm sure that vast IQ serves you well. No TV? where do you get your info? Breitbart and psychic connections to other crazy right wingers?

On the net all over the world. I spend an average of 500 a month on gigs at 6 a gig.

I don't mind being lied to, but it's aggravating for you to think I'm dumb enough to believe all your outrageous lies. You can still make shit up, but just tone it down a little. You're coming off as a total idiot.

Just check the packages with Verizon Bulldung. Buy a cone and it's 6 a gig. Mifi is 8 a gig in a 10 gig package.

I have verizon FIOS and I dont have any limits.
I have FIOS tv, internet and phone and its all only 160.00 (rounded) a month, thats with a 50 up and 50 down speed. (which I never get, In real time Im about 30mps down and 43mps up.

 

[Spare_change]

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

 

[BULLDOG]

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

 

[Spare_change]

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

lets not forget the liability.
a brick falls off the top during building and kills someone on the ground, Trump is liable, the person that actually dropped the brick in the worst case gets fired.
I would consider that exposure a contribution. without someone being responsible, the building could never be built

 

[Spare_change]

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

lets not forget the liability.
a brick falls off the top during building and kills someone on the ground, Trump is liable, the person that actually dropped the brick in the worst case gets fired.
I would consider that exposure a contribution. without someone being responsible, the building could never be built

Excellent point - who gets sued?

Very good (dare I say it?) contribution!.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hold on numb nuts. You are spouting crap again. You were talking about effort as opposed to contribution. There is no way trump extended more personal effort than thousands of working people combined. That idea is just crazy. The idea of assigning a percentage value of each contribution of any particular product or service is, and can never be more accurate than an arbitrary decision by whoever is arrogant enough to try to make that decision. I'm sure you are trying to sound like what you think a smart person sounds like, but to anybody other than your like minded idiots, you are just ignorant.

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

Right. meetings, phone calls, and signed papers. A trained monkey could do that.

 

[BULLDOG]

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

lets not forget the liability.
a brick falls off the top during building and kills someone on the ground, Trump is liable, the person that actually dropped the brick in the worst case gets fired.
I would consider that exposure a contribution. without someone being responsible, the building could never be built

One of the papers he signed was for insurance. Big deal.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

lets not forget the liability.
a brick falls off the top during building and kills someone on the ground, Trump is liable, the person that actually dropped the brick in the worst case gets fired.
I would consider that exposure a contribution. without someone being responsible, the building could never be built

One of the papers he signed was for insurance. Big deal.

insurance does not always cover 100%, and he also had to pay big for that policy, and if he uses it he might not get insurance for the next project.
And who in the end pays for the payout? Do you even have a clue? Do you know why your car insurance would be so high if you had a job and could buy a car? hint, it might not be due to anything you personally did.
are all liberals total idiots or do you hold the head title for it?

 

[Spare_change]

First of all ... it's interesting to note that you purported to want an intelligent discussion, and when I respond accordingly, you are forced to go to childish name calling.

I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are .... if our production line lady makes a bad decision, we lose a #10,000 car. If Donald Trump makes a bad decision, we lose a billion dollar company. I have consistently said that liberals believe in rewarding effort, not contribution. You think that the number of hours put in by a production worker are equal in value to the hours put in by a plant manager ... that's effort, not contribution.

As for the discussion about measuring contribution .... I guarantee you that EVERY manager worth a damn does exactly that. If you don't, you're just not bankrupt yet - but you will be. Every boss looks at every employee and decides whether they are worth the cost ... the only way they can tell is to measure the return on investment.

I am distressed, though not surprised, that you have to resort to personal attacks ... but it makes a damn poor substitute for facts and logic.

Quit dancing. The effort extended has nothing to do with how much might be lost. Quit trying too change the parameters of discussion. Deal with this before you try something else. HOW DOES TRUMP EXTEND MORE EFFORT THAN THOUSANDS OF AVERAGE WORKERS COMBINED? Answer the question, or admit you claim was bullshit.

I will say it slowly .... YOU DO NOT GET PAID FOR EFFORT - YOU GET PAID FOR CONTRIBUTION!

Trump's contribution is significantly greater than the production line lady; ergo, he deserves more compensation.

This is where your train runs off the tracks ... it is NOT about effort, it's about contribution.

OK. Staying wit trump because he is convenient. To build one of his buildings, he has to have a batch of meetings, phone calls and sign some papers. Is that more contribution than the people actually building the buildings? Will his signed papers produce a completed building?

He also has to invest his money - he has to pay the architects - he has to create, and manage the company that will be building the place - he has to hire the people to do the work - he has to pay their health insurance - he has to pay for their vacations - he has to hire/manage the CFO - he has to hire/manage the personnel director - he has to hire/manage the attorneys .... and the list goes on and on.

YES - that is more contribution than the person who actually builds the building.

Right. meetings, phone calls, and signed papers. A trained monkey could do that.

Great response!!! Way to cut me off at the knees -- what a way to counter my input.

Your mama would be proud.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Myth of ‘Equality’ and ‘the Forgotten Man’: Remembering William Graham Sumner
What a 19th century sociologist can teach 21st century conservatives.
February 4, 2016
Jack Kerwick

I recently just found a nearly four year-old essay in Slate that caught my interest for three reasons.

First, though it was written during the last presidential election, it is as succinct a statement of the left’s perspective on the GOP’s attitude toward “income inequality” as any available: Republicans like “income inequality.”

Secondly, it references William Graham Sumner, a brilliant, tough-as-nails 19th century conservative sociologist who the essay credits with having “invented the GOP’s defense of the wealthy [.]”

Thirdly, unsurprisingly, the essay gives Sumner a raw deal.

For starters, the term “income inequality,” while politically useful, is ontologically meaningless: it refers to nothing other than the left’s own preferences.

Considered as a moral ideal, the concept of equality has always been ambiguous. Ideologues have exploited this ambiguity in order to consolidate the power of the few, political office-holders, at the expense of the many—who Sumner refers to as “the Forgotten Man”—whose resources in time, energy, property, and person they would commandeer for the sake of benefiting “the poor.”

Enter the contemporary idiom of “income inequality.”

In reality, “inequalities” are nothing more or less than those instances of “diversity” that the left doesn’t like. Conversely, “diversity” consists of nothing other than those instances of “inequality” that the left likes.

Beverly Gage is correct when she notes that Sumner’s chief object of concern is “the Forgotten Man,” the law-abiding, working-class taxpayer. Yet she not so subtly insinuates that such a figure, thanks to Sumner, has become “a staple of American political rhetoric” behind the guise of which Sumner (and by implication, contemporary Republicans) actually advocate on behalf of “the rich.”

“As a political thinker, Sumner’s chief contribution lay neither in his praise for the rich, nor his lament for the Forgotten Man, but in his attempt to combine the two.” Gage concludes: “For better or worse, he offered a model for resolving the great conundrum of modern Republican politics: how to champion the wealthy while claiming to speak for the unsung middle class.”

Sumner and Republicans are hypocrites and phonies.

In truth, Sumner did indeed speak for “the unsung middle class.”

“The Forgotten Man” is the person whose resources are taken by the “social doctors”—those who are “always under the dominion of the superstition of government”—and redistributed to those classes of which, appealing to “the sympathies and the imagination,” they transform into “social pets.”

Gage, not unlike any other leftist who reduces the virtue of charity to government activism, accuses Sumner of not caring for those upon whom the left would like to spend the resources of others. But what he says is that the Forgotten Man, “the real sufferer” of the “kind of benevolence” for which “the friends of humanity”—i.e. the foes of “income inequality”—are noted, being “worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting,” could’ve benefited himself and in turn benefit society if the resources that government expends on “‘the poor,’” and “‘the weak’” would have instead remained in his pocket in the form of an increase in wages.

...

The Myth of ‘Equality’ and ‘the Forgotten Man’: Remembering William Graham Sumner

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Indeed they are. Liberalism is a race to the bottom. The lowest common denominator. No one can be bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, or more successful than the least among us. All must be equal. No deviations!

And yet, they require some to be more equal than others.

 

[BULLDOG]

Indeed they are. Liberalism is a race to the bottom. The lowest common denominator. No one can be bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, or more successful than the least among us. All must be equal. No deviations!

And yet, they require some to be more equal than others.

Equal opportunity and equal outcome aren't the same thing. Republicans just can't understand that.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Indeed they are. Liberalism is a race to the bottom. The lowest common denominator. No one can be bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, or more successful than the least among us. All must be equal. No deviations!

And yet, they require some to be more equal than others.

Equal opportunity and equal outcome aren't the same thing. Republicans just can't understand that.

Any chance you can explain this? Are you saying that equal outcome should be guaranteed