CEO pay at US’s largest companies up 54% since recovery began in 2009

[Judicial review]

I never said any of that. I said, put yourself in a position to invest and save to invest in these companies that are doing very well for themselves obviously to be able to pay their CEO's these bonuses as they have rightfully earned. Have a nice day socialists. I'm way to damn smart for you.

It's what you implied, unless it was personally directed at me, even though you know nothing about me. "Rightfully earned" Yes, nothing better then CEO'S banking billions after a massive crisis that ruined the lives of millions.. You're one of those people....

I'm one of those people that have resurrected a business that was hurt by the financial crisis of 2008. Meaning I saved jobs and hired. That what happens when you rebound from a crisis like that. CEO's make the decisions that everybody below them follow to be able to rebound after something like this. They have earned their place at the top and should be rewarded for it. You can't put a price on what they have done. Believe me I've tried to, but these executives are that invaluable.

Oh, congratulations, want a medal? Oh please, CEO'S are not magical, and this looks at the to, not small businesses, do you remember the billions made off of the backs of homeowners? It's pathetic how you justify this.

No it's reality for how I justify this. It's not my fault you haven't ever earned a title higher than a W-2 employee to be in a position to understand the amount of stress and hours these executive have to work under while making decision that affect tens of thousands of jobs every year. People like you think everybody is qualified to do this, when reality is they would never pass the interview for this type of position due to lack of experience, which that is perfectly justifiable. .

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

 

[Socialist]

It's what you implied, unless it was personally directed at me, even though you know nothing about me. "Rightfully earned" Yes, nothing better then CEO'S banking billions after a massive crisis that ruined the lives of millions.. You're one of those people....

I'm one of those people that have resurrected a business that was hurt by the financial crisis of 2008. Meaning I saved jobs and hired. That what happens when you rebound from a crisis like that. CEO's make the decisions that everybody below them follow to be able to rebound after something like this. They have earned their place at the top and should be rewarded for it. You can't put a price on what they have done. Believe me I've tried to, but these executives are that invaluable.

Oh, congratulations, want a medal? Oh please, CEO'S are not magical, and this looks at the to, not small businesses, do you remember the billions made off of the backs of homeowners? It's pathetic how you justify this.

No it's reality for how I justify this. It's not my fault you haven't ever earned a title higher than a W-2 employee to be in a position to understand the amount of stress and hours these executive have to work under while making decision that affect tens of thousands of jobs every year. People like you think everybody is qualified to do this, when reality is they would never pass the interview for this type of position due to lack of experience, which that is perfectly justifiable. .

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

 

[Judicial review]

I'm one of those people that have resurrected a business that was hurt by the financial crisis of 2008. Meaning I saved jobs and hired. That what happens when you rebound from a crisis like that. CEO's make the decisions that everybody below them follow to be able to rebound after something like this. They have earned their place at the top and should be rewarded for it. You can't put a price on what they have done. Believe me I've tried to, but these executives are that invaluable.

Oh, congratulations, want a medal? Oh please, CEO'S are not magical, and this looks at the to, not small businesses, do you remember the billions made off of the backs of homeowners? It's pathetic how you justify this.

No it's reality for how I justify this. It's not my fault you haven't ever earned a title higher than a W-2 employee to be in a position to understand the amount of stress and hours these executive have to work under while making decision that affect tens of thousands of jobs every year. People like you think everybody is qualified to do this, when reality is they would never pass the interview for this type of position due to lack of experience, which that is perfectly justifiable. .

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

 

[Socialist]

Oh, congratulations, want a medal? Oh please, CEO'S are not magical, and this looks at the to, not small businesses, do you remember the billions made off of the backs of homeowners? It's pathetic how you justify this.

No it's reality for how I justify this. It's not my fault you haven't ever earned a title higher than a W-2 employee to be in a position to understand the amount of stress and hours these executive have to work under while making decision that affect tens of thousands of jobs every year. People like you think everybody is qualified to do this, when reality is they would never pass the interview for this type of position due to lack of experience, which that is perfectly justifiable. .

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

 

[Judicial review]

No it's reality for how I justify this. It's not my fault you haven't ever earned a title higher than a W-2 employee to be in a position to understand the amount of stress and hours these executive have to work under while making decision that affect tens of thousands of jobs every year. People like you think everybody is qualified to do this, when reality is they would never pass the interview for this type of position due to lack of experience, which that is perfectly justifiable. .

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

 

[Socialist]

Tell me more about hugh grant, the monsanto pig, the walmart ceo relying on sweatshops in bangladesh for clothing.. Oh yes, "stress" exists for many workers, especially those who don't have wages that keep up with the cost of living, but then again, CEO'S are somehow magical people..

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

 

[Judicial review]

No they are not magical they are the most invaluable people. They hire the employees that you want to have jobs. They do exactly what you want them to do, and everybody has the option to invest in that company and their own work through stocks. If they aren't in a posion to save then they need to take charge and find a second job or have their spouse work or get a second job, instead of doing something illegal and trying to force to decide their own pay which they can't do as a W-2 employee. Another thing they can do is become self-employed and give themselves all the say and power just like these CEO's have done and this conversation all of a sudden becomes mute.

You have no argument. You are finished.

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

 

[Socialist]

"Invaluable people" When workers go on strike, I'm pretty sure the CEO doesn't make profit. None the less, let's begin. Have you heard of worker co-ops? I could easily say you have no argument with that line, but I'm not dishonest. Sure, CEO'S can do good things, no one denies that, however, the fact of the matter is, you cannot possibly justify a CEO getting millions in bonuses when people are laid off, it's disgusting. "Invest in stocks" Here we go again, you may not want to address it, but you're explicitly telling all people that don't gamble their money that it's their fault they didn't recover or some other hogwash. Oh god, it's not a magical thing to suddenly go self employed, you're delusional.

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

 

[Judicial review]

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Democracy that you talk about gives every employee the right to do exactly what I said they should do and have a responsibility to do not just for themselves. Your argument is shit now and I annihilated it to irrelevancy. Have a nice wonderful day.

 

[2aguy]

While America’s CEOs have seen their compensation soar in the past six years, the average annual earnings of employees haven’t budged

Psst … want to earn a CEO’s hourly wage? You can. You’ll just have to toil for about five weeks to do it, without a single day off.

According to the latest annual survey by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, CEOs at the 350 largest companies in the country pocketed an average of $16.3m in compensation each last year. That’s up 3.9% from 2013, and a whopping gain of 54.3% since the recovery began in 2009.

The average annual earnings of employees at those companies? Well, that was only $53,200. And in 2009, when the recovery began? Well, that was $53,200, too. In other words, while the CEOs have seen their compensation soar by 54%, the typical worker’s paycheck hasn’t budged.

You’d expect to see a gap between the earnings of the guy who is responsible for running the business and those that work there, of course; that would just reflect the greater burden on the former for keeping the whole show on the road (and the fact that if he doesn’t, his tenure can end very rapidly). Then, too, a CEO often is either a senior industry executive with considerable experience or, in the case of a smaller business or startup, its founder, who has put his own capital and reputation on the line to get the company going and keep it afloat.

But it’s the size of the gap that is the real problem, especially when set against the stagnation of employee salaries.

Right now, the average CEO compensation package is 303 times the size of the average earnings of their employees. The late management consultant Peter Drucker (who, as a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was no foe of capitalism) recommended that a CEO-to-worker pay ratio should never top 25; otherwise, he argued, they would “increase employee resentment and decrease morale”. By 2005, when Drucker died, the ratio was closing in on 400:1.

Employee resentment? Check. Low morale? Check. But neither has mattered much to the compensation committees signing off on CEO packages – and still failing to disclose publicly the size of their specific gap. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required companies to provide information on the CEO pay ratio to their investors (and thus, to the general public), and the Securities and Exchange Commission made a specific proposal about how that might be handled, opposition has ensured that so far, it hasn’t seen the light of day.

Shareholders – the folks in a position to push for this to happen – don’t seem to put altering this state of affairs at the top of their wish lists. Perhaps that’s because they, unlike the employees stuck with wages that have flat-lined, are enjoying profits of their own, in the form of soaring stock prices. Six years into the bull market, stock indexes have continued to set new records this year, with even the Nasdaq Composite Index posting new all-time highs, finally breaking above the levels it recorded in the dotcom bubble years.

As one 2005 academic study found, investors – whose representatives on the board of directors have the final say on CEO compensation – seem to become complacent during bull markets, indifferent to how rich CEOs, too, are getting, as long as they are sharing in the riches.

Of course, the bull market also is one of the reasons for those big paydays for CEOs. In fact, it’s probably the single largest reason for the explosion in the CEO pay gap. In 1978, when the idea of giving a CEO the majority of his compensation in the form of stock was almost non-existent, that CEO earned about 30 times what his average employee did. By 1989, when the idea of stock-based compensation was gaining traction (and activist investors and corporate raiders were taking aim at corporate managers they considered fat, lazy and unmotivated to increase returns for shareholders), the figure was closing in on 60. By 2000, getting a significant portion (or most) of one’s compensation in stock, option grants or deferred grants of equity was standard, and the gap was 376, according to the EPI.

Consider the controversial pay package that Jamie Dimon earned in 2014, for the bank’s 2013 performance. JP Morgan Chase’s board awarded him $20m that year, or less than $1m for every $1bn in regulatory fines and penalties that the bank had to pay. But defenders of the pay package pointed out that of that sum, $18.5m was in the form of restricted stock grants, which the board could cancel later, if other problems emerge. This year, Dimon got the same $20m, of which only $1.5m was in the form of a salary - $7.5m came in the shape of a cash bonus and $11.1m in restricted stock.

You can’t separate the question of CEO pay from the stock market. Rewarding with CEOs stock and options provides them with an incentive to boost the stock price – and it conserves cash. If the company has to issue more stock down the road to swap those options for shares in the business – something that existing shareholders usually don’t like – the idea is that by then the shares would have gone up in value so much that grumbling would be minimal.

And that has spilled over into the broader wage gap. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to own stocks – and to have participated in the post-2009 stock market rally, and to have become wealthier from your investments, even if your salary was stagnant. If you lost a job during the recession and remained unemployed, or never earned enough to invest at all, then you couldn’t afford to buy at the bargain basement prices in the spring of 2009, and may even have had to sell at that time in order to cover mortgage payments, pay college tuition for your kids, or buy groceries. In contrast, wealthier families, with more of a cash cushion, could afford to set aside spare money to continue investing. Studies have shown that these phenomena have resulted in the top 1% getting richer, and doing so at the expense of the rest of us. The authors of those studies, meanwhile, argue that’s not good for the economy, since the CEOs and others don’t add economic value in exchange for all their extra riches.

CEO pay at US s largest companies up 54 since recovery began in 2009 Business The Guardian

So. Start your own company, pay your employees and CEO whatever you want...problem solved....

 

[2aguy]

If private worker go on strike they are fired. Rightfully so. They are too lazy to find other work or become self-employed and their own CEO. The other reason why they don't do it is becoause not everybody can be a CEO and wants that kind of responsibility and to put that many hours into their job. A lot of people you are describing want more pay for less hours, how do you justify that? You can't.

Companies sometimes don't need a lot of employees and to make the company more solid they lay them off and not just that they eliminate the real estate which is considered overhead just like payroll and then when they have another big project they will hire again. If you are an employee who want a pay raise then get it yourself by investing in your company which the CEO's give every employee the right to do. Then all of a sudden you just got a raise through investing in YOU.

Bottom line - Employees have tremendous power and sway over a company if they simply do the work and take responsibility for themselves and act. When you can change your situation yourself you do it or you are being LAZY and you have no right as a w-2 employee to chose your own pay. Tough shit. People like that I have no time for.

Also - It's outsiders like you who don't even work for the company who can't see that these employees haven't acted because MOST of them are happy where they are at. If they weren't they'd do something about it instead of running their mouths.

Socialist you talk way too much. I told you.. You already lost this fight. Now shut up and stop it.

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Spain...really.......wow....you are fucking clueless...

 

[Judicial review]

While America’s CEOs have seen their compensation soar in the past six years, the average annual earnings of employees haven’t budged

Psst … want to earn a CEO’s hourly wage? You can. You’ll just have to toil for about five weeks to do it, without a single day off.

According to the latest annual survey by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, CEOs at the 350 largest companies in the country pocketed an average of $16.3m in compensation each last year. That’s up 3.9% from 2013, and a whopping gain of 54.3% since the recovery began in 2009.

The average annual earnings of employees at those companies? Well, that was only $53,200. And in 2009, when the recovery began? Well, that was $53,200, too. In other words, while the CEOs have seen their compensation soar by 54%, the typical worker’s paycheck hasn’t budged.

You’d expect to see a gap between the earnings of the guy who is responsible for running the business and those that work there, of course; that would just reflect the greater burden on the former for keeping the whole show on the road (and the fact that if he doesn’t, his tenure can end very rapidly). Then, too, a CEO often is either a senior industry executive with considerable experience or, in the case of a smaller business or startup, its founder, who has put his own capital and reputation on the line to get the company going and keep it afloat.

But it’s the size of the gap that is the real problem, especially when set against the stagnation of employee salaries.

Right now, the average CEO compensation package is 303 times the size of the average earnings of their employees. The late management consultant Peter Drucker (who, as a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was no foe of capitalism) recommended that a CEO-to-worker pay ratio should never top 25; otherwise, he argued, they would “increase employee resentment and decrease morale”. By 2005, when Drucker died, the ratio was closing in on 400:1.

Employee resentment? Check. Low morale? Check. But neither has mattered much to the compensation committees signing off on CEO packages – and still failing to disclose publicly the size of their specific gap. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required companies to provide information on the CEO pay ratio to their investors (and thus, to the general public), and the Securities and Exchange Commission made a specific proposal about how that might be handled, opposition has ensured that so far, it hasn’t seen the light of day.

Shareholders – the folks in a position to push for this to happen – don’t seem to put altering this state of affairs at the top of their wish lists. Perhaps that’s because they, unlike the employees stuck with wages that have flat-lined, are enjoying profits of their own, in the form of soaring stock prices. Six years into the bull market, stock indexes have continued to set new records this year, with even the Nasdaq Composite Index posting new all-time highs, finally breaking above the levels it recorded in the dotcom bubble years.

As one 2005 academic study found, investors – whose representatives on the board of directors have the final say on CEO compensation – seem to become complacent during bull markets, indifferent to how rich CEOs, too, are getting, as long as they are sharing in the riches.

Of course, the bull market also is one of the reasons for those big paydays for CEOs. In fact, it’s probably the single largest reason for the explosion in the CEO pay gap. In 1978, when the idea of giving a CEO the majority of his compensation in the form of stock was almost non-existent, that CEO earned about 30 times what his average employee did. By 1989, when the idea of stock-based compensation was gaining traction (and activist investors and corporate raiders were taking aim at corporate managers they considered fat, lazy and unmotivated to increase returns for shareholders), the figure was closing in on 60. By 2000, getting a significant portion (or most) of one’s compensation in stock, option grants or deferred grants of equity was standard, and the gap was 376, according to the EPI.

Consider the controversial pay package that Jamie Dimon earned in 2014, for the bank’s 2013 performance. JP Morgan Chase’s board awarded him $20m that year, or less than $1m for every $1bn in regulatory fines and penalties that the bank had to pay. But defenders of the pay package pointed out that of that sum, $18.5m was in the form of restricted stock grants, which the board could cancel later, if other problems emerge. This year, Dimon got the same $20m, of which only $1.5m was in the form of a salary - $7.5m came in the shape of a cash bonus and $11.1m in restricted stock.

You can’t separate the question of CEO pay from the stock market. Rewarding with CEOs stock and options provides them with an incentive to boost the stock price – and it conserves cash. If the company has to issue more stock down the road to swap those options for shares in the business – something that existing shareholders usually don’t like – the idea is that by then the shares would have gone up in value so much that grumbling would be minimal.

And that has spilled over into the broader wage gap. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to own stocks – and to have participated in the post-2009 stock market rally, and to have become wealthier from your investments, even if your salary was stagnant. If you lost a job during the recession and remained unemployed, or never earned enough to invest at all, then you couldn’t afford to buy at the bargain basement prices in the spring of 2009, and may even have had to sell at that time in order to cover mortgage payments, pay college tuition for your kids, or buy groceries. In contrast, wealthier families, with more of a cash cushion, could afford to set aside spare money to continue investing. Studies have shown that these phenomena have resulted in the top 1% getting richer, and doing so at the expense of the rest of us. The authors of those studies, meanwhile, argue that’s not good for the economy, since the CEOs and others don’t add economic value in exchange for all their extra riches.

CEO pay at US s largest companies up 54 since recovery began in 2009 Business The Guardian

So. Start your own company, pay your employees and CEO whatever you want...problem solved....

Exactly. Not rocket science.

 

[Socialist]

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Spain...really.......wow....you are fucking clueless...

Do you have any idea what the revolution in spain was? It occurred in the mid-early 1900's, then again, you can barely form a sentence without using ..........

 

[Socialist]

While America’s CEOs have seen their compensation soar in the past six years, the average annual earnings of employees haven’t budged

Psst … want to earn a CEO’s hourly wage? You can. You’ll just have to toil for about five weeks to do it, without a single day off.

According to the latest annual survey by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, CEOs at the 350 largest companies in the country pocketed an average of $16.3m in compensation each last year. That’s up 3.9% from 2013, and a whopping gain of 54.3% since the recovery began in 2009.

The average annual earnings of employees at those companies? Well, that was only $53,200. And in 2009, when the recovery began? Well, that was $53,200, too. In other words, while the CEOs have seen their compensation soar by 54%, the typical worker’s paycheck hasn’t budged.

You’d expect to see a gap between the earnings of the guy who is responsible for running the business and those that work there, of course; that would just reflect the greater burden on the former for keeping the whole show on the road (and the fact that if he doesn’t, his tenure can end very rapidly). Then, too, a CEO often is either a senior industry executive with considerable experience or, in the case of a smaller business or startup, its founder, who has put his own capital and reputation on the line to get the company going and keep it afloat.

But it’s the size of the gap that is the real problem, especially when set against the stagnation of employee salaries.

Right now, the average CEO compensation package is 303 times the size of the average earnings of their employees. The late management consultant Peter Drucker (who, as a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was no foe of capitalism) recommended that a CEO-to-worker pay ratio should never top 25; otherwise, he argued, they would “increase employee resentment and decrease morale”. By 2005, when Drucker died, the ratio was closing in on 400:1.

Employee resentment? Check. Low morale? Check. But neither has mattered much to the compensation committees signing off on CEO packages – and still failing to disclose publicly the size of their specific gap. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required companies to provide information on the CEO pay ratio to their investors (and thus, to the general public), and the Securities and Exchange Commission made a specific proposal about how that might be handled, opposition has ensured that so far, it hasn’t seen the light of day.

Shareholders – the folks in a position to push for this to happen – don’t seem to put altering this state of affairs at the top of their wish lists. Perhaps that’s because they, unlike the employees stuck with wages that have flat-lined, are enjoying profits of their own, in the form of soaring stock prices. Six years into the bull market, stock indexes have continued to set new records this year, with even the Nasdaq Composite Index posting new all-time highs, finally breaking above the levels it recorded in the dotcom bubble years.

As one 2005 academic study found, investors – whose representatives on the board of directors have the final say on CEO compensation – seem to become complacent during bull markets, indifferent to how rich CEOs, too, are getting, as long as they are sharing in the riches.

Of course, the bull market also is one of the reasons for those big paydays for CEOs. In fact, it’s probably the single largest reason for the explosion in the CEO pay gap. In 1978, when the idea of giving a CEO the majority of his compensation in the form of stock was almost non-existent, that CEO earned about 30 times what his average employee did. By 1989, when the idea of stock-based compensation was gaining traction (and activist investors and corporate raiders were taking aim at corporate managers they considered fat, lazy and unmotivated to increase returns for shareholders), the figure was closing in on 60. By 2000, getting a significant portion (or most) of one’s compensation in stock, option grants or deferred grants of equity was standard, and the gap was 376, according to the EPI.

Consider the controversial pay package that Jamie Dimon earned in 2014, for the bank’s 2013 performance. JP Morgan Chase’s board awarded him $20m that year, or less than $1m for every $1bn in regulatory fines and penalties that the bank had to pay. But defenders of the pay package pointed out that of that sum, $18.5m was in the form of restricted stock grants, which the board could cancel later, if other problems emerge. This year, Dimon got the same $20m, of which only $1.5m was in the form of a salary - $7.5m came in the shape of a cash bonus and $11.1m in restricted stock.

You can’t separate the question of CEO pay from the stock market. Rewarding with CEOs stock and options provides them with an incentive to boost the stock price – and it conserves cash. If the company has to issue more stock down the road to swap those options for shares in the business – something that existing shareholders usually don’t like – the idea is that by then the shares would have gone up in value so much that grumbling would be minimal.

And that has spilled over into the broader wage gap. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to own stocks – and to have participated in the post-2009 stock market rally, and to have become wealthier from your investments, even if your salary was stagnant. If you lost a job during the recession and remained unemployed, or never earned enough to invest at all, then you couldn’t afford to buy at the bargain basement prices in the spring of 2009, and may even have had to sell at that time in order to cover mortgage payments, pay college tuition for your kids, or buy groceries. In contrast, wealthier families, with more of a cash cushion, could afford to set aside spare money to continue investing. Studies have shown that these phenomena have resulted in the top 1% getting richer, and doing so at the expense of the rest of us. The authors of those studies, meanwhile, argue that’s not good for the economy, since the CEOs and others don’t add economic value in exchange for all their extra riches.

CEO pay at US s largest companies up 54 since recovery began in 2009 Business The Guardian

So. Start your own company, pay your employees and CEO whatever you want...problem solved....

Exactly. Not rocket science.

I'll be sure to tell the billions living in poverty to stop being lazy and start their own businesses. I'm certain capitalism works like that.

 

[OKTexas]

While America’s CEOs have seen their compensation soar in the past six years, the average annual earnings of employees haven’t budged

Psst … want to earn a CEO’s hourly wage? You can. You’ll just have to toil for about five weeks to do it, without a single day off.

According to the latest annual survey by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, CEOs at the 350 largest companies in the country pocketed an average of $16.3m in compensation each last year. That’s up 3.9% from 2013, and a whopping gain of 54.3% since the recovery began in 2009.

The average annual earnings of employees at those companies? Well, that was only $53,200. And in 2009, when the recovery began? Well, that was $53,200, too. In other words, while the CEOs have seen their compensation soar by 54%, the typical worker’s paycheck hasn’t budged.

You’d expect to see a gap between the earnings of the guy who is responsible for running the business and those that work there, of course; that would just reflect the greater burden on the former for keeping the whole show on the road (and the fact that if he doesn’t, his tenure can end very rapidly). Then, too, a CEO often is either a senior industry executive with considerable experience or, in the case of a smaller business or startup, its founder, who has put his own capital and reputation on the line to get the company going and keep it afloat.

But it’s the size of the gap that is the real problem, especially when set against the stagnation of employee salaries.

Right now, the average CEO compensation package is 303 times the size of the average earnings of their employees. The late management consultant Peter Drucker (who, as a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was no foe of capitalism) recommended that a CEO-to-worker pay ratio should never top 25; otherwise, he argued, they would “increase employee resentment and decrease morale”. By 2005, when Drucker died, the ratio was closing in on 400:1.

Employee resentment? Check. Low morale? Check. But neither has mattered much to the compensation committees signing off on CEO packages – and still failing to disclose publicly the size of their specific gap. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required companies to provide information on the CEO pay ratio to their investors (and thus, to the general public), and the Securities and Exchange Commission made a specific proposal about how that might be handled, opposition has ensured that so far, it hasn’t seen the light of day.

Shareholders – the folks in a position to push for this to happen – don’t seem to put altering this state of affairs at the top of their wish lists. Perhaps that’s because they, unlike the employees stuck with wages that have flat-lined, are enjoying profits of their own, in the form of soaring stock prices. Six years into the bull market, stock indexes have continued to set new records this year, with even the Nasdaq Composite Index posting new all-time highs, finally breaking above the levels it recorded in the dotcom bubble years.

As one 2005 academic study found, investors – whose representatives on the board of directors have the final say on CEO compensation – seem to become complacent during bull markets, indifferent to how rich CEOs, too, are getting, as long as they are sharing in the riches.

Of course, the bull market also is one of the reasons for those big paydays for CEOs. In fact, it’s probably the single largest reason for the explosion in the CEO pay gap. In 1978, when the idea of giving a CEO the majority of his compensation in the form of stock was almost non-existent, that CEO earned about 30 times what his average employee did. By 1989, when the idea of stock-based compensation was gaining traction (and activist investors and corporate raiders were taking aim at corporate managers they considered fat, lazy and unmotivated to increase returns for shareholders), the figure was closing in on 60. By 2000, getting a significant portion (or most) of one’s compensation in stock, option grants or deferred grants of equity was standard, and the gap was 376, according to the EPI.

Consider the controversial pay package that Jamie Dimon earned in 2014, for the bank’s 2013 performance. JP Morgan Chase’s board awarded him $20m that year, or less than $1m for every $1bn in regulatory fines and penalties that the bank had to pay. But defenders of the pay package pointed out that of that sum, $18.5m was in the form of restricted stock grants, which the board could cancel later, if other problems emerge. This year, Dimon got the same $20m, of which only $1.5m was in the form of a salary - $7.5m came in the shape of a cash bonus and $11.1m in restricted stock.

You can’t separate the question of CEO pay from the stock market. Rewarding with CEOs stock and options provides them with an incentive to boost the stock price – and it conserves cash. If the company has to issue more stock down the road to swap those options for shares in the business – something that existing shareholders usually don’t like – the idea is that by then the shares would have gone up in value so much that grumbling would be minimal.

And that has spilled over into the broader wage gap. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to own stocks – and to have participated in the post-2009 stock market rally, and to have become wealthier from your investments, even if your salary was stagnant. If you lost a job during the recession and remained unemployed, or never earned enough to invest at all, then you couldn’t afford to buy at the bargain basement prices in the spring of 2009, and may even have had to sell at that time in order to cover mortgage payments, pay college tuition for your kids, or buy groceries. In contrast, wealthier families, with more of a cash cushion, could afford to set aside spare money to continue investing. Studies have shown that these phenomena have resulted in the top 1% getting richer, and doing so at the expense of the rest of us. The authors of those studies, meanwhile, argue that’s not good for the economy, since the CEOs and others don’t add economic value in exchange for all their extra riches.

CEO pay at US s largest companies up 54 since recovery began in 2009 Business The Guardian

You've already said this isn't the greatest place on earth, so how about you move your feeble ass to your perceived number one and spare us your endless class envy.

 

[Judicial review]

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Spain...really.......wow....you are fucking clueless...

Do you have any idea what the revolution in spain was? It occurred in the mid-early 1900's, then again, you can barely form a sentence without using ..........

You are now finished. Better ask CK for a new name.

 

[Socialist]

You honestly believe that if workers go on strike, they're lazy and should just become their own CEO'S. I thought you understood how businesses work, clearly, you have no fucking idea. You are actually convinced that workers shouldn't be allowed to protest working conditions, low wages, abuses.. I'm sure you're also against labor unions and worker co-ops. Not everyone can become a CEO? NO FUCKING WAY, I'm pretty sure capitalism wouldn't be able to function if more then a tiny minority were CEO's relying on extracting surplus value from the laborer. Oh god, are you referring to minimum wage workers? 7.25 is not a livable wage, I dare you to raise a child on the minimum wage, of course, if we use your logic, the majority of the world, more then 5 billion people who live in poverty, are just lazy and need to work harder. You fail to understand basic economics, along with socioeconomic factors when discussing things like this. Oh yes, companies don't need "employees" if they need to get millions in bonuses to their top executives, I've seen it happen, it's hilarious how you justify it. You do realize companies, large ones, rely on third world labor, sweatshops, factories in china, people in india, they outsource jobs from american workers to wage slaves in other countries for more profit, but of course, this is justified, you can justify anything. Oh jesus, can you imagine telling child laborers wanting a pay raise before the minimum wage and such that they need to invest in the company? Your logic doesn't hold up when companies are making billions in profit, dodging taxes, while the executives are raking in cash. Employees do have tremendous power, especially when they strike, collectively bargain, unionize.. Yes, I'm sure the majority of minimum wage workers and the 3 billion+ worldwide in harsh poverty are happy with their conditions, not because they're wage slaves. Fuck you.

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Democracy that you talk about gives every employee the right to do exactly what I said they should do and have a responsibility to do not just for themselves. Your argument is shit now and I annihilated it to irrelevancy. Have a nice wonderful day.

I can't tell if you're supporting worker co-ops or being against them.. You aren't annihilating anything, your spewing nonsense.

 

[Judicial review]

While America’s CEOs have seen their compensation soar in the past six years, the average annual earnings of employees haven’t budged

Psst … want to earn a CEO’s hourly wage? You can. You’ll just have to toil for about five weeks to do it, without a single day off.

According to the latest annual survey by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, CEOs at the 350 largest companies in the country pocketed an average of $16.3m in compensation each last year. That’s up 3.9% from 2013, and a whopping gain of 54.3% since the recovery began in 2009.

The average annual earnings of employees at those companies? Well, that was only $53,200. And in 2009, when the recovery began? Well, that was $53,200, too. In other words, while the CEOs have seen their compensation soar by 54%, the typical worker’s paycheck hasn’t budged.

You’d expect to see a gap between the earnings of the guy who is responsible for running the business and those that work there, of course; that would just reflect the greater burden on the former for keeping the whole show on the road (and the fact that if he doesn’t, his tenure can end very rapidly). Then, too, a CEO often is either a senior industry executive with considerable experience or, in the case of a smaller business or startup, its founder, who has put his own capital and reputation on the line to get the company going and keep it afloat.

But it’s the size of the gap that is the real problem, especially when set against the stagnation of employee salaries.

Right now, the average CEO compensation package is 303 times the size of the average earnings of their employees. The late management consultant Peter Drucker (who, as a winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was no foe of capitalism) recommended that a CEO-to-worker pay ratio should never top 25; otherwise, he argued, they would “increase employee resentment and decrease morale”. By 2005, when Drucker died, the ratio was closing in on 400:1.

Employee resentment? Check. Low morale? Check. But neither has mattered much to the compensation committees signing off on CEO packages – and still failing to disclose publicly the size of their specific gap. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required companies to provide information on the CEO pay ratio to their investors (and thus, to the general public), and the Securities and Exchange Commission made a specific proposal about how that might be handled, opposition has ensured that so far, it hasn’t seen the light of day.

Shareholders – the folks in a position to push for this to happen – don’t seem to put altering this state of affairs at the top of their wish lists. Perhaps that’s because they, unlike the employees stuck with wages that have flat-lined, are enjoying profits of their own, in the form of soaring stock prices. Six years into the bull market, stock indexes have continued to set new records this year, with even the Nasdaq Composite Index posting new all-time highs, finally breaking above the levels it recorded in the dotcom bubble years.

As one 2005 academic study found, investors – whose representatives on the board of directors have the final say on CEO compensation – seem to become complacent during bull markets, indifferent to how rich CEOs, too, are getting, as long as they are sharing in the riches.

Of course, the bull market also is one of the reasons for those big paydays for CEOs. In fact, it’s probably the single largest reason for the explosion in the CEO pay gap. In 1978, when the idea of giving a CEO the majority of his compensation in the form of stock was almost non-existent, that CEO earned about 30 times what his average employee did. By 1989, when the idea of stock-based compensation was gaining traction (and activist investors and corporate raiders were taking aim at corporate managers they considered fat, lazy and unmotivated to increase returns for shareholders), the figure was closing in on 60. By 2000, getting a significant portion (or most) of one’s compensation in stock, option grants or deferred grants of equity was standard, and the gap was 376, according to the EPI.

Consider the controversial pay package that Jamie Dimon earned in 2014, for the bank’s 2013 performance. JP Morgan Chase’s board awarded him $20m that year, or less than $1m for every $1bn in regulatory fines and penalties that the bank had to pay. But defenders of the pay package pointed out that of that sum, $18.5m was in the form of restricted stock grants, which the board could cancel later, if other problems emerge. This year, Dimon got the same $20m, of which only $1.5m was in the form of a salary - $7.5m came in the shape of a cash bonus and $11.1m in restricted stock.

You can’t separate the question of CEO pay from the stock market. Rewarding with CEOs stock and options provides them with an incentive to boost the stock price – and it conserves cash. If the company has to issue more stock down the road to swap those options for shares in the business – something that existing shareholders usually don’t like – the idea is that by then the shares would have gone up in value so much that grumbling would be minimal.

And that has spilled over into the broader wage gap. The more affluent you are, the more likely you are to own stocks – and to have participated in the post-2009 stock market rally, and to have become wealthier from your investments, even if your salary was stagnant. If you lost a job during the recession and remained unemployed, or never earned enough to invest at all, then you couldn’t afford to buy at the bargain basement prices in the spring of 2009, and may even have had to sell at that time in order to cover mortgage payments, pay college tuition for your kids, or buy groceries. In contrast, wealthier families, with more of a cash cushion, could afford to set aside spare money to continue investing. Studies have shown that these phenomena have resulted in the top 1% getting richer, and doing so at the expense of the rest of us. The authors of those studies, meanwhile, argue that’s not good for the economy, since the CEOs and others don’t add economic value in exchange for all their extra riches.

CEO pay at US s largest companies up 54 since recovery began in 2009 Business The Guardian

So. Start your own company, pay your employees and CEO whatever you want...problem solved....

Exactly. Not rocket science.

I'll be sure to tell the billions living in poverty to stop being lazy and start their own businesses. I'm certain capitalism works like that.

Billions aren't under capitalism. The reason why you are bitching about this is because you are being blinded by socialistic policies, which is what most of the world is under.

 

[Socialist]

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Spain...really.......wow....you are fucking clueless...

Do you have any idea what the revolution in spain was? It occurred in the mid-early 1900's, then again, you can barely form a sentence without using ..........

You are now finished. Better ask CK for a new name.

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

 

[Judicial review]

You are just repeating same shit. You put no thought into workers responsibility not just to themselves, but to their families. They can take the company completely out of the equation and not expect something they will never get while their families suffer as a result of their own choice to stay.

Business - Is where you focus on employee responsibility in every way FIRST, which is called doing your job.

This has NOTHING to do with the corporation but EVERYTHING to do with the responsibility of the employee and as a individual, father or mother, husband or wife.. This is the true difference between freedom and socialism. Every employee is free to take matters into their own hands. So shut up and do it.

You've completely failed to address my post, workers do have a responsibility, just like CEO'S should be putting the workers above themselves, personally, I support workplace democracy, something you probably vehemently oppose. That is true responsibility. Socialism is democratic ownership of production, no use in arguing when you can't even define your terms.

I have not only address your point but exposed socialism as the failure and lazy structure it is. Anybody reading this can see that. Your "fuck you" comment was all you needed to say and was the first step that every employee who isn't happy with their situation at work should say and quit then act in the best interest of themselves and their families.

Another words by you saying fuck you to me you are now fired and free to chose your own path. Now go and make something of it Socialist. Bitching time is now over you are now unemployed and you now need to act for you and your family.

Now you see my point.

You have no idea what socialism is, you've shown that, especially when you ignore the productivity increases that occurred in actual socialist societies in spain, more so catalonia, and the success of worker co-ops. Then again, you're against workplace democracy, so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Oh lord, in a world where competition is vehement and disgusting, where companies who have access to third world wage slaves always get ahead, you expect every single employee to start their own business or you blame them and call them failures. Again, fuck you.

Democracy that you talk about gives every employee the right to do exactly what I said they should do and have a responsibility to do not just for themselves. Your argument is shit now and I annihilated it to irrelevancy. Have a nice wonderful day.

I can't tell if you're supporting worker co-ops or being against them.. You aren't annihilating anything, your spewing nonsense.

Now you are going to resort to bullshit arguing and name calling and not put any thought into your posts, because you now have NOTHING to go on. Time for you to leave your own thread.