I was wrong

[Skull Pilot]

This is one of the most disgusting displays of the most petty jealousy and "I'm a victim" whining that i have seen here.

just what exactly do you whiners want? everyone to make exactly the same wage no matter what they do? Should we just divide the GDP every year by the number of workers and call it good?

so pick an arbitrary wage and force everyone to work for that amount. tell business owners and stock holders that they don't deserve to make more than someone else because it's not fair.

You should be able to work pushing a broom for 40 years and make enough money to buy a big house put 6 kids through college and then retire to an island paradise. After all we're all in this together right?


yeah and if wishes were ponies we all would ride.

You have to make your own way in this world folks and the sooner you realize that the sooner you might actually do something to improve yourself; to make yourself worth a big salary if you care to work for someone else or to educate yourself on a particular sector of business and start your own company. Patent an idea, provide a needed service at a reasonable cost.

In other words stop fucking whining and do something. stop blaming someone else because you don't think you make enough.

Look in the mirror and see who is actually holding you back.

YOU are the guilty party.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

More Socialism rhetoric.

Yeah, right...expecting those not in the top 1% to be paid a fair wage is socialism.

Wanting the government to divide up private property amongst the masses, so that everyone has the same amount is what? That is what you are basically calling for. You don't like the term Socialism but it is what you are espousing.

If you don't like how much you make, do something about it. It is not the government's job to wipe your butt.

 

[rightwinger]

More Socialism rhetoric.

Yeah, right...expecting those not in the top 1% to be paid a fair wage is socialism.

Wanting the government to divide up private property amongst the masses, so that everyone has the same amount is what? That is what you are basically calling for. You don't like the term Socialism but it is what you are espousing.

If you don't like how much you make, do something about it. It is not the government's job to wipe your butt.

I'm calling you on this one..
Where has anyone proposed dividing up private property so that everyone has the same amount?
That is nothing like what everyone is calling for

 

[The T]

When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

Says who? You? What are you? A Poverty pimpette?
It's no one's business but the company and their shareholders.

 

[The T]

You people act as if the rich are keeping the less fortunate from becoming successful.

This is not a zero sum game. Just because they are rich does not mean that you cannot also be well off.

Unfortunately the facts do not back up your view. Over the last 30 years, the rich have become immensely rich and the rest of America has seen their wages stagnate or actually lose ground. You are correct that it is not a zero sum game, but the fact is that only the wealthy are seeing an increased share of the growing pie, so something is not working.

So to you the Government has to come in via Bam-Bam's "Pay Czar" and dictate to a private entity or entities how much they can pay someone?

It's NONE of their damned business.

 

[rightwinger]

How does one get their wealth stolen from them? Esp. when they pay no taxes. While the rich may be getting richer (or were) so were the poor. How many poor people own cell phones and have cable TV? Do the poor in socialistic countries enjoy these luxuries?

When I was starting out, I worked two minimum wage jobs. It never occurred to me that someone had actually taken the money I never had. Liberal math again.

Exactly when did you start out? In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. A minimum wage worker could afford his own apartment, his own car, and take night classes to improve his living conditions. Today a minimum wage worker can't even afford his own apartment. Minimum wage now has the lowest spending power in history and our economy is suffering, of course the uber wealthy don't care because they are the ones getting richer of the backs of the working poor.

I started out in 1972 at $1.85 an hour. I was able to earn enough to work my way through college without a loan.

Try that now on minimum wage

 

[The T]

You people act as if the rich are keeping the less fortunate from becoming successful.

This is not a zero sum game. Just because they are rich does not mean that you cannot also be well off.

Exactly. The so-called 'rich' make it possible for people to find jobs to match their skills, and profit from it for the benefit of the company and the individual.

And wealth is created by the so-called 'rich' by their endeavours.

Obama and the Statists are stifling it by their war on the private sector, and won't rest until they have killed the goose.

Your statement of 'zero sum game' is totally correct. If people want proof? What was the GDP of this nation when it was founded, versus now?

The numbers we deal with these days werew unheard of then. The wealth is created by and belongs TO the people of this nation, and NOT the Government.

The sooner we drill this into the heads of these Statist creeps, the better off we will all be. But It is a power play (Control Factor) to them because they already know these things.

 

[The T]

Stay on track, T, with the thread. We are talking about the rich, not bogus charges that Obama kills companies. I think that happened under Bush. T, stop it. Look at me, T, look me in the eyes. Yes, that's better. Start talking sense.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7RbZNT5A2A"]PSYCHOBABBLE[/ame]

Enough Said

 

[The T]

Basically you are correct with one small flaw in your thinking. True, the company forecasts payroll 1, 3 maybe even 5 years into the future and typically they base their forecasts on a percentage of income. The one are that I think you are wrong in is that they don't say, "we have 15% of income to spend on payroll and the Board of Director's comes out of that."

Rather, the way it is looked at is that the estimate what the payroll costs will be... 12% for production, 3% for administrative and 5% for Board of Directors.

The difference being in that they estimate the percentage of salaries based on sales rather than saying that they are only spending such and such an amount and no more. Also, the Board of Directors salaries are contractual obligations so they have to project those out at the contractual amounts so based on your 15% example, they would say, "15% of sales will go to employee payroll. The CEO salary is X dollars and they would figure that in on top of payroll."

However, based on your example that doesn't preclude them from saying, "15% is too high to pay our employees AND the CEO, so we will cut salaries and reduce it to 12.5%". In this case, maybe they should cut the CEO's salary rather than the people who produce for them.

Immie

wow.

Hey if you don't like that the owner/ CEO of the company you work for makes more than you take a fucking hike and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bye bye, see you later alligator, bon voyage and all that rot.

first off, i am talking about big corporations NOT INDIVIDUAL COMPANY OWNERS....the CEO and board of directors ARE NOT the owner of the company, the share holders are....

Individual companies with owners present, do NOT tend to be greedy imo and have a hands on relationship with their employees and tend to pay them according to what they produce for them....

and in general, individual companies are not 100 million dollar companies....where the ceo, NOT the owner, gets a $5 million annual salary... or a $500 million dollar annual salary.

So what? Who's business is this? Yours? Mine? Obama's? The Statist Congress?

Answer? The companys' business. If they cannot sustain this kinda pay? They go under. And nature being what it is abhors a vacuum. That company will be replaced by some other that can sustain their business at the behest of the market demand.

And whom are the 'market'? Consumers.

End Story.

 

[Againsheila]

(A) So what?

(B) What percentages do YOU find morally "acceptable?"

(C) On what basis?

(D) When you use loaded terms like "our wealth being stolen from us," perhaps you'd feel obliged to share with the class HOW you come to your conclusion that earning wealth is stealing anything from anybody?

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

Says who? You? What are you? A Poverty pimpette?
It's no one's business but the company and their shareholders.

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nobody "earns" 500 times more than the average worker.

Says who? You? What are you? A Poverty pimpette?
It's no one's business but the company and their shareholders.

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

People didn't ask for bailout. Government insisted.

 

[Againsheila]

Says who? You? What are you? A Poverty pimpette?
It's no one's business but the company and their shareholders.

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

People didn't ask for bailout. Government insisted.

Yeah, right the bank CEOs and their lobbyists didn't ask for anything....

 

[Ame®icano]

If that were true, we wouldn't have spent over a $trillion bailing out the failing banks.

People didn't ask for bailout. Government insisted.

Yeah, right the bank CEOs and their lobbyists didn't ask for anything....

They forced government with guns to their heads.

 

[Care4all]

pretty much....

president bush was told our entire economic system was going to crash and burn bigger than 100 nukes going off here and around the world.

he came on the TV and said such basically to all of us....i took out cash that next morning cuz i was certain there would be a run, on money, at the banks...his speech was so scary....

NOT FOR ONE NANOSECOND do i believe george bush, the politician made this up...he was told this was needed...the bailout...and you can bet your bottom dollar, this came from the mega banks themselves....

care

 

[Immanuel]

pretty much....

president bush was told our entire economic system was going to crash and burn bigger than 100 nukes going off here and around the world.

he came on the TV and said such basically to all of us....i took out cash that next morning cuz i was certain there would be a run, on money, at the banks...his speech was so scary....

NOT FOR ONE NANOSECOND do i believe george bush, the politician made this up...he was told this was needed...the bailout...and you can bet your bottom dollar, this came from the mega banks themselves....

care

Yes, he was told this... by the Democrats who were working to bring down the Republican Party (which ironically after seven years of Bush was not needed) for the 2008 campaign. The Democrats played down the economy and made it a self-fulfilling prophesy. I can't say as I blame them, but I sure as heck don't think Bush needed to be brought down. He'd done a fine job of that all by himself.

Immie

 

[editec]

When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.

FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.

<<<

I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?

When are we going to do something about it?

When human nature changes from that selfish children to something where people understand that we're all in this together.

My guess is, for Americans? That means never.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you have no money, it is no one's fault but your own. So instead of whining that "It's not fair", get off your lazy fucking ass and do something about it.

Because as we know, we can all be in that 1 percent, right??

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people on this board believe people should work hard and strive to do their best and they will accumulate wealth. What most people SHOULD find repugnant is that in a desperate attempt to get a "saviour" to run their company, boards don't tend to include a pretty decisive performance-based salary and bonus structure in the CEOs remuneration package. Or, having decided to sack the CEO, pay him or her out because they can't be bothered with a court case and the cost it might incur. I say fuck 'em, if it is proven their decision making abilities were crap, see you in court.

 

[Dr Grump]

Let's say your company of 1000 employees doesn't make any profit, or worse, them have loses. They try to stay above the water, lay off some workers, enforce paycuts, no bonuses, and is not working. Share holders and investors are not getting dividends, company is at the edge of survival, nobody's happy.

Then they hire new CEO who demands his bonus to be 1/3 of profit that company made. With his skills and decisions, company gets on his feet, workers get paid their salaries plus bonuses, shareholders are happy. Jobs are "saved or created". What's wrong with that?

Nothing...

 

[Dr Grump]

pretty much....

president bush was told our entire economic system was going to crash and burn bigger than 100 nukes going off here and around the world.

he came on the TV and said such basically to all of us....i took out cash that next morning cuz i was certain there would be a run, on money, at the banks...his speech was so scary....

NOT FOR ONE NANOSECOND do i believe george bush, the politician made this up...he was told this was needed...the bailout...and you can bet your bottom dollar, this came from the mega banks themselves....

care

Yes, he was told this... by the Democrats who were working to bring down the Republican Party (which ironically after seven years of Bush was not needed) for the 2008 campaign. The Democrats played down the economy and made it a self-fulfilling prophesy. I can't say as I blame them, but I sure as heck don't think Bush needed to be brought down. He'd done a fine job of that all by himself.

Immie

If you believe that, then you have no idea how the system was being worked. No bail out. US is Germany circa 1933...

 

[Immanuel]

pretty much....

president bush was told our entire economic system was going to crash and burn bigger than 100 nukes going off here and around the world.

he came on the TV and said such basically to all of us....i took out cash that next morning cuz i was certain there would be a run, on money, at the banks...his speech was so scary....

NOT FOR ONE NANOSECOND do i believe george bush, the politician made this up...he was told this was needed...the bailout...and you can bet your bottom dollar, this came from the mega banks themselves....

care

Yes, he was told this... by the Democrats who were working to bring down the Republican Party (which ironically after seven years of Bush was not needed) for the 2008 campaign. The Democrats played down the economy and made it a self-fulfilling prophesy. I can't say as I blame them, but I sure as heck don't think Bush needed to be brought down. He'd done a fine job of that all by himself.

Immie

If you believe that, then you have no idea how the system was being worked. No bail out. US is Germany circa 1933...

No way... not in a million years.

edit: If you'd like to take the time, I'd be more than willing to read why you believe that suddenly our economy was going to do a 180 and the credit market was bound to collapse over night without the aid of the Democrat fear mongers.

Immie