I was wrong

[Care4all]

yes, they did agree to their initial hire pay, but from that point on, it is all up for grabs, I suppose.

And I think I really do differ with you on what you say about, "you can just leave"...that, in real life, is much easier said than done and each person's circumstance is different.

And in this kind of downturn, anyone to leave their job without having a solid one, is absolutely crazy...

businesses are aware of such.
Snipped for brevity...

care

Good morning,

Seems you've been ignoring me lately.

You are right, it is hard to move to another job and employers know that. But, I fail to see how that makes any difference. They hire an employee based on the going wages for the time of hire and quite frankly they try to get the costs down as much as possible just as the hiree is trying to get the best deal he/she can. Also, later new hires might even end up making more than the long term employees due to market conditions.

None of that is the employer's fault. Just like the employee, the employer is trying to make as much money as possible. Why is that okay for the employee but not the employer?

If the employee is unhappy, he/she has to decide if it is worth staying in that job or moving elsewhere. That is the employee's choice.

Immie

yes, that is the employees choice, but as said, it is much easier said"that is their choice or they can leave..." than actually done....

And I agree corporations have to hire the best employee they can for the least amount of money possible...so to be efficient, without sacrificing the quality and productivity need for the job....to be a profitable position for them.

I would suggest that they give the $100 million dollar a year ceo the same consideration...paying them the least amount possible, while still being a qualified employee etc....while still taking in to consideration, what your very good employees are giving you, are producing for you and give them appropriate raises for such....it is and should be a two way street.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, taking this NOT as gender but all employees should face the same fate...for the stock holders and share holder's sake...they deserve an efficient company....

also, on your other comment earlier, regarding payrol being divided up where upper management is separated form the workers....

I agree it might be broken down in such manner, but the overall payroll budget is what counts in the end and not each one of those broken down categories and also at any moment thos percentages could change individually, but not necessarily on the whole.

as example...admin pay might have been planned at 2% and worker pay at 13% but now admin pay is at 3% of sales and worker pay is at 12% of sales but stil trying to keep it in the 15% range....and THIS is what has happened, where the employee used to get a higher percentage of sales divided up in to their raises and the admin management used to get a lower percentage divided up among the handful of of admin.

Thus the growing share of payroll going to the higher ups, disproportionately...imho.
where we have the ceo earning 400 times the average worker vs maybe 200 times the average worker...this is what has happened...and granted, all well and good, corporations can do what they wish.... doesn't mean they are being wise in their decision to keep employees discontent in order to keep a handfull of executives MORE THAN HAPPY.

And I have every right to this sound and logical opinion...

Care

 

[Immanuel]

Just real quick reply, Care,

Do you realize that the CEO is almost always, if not always, a shareholder/owner? He/she has the incentive to make as much as he can just like an employee. He/she is one of the decision makers and just like the owner of the private corporation, a partnership or a sole proprietorship, he/she is going to be looking out for number one. That is human nature.

Some good ones also care about the employee, not all of them do.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Just real quick reply, Care,

Do you realize that the CEO is almost always, if not always, a shareholder/owner? He/she has the incentive to make as much as he can just like an employee. He/she is one of the decision makers and just like the owner of the private corporation, a partnership or a sole proprietorship, he/she is going to be looking out for number one. That is human nature.

Some good ones also care about the employee, not all of them do.

Immie

in cases where there was a recent IPO the Ceo may be the largest shareholder...

But in general the CEO hired is hired from the "outside" and he is NOT one of the biggest insider shareholders of the company....so I differ with ya there.

But, AFTER the ceo is there for some time and is given his quarterly bonus of stock options and shares in the company where he is able to exercise those stock options he becomes a bigger and bigger shareholder...where the stockholders value of their shares gets reduced behind the scenes becaquse of all of these stock options that ceo's and execs exercise...by adding shares, it devalues the existing shares is my understanding...?

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

ROFLMNAO...

Inequality?

LOL... Oh GOD! Now THAT is precious...

Where' the inequality, exactly?

Is there something which is preventing you from enjoying the rarified air of opulence?

If so, what would that be?

Now FYI: for 'inequality' to be a factor; there must be some legislation which provides for such a restriction... Some power which through the abuse of such is precluding through illicit means, you ascent into the ranks of the top 1%...

You're lack of means in terms of congitive focus, talent, or other such intellectual means; good luck, or other such fortuitous trait... does not establish inequality...

What you're referring to is not "inequality"; what you're referring to is UNFAIRNESS... at least as you define it... a definition which is subjective and erroneously designed to fit this fatally flawed rationalization.

However, if it makes ya feel better... the solution which you imply, will produce inequality... and what's more the solution which Leftism has ALREADY establsihed in through Legislation; serves just that purpose.

Now some of the wealthiest people in the nation are contractors... wouldn't you agree?

They're people who provide goods and services and imply a level of proficiency which helps assure that such people can be depended upon to deliver those goods and services...

30 years ago, to be a contractor, one needed little more than the courage to seek out and accept a conctract and the sound moral character that was required to perform as promised on that contract; for which there were handsome profits... Profits which provided for the payment of sub-contractors, employees, vendors, their subs and employees...

Today... thanks to GUESS WHO... the 'rules' require substantial coin just to begin the process of becoming a contractor... the "rules" require enormous volumes of regulatiosn be followed, which come with ridiculous fees... regularly.

Now all of that came along to do what? To stop people from getting RIPPED OFF... by "Contractors..."

Well guess what...

People ARE STILL GETTING RIPPED OFF BY "CONTRACTORS" and they're getting RIPPED OFF FOR THE SAME REASNS THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN RIPPED OFF... which is that they're looking for SOMETHING for NOTHING...

And guess what else?

A person of professional expertise does not promise 'something for nothing' and a person of sound moral character doesn't promise something for nothing...

So all of the RULES... which were put up by PEOPLE LIKE YOU; to PREVENT THE UNSCUPULOUS FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAP... HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE SAPS FROM BEING TAKEN ADVANATAGE OF BY THE REPROBATES... BECAUSE REPROBATES DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES AND ATHE SAPS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES BECAUSE HE DOESN"T WANT TO PAY THE PRICES THAT THE RULES REQUIRE...

But... they do represent I N E Q U A L I T Y, Because that RICH contractor that been serving his clients well for 40 years... and is now living large as a result...

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CROSS THOSE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU IDIOTS PUT UP TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM DOING THE SAME DAMN THING...

Of course you're solution will be to strip him of what he earned from a lifetime of serving the needs of his clients, and garnering a reputation which provided that people came running to him to solve a problem... and wee willing to pay him handsomely to do it.

Which serves neither equality NOR FAIRNESS... as the terms are objectively defined.

 

[eagleseven]

What happens if a CEO isn't paid enough? He has absolute control of the operation of a company...immense power.

He will abuse it to enrich himself, while ruining the company. Much like Enron, and much like our politicians in DC.

 

[Immanuel]

Just real quick reply, Care,

Do you realize that the CEO is almost always, if not always, a shareholder/owner? He/she has the incentive to make as much as he can just like an employee. He/she is one of the decision makers and just like the owner of the private corporation, a partnership or a sole proprietorship, he/she is going to be looking out for number one. That is human nature.

Some good ones also care about the employee, not all of them do.

Immie

in cases where there was a recent IPO the Ceo may be the largest shareholder...

But in general the CEO hired is hired from the "outside" and he is NOT one of the biggest insider shareholders of the company....so I differ with ya there.

But, AFTER the ceo is there for some time and is given his quarterly bonus of stock options and shares in the company where he is able to exercise those stock options he becomes a bigger and bigger shareholder...where the stockholders value of their shares gets reduced behind the scenes becaquse of all of these stock options that ceo's and execs exercise...by adding shares, it devalues the existing shares is my understanding...?

care

Well... note, the discussion here has been about CEO's getting raises or maintaining their salaries while employees suffer cutbacks. If the CEO is a new CEO, he/she is not "getting a raise", he/she is being hired at whatever salary/benefits the company and CEO come to terms with. When he has been there for a while he is a decision maker and don't expect the CEO to take a cut in pay if he/she doesn't have to.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

What happens if a CEO isn't paid enough? He has absolute control of the operation of a company...immense power.

He will abuse it to enrich himself, while ruining the company. Much like Enron, and much like our politicians in DC.

The Board of Directors can always show him the door or if it was illegal the insides of a prison cell.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

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?

ROFLMNAO...

Inequality?

LOL... Oh GOD! Now THAT is precious...

Where' the inequality, exactly?

Is there something which is preventing you from enjoying the rarified air of opulence?

If so, what would that be?

Now FYI: for 'inequality' to be a factor; there must be some legislation which provides for such a restriction... Some power which through the abuse of such is precluding through illicit means, you ascent into the ranks of the top 1%...

You're lack of means in terms of congitive focus, talent, or other such intellectual means; good luck, or other such fortuitous trait... does not establish inequality...

What you're referring to is not "inequality"; what you're referring to is UNFAIRNESS... at least as you define it... a definition which is subjective and erroneously designed to fit this fatally flawed rationalization.

However, if it makes ya feel better... the solution which you imply, will produce inequality... and what's more the solution which Leftism has ALREADY establsihed in through Legislation; serves just that purpose.

Now some of the wealthiest people in the nation are contractors... wouldn't you agree?

They're people who provide goods and services and imply a level of proficiency which helps assure that such people can be depended upon to deliver those goods and services...

30 years ago, to be a contractor, one needed little more than the courage to seek out and accept a conctract and the sound moral character that was required to perform as promised on that contract; for which there were handsome profits... Profits which provided for the payment of sub-contractors, employees, vendors, their subs and employees...

Today... thanks to GUESS WHO... the 'rules' require substantial coin just to begin the process of becoming a contractor... the "rules" require enormous volumes of regulatiosn be followed, which come with ridiculous fees... regularly.

Now all of that came along to do what? To stop people from getting RIPPED OFF... by "Contractors..."

Well guess what...

People ARE STILL GETTING RIPPED OFF BY "CONTRACTORS" and they're getting RIPPED OFF FOR THE SAME REASNS THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN RIPPED OFF... which is that they're looking for SOMETHING for NOTHING...

And guess what else?

A person of professional expertise does not promise 'something for nothing' and a person of sound moral character doesn't promise something for nothing...

So all of the RULES... which were put up by PEOPLE LIKE YOU; to PREVENT THE UNSCUPULOUS FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAP... HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE SAPS FROM BEING TAKEN ADVANATAGE OF BY THE REPROBATES... BECAUSE REPROBATES DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES AND ATHE SAPS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES BECAUSE HE DOESN"T WANT TO PAY THE PRICES THAT THE RULES REQUIRE...

But... they do represent I N E Q U A L I T Y, Because that RICH contractor that been serving his clients well for 40 years... and is now living large as a result...

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CROSS THOSE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU IDIOTS PUT UP TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM DOING THE SAME DAMN THING...

Of course you're solution will be to strip him of what he earned from a lifetime of serving the needs of his clients, and garnering a reputation which provided that people came running to him to solve a problem... and wee willing to pay him handsomely to do it.

Which serves neither equality NOR FAIRNESS... as the terms are objectively defined.

Um, did you read my post? How about the link? It was Goldman Sachs vice chair which said "people must tolerate the 'inequality'" That's the rich admitting that's it's "inequality" and not only that but saying that we must put up with it. Why must we put up with it? Because YOU say so? Because the richest 1% in our country says so? Why? exactly, must we put up with the growing income gap in this country?

 

[Liability]

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 &#8220;Tolerate the Inequality&#8221;

I can&#8217;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?

ROFLMNAO...

Inequality?

LOL... Oh GOD! Now THAT is precious...

Where' the inequality, exactly?

Is there something which is preventing you from enjoying the rarified air of opulence?

If so, what would that be?

Now FYI: for 'inequality' to be a factor; there must be some legislation which provides for such a restriction... Some power which through the abuse of such is precluding through illicit means, you ascent into the ranks of the top 1%...

You're lack of means in terms of congitive focus, talent, or other such intellectual means; good luck, or other such fortuitous trait... does not establish inequality...

What you're referring to is not "inequality"; what you're referring to is UNFAIRNESS... at least as you define it... a definition which is subjective and erroneously designed to fit this fatally flawed rationalization.

However, if it makes ya feel better... the solution which you imply, will produce inequality... and what's more the solution which Leftism has ALREADY establsihed in through Legislation; serves just that purpose.

Now some of the wealthiest people in the nation are contractors... wouldn't you agree?

They're people who provide goods and services and imply a level of proficiency which helps assure that such people can be depended upon to deliver those goods and services...

30 years ago, to be a contractor, one needed little more than the courage to seek out and accept a conctract and the sound moral character that was required to perform as promised on that contract; for which there were handsome profits... Profits which provided for the payment of sub-contractors, employees, vendors, their subs and employees...

Today... thanks to GUESS WHO... the 'rules' require substantial coin just to begin the process of becoming a contractor... the "rules" require enormous volumes of regulatiosn be followed, which come with ridiculous fees... regularly.

Now all of that came along to do what? To stop people from getting RIPPED OFF... by "Contractors..."

Well guess what...

People ARE STILL GETTING RIPPED OFF BY "CONTRACTORS" and they're getting RIPPED OFF FOR THE SAME REASNS THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN RIPPED OFF... which is that they're looking for SOMETHING for NOTHING...

And guess what else?

A person of professional expertise does not promise 'something for nothing' and a person of sound moral character doesn't promise something for nothing...

So all of the RULES... which were put up by PEOPLE LIKE YOU; to PREVENT THE UNSCUPULOUS FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAP... HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE SAPS FROM BEING TAKEN ADVANATAGE OF BY THE REPROBATES... BECAUSE REPROBATES DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES AND ATHE SAPS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES BECAUSE HE DOESN"T WANT TO PAY THE PRICES THAT THE RULES REQUIRE...

But... they do represent I N E Q U A L I T Y, Because that RICH contractor that been serving his clients well for 40 years... and is now living large as a result...

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CROSS THOSE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU IDIOTS PUT UP TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM DOING THE SAME DAMN THING...

Of course you're solution will be to strip him of what he earned from a lifetime of serving the needs of his clients, and garnering a reputation which provided that people came running to him to solve a problem... and wee willing to pay him handsomely to do it.

Which serves neither equality NOR FAIRNESS... as the terms are objectively defined.

Um, did you read my post? How about the link? It was Goldman Sachs vice chair which said "people must tolerate the 'inequality'" That's the rich admitting that's it's "inequality" and not only that but saying that we must put up with it. Why must we put up with it? Because YOU say so? Because the richest 1% in our country says so? Why? exactly, must we put up with the growing income gap in this country?

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

 

[Againsheila]

ROFLMNAO...

Inequality?

LOL... Oh GOD! Now THAT is precious...

Where' the inequality, exactly?

Is there something which is preventing you from enjoying the rarified air of opulence?

If so, what would that be?

Now FYI: for 'inequality' to be a factor; there must be some legislation which provides for such a restriction... Some power which through the abuse of such is precluding through illicit means, you ascent into the ranks of the top 1%...

You're lack of means in terms of congitive focus, talent, or other such intellectual means; good luck, or other such fortuitous trait... does not establish inequality...

What you're referring to is not "inequality"; what you're referring to is UNFAIRNESS... at least as you define it... a definition which is subjective and erroneously designed to fit this fatally flawed rationalization.

However, if it makes ya feel better... the solution which you imply, will produce inequality... and what's more the solution which Leftism has ALREADY establsihed in through Legislation; serves just that purpose.

Now some of the wealthiest people in the nation are contractors... wouldn't you agree?

They're people who provide goods and services and imply a level of proficiency which helps assure that such people can be depended upon to deliver those goods and services...

30 years ago, to be a contractor, one needed little more than the courage to seek out and accept a conctract and the sound moral character that was required to perform as promised on that contract; for which there were handsome profits... Profits which provided for the payment of sub-contractors, employees, vendors, their subs and employees...

Today... thanks to GUESS WHO... the 'rules' require substantial coin just to begin the process of becoming a contractor... the "rules" require enormous volumes of regulatiosn be followed, which come with ridiculous fees... regularly.

Now all of that came along to do what? To stop people from getting RIPPED OFF... by "Contractors..."

Well guess what...

People ARE STILL GETTING RIPPED OFF BY "CONTRACTORS" and they're getting RIPPED OFF FOR THE SAME REASNS THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN RIPPED OFF... which is that they're looking for SOMETHING for NOTHING...

And guess what else?

A person of professional expertise does not promise 'something for nothing' and a person of sound moral character doesn't promise something for nothing...

So all of the RULES... which were put up by PEOPLE LIKE YOU; to PREVENT THE UNSCUPULOUS FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAP... HAVE NOT AFFECTED THE SAPS FROM BEING TAKEN ADVANATAGE OF BY THE REPROBATES... BECAUSE REPROBATES DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES AND ATHE SAPS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES BECAUSE HE DOESN"T WANT TO PAY THE PRICES THAT THE RULES REQUIRE...

But... they do represent I N E Q U A L I T Y, Because that RICH contractor that been serving his clients well for 40 years... and is now living large as a result...

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO CROSS THOSE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU IDIOTS PUT UP TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM DOING THE SAME DAMN THING...

Of course you're solution will be to strip him of what he earned from a lifetime of serving the needs of his clients, and garnering a reputation which provided that people came running to him to solve a problem... and wee willing to pay him handsomely to do it.

Which serves neither equality NOR FAIRNESS... as the terms are objectively defined.

Um, did you read my post? How about the link? It was Goldman Sachs vice chair which said "people must tolerate the 'inequality'" That's the rich admitting that's it's "inequality" and not only that but saying that we must put up with it. Why must we put up with it? Because YOU say so? Because the richest 1% in our country says so? Why? exactly, must we put up with the growing income gap in this country?

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

Yeah, we can foot the bill to pay big bonuses to bank CEOs that drove their companies into the ground, but how dare we demand a living wage for the low end workers....

 

[Liability]

Um, did you read my post? How about the link? It was Goldman Sachs vice chair which said "people must tolerate the 'inequality'" That's the rich admitting that's it's "inequality" and not only that but saying that we must put up with it. Why must we put up with it? Because YOU say so? Because the richest 1% in our country says so? Why? exactly, must we put up with the growing income gap in this country?

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

Yeah, we can foot the bill to pay big bonuses to bank CEOs that drove their companies into the ground, but how dare we demand a living wage for the low end workers....

IF by "foot the bill" to pay the big bonuses, etc., you are attempting yet again to grunt out your objection to the "bailouts," then I am partly in agreement with you. I, too, object. But the fact is: we should NOT have done that and we just as certainly should not use public money to pay private employees.

It is the very structure of a capitalist system that you are proposing we screw with. No thanks.

Low end (underpaid) workers may deserve higher wages. IT is not the province of government to "give" it to them at the expense of the rest of us tax-paying wage-earners.

It is not the government's fucking money TO give in the first damn place.

 

[Ame®icano]

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

Yeah, we can foot the bill to pay big bonuses to bank CEOs that drove their companies into the ground, but how dare we demand a living wage for the low end workers....

IF by "foot the bill" to pay the big bonuses, etc., you are attempting yet again to grunt out your objection to the "bailouts," then I am partly in agreement with you. I, too, object. But the fact is: we should NOT have done that and we just as certainly should not use public money to pay private employees.

It is the very structure of a capitalist system that you are proposing we screw with. No thanks.

Low end (underpaid) workers may deserve higher wages. IT is not the province of government to "give" it to them at the expense of the rest of us tax-paying wage-earners.

It is not the government's fucking money TO give in the first damn place.

To deserve something you have to earn it, even if is minimum wage. Therefore, minimum wage should be reset to zero. If anyone agree to work for a penny, beat it.

Now, those bank employees had contracts that would have been worth nothing if the business went under. Not only would they have lost their bonus, but their job as well. Government decide they were too big to fail and bailed them out, they make it a law. Government allowed those bonuses to be paid, now coming after them.

That it is unconstitutional, so was the bailout.

 

[CryGlennCry]

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it.
A lawyer who has worked extremely hard to earn his much deserved 150k a year is an inspiration.
And no one here thinks otherwise.
The problems are with boards across the spectrum getting rid of 50k a yr jobs to increase their 5M plus salaries.
There is the inequality.
Don't pretend to be too dense to understand the gripes here.

 

[The T]

Yeah, we can foot the bill to pay big bonuses to bank CEOs that drove their companies into the ground, but how dare we demand a living wage for the low end workers....

IF by "foot the bill" to pay the big bonuses, etc., you are attempting yet again to grunt out your objection to the "bailouts," then I am partly in agreement with you. I, too, object. But the fact is: we should NOT have done that and we just as certainly should not use public money to pay private employees.

It is the very structure of a capitalist system that you are proposing we screw with. No thanks.

Low end (underpaid) workers may deserve higher wages. IT is not the province of government to "give" it to them at the expense of the rest of us tax-paying wage-earners.

It is not the government's fucking money TO give in the first damn place.

To deserve something you have to earn it, even if is minimum wage. Therefore, minimum wage should be reset to zero. If anyone agree to work for a penny, beat it.

Now, those bank employees had contracts that would have been worth nothing if the business went under. Not only would they have lost their bonus, but their job as well. Government decide they were too big to fail and bailed them out, they make it a law. Government allowed those bonuses to be paid, now coming after them.

That it is unconstitutional, so was the bailout.

Exactly. These institutions were forced to take these bailouts...as they were forced to make bad loans.

Now Obama and the Statists are blaming these institions for the problems caused by what they themselves caused.

I don't want to hear or read another Statist put down ANY company, PERIOD!

 

[Liability]

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it.
A lawyer who has worked extremely hard to earn his much deserved 150k a year is an inspiration.
And no one here thinks otherwise.
The problems are with boards across the spectrum getting rid of 50k a yr jobs to increase their 5M plus salaries.
There is the inequality.
Don't pretend to be too dense to understand the gripes here.

It was, of course, a perfectly GOOD analogy and YOU know it. You are transparent in your effort to evade the logic of the matter.

You thus fail at even a hint of persuasiveness.

The fact is: you object to how MUCH some (many) of these companies' top executives are "earning." So? You object. Nobody cares what you object to. The thing is, though, that neither you nor anybody else has the right to DO a fucking thing about it. It aint none of YOUR fucking business. Inequality. So what? What's it to you? How is it any of YOUR actual business?

I'm not pretending anything, toots. I am calling bullshit on you and your ilk. Big difference. I understand your alleged gripes fine. I just REJECT that you have ANY valid right to be heard to complain about matters that are none of your damn business.

 

[Againsheila]

Stupid.

If Joe makes $150,000.00/year toiling as a lawyer and you, in the diligent pursuit of your food service industry worker trade, make $24,000.00/year then obviously your pay isn't "equal."

So the fuck what?

Who says we are entitled to "equal" pay or have some previously unheard of "right" to "equal" pay?

Yes. We MUST "tolerate" such "inequality." Why would we ever be called upon to do otherwise?

On what fucking basis?

More than just "tolerate" it, we have traditionally embraced it and we damn well SHOULD embrace it.

If you want to "earn" more money, then:

get a better fucking education;
work harder;
work smarter;
work more hours;
get two jobs;
invent something;
invest wisely;
etc., etc., etc.

But don't dare ask "society" (i.e., the rest of us who are working and paying taxes) to foot your fucking bill because you are not smart enough or industrious enough or motivated enough to earn more on your own.

That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it.
A lawyer who has worked extremely hard to earn his much deserved 150k a year is an inspiration.
And no one here thinks otherwise.
The problems are with boards across the spectrum getting rid of 50k a yr jobs to increase their 5M plus salaries.
There is the inequality.
Don't pretend to be too dense to understand the gripes here.

It was, of course, a perfectly GOOD analogy and YOU know it. You are transparent in your effort to evade the logic of the matter.

You thus fail at even a hint of persuasiveness.

The fact is: you object to how MUCH some (many) of these companies' top executives are "earning." So? You object. Nobody cares what you object to. The thing is, though, that neither you nor anybody else has the right to DO a fucking thing about it. It aint none of YOUR fucking buisness. Inequality. So what? What's it to you? How is it any of YOUR actual business?

I'm not pretending anything, toots. I am calling bullshit on you and your ilk. Big difference. I understand your alleged gripes fine. I just REJECT that you have ANY valid right to be heard to complain about matters that are none of your damn business.

It's ALL of our business.....remember the gilded age? It led to the GREAT DEPRESSION which affected everyone. The Gilded Age was the majority of our country's weath in the hands of a few. The same thing we have today.......

We are in another GREAT DEPRESSION because of the greedy rich and the government they bought off to insure they would get richer and keep their wealth. Meanwhile our great great grandchild are going to be paying off the debt that our government gave to the already extremely wealthy while they can't be bothered to pass a bill to make minimum wage a living wage, which would lead to a healthy economy which would benefit EVERYBODY.

 

[Liability]

That's a ridiculous analogy and you know it.
A lawyer who has worked extremely hard to earn his much deserved 150k a year is an inspiration.
And no one here thinks otherwise.
The problems are with boards across the spectrum getting rid of 50k a yr jobs to increase their 5M plus salaries.
There is the inequality.
Don't pretend to be too dense to understand the gripes here.

It was, of course, a perfectly GOOD analogy and YOU know it. You are transparent in your effort to evade the logic of the matter.

You thus fail at even a hint of persuasiveness.

The fact is: you object to how MUCH some (many) of these companies' top executives are "earning." So? You object. Nobody cares what you object to. The thing is, though, that neither you nor anybody else has the right to DO a fucking thing about it. It aint none of YOUR fucking buisness. Inequality. So what? What's it to you? How is it any of YOUR actual business?

I'm not pretending anything, toots. I am calling bullshit on you and your ilk. Big difference. I understand your alleged gripes fine. I just REJECT that you have ANY valid right to be heard to complain about matters that are none of your damn business.

It's ALL of our business.....remember the gilded age? It led to the GREAT DEPRESSION which affected everyone. The Gilded Age was the majority of our country's weath in the hands of a few. The same thing we have today.......

We are in another GREAT DEPRESSION because of the greedy rich and the government they bought off to insure they would get richer and keep their wealth. Meanwhile our great great grandchild are going to be paying off the debt that our government gave to the already extremely wealthy while they can't be bothered to pass a bill to make minimum wage a living wage, which would lead to a healthy economy which would benefit EVERYBODY.

We do not solve the problems of how our economy is working -- or faltering -- by permitting the government to wilfully violate Constitutional restraints, tread on our individual liberties, spend our money, print money (or its electronic representation) in unGodly sums, indebting us and our posterity for lifetimes to come.

What we SHOULD do is permit the workings of a capitalist system to weed out the failures thereby creating economic opportunites in the predicatable CYLE of such things. Let it run its course.

What we have done instead is completely unconscionable. And we are making the economic downturn much much worse in the long term, too.

Fuck that "gilded age" bullshit. I don't care to hear your endless rationalizations for infusing more and more governmental power over private business matters. Get their fucking hands OUT of it entirely. THAT's what we should be demanding. I didn't vote for President Obama, but even if I had, I would not have voted for his "power" to ignore the limitations we impose on the Federal Government as he has wrecklessly done since day one.

It looks like the only thing we agree on is that it's wrong to pawn off huge debts our grandchildren will have trouble paying. But I objected to bailouts even in the waning days of the Bush Administration and I certainly objected when President OBama re-doubled and re-tripled and re-quadrupled that. And I still do.

Where do YOU stand on these God-forsaken "bailouts?"

If they were bad to do "for" business (and I say they were) then how are they somehow supportable for "workers?"

Either way, it's using money that doesn't belong to the government to address PRIVATE economic matters at the expense of all of us. It is not only morally indefensible, it is patently unConstitutional.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.
•
Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in percentage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups. The median inflation-adjusted incomes of the taxpayers who were in the very highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005.
•
The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.
•
The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor decreased over the past 20 years.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Sorry little post, nobody gives a shit about those facts.

 

[Immanuel]

We do not solve the problems of how our economy is working -- or faltering -- by permitting the government to wilfully violate Constitutional restraints, tread on our individual liberties, spend our money, print money (or its electronic representation) in unGodly sums, indebting us and our posterity for lifetimes to come.

What we SHOULD do is permit the workings of a capitalist system to weed out the failures thereby creating economic opportunites in the predicatable CYLE of such things. Let it run its course.

We don't?

Where the heck have you been for the last nine months?

Immie

 

[Contumacious]

I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while.it?

"tolerating the inequality".......man........that is exactly what our Founding Father said....ah...what's his name.........Karl.........Marx?

.