U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than In Many Latin American Countries

[Rshermr]

Ahhh....Time once again for the Marxist's favorite boogerman....The dreaded "income inequality"...

6 Myths About Income Inequality in America

Ah. A good right wing source and a good right wing blogger. Nice.

As though the barking moonbats at HuffyPuffy just oooooooze credibility!

I know you cons believe anything to the left of Fox is prejudiced. And, as a result, I do not use them. But at any rate, I would not expect a less politically charged source than what you provided, Not from you.

 

[Saigon]

You speak of wealth as though it is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw. That is patently ridiculous.

So companies have an infinite amount of money?

Clearly not - firms budget for salaries, and if executive salariese rise at ten times the rate the average salaries increases, you will see your salary stalling or being behind inflation over 5 years or so, while your bosses literally doubles.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, first, I am not a conservative. Second, if it's so easy to understand, surely you could tell us in your own words why income disparity is an actual, vs perceived, problem that extends beyond mere envy.

A simple description is not a possibility. Go read. See why a bad income distribution is considered a concern for China today, why the advanced countries of the world worry that such distribution leads to problems with education, and with social programs, and with the economic well being of the countries involved.

It is simple enough, and that you ignore it is telling, that income inequality concentrates wealth (by definition) among a few who then are able to use that wealth to control our government.
But you believe it is jealousy based, so I suspect that you will not read anything. Because that reasoning is about the stupidest idea I have yet seen from you. And that is an accomplishment.

You speak of wealth as though it is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw. That is patently ridiculous.

No, I do not. Wealth is finite at any point in time. But at any time, there is just so much INCOME to draw from. That is, a company has profits, at the end of an accounting period. So, that is not wealth. Wealth, however, derives from income, among other sources. And I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that you re-divide wealth. But that you look at taxing income as a way of affecting wealth over time.

 

[eflatminor]

You speak of wealth as though it is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw. That is patently ridiculous.

So companies have an infinite amount of money?

Clearly not - firms budget for salaries, and if executive salariese rise at ten times the rate the average salaries increases, you will see your salary stalling or being behind inflation over 5 years or so, while your bosses literally doubles.

No, wealth can be created or destroyed. There is no finite amount of wealth. If your company is creating wealth, growing, etc, then it makes sense the steakholders of that company take more income or realize a higher rate of appreciation on the investment.

What an employee makes is a matter of what the market will bear for the job carried out by that employee. It has nothing to do with what the boss makes. If you as an employee are unhappy with your salary, seek employment elsewhere or risk your own fortune to compete in the marketplace. Caring about what your boss makes has no bearing on the value of your position and what you bring to the job.

 

[Katzndogz]

And if a fat man is standing next to a skinny man, the fat man MUST have taken the skinny man's food.

America's poor are still considered wealthy by world standards, but that's just not good enough for the Marxists. Caring about what another person makes is nothing more than rabid jealousy. How sad.

So you say. And that would be your opinion.
So, why do you think the Chinese worry so much about income disparity?

They don't.

US liberals just say they do.

The very poor in China are the ones in the forced labor camps. They get almost no income and only subsistence provided by the government. However, these people are the ones that are drug users who failed to become rehabilitated by prior efforts so who cares what happens to them anyway.

China Releases New Data Suggesting Income Inequality Has Lessened
China’s rapid economic and industrial development has lifted much of its population out of poverty and into the middle class, sometimes even far higher.

 

[eflatminor]

A simple description is not a possibility. Go read. See why a bad income distribution is considered a concern for China today, why the advanced countries of the world worry that such distribution leads to problems with education, and with social programs, and with the economic well being of the countries involved.

It is simple enough, and that you ignore it is telling, that income inequality concentrates wealth (by definition) among a few who then are able to use that wealth to control our government.
But you believe it is jealousy based, so I suspect that you will not read anything. Because that reasoning is about the stupidest idea I have yet seen from you. And that is an accomplishment.

You speak of wealth as though it is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw. That is patently ridiculous.

No, I do not. But at any time, there is just so much to draw from at any POINT IN TIME. That is, a company has profits, after all is said and done, at any point in time. And yes, that is static.

And those profits are owed to the shareholders. Again, if you're unhappy with your salary, seek employment elsewhere. If the shareholders don't want to loose you, they'll offer you more. It's up to you to warrant more income, nobody else.

The idea is that if you, your fellow workers and the stakeholders create wealth, you are in a position to demand more income...or threaten to seek it elsewhere.

You still haven't explained why income disparity is a problem. You've only pointed to your own envy towards those that have done better than you have.

 

[Saigon]

then it makes sense the steakholders of that company take more income or realize a higher rate of appreciation on the investment.

I totally agree - that is the essence of capitalism.

What I question is whether the bosses income should rise 10 times faster than mine does - and that very much is the situation that the US has experienced both under Reagan and Bush.

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

 

[Meathead]

It's a sad day when Americans have to be satifised with being no worse than Honduras, but it seems to be popping up on threads about gun control (We have less homicides that Venezuela!) and now also here.

Income inequality should be seen as a crsis right across the world, but there is no question that the US is in more trouble on this issue than most other developed countries, where the awareness as least seems to be higher.

Income inequality is a fact of life, always was and always will be. The "crisis" is a misguided one.

Obviously, the same forces behind the "inequality" are bringing significant measures of global equality. China and India's progress with their emerging middle classes able to purchase for the first time what Americans have long considered birthrights bear witness to this.

Would you be willing to accept national income equality and a lower standard of living in return for higher wages for a less productive segment of the workforce? The paying of people at higher rates for less production than can be had elsewhere will invariably raise the cost of living. Would you further accept the loss to those countries which have only recently been able to reap the benefits by access to foreign markets?

This is perhaps a philosophical question for those bleeding hearts among us. Is it ok to resolve income disparity at the cost of those who are far, far poorer than those your heart bleed for domestically?

I fully expect any response on this to dissolve to a useless make-the-rich-pay rather than a market force argument.

You need to spend a year or so reading some books about why economies fail And why nations worry about income inequality. For instance, if you google income inequality and China, you would see that their major issue right now is income inequality.

If you do that, and you are intellectually honest, you will come back with a much different set of arguments. Because what you have today is the simple argument that is present in every country, ad which comes from the very wealthy. Some part of the very wealthy, actually. And in our country comes from the republican party who are owned by the very wealthy. By the way, before you start, I know that dems are also largely owned. But not completely. Yet.

You could start by reading this, and wondering:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

Before assuming to instruct me, or anyone else for that manner, you have to also assume that they don't know why economies fail. I am a Greek citizen and have lived in the country for considerable time. I bore witness to the struggles of the working class to secure incomes significantly beyond their contributions and things like retirement at 55, job security even the public sector in the US would envy and a government-regulated economy in which no one wanted to invest.

It is exactly the failure of that economy and places like Argentina that reforms to unravel the socialist agenda are being forced on both. Putting America on that path is about the same as spewing platitudes about the inherent unfairness of the distribution of wealth. It is one thing to whine, and quite another to demand that government regulation address the problem. The latter is shortsighted, never ends well and results in failed economies. History is replete with examples and no economy ever failed because some people were rich.

 

[eflatminor]

then it makes sense the steakholders of that company take more income or realize a higher rate of appreciation on the investment.

I totally agree - that is the essence of capitalism.

What I question is whether the bosses income should rise 10 times faster than mine does -

That depends on his performance and what the market will bear for people capable of doing that job. The same applies to you.

and that very much is the situation that the US has experienced both under Reagan and Bush.

Again, the question should not be what someone else made, but whether what you make is more or less than what the market will bear for your job. If you feel you're underpaid, it's not because someone else made more, it's because you've failed to justify a higher salary in your current position. If you work better/more efficiently than any other out there, demand a higher salary. If the owners of the business refuse, you can go elsewhere and use your considerable talents to make another business thrive and create wealth. If there are plenty of people willing and able to do your job for what you're being paid, you've not justified a higher salary. Don't be pissed at a colleague because he did.

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

 

[Meathead]

Meathead -

I am a capitalist, but that doesn't mean I believe in blind obediance to some all-knowing "market".

I have no idea where this idea came from that capitalism is supposed to mean some kind of subserviance to merchant bankers, venture capitalists and those who oppose all regulation.

I think firms should do business in a manner that is ethical, sustainable and fair to all. I think firms should be good citizens in their community.

Ultimately I think firms are better off in the long tern by genuinely rewarding and motivating staff; by promoting from within, by investing in training, and by paying fair salaries and attracting & retaining good staff.

Ok, thanks again for your further input. Still, I was hoping for something more concrete than tired platitudes.

 

[Rshermr]

then it makes sense the steakholders of that company take more income or realize a higher rate of appreciation on the investment.

I totally agree - that is the essence of capitalism.

What I question is whether the bosses income should rise 10 times faster than mine does -

That depends on his performance and what the market will bear for people capable of doing that job. The same applies to you.

and that very much is the situation that the US has experienced both under Reagan and Bush.

Again, the question should not be what someone else made, but whether what you make is more or less than what the market will bear for your job. If you feel you're underpaid, it's not because someone else made more, it's because you've failed to justify a higher salary in your current position. If you work better/more efficiently than any other out there, demand a higher salary. If the owners of the business refuse, you can go elsewhere and use your considerable talents to make another business thrive and create wealth. If there are plenty of people willing and able to do your job for what you're being paid, you've not justified a higher salary. Don't be pissed at a colleague because he did.

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not. CEO pay is determined by a board of directors in the company for which he works. His compensation is typically set, with bonuses of various kinds for the company's performance. But if the company fails, he probably has a nice financial parachute clause. So, even with failure, he will be more wealthy. Now, that is an interesting market.

And that system of determining what a CEO makes is not available to the rest of the employees. There is no market system for workers either. Because the market for workers is a monopoly based market, where the management of a company has the ability to determine what a worker will make. We no longer have an agrarian economy. We no longer, and for many decades have not, had anything like a market system in this country. So, among the larger employers, we have oligopoly, with heavy monopoly power. And, if you are a worker, you will be paid the rate that the company has determined is correct. Your option is to leave. And, because of mergers over the years, to move to find another job in your profession. Or to spend some time retraining. Without pay. Or to simply take a subsistence pay job.

So, over time, as company incomes expand, the ceo and other c level execs get the majority of income growth. The worker gets little in the form of income growth. All of which adds to the income inequality problem.


And, throughout the country, we see increases in concentrations of wealth. Those with the wealth are able to control the government. And I think you need go no further on this branch of income inequality problems. If you can not understand that control of our government is one of the base problems that we have then I think you have your mind closed.

 

[eflatminor]

I totally agree - that is the essence of capitalism.

What I question is whether the bosses income should rise 10 times faster than mine does -

That depends on his performance and what the market will bear for people capable of doing that job. The same applies to you.



Again, the question should not be what someone else made, but whether what you make is more or less than what the market will bear for your job. If you feel you're underpaid, it's not because someone else made more, it's because you've failed to justify a higher salary in your current position. If you work better/more efficiently than any other out there, demand a higher salary. If the owners of the business refuse, you can go elsewhere and use your considerable talents to make another business thrive and create wealth. If there are plenty of people willing and able to do your job for what you're being paid, you've not justified a higher salary. Don't be pissed at a colleague because he did.

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not.

The market of people vying for CEO jobs. You saying there is no competition for CEO jobs? You would be wrong.

CEO pay is determined by a board of directors in the company for which he works. His compensation is typically set, with bonuses of various kinds for the company's performance. But if the company fails, he probably has a nice financial parachute clause. So, even with failure, he will be more wealthy.

Then it would seem that particular the board of directors did not enter into a wise contract with that CEO. If that's the case, you as a stakeholder are free to vote for a new board of directors or sell your shares and invest elsewhere.

And that system of determining what a CEO makes is not available to the rest of the employees. There is no market system for workers either. Because the market for workers is a monopoly based market, where the management of a company has the ability to determine what a worker will make.

That might be the case if there was only one company you could work for. That's not the case. You're free to accept the pay offered for a position or not. Your choice. Voluntary choice, it's what makes a market. You could not be more wrong about there not being a market for workers as any HR manager working to hire and keep good employees will tell you.

We no longer have an agrarian economy. We no longer, and for many decades have not, had anything like a market system in this country.

That has no bearing on the market for workers or CEOs.

So, among the larger employers, we have oligopoly, with heavy monopoly power.

Where that exists it has been made possible only by government meddling with regulations and laws designed to keep that company's competitors at bay. So next election you'll be voting libertarian? Excellent.

And, if you are a worker, you will be paid the rate that the company has determined is correct. Your option is to leave.

Or work to be promoted or work to make yourself invaluable to the company thereby allowing you to negotiate a higher wage or yes, seek employment elsewhere. That's how it works. If you don't like that, start your own company and hire whomever you like at whatever wage you like.

And, because of mergers over the years, to move to find another job in your profession. Or to spend some time retraining. Without pay. Or to simply take a subsistence pay job.

You have the right to life, liberty, your own property, and the pursuit of happiness. However, among the many rights you are born with, a job is not one of them. Sorry if your job is unsatisfying or underpaid but that's your cross to bear. You don't get to take from the guy that made better choices, worked harder or smarter, or was just more talented than you. You get to compete with what you have to offer and that's it.

So, over time, as company incomes expand, the ceo and other c level execs get the majority of income growth. The worker gets little in the form of income growth. All of which adds to the income inequality problem.

Again, you still haven't pointed out what the problem is.

And, throughout the country, we see increases in concentrations of wealth. Those with the wealth are able to control the government.

Only if you elect politicians willing to step outside the enumerated powers of the government and engage in cronyism. Now remind me, isn't Wall Street in Chuck Schumer's district???

And I think you need go no further on this branch of income inequality problems. If you can not understand that control of our government is the base problem that we have then I think you have your mind closed

I stand against politicians that engage in cronyism. Something tells me they're exactly the politicians you vote for.

 

[Oddball]

Ah. A good right wing source and a good right wing blogger. Nice.

As though the barking moonbats at HuffyPuffy just oooooooze credibility!

I know you cons believe anything to the left of Fox is prejudiced. And, as a result, I do not use them. But at any rate, I would not expect a less politically charged source than what you provided, Not from you.

Oh, blow it out your ass.

That you refuse to accept that HuffyPuffy is basically far leftist propaganda has nothing to do with me...It also renders your ad hom on the piece I cited impotent.

 

[Oddball]

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

Or, they could quit their sniveling and get a job as a CEO.

 

[eflatminor]

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

Or, they could quit their sniveling and get a job as a CEO.

Apparently, there is no market for people looking for top jobs...

 

[Rshermr]

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not.

The market of people vying for CEO jobs. You saying there is no competition for CEO jobs? You would be wrong.

What I just said is that it is not a market system. It is a highly monopolistic market with very few competitors. Obviously, there are usually competitors. And, step, you are trying to change my words. That is a bit dishones, don't you think?

Quote:
CEO pay is determined by a board of directors in the company for which he works. His compensation is typically set, with bonuses of various kinds for the company's performance. But if the company fails, he probably has a nice financial parachute clause. So, even with failure, he will be more wealthy.

Then it would seem that particular the board of directors did not enter into a wise contract with that CEO. If that's the case, you as a stakeholder are free to vote for a new board of directors or sell your shares and invest elsewhere

.
Again, it is a monopolistic market. Not a competative market. Shit happens. If you have an econ degree, you would know that.

Quote:
And that system of determining what a CEO makes is not available to the rest of the employees. There is no market system for workers either. Because the market for workers is a monopoly based market, where the management of a company has the ability to determine what a worker will make.

That might be the case if there was only one company you could work for. That's not the case. You're free to accept the pay offered for a position or not. Your choice. Voluntary choice, it's what makes a market. You could not be more wrong about there not being a market for workers as any HR manager working to hire and keep good employees will tell you.

Good. Then let me know where you would suggest a computer controled machine worker in a Boeing plant in seattle should go to get a new job in town. He has been training to run this type of equipment for years. And, damn, step, there are no other aerospace companies in seattle, or anywhere near. So, that operators choice is limited. He can accept what he is being paid, or leave and look for a similar job at a lower wage.

So, you are again trying to sell the agrarian idea. Lots of employers. Lots of jobs like the one you have. Which is, step, technically simply bullshit. If it were not, we would not have seen workers jobs go stagnant over the past 30 years.

Quote:
We no longer have an agrarian economy. We no longer, and for many decades have not, had anything like a market system in this country.

That has no bearing on the market for workers or CEOs.

That, me boy, is bullshit. It has a bearing. Particularly for workers. Less so for ceo's. In an agrarian economy, you could go down the street to the other buggy whip maker, and since there were very few employees in that company, you could meet with the owner and negotiate a wage. Want to try that at GE?

Quote:
So, among the larger employers, we have oligopoly, with heavy monopoly power.

Where that exists it has been made possible only by government meddling with regulations and laws designed to keep that company's competitors at bay. So next election you'll be voting libertarian? Excellent.

No. It has been made possible by mergers. Stupid statement, by the way. Unless you are talking about natural monopolies.

Quote:
And, if you are a worker, you will be paid the rate that the company has determined is correct. Your option is to leave.

Or work to be promoted or work to make yourself invaluable to the company thereby allowing you to negotiate a higher wage or yes, seek employment elsewhere. That's how it works. If you don't like that, start your own company and hire whomever you like at whatever wage you like.

Good advice. But if you are working at Wallmart, good luck with that. You may eventually make $18 per hour. Maybe. The big problem is with the big employers, who employ millions of workers. there, the opportunity is small.
Quote:
And, because of mergers over the years, to move to find another job in your profession. Or to spend some time retraining. Without pay. Or to simply take a subsistence pay job.

You have the right to life, liberty, your own property, and the pursuit of happiness. However, among the many rights you are born with, a job is not one of them. Sorry if your job is unsatisfying or underpaid but that's your cross to bear. You don't get to take from the guy that made better choices, worked harder or smarter, or was just more talented than you. You get to compete with what you have to offer and that's it.

Right. So, you are saying that the fact that you now have to move, and to retrain, and be paid poverty wages is just the way it is. Good for you. But that is not the question.

Quote:
So, over time, as company incomes expand, the ceo and other c level execs get the majority of income growth. The worker gets little in the form of income growth. All of which adds to the income inequality problem.

Again, you still haven't pointed out what the problem is.

Apparently, according to you, there is none. But I have pointed out part of the problem. Apparently, and predictably, you have closed your mind to it.
Quote:
And, throughout the country, we see increases in concentrations of wealth. Those with the wealth are able to control the government.

Only if you elect politicians willing to step outside the enumerated powers of the government and engage in cronyism. Now remind me, isn't Wall Street in Chuck Schumer's district???

So, you said you are not a con. Obviously, you lied. So, my bet is that you see no problem with citizens united, either. And you see no problem with record spending by pacs that we have no ability to determine the make up of is fine, too.

Quote:
And I think you need go no further on this branch of income inequality problems. If you can not understand that control of our government is the base problem that we have then I think you have your mind closed

I stand against politicians that engage in cronyism. Something tells me they're exactly the politicians you vote for.

That would be your opinion. And your opinion is of no value.

 

[eflatminor]

What market is that, eflat?? You are talking about the ceo marketplace as though it was a market system. Which it is not.

The market of people vying for CEO jobs. You saying there is no competition for CEO jobs? You would be wrong.

What I just said is that it is not a market system. It is a highly monopolistic market with very few competitors. Obviously, there are usually competitors. And, step, you are trying to change my words. That is a bit dishones, don't you think?

Quote:
CEO pay is determined by a board of directors in the company for which he works. His compensation is typically set, with bonuses of various kinds for the company's performance. But if the company fails, he probably has a nice financial parachute clause. So, even with failure, he will be more wealthy.

Then it would seem that particular the board of directors did not enter into a wise contract with that CEO. If that's the case, you as a stakeholder are free to vote for a new board of directors or sell your shares and invest elsewhere

.
Again, it is a monopolistic market. Not a competative market. Shit happens. If you have an econ degree, you would know that.

Quote:
And that system of determining what a CEO makes is not available to the rest of the employees. There is no market system for workers either. Because the market for workers is a monopoly based market, where the management of a company has the ability to determine what a worker will make.


Good. Then let me know where you would suggest a computer controled machine worker in a Boeing plant in seattle should go to get a new job in town. He has been training to run this type of equipment for years. And, damn, step, there are no other aerospace companies in seattle, or anywhere near. So, that operators choice is limited. He can accept what he is being paid, or leave and look for a similar job at a lower wage.

So, you are again trying to sell the agrarian idea. Lots of employers. Lots of jobs like the one you have. Which is, step, technically simply bullshit. If it were not, we would not have seen workers jobs go stagnant over the past 30 years.

Quote:
We no longer have an agrarian economy. We no longer, and for many decades have not, had anything like a market system in this country.

That, me boy, is bullshit. It has a bearing. Particularly for workers. Less so for ceo's. In an agrarian economy, you could go down the street to the other buggy whip maker, and since there were very few employees in that company, you could meet with the owner and negotiate a wage. Want to try that at GE?

Quote:
So, among the larger employers, we have oligopoly, with heavy monopoly power.

No. It has been made possible by mergers. Stupid statement, by the way. Unless you are talking about natural monopolies.

Quote:
And, if you are a worker, you will be paid the rate that the company has determined is correct. Your option is to leave.


Good advice. But if you are working at Wallmart, good luck with that. You may eventually make $18 per hour. Maybe. The big problem is with the big employers, who employ millions of workers. there, the opportunity is small.
Quote:
And, because of mergers over the years, to move to find another job in your profession. Or to spend some time retraining. Without pay. Or to simply take a subsistence pay job.

Right. So, you are saying that the fact that you now have to move, and to retrain, and be paid poverty wages is just the way it is. Good for you. But that is not the question.

Quote:
So, over time, as company incomes expand, the ceo and other c level execs get the majority of income growth. The worker gets little in the form of income growth. All of which adds to the income inequality problem.

Apparently, according to you, there is none. But I have pointed out part of the problem. Apparently, and predictably, you have closed your mind to it.
Quote:
And, throughout the country, we see increases in concentrations of wealth. Those with the wealth are able to control the government.

Only if you elect politicians willing to step outside the enumerated powers of the government and engage in cronyism. Now remind me, isn't Wall Street in Chuck Schumer's district???

So, you said you are not a con. Obviously, you lied. So, my bet is that you see no problem with citizens united, either. And you see no problem with record spending by pacs that we have no ability to determine the make up of is fine, too.

Quote:
And I think you need go no further on this branch of income inequality problems. If you can not understand that control of our government is the base problem that we have then I think you have your mind closed

I stand against politicians that engage in cronyism. Something tells me they're exactly the politicians you vote for.

That would be your opinion. And your opinion is of no value.

Sounds like you're upset about the ultra large corporations that are apparently too big to fail. Now tell us, was it Ds and Rs that put regulations, laws and tax codes into place that ensured their crony partners would thrive or was it the libertarians?

You support government meddling in business then bitch when business takes advantage of the rules that came about from that meddling. Astounding.

And you still haven't explained why income disparity is, in and of itself, a bad thing. Until then, fail.

 

[Koios]

I have no problem with a CEO earning 10 or even 20 times the average salary in that firm - but 400 times as much? I don't call that fair or rational.

The market gets to determine what that CEO makes. If the owners of the company think he's worth 400 times as much as you make, so be it. If you want a voice on what that CEO makes, buy stock in the company.

Or, they could quit their sniveling and get a job as a CEO.

Zero sum gain, for the country; and thus it does nothing to help reduce the widening inquality.

It's great for you or me should we get the CEO job. But we can't both get it, since taking the job does not miraculously create a new CEO or a new company. It's just you, or me, or someone else taking the job, which by the way, is already happening, and yet, inequality (economic) is still widening.

Thus the only solution, which worked here back when unions were strong and the minimum wage kept pace with productivity gains (50s thru 70s), and which worked in Brasil when Lula came into office and raised the minimum wage, and which has worked for decades in Nordic Model countries, and much of Europe (who by the way, learned from our New Deal / Fair Deal era policies) is, quite simply: raise worker pay.

The upside is CEOs can then seem like real fucking geniuses, since now millions are buying more shit and creating an environment in which CEO efforts can actually pay out.

Because, what abject fucking retards on the political right do not seem to grasp, as anyone with adult intelligence should know: effort + environment = outcome. Effort alone has relatively little value. For example, be a general manager of a new Nordstrom store in Sierra Leone; have great marketing; tons of wonderful goods, and; really great sales promotions, weekly. And still, you'll sell sqaut, since workers there are few, and those lucky few haven't the price of one sock, much less a pair of them, at Nordstrom, even during the once a year sale.

Simple really.

 

[Rshermr]

Sounds like you're upset about the ultra large corporations that are apparently too big to fail. Now tell us, was it Ds and Rs that put regulations, laws and tax codes into place that ensured their crony partners would thrive or was it the libertarians?

Are you suggesting that the other corporations were faced with laws, regulations, and tax codes that the successful ones benefited from? And are you suggesting that we are talking about some the big company, in your little model, is benefiting from that failure? And that leaves just the one really large corporation??? Because, I need to understand the artificial market you are trying to discuss.

You support government meddling in business then bitch when business takes advantage of the rules that came about from that meddling. Astounding.

that was a really stupid couple of statements. What world are you living on, dipshit?
Ever here of mergers and acquisitions???

And you still haven't explained why income disparity is, in and of itself, a bad thing. Until then, fail.

But i did. Read, dipshit. Until then, fail. (just thought I would repeat your stupid words)

 

[eflatminor]

Sounds like you're upset about the ultra large corporations that are apparently too big to fail. Now tell us, was it Ds and Rs that put regulations, laws and tax codes into place that ensured their crony partners would thrive or was it the libertarians?

Are you suggesting that the other corporations were faced with laws, regulations, and tax codes that the successful ones benefited from? And are you suggesting that we are talking about some the big company, in your little model, is benefiting from that failure? And that leaves just the one really large corporation??? Because, I need to understand the artificial market you are trying to discuss.

You support government meddling in business then bitch when business takes advantage of the rules that came about from that meddling. Astounding.

that was a really stupid couple of statements. What world are you living on, dipshit?
Ever here of mergers and acquisitions???

And you still haven't explained why income disparity is, in and of itself, a bad thing. Until then, fail.

But i did. Read, dipshit. Until then, fail. (just thought I would repeat your stupid words)

Figured you would resort to ad hominem attacks. It's always the last gasp of someone that has failed to convince using logic or reason.

In any case, until you explain, in your own words, why income disparity is in and of itself a bad thing, you have no case.