RadiomanATL
Senior Member
Why do we "need" you around?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.
Good job, Vermin.
I wonder how many on the left spent time last weekend working with homeless people, or collecting money for charity? That's what I did. And there I am, one of the avaristic, bigots on the right. LMAO.
Seriously!!!!!
"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.
Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglass office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engless stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the companys $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.
The evolution of executive grandeur from very comfortable to jet-setting reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.
The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engless compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.
Its a different company today, company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.
But back in the 70s, something was holding executive salaries back.
Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nations largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadnt sought a raise.
Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.
He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much, said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.
He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man, said John P. Frazee, another former board member. Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.
A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.
It is the ABC's of the New Right.
As the forum's leading sociopathic kleptocrat chimes in, with the usual bigoted stereotypes and ad homs.
Good job, Vermin.
I wonder how many on the left spent time last weekend working with homeless people, or collecting money for charity? That's what I did. And there I am, one of the avaristic, bigots on the right. LMAO.
One data point proves...?
And yet your post suggests support for Odd-dude, whose total of substantive and intelligent posts are non-existent. One wonders what Odd-dude did this weekend, I'm sure he spent his hours helping the needy, feeding the hungry, and collecting warm clothes and clean blankets for the homeless.
For my part I spent it with my extended family at a BBQ in Sonoma. Great day though a bit hot; grilled steak, grilled chicken, grilled vegies, my wife's potato salad and my sister's homemade Strawberry Ice Cream (with fresh strawberrys, Sonoma grows much more than grapes). The only down side, CAL lost the first game to a very good Virginia team in the CWS. I'm hopeful we'll beat Texas A&M (from which my nephew is an alumni) on Tuesday.
A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.
It is the ABC's of the New Right.
Hmmmmm...wanting to keep what one earns and owns is Avarice, but wanting to take away from somebody what he has earned or owned is a Noble Effort to Hold Regard for Anyone in Need (except of course, anyone who earns or owns).
Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.
Seriously!!!!!
"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.
Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglass office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engless stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the companys $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.
The evolution of executive grandeur from very comfortable to jet-setting reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.
The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engless compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.
Its a different company today, company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.
But back in the 70s, something was holding executive salaries back.
Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nations largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadnt sought a raise.
Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.
He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much, said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.
He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man, said John P. Frazee, another former board member. Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.
What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.
What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.
Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?
Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.
What happened to the concept of Noblesse oblige? It seems the New Right feels no obligation as a consquence of their good fortune. But, very wealthy Americans and American Corporations seem to understand tokenism very well indeed.
Are you advocating going back to a Monarchy?
Noblesse Oblige refers to the responsibilities of hereditary nobility, and are the (voluntary) price of extreme privilege. This hardly applies to middle class families in the U.S.
Are you intentionally dense? Nobelesse Oblige is a concept of the, yes voluntary, cost of privilege. Maybe a concrete thinker might believe the concept is obsolete, but some with great wealth, Bill Gates comes to mind, still feel an obligation to others.
I actually believe you simply have adopted an ideology without foundaton, you seem unable to defend your opinions without attacking me or others personally, using sarcasm or cliches.
As I've asked you and others for maybe the hundreth time, what policy(s) do you support which will reduce unemployment, one of our most crucial problems today?
A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.
It is the ABC's of the New Right.
Seriously!!!!!
"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.
Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglass office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engless stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the companys $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.
The evolution of executive grandeur from very comfortable to jet-setting reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.
The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engless compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.
Its a different company today, company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.
But back in the 70s, something was holding executive salaries back.
Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nations largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadnt sought a raise.
Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.
He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much, said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.
He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man, said John P. Frazee, another former board member. Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.
Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needsBullshit!!!
How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??
How many vehicles can you drive, at once?
How many homes can you live-in, at once?
Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???
When you go to a job interview and are asked, "How much do you want to get paid?"
Do you say, "Just enough to pay my bills." or do you say. "As much as I possibly can"?
Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs
Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs
Complete idiocy.
But if it ever gets to that I want to be on record that whatever the gov't decides for me, it ain't enough. I'm not giving up the nice cushy lifestyle I've earned. I've been several rungs down the economic ladder and it's a whole hell of a lot nicer farther up top. So for those who don't have what they want and desire some of mine and others, tough shit.