Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And every employee is making money off the employer. It's call a job.The employer makes money off of every employee.
Again, you sound upset that we have a tax-funded social safety net.They make more when the taxpayer steps in to support their workers for them.
In reality, you are always wrong.In right wing fantasy, you are always right.
On what?Corporate downsizing or offshoring jobs has an analogous effect.
Only an idiot contends that job searches are not about money.Job searches are only about money once you get hired not while looking for work.
13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."
My point is that employers profit off of taxpayers supporting their workersAnd every employee is making money off the employer. It's call a job.The employer makes money off of every employee.
Again, you sound upset that we have a tax-funded social safety net.They make more when the taxpayer steps in to support their workers for them.
If you don't like your taxes being used in such ways, work to end the social programs.
Employers offer a job for a wage. It has nothing to do with the tax-payer funded social programs. If you dislike your taxes being used in such ways, vote against the parties that endorse taxpayer funded safety nets.My point is that employers profit off of taxpayers supporting their workers
Incorrect, the employee's insurance pays for that, not the taxpayers.If one of YOUR workers get sick or injured, taxpayers pay to make him well......not you
Incorrect. Anyone who claims only executives have had their wages rise is a liar.Only "hate on the Poor" right wingers use that propaganda and rhetoric.
Statistics show that over the last 30 years executive pay skyrocketed while worker pay has been stagnant
View attachment 382539
www.bls.gov
It sounds like you have a problem with taxation funding the social safety net.You should pay more because the taxpayer must support your workers with subsidies for food, housing and medical care
I have a problem with taxpayers supporting a millionaires employees so he can make more money.
I have a problem in slashing business tax rates by 40% when we have to support your employees
I have a problem with taxpayers supporting a millionaires employees so he can make more money.
Do you pay more support before the employee gets a job or after?
The employer makes money off of every employee.
They make more when the taxpayer steps in to support their workers for them.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”A lack of bargaining power due to lack of capital under our form of Capitalism.
13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."
Nice, in theory.
But what you posted was that Executive Pay increased in spite of Clinton trying to stop it not BECAUSE
I can resort to the fewest fallacies, why can't You?lol. Corporate welfare is alive and well and they have needed bailouts even with being able to afford entire departments to help them out with rational choice theory. If they could not do it, why do you believe Individuals would be in any position to do a better job?A lack of bargaining power due to lack of capital under our form of Capitalism.Black codes were one hindrance in the past.lol. Right wingers are best at false witness bearing and practicing the Abomination of Hypocrisy (unto God).Good for you
Low wage and low skilled workers lack the bargaining power.
Doesn’t excuse employers exploiting them.
You just love posting silly things, don't you?
Specifically, how are the poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility the fault of the employer?
Why did you dodge answering my simple question? Instead, you childishly chose to post a senseless comment.
Specifically, what is not true in my chart listing three ways to avoid poverty? Doesn't that come down to personal responsibility?
One more chance, " Specifically, how are the poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility the fault of the employer?"
We are not in the past, this is August 30, 2020.
Once again...
Why did you dodge answering my simple question? Instead, you childishly chose to post a senseless comment.
Specifically, what is not true in my chart listing three ways to avoid poverty? Doesn't that come down to personal responsibility?
One more chance, " Specifically, how are the poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility the fault of the employer?"
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
Still nothing from my far-left Liberal good friend, danielpalos. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!
Once again...
Why did you dodge answering my simple question? Instead, you childishly chose to post a senseless comment.
Specifically, what is not true in my chart listing three ways to avoid poverty? Doesn't that come down to personal responsibility?
One more chance, " Specifically, how are the poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility the fault of the employer?"
Once again...
Why did you dodge answering my simple question? Instead, you childishly chose to post a senseless comment. [AGAIN]
Specifically, what is not true in my chart listing three ways to avoid poverty? Doesn't that come down to personal responsibility?
One more chance, " Specifically, how are the poor decisions and lack of personal responsibility the fault of the employer?" [AGAIN]
Wages also beat inflation under the Clinton administration.Show usIncorrect. Anyone who claims only executives have had their wages rise is a liar.Only "hate on the Poor" right wingers use that propaganda and rhetoric.
Statistics show that over the last 30 years executive pay skyrocketed while worker pay has been stagnant
View attachment 382539
One particular President is responsible for that massive change in the early 90s. Who is that president?
The Wiki page seems less biased.Show usIncorrect. Anyone who claims only executives have had their wages rise is a liar.Only "hate on the Poor" right wingers use that propaganda and rhetoric.
Statistics show that over the last 30 years executive pay skyrocketed while worker pay has been stagnant
View attachment 382539
One particular President is responsible for that massive change in the early 90s. Who is that president?
How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay
Posted on November 26, 2006
Bill Clinton had what he thought was a great idea to curb the soaring paychecks of the nation's executives. It was 1991, shortly after the launch of his Presidential campaign, and he had just read a best seller on corporate greed by compensation guru Graef Crystal.
Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay.
Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President. THE SHAME GAME
Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."
My emphasis
Read more: How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay
lol. How fantastical of you.In reality, you are always wrong.In right wing fantasy, you are always right.
lol. Only a bigger idiot responds with an ad hominem instead of a valid rebuttal to support their argument.Only an idiot contends that job searches are not about money.Job searches are only about money once you get hired not while looking for work.
^^^Irony exemplified^^^lol. Only a bigger idiot responds with an ad hominem instead of a valid rebuttal to support their argument.
In reality, you are always wrong.
Fantastically accurate, that is.lol. How fantastical of you.
13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."
Nice, in theory.
But what you posted was that Executive Pay increased in spite of Clinton trying to stop it not BECAUSE
