Gee, someone is a might testy today. If you're going to try and sell me on the idea that our economy is in the state it's in because some guy on a production line makes too much money, well sir, you know better than that. The "smart" guys with the MBA's brought down the economy, with the help of their bought and paid for political hacks. Unions aren't bringing this country to it's knee's. It's the good old boys in the boardrooms, and while we're on the subject of paying people what they're worth, I never meet an Exec that was worth 500 times more than the people actually doing the work. Or 400 times, or 300, or 200, or 100 times more. Should they, the Exec's, make more? Certainly, but the disparity has gotten too great, and the reason it's so great is because they have reduced wages and benefits while expanding job descriptions and downsizing. I'm sure you think that's just dandy, but the entire country goes down in the process. It's simply not sustainable and when the lights finally go out, all the workers are unemployed, everyone but a chosen few are busted...who you gonna' blame then?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
47% Of Americans Want To Redistribute The Wealth
- Thread starter bugscoe
- Start date
Gee, someone is a might testy today. If you're going to try and sell me on the idea that our economy is in the state it's in because some guy on a production line makes too much money, well sir, you know better than that. The "smart" guys with the MBA's brought down the economy, with the help of their bought and paid for political hacks. Unions aren't bringing this country to it's knee's. It's the good old boys in the boardrooms, and while we're on the subject of paying people what they're worth, I never meet an Exec that was worth 500 times more than the people actually doing the work. Or 400 times, or 300, or 200, or 100 times more. Should they, the Exec's, make more? Certainly, but the disparity has gotten too great, and the reason it's so great is because they have reduced wages and benefits while expanding job descriptions and downsizing. I'm sure you think that's just dandy, but the entire country goes down in the process. It's simply not sustainable and when the lights finally go out, all the workers are unemployed, everyone but a chosen few are busted...who you gonna' blame then?
When the middle class is gone, then who will the elite blame?
Speaking of the disparity in worth:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin
Speaking of the disparity in worth:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Gee, someone is a might testy today. If you're going to try and sell me on the idea that our economy is in the state it's in because some guy on a production line makes too much money, well sir, you know better than that. The "smart" guys with the MBA's brought down the economy, with the help of their bought and paid for political hacks. Unions aren't bringing this country to it's knee's. It's the good old boys in the boardrooms, and while we're on the subject of paying people what they're worth, I never meet an Exec that was worth 500 times more than the people actually doing the work. Or 400 times, or 300, or 200, or 100 times more. Should they, the Exec's, make more? Certainly, but the disparity has gotten too great, and the reason it's so great is because they have reduced wages and benefits while expanding job descriptions. I'm sure you think that's just dandy, but the entire country goes down in the process. It's simply not sustainable and when the lights finally go out, all the workers are unemployed, everyone but a chosen few are busted...who you gonna' blame then?
Quote from CaptainObvious:
Gee, someone is a might testy today. If you're going to try and sell me on the idea that our economy is in the state it's in because some guy on a production line makes too much money, well sir, you know better than that. The "smart" guys with the MBA's brought down the economy, with the help of their bought and paid for political hacks. Unions aren't bringing this country to it's knee's. It's the good old boys in the boardrooms, and while we're on the subject of paying people what they're worth, I never meet an Exec that was worth 500 times more than the people actually doing the work. Or 400 times, or 300, or 200, or 100 times more. Should they, the Exec's, make more? Certainly, but the disparity has gotten too great, and the reason it's so great is because they have reduced wages and benefits while expanding job descriptions and downsizing. I'm sure you think that's just dandy, but the entire country goes down in the process. It's simply not sustainable and when the lights finally go out, all the workers are unemployed, everyone but a chosen few are busted...who you gonna' blame then?
OK, a couple of things here. One, I never said the unions are to blame for the economy. They are not the ones to blame. But at the same time, they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap. I'm sorry, but you know I'm right. I'm not making a moral argument but a qualitative one.
And two, no CEO is making 400 times more then their employees. They are "earning" that through equity appreciation. Should CEO's be given as much stock as they get? I don't know, that's up to the board of directors and the shareholders to decide. If I was a shareholder of Apple I would give Steve Jobs whatever he wanted for stock. You can't just put any guy with an MBA in the CEO's spot. I know every Tom, Dick and Harry on ET thinks they have the chops to be a CEO but we all know that is not true. It's a very unique vision they bring to the company and that vision creates vast equity appreciation. And they hold a lot of equity. Very few CEO's earn a large salary, certainly not 400 times. Maybe 5 to 10 times on average. Hell I believe Steve Jobs was getting paid $1 a year, that's one american dollar as salary. Of course he got millions in stock options which made him billions. Again, that's up to the shareholders who have a "stake" in the company to decide.
So I honestly don't get your argument. Are you against private equity? Are you against intellectual property rights? Are you against a board of directors or shareholders of said company deciding how much they want to compensate their officers? Are you? What exactly are you shouting at the rain about?
"One, I never said the unions are to blame for the economy. They are not the ones to blame. But at the same time, they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap."
Unions owned the companies they worked for?
Since when...
Unions owned the companies they worked for?
Since when...
Quote from Maverick74:
OK, a couple of things here. One, I never said the unions are to blame for the economy. They are not the ones to blame. But at the same time, they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap. I'm sorry, but you know I'm right. I'm not making a moral argument but a qualitative one.
And two, no CEO is making 400 times more then their employees. They are "earning" that through equity appreciation. Should CEO's be given as much stock as they get? I don't know, that's up to the board of directors and the shareholders to decide. If I was a shareholder of Apple I would give Steve Jobs whatever he wanted for stock. You can't just put any guy with an MBA in the CEO's spot. I know every Tom, Dick and Harry on ET thinks they have the chops to be a CEO but we all know that is not true. It's a very unique vision they bring to the company and that vision creates vast equity appreciation. And they hold a lot of equity. Very few CEO's earn a large salary, certainly not 400 times. Maybe 5 to 10 times on average. Hell I believe Steve Jobs was getting paid $1 a year, that's one american dollar as salary. Of course he got millions in stock options which made him billions. Again, that's up to the shareholders who have a "stake" in the company to decide.
So I honestly don't get your argument. Are you against private equity? Are you against intellectual property rights? Are you against a board of directors or shareholders of said company deciding how much they want to compensate their officers? Are you? What exactly are you shouting at the rain about?
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"One, I never said the unions are to blame for the economy. They are not the ones to blame. But at the same time, they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap."
Unions owned the companies they worked for?
Since when...
Did I say the unions owned the companies? Noooooo I did not. But they produced crap and their wages made that crap uncompetitive in the marketplace.
"they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap."
They didn't own the companies. They were just working for companies. They had no power except to strike.
What do we see when there are no unions?
India and China wages and working conditions.
They didn't own the companies. They were just working for companies. They had no power except to strike.
What do we see when there are no unions?
India and China wages and working conditions.
Quote from Maverick74:
Did I say the unions owned the companies? Noooooo I did not. But they produced crap and their wages made that crap uncompetitive in the marketplace.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"they were robbing middle america blind for decades with their overpriced crap."
They didn't own the companies. They were just working for companies. They had no power except to strike.
What do we see when there are no unions?
India and China wages and working conditions.
Bullshit! I can show you car factories in Kentucky and North Carolina (right to work states) where workers make as much if not more on a cost of living adjusted basis with higher productivity and a better product. Leave the hyperbole alone Zzz, no one is buying it here.
Quote from Maverick74:
Bullshit! I can show you car factories in Kentucky and North Carolina (right to work states) where workers make as much if not more on a cost of living adjusted basis with higher productivity and a better product. Leave the hyperbole alone Zzz, no one is buying it here.
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/021909-right-work-and-productivity-numbers
You would take away workers right to collectively bargain.
Workers don't own the company.
Workers don't own the company.
Quote from Maverick74:
Bullshit! I can show you car factories in Kentucky and North Carolina (right to work states) where workers make as much if not more on a cost of living adjusted basis with higher productivity and a better product. Leave the hyperbole alone Zzz, no one is buying it here.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
You would take away workers right to collectively bargain.
Workers don't own the company.
I would actually support collective bargaining if they ran the union themselves without the corrupt union bosses and if they would not be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns. If it's really all about them coming together as one voice to negotiate wages, then they should not need to get involved in politics. And workers should be allowed to compete for the same jobs WITHOUT joining the union.
Are you game?