you are barking up the wrong tree. You are complaining about cost that are minuscule and mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. You are one of those middle managers of a company who proposes to have the food pantry removed because it saves couple bucks. Lol.
Beginning of the end? Warren Buffett just dropped Walmart
- Thread starter felixbocharov
- Start date
Problem here exists for a long period, everything's going online and Walmart can't catch up with Amazon.
I live in Ft Lauderdale, There are 3 walmarts with in 5 miles of my house. I've visited walmart 3 times this week to match some curtains, groceries, and hooks for our bikes. I could have ordered them from amazon but i won't get them until next week, and sometimes i'd like to see what i'm getting up close before i buy, where a picture won't do. I didn't buy anything from amazon in last 2 weeks. I'd like to think of myself as a normal consumer.Problem here exists for a long period, everything's going online and Walmart can't catch up with Amazon.
I won't deny it. But Walmart is not the worst company, moreover, they invest enough in the development of e-commerce.Problem here exists for a long period, everything's going online and Walmart can't catch up with Amazon.
I have no problem with CEO's earning high $$.... no problem at all.
Politicians, when they are doing a good job looking after the taxpayers... fine as well.
However, when they stop... why should they be paid more perks on the taxpayers costs? I don't see any reason for that. They will get plenty of opportunities to get truckloads of cash from being Chairman/Board Members/Committee this and that/Book deals. Why would the taxpayers also need to continue paying a salary to them for being ex-politics?
Name one reason...
Then you are directly contradicting yourself. You don't have a problem with a CEO who makes 40 or 100 or 200 million USD and clearly is not many hundreds or thousand times more valuable than a regular employee. You excuse the salary of a CEO with the shareholder value he or she creates. You don't comment on CEOs who do a lousy job and still get paid. Then you go on and rip into politicians. You only single out those who did a lousy job. Yet there are many who work hard day in day out regardless of which political side they are on. 200k or so per year is an absolutely fair salary for someone who is representing the interest of people in the Senate and/or Congress. After all that person was VOTED into that position, not pushed via nepotistic ways. You should look how things are in other countries. Japan in comparison is a total mess where people never cared about politics and hence you have some true career politicians who have no clue whatsoever and yet can remain in their seat till they retire.
You're jumping through hoops mate... I'm not contradicting myself...
I'm a capitalist. If you run a business, you can get out of that whatever you want. If you're running someone else's business... like a CEO working for the shareholders... you can take whatever the shareholders are willing to give you. If you do a shit job, shareholders have the right to vote on that and dismiss you. The issue here is the 'owner manager agency problem'... but that's capitalism. If I don't like the way some CEO runs 'my company' (being a shareholder)... I sell my holding...
I can't really do that when a similar situation comes up in politics. I can't instantly sell my shares... I still have to pay taxes. I can only vote for someone else the next time elections are up. And even then, there's a good chance I'm not getting the people in that I want... but still I'm forced to pay taxes... Also, that's just the way it works.
However, I don't want to pay for those who are done. Politicians get voted in, but they want that life... they choose that... nobody forces them to be a public servant.
And lastly, most people are idiots. Most people have no tertiary education and don't even think further than 6 months ahead. Yet they can vote and get some politician in who just wants to push some populistic agenda. Then when they are voted out... they still collect a paycheck.
I'm not saying they shouldn't get a decent salary. Give them 300k or whatever... but when they are out, they are out.... done....
I'm a capitalist. If you run a business, you can get out of that whatever you want. If you're running someone else's business... like a CEO working for the shareholders... you can take whatever the shareholders are willing to give you. If you do a shit job, shareholders have the right to vote on that and dismiss you. The issue here is the 'owner manager agency problem'... but that's capitalism. If I don't like the way some CEO runs 'my company' (being a shareholder)... I sell my holding...
I can't really do that when a similar situation comes up in politics. I can't instantly sell my shares... I still have to pay taxes. I can only vote for someone else the next time elections are up. And even then, there's a good chance I'm not getting the people in that I want... but still I'm forced to pay taxes... Also, that's just the way it works.
However, I don't want to pay for those who are done. Politicians get voted in, but they want that life... they choose that... nobody forces them to be a public servant.
And lastly, most people are idiots. Most people have no tertiary education and don't even think further than 6 months ahead. Yet they can vote and get some politician in who just wants to push some populistic agenda. Then when they are voted out... they still collect a paycheck.
I'm not saying they shouldn't get a decent salary. Give them 300k or whatever... but when they are out, they are out.... done....
You live in a democracy. That means you accept what the majority decides to do. When they vote in a member of Senate or Congress then you go along with it. But you are wrong in the last part of your post, if you still can't accept Democratic principles then yes you can indeed sell your shares and move on: get the heck out of your country and move to another jurisdiction which you like better. But a democracy is based on majority vote. If people don't like the remuneration of elected officials then put up a petition and force to have it debated. This is not a pick and choose or plug and play club. Your privileges come at a cost. That's my stance. There are a million cost drivers you should be mentioning first before moaning about a few hundred k senators get paid.
Hahaa... you wrongly assume that the people in a democracy get to vote on renumeration. If they could vote on whether an ex-politician should be allowed to take business class trips on taxpayers expense long after they served... do you honestly think it will be "uhm yes... that sounds like a great idea!"
But... it seems you fancy that...
I'd rather have people incentivised to work. Those 'for life' salaries are nothing more than massive unemployment benefits which will never give anyone a drive to actually work for a living. Pensions fine.... but no life-time unemployment benefits, while you're still very much capable....
And yes, there are more cost drivers that can be solved. But if we keep shrugging shoulders on little things, then those little things tend to get bigger and bigger.
Why do you think Western Governments run massive budget deficits? Because they can't seem to keep their (sorry, our) wallets closed and just keep spending money on shit that they shouldn't spend money on. That's actually one thing I totally agree on with the Trumpet.
But... it seems you fancy that...
I'd rather have people incentivised to work. Those 'for life' salaries are nothing more than massive unemployment benefits which will never give anyone a drive to actually work for a living. Pensions fine.... but no life-time unemployment benefits, while you're still very much capable....
And yes, there are more cost drivers that can be solved. But if we keep shrugging shoulders on little things, then those little things tend to get bigger and bigger.
Why do you think Western Governments run massive budget deficits? Because they can't seem to keep their (sorry, our) wallets closed and just keep spending money on shit that they shouldn't spend money on. That's actually one thing I totally agree on with the Trumpet.