Liberals and Unions ruined American Business

Quote from NeoRio1:

AAA what would happen to the competition of major league baseball if every team was forced to have a maximum yearly contract of only $100,000?

I will tell you what happens. Every single major league player would literally flee from the scene and go wherever they could receive higher salaries. This means leaving the country...



... You can be jealous or you can lose every single successful businessman in the country and let the country turn to shit. Imagine if every single great business mind just left the country.
Personally I got no problem with them leaving, if some one else is dumb enough to pay more.



I think AAA's point was that not all of them are successful to begin with.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Personally I got no problem with them leaving, if some one else is dumb enough to pay more.



I think AAA's point was that not all of them are successful to begin with.

Are you fine with the successful ones leaving? If you are than your dumb.
 
Quote from Yannis:

Not that I disagree with the essence of what you are saying, or want to point a finger at an adversary, or call you names like "liberal", etc, etc, but, I think, what we all need in this country is to START SPELLING BETTER! :)

ACtually, yes, I apologize and should use spell check. I tend to type too quickly, especially when the market is moving like today.


c
 
to me, comparing ceo's is to major league ballplayers is like comparing teachers to daytraders.


ceo's should be measured by stock profits and prices 5 years out.

I would not have a problem paying them big money based on long term profits and shareholder value - probably measured by stock price and dividends.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

.

The liberals are wrong.

The day a liberal thinks in terms of right and wrong and winner and loser is the day he is not a liberal anymore.

I am a registered indpendent, did not vote for Clinton nor Bush. I am anti-abortion, especially when used as a means of birth contol. I am a fiscal consverative, not a fan of unions, but want to keep the government out of my bedroom and everyone else's. I think there are more who think in the middle 60 percent than the extreme 20% on either side. I am not particulary religious, but respect people of faith. I support alternative enegy, including nuclear, and don't ming offshore drilling, but am unsure about drilling in Alaska wildlands.

My point is the labeling of liberal' or neocon or calling names is just not productive. I have read some really good discussions here on ET, but one must sort through so much crap, that it makes it hard to find.

I may have a different opinion on certain issues than you, but I am willing to bet that we agree on several major issues as well. Liberal and conservative don't need to be bad words to the other side. I remember when a day trader was cool, and then he became a horrible blight on the market. Both labels were wrong in my opinion.

I just don't like Americans acting like European soccer fans to the point that they start to really hate each other for supporting one team or another.



c
 
Quote from cgroupman:

I am a registered indpendent, did not vote for Clinton nor Bush. I am anti-abortion, especially when used as a means of birth contol. I am a fiscal consverative, not a fan of unions, but want to keep the government out of my bedroom and everyone else's. I think there are more who think in the middle 60 percent than the extreme 20% on either side. I am not particulary religious, but respect people of faith. I support alternative enegy, including nuclear, and don't ming offshore drilling, but am unsure about drilling in Alaska wildlands.

My point is the labeling of liberal' or neocon or calling names is just not productive. I have read some really good discussions here on ET, but one must sort through so much crap, that it makes it hard to find.

I may have a different opinion on certain issues than you, but I am willing to bet that we agree on several major issues as well. Liberal and conservative don't need to be bad words to the other side. I remember when a day trader was cool, and then he became a horrible blight on the market. Both labels were wrong in my opinion.

I just don't like Americans acting like European soccer fans to the point that they start to really hate each other for supporting one team or another.



c

If your so sensitive that you can't get over people calling people liberals and conservatives than get off the politics forum.

The hyper sensitive dislike of name calling is such a meaningless and unimportant topic. I was not even addressing it as a topic and you totally ignored the rest of my comment.

What i was addressing was the problem so many people have now days. It is the problem of actually figuring who is right and who is wrong.

Right or wrong. A solution is fixing a wrong and turning it into a right. A falsehood of politics is when members from another thought process and belief system spread lies about the truth of what is really wrong with the issue in the first place.

On a scale of 1-10 high CEO pay would be around a 2 to 3 when looking at the negativity it has on companies. On a scale of 1-10 Unions would be around a 7 to 8 when looking at the negativity they have on companies. It is established that unions have far stronger and wider negative impacts on companies than high CEO pay. YET! Yet member's from different belief systems refuse to believe that unions are the main problem.

Why do they refuse to guage the importance of the issues? Because they have been living on a pro union tagline for the last 70 years and if they actually admit that powerful unions destroy companies than they will look like the capitalistic destruction crew that they are.

So the sense of my name calling sense it's the only issue you want to debate. Trying to fix an issue by not looking at the biggest problem negatively affecting the issue is wrong. Refusing to believe the actual problem is wrong. Stating that Unions help companies when they don't is wrong. The people of different thought processes i was talking about are liberals. Liberals are pro-unions. Unions are the number one problem that destroy companies. If liberals are pro-unions than they are also pro-destruction of companies.

Liberals would rather destroy American business than be held accountable for their own mistakes.
 
Why don't you run for office then dipshit and do something substantive towards these convictions you have instead of living here on this forum and braying at the moon.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I'm hardly a liberal, and excessive executive pay infuriates me. It is greed, nothing else. I know plenty of you swallow the nonsense about "incentivizing" CEOs and the necessity to get the best people and what the market says is appropriate, etc. Bottom line is most of these guys are unemployable elsewhere unless they take a 90% pay cut. Would Home Depot really be that much worse off if they had lost Nardelli to someone else who would meet his ridiculous demands? I could go on for pages.

The other problem with excessive executive pay for a manufacturing company, or any company employing a lot of blue collar workers, is the effect on morale. Guys busting their butts all day in physically demanding work and then read that their candy ass CEO makes 3 or 400 times what they do, plus has the compnay air fleet at his disposal, the corporate retreats, the ski trips, the golf outings, etc. It's poor leadership for a CEO to take a comp package that negatively effects the workforce.

No one expects a CEO to work for the same wage as an assembly line drone, but how can you expect anything but poor labor relations with the packages these clowns get?

Many people would agree that these guys are overcompensated stuffed shirts at best and corrupt buffoons at worst. But the question, Triple A, is who gets the power to tell a corporate entity what is a fair salary. Freedom to contract is an essential, and efforts to regulate exec comp would be a huge assault on this freedom.
 
Quote from hofficita:

Many people would agree that these guys are overcompensated stuffed shirts at best and corrupt buffoons at worst. But the question, Triple A, is who gets the power to tell a corporate entity what is a fair salary. Freedom to contract is an essential, and efforts to regulate exec comp would be a huge assault on this freedom.

Not only that but the issue of executive pay is miniscule when compared to Unions when studied in terms of negative impacts affecting companies. One party simply ignores the comparison of negative impcats which will continue to have drastic effects. But hey as long as they can continue to convince the American people that this is simply not true the longer they get to keep their power.
 
Are you trying to set the record for how many antagonistic threads someone can start in a week? This is 3 out of 5 threads in one category!!!

Take some Xanax, and chill out, UnaPoster
 
Back
Top