what is too much and why don't the people that count speak up?

[Care4all]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

[AnyOldIron]

If the CEO created the firm I have no problem with them earning whatever they can.

If it is a public limited firm, with a 'professional' CEO, then they should be curtailed to a percentage of the employees wages.

[Care4all]

it is the ceo of a public corporation....not a private company....
the CEO of exxon/mobile as just one of them....he gets paid more in one hour of pay than their average worker gets paid for working one full year....

[uscitizen]

Exxons CEO is paid for his expertise on how to rip us off.

[Immanuel]

Does anyone believe that if CARE were CEO of Shoes Unlimited that she would work for "common folk" wages?

Immie

[maineman]

I think what bothers me in all of this is the attitude that people who are on the low end of the socio-economic ladder are somehow lazy or don't "deserve" as much as those a few rungs higher.

My wife is now an echo-cardiographer. She spent ten years as a waitress but, luckily, had the intellect, the drive and the inate TALENT to learn a new skill. She readily admits that during her days as a waitress, she worked HARDER and LONGER than she ever does now.

Every day, we go to restaurants and eat off of plates washed by people making minimum wage with NO health benefits for themselves or their families...and they are busting their asses back in that kitchen washing those dishes in hot and humid surroundings for our dining pleasure...every day we come to our office and our offices have been vacuumed, and our waste baskets have been emptied by people making minimum wage with no health benefits and no retirement packages.... our garbage is removed, our lunch orders are taken and delivered, our shirts are washed and starched and ironed, our hotel room bedding is changed by an invisible class of people who are living on the margin of our world. And they work HARD for the pittance society pays them. And for the vast majority of them, they are at the limit of their potential. Many of them are NOT as smart as most of us... many of them are illiterate or nearly so.... most of them are anything BUT lazy.

Our lives are made infinitely easier by the fruits of their labor, yet many of us do not respect them, or reward their HARD work with a living wage.

How can people be all for allowing the filthy rich to become even richer as the ransom for a nearly inconsequential increase in the wage we pay those folks?

It is the callous disregard for that entire segment of society by the republican party that insures that I will NEVER be a republican or vote for a republican.

[uscitizen]

Correct Maine. As the basic rule goes, the more money you make the less you work.

[Care4all]

Does anyone believe that if CARE were CEO of Shoes Unlimited that she would work for "common folk" wages?

Immie
as ceo of shoes unlimited, I would NEVER expect or ask as pay, $368,000,000 a year as salary, you have my solemn promise.... I also would never expect or ask or accept any pay higher than 20 times the average employee's salary... :D

[Cypress]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

I don't know if you recall, but last year (I think) United Airlines got the unions to agree to wage and benefit concessions, because they told the workers the company was in dire straits and facing bankruptcy - and that they needed the workers to help the company stay afloat.

Meanwhile, in secret, while the union negotiations were concluding, United gave its top management and executives big raises and expanded compensation packages.

[Immanuel]

as ceo of shoes unlimited, I would NEVER expect or ask as pay, $368,000,000 a year as salary, you have my solemn promise.... I also would never expect or ask or accept any pay higher than 20 times the average employee's salary... :D


No, I am sure $300 million would suit you just fine. :pke:

Immie

[Damocles]

I don't know if you recall, but last year (I think) United Airlines got the unions to agree to wage and benefit concessions, because they told the workers the company was in dire straits and facing bankruptcy - and that they needed the workers to help the company stay afloat.

Meanwhile, in secret, while the union negotiations were concluding, United gave its top management and executives big raises and expanded compensation packages.
The union owns the airline. This is just plain foolish... The union leadership gave themselves big raises while screwing the rest of the union.

[Care4all]

The union owns the airline. This is just plain foolish... The union leadership gave themselves big raises while screwing the rest of the union.

really? i thought they all had SEPARATE unions...

the ''pilot's union'', the "baggage worker's union''...... ?

[Care4all]

And the CEO'S at the very top were NOT part of a union....so where did this info come from Damo? Unless I misunderstood all that I read about this?

[Cypress]

The union owns the airline. This is just plain foolish... The union leadership gave themselves big raises while screwing the rest of the union.

Damo, you think CEO's, executives, and management are in the Unions at United?

[Damocles]

really? i thought they all had SEPARATE unions...

the ''pilot's union'', the "baggage worker's union''...... ?
Nah, the union got together and bought the airline. They then overpaid the lot and were shocked when they went bankrupt....

[Damocles]

Damo, you think CEO's, executives, and management are in the Unions at United?
They were when they bought it. You don't quite get it. The Union owns the airline. They hire these people... They are Union Management.

So, yes. The officers of the company are union people as they are hired by and work for the union who owns the company.

[Care4all]

Nah, the union got together and bought the airline. They then overpaid the lot and were shocked when they went bankrupt....

The Union owns United Airlines? It is not a Public Company? I know I am missing something here, cuz I am totally lost! hahahaha! please fill me in....

[Cypress]

The Union owns United Airlines? It is not a Public Company? I know I am missing something here, cuz I am totally lost! hahahaha! please fill me in....

Damo's just trolling. Obviously, he's Kidding around.

Union members might own some United Stock in their 401s. But the unions don't "own" United airlines, nor do they represent managment and CEOs.

[Immanuel]

Damo's just trolling. Obviously, he's Kidding around.

Union members might own some United Stock in their 401s. But the unions don't "own" United airlines, nor do they represent managment and CEOs.

Haha,

You might even say that don't represent the employees.

Care, I think what he meant was that the unions own the airline by using their strongarm tactics to force the airline to bow to its will.

Immie

[uscitizen]

Speak up ? who listens anymore, not our gummit, nor industry. We have to speak up with something that gets their attention , our combined spending power.
After all what we spend is 60% or so of the national economy.

[Damocles]

The Union owns United Airlines? It is not a Public Company? I know I am missing something here, cuz I am totally lost! hahahaha! please fill me in....
They bought majority stockholder shares and control the company. Man, you really did miss a lot of business news...

It is the reason that they overpay their pilots, mechanics, etc. when compared to competitor airlines.

[Cypress]

before you all get twisted off, on something I said, relax.

I said that I thought it was United Airlines. It could have been US Airways, or Continental. I don't exactly remember. It was from fullpolitics.com more than a year ago.

[Damocles]

before you all get twisted off, on something I said, relax.

I said that I thought it was United Airlines. It could have been US Airways, or Continental. I don't exactly remember. It was from fullpolitics.com more than a year ago.
Twisted off? Okay. I must have sounded "angry" or something...

[Cypress]

Twisted off? Okay. I must have sounded "angry" or something...

Not at all.

I'm saying your talking about something totally different that I was. I probably made a mistake in guessing it was United Airlines.

A quick google shows that I was wrong. It must have been another airline.

United Airlines hasn't been union-owned since 2001, when it went bankrupt. You're talking about the employee ownership plan in the 1990s.

I was talking about an airline-union issue that happened like a year or two ago.

[Damocles]

Not at all.

I'm saying your talking about something totally different that I was. I probably made a mistake in guessing it was United Airlines.

A quick google shows that I was wrong. It must have been another airline.

United Airlines hasn't been union-owned since 2001, when it went bankrupt. You're talking about the employee ownership plan in the 1990s.

I was talking about an airline-union issue that happened like a year or two ago.
Ahh... That happens all the time. Stockholders (most of the US now with 401Ks) do not often vote their shares. CEOs often end up promoting those they want because the stockholders do not educate themselves and vote against such largesse.

[uscitizen]

Are 401K's a way of keeping control of the companies out of the hands of the little people ?

[Damocles]

Are 401K's a way of keeping control of the companies out of the hands of the little people ?
I'm not sure. You can usually vote your stock regardless of it being part of a 401k.

[uscitizen]

but most people don't know that or even exactly which stocks they own in their 401K.
They usually just pick from a few options, High risk, conservative, bonds, etc...

[Damocles]

but most people don't know that or even exactly which stocks they own in their 401K.
They usually just pick from a few options, High risk, conservative, bonds, etc...
They receive prospectives constantly, as well as voting packages. Rather than educate themselves then vote their stock they just throw them away.

[uscitizen]

Hmm , strange I never got one from Prudential or my other one either.
but what you are saying is probably what the corps are counting on. Sort of like mail in rebates.

[Immanuel]

They receive prospectives constantly, as well as voting packages. Rather than educate themselves then vote their stock they just throw them away.


I think you are mistaken on this. When you place funds into your 401(k) most of it is into a fund. The fund is the owner of the individual stocks and the manager of the fund votes on the shares it owns. You do however get to vote for the manager of the fund.

Immie

[Damocles]

If you are purchasing only funds then yes, you vote for the fund manager. If your 401K has only funds then you are in a poor 401K.

Anyway, you still get the prospective, you still get to vote. Most do not excercise this because they fear to educate themselves.

[Care4all]

If you are purchasing only funds then yes, you vote for the fund manager. If your 401K has only funds then you are in a poor 401K.

Anyway, you still get the prospective, you still get to vote. Most do not excercise this because they fear to educate themselves.

This is very true Damo, and [B]the Board members and CEO'S count on it! [B] If you don't think they do....let me know... ;) because I certainly believe that they have TAKEN ADVANTAGE of this precise situation....

and most that is invested in the stock market by middle america IS NOT in individual stocks but in funds...no? I thought I had read that somewhere?

care

[BRUTALITOPS]

there should be no limit. Quit your whinning care.

[Care4all]

there should be no limit. Quit your whinning care.
so you don't think the shareholders, for their own benefit, should put a stop to this practice?

you really expect the shareholders to put up with their profits being just given away each year, $400 million a shot?

well, i disagree with you....it is stealing profits from the shareholder when it is something like $370 million a year as the pay for just ONE CEO imo...
and the stock holders must become more informed instead of their ostrich heads in the ground!

[Immanuel]

so you don't think the shareholders, for their own benefit, should put a stop to this practice?

you really expect the shareholders to put up with their profits being just given away each year, $400 million a shot?

well, i disagree with you....it is stealing profits from the shareholder when it is something like $370 million a year as the pay for just ONE CEO imo...
and the stock holders must become more informed instead of their ostrich heads in the ground!

Care,

The Board of Director's negotiate with each of the officer's and determine the salaries that will be paid. The Board of Director's is elected by, guess who... that's right, the shareholders. If the shareholders are unhappy with the CEO (a member of that board) or any officer then their steps to remedy this problem is to get a shareholder's meeting or wait for the next scheduled meeting and vote his/her butt off the Board.

That is how it works. You want your CEO canned, buy a controlling interest in the company or garner enough support among the other shareholders and send him/her packing.

Immie

[Care4all]

Care,

The Board of Director's negotiate with each of the officer's and determine the salaries that will be paid. The Board of Director's is elected by, guess who... that's right, the shareholders. If the shareholders are unhappy with the CEO (a member of that board) or any officer then their steps to remedy this problem is to get a shareholder's meeting or wait for the next scheduled meeting and vote his/her butt off the Board.

That is how it works. You want your CEO canned, buy a controlling interest in the company or garner enough support among the other shareholders and send him/her packing.

Immie

i am very aware of how it all works immanuel, maybe you missed me saying that?

the board in cahoots with the ceo, get their blown out of proportion salary packages....

the issue is the stockholder not paying attention to this kind of abuse with their profits, or boardmembers for that matter.... this costs them money....and the board/ceo alliances of scratching eachother's backs continues because he/she knows the average shareholder is not paying attention thus the ability to rip them off..... oh, yeah, it is the shareholder's fault in many people's eyes like yours for certain....but to me, it is the ceo's lack of ethics that is failing a system that relies mostly on self regulation and ethics.

[Immanuel]

i am very aware of how it all works immanuel, maybe you missed me saying that?

the board in cahoots with the ceo, get their blown out of proportion salary packages....

the issue is the stockholder not paying attention to this kind of abuse with their profits, or boardmembers for that matter.... this costs them money....and the board/ceo alliances of scratching eachother's backs continues knows the average shareholder is not paying attention thus the ability to rip them off..... oh, yeah, it is the shareholder's fault in many people's eyes like yours for certain....but to me, it is the ceo's lack of ethics that is failing a system that relies mostly on self regulation and ethics.

Sound familiar?

George W. Bush = CEO

Dick Cheney = COO

and you can just keep going down the line.

The same thing happens in American politics and within the corporate system.

Maybe you think we should go to a different system? A dictatorship?

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Care,

The Board of Director's negotiate with each of the officer's and determine the salaries that will be paid. The Board of Director's is elected by, guess who... that's right, the shareholders. If the shareholders are unhappy with the CEO (a member of that board) or any officer then their steps to remedy this problem is to get a shareholder's meeting or wait for the next scheduled meeting and vote his/her butt off the Board.

That is how it works. You want your CEO canned, buy a controlling interest in the company or garner enough support among the other shareholders and send him/her packing.

ImmieWould you agree that it's fair to say there is little incentive for stockholders to care about the long term viability and "health" of a company if they are focused primarily on trading and near term profit?

[Immanuel]

Would you agree that it's fair to say there is little incentive for stockholders to care about the long term viability and "health" of a company if they are focused primarily on trading and near term profit?

Yes, which is why you have the complaceny of the vast majority of corporate stockholders.

Does that change anything at all? If the Board isn't producing then either the shareholders will boot them out or the stock will drop and eventually the board members will loose their jobs. There is an incentive for the Board Members to make sure that a corporation produces and continues to produce.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Yes, which is why you have the complaceny of the vast majority of corporate stockholders.

Does that change anything at all? If the Board isn't producing then either the shareholders will boot them out or the stock will drop and eventually the board members will loose their jobs. There is an incentive for the Board Members to make sure that a corporation produces and continues to produce.

Immie
Produce what though? Dividends and stock price. That's it. My thesis is that corporate profitability has become progressively more divorced from the real world functions of business.

Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services. Secondarily, they provide employment and a social niche for, well, everyone. These are their social functions, which are more fundamental and important than anything to do with profit. Profit is merely the carrot dangled in front of the horse's face.

[Immanuel]

Produce what though? Dividends and stock price. That's it. My thesis is that corporate profitability has become progressively more divorced from the real world functions of business.

Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services. Secondarily, they provide employment and a social niche for, well, everyone. These are their social functions, which are more fundamental and important than anything to do with profit. Profit is merely the carrot dangled in front of the horse's face.

Where did you come up with that? Corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only. To make their shareholders money! Anything else is secondary and may or may not be beneficial. ;)

"Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services." No, the purpose of the corporation is to produce wealth for the shareholders. This is the method by which the purpose is accomplished.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Where did you come up with that? Corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only. To make their shareholders money! Anything else is secondary and may or may not be beneficial. ;)

"Businesses exist in order to produce and distribute goods and services." No, the purpose of the corporation is to produce wealth for the shareholders. This is the method by which the purpose is accomplished.

Immie
You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

If all corporations did was to increase social stratification -- e.g. accumulate power/wealth in the hands of a few -- there would be no legitimate social need for them. We could nationalize everything and have done. That is *not* the true purpose of business, however.

The problem is that the method has become less and less effective. Whether this is a temporary phenomenon, which can be safely ignored, or a more dangerous, long term problem is open to debate. Believe it or not, I'm not yet convinced of the latter.

[uscitizen]

Sound familiar?

George W. Bush = CEO

Dick Cheney = COO

and you can just keep going down the line.

The same thing happens in American politics and within the corporate system.

Maybe you think we should go to a different system? A dictatorship?

Immie

Immie we have developed the same problem with that system as well !!

[Immanuel]

Immie we have developed the same problem with that system as well !!


That is what I was saying, but do we really want the alternative?

A dictatorship?

Communism?

Fascism?

Monarchy?

It may not be the best system but as far as I can tell it is better than all the rest.

Immie

[Immanuel]

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.



No, you have it backwards. Profit is the purpose of the corporation. Sales is the method by which that purpose is achieved.

At least that is what any business textbook will tell you.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

[QUOTE=OrnotBitwise;8774]You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

QUOTE]

No, you have it backwards. Profit is the purpose of the corporation. Sales is the method by which that purpose is achieved.

ImmieLOL! Then why have businesses at all? What's the point? Why should I want to increase anyone's profit?

You're blinded by the structural conventions. Look at the more fundamental level. What is it that a business does? What function does it perform in society? What good is it? That's what really counts. The rest is just detail -- in which one can indeed find the devil, but let's not go there right now.

[Care4all]

That is what I was saying, but do we really want the alternative?

A dictatorship?

Communism?

Fascism?

Monarchy?

It may not be the best system but as far as I can tell it is better than all the rest.

Immie

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!


hahaha!

[honorknght]

You see? You've put the cart before the horse -- up until your last sentence, in which you pull it out.

Profit is the method by which the purpose of the business is achieved. It is not the purpose in and of itself. Not purpose in the sense of societal function.

. you're right and you're wrong, in a Capitalist society such as ours Profit comes first, in a Socialist society the business is there to distribute goods.

which society is the US?

[OrnotBitwise]

you're right and you're wrong, in a Capitalist society such as ours Profit comes first, in a Socialist society the business is there to distribute goods.

which society is the US?
Another cart trying to pull a horse.

I'm not talking about the motives of the people running the business. Nor am I talking about economic structural details. I'm talking about the material, functional level of society.

Why do we need business? What's it for? Well, it's a way of organizing people to produce and distribute goods and services. It is one of the most fundamental units of our social system. It also helps to integrate people into society: we tend to define ourselves by what we do.

Now, most business owners don't think of it in these terms. That's fine: they don't need to. As far as they're concerned, they're just trying to make a profit. If the system is working, their profit ensures that goods and services are indeed being distributed and people are indeed gainfully, if not necessarily satisfyingly, employed. Everything is skittles and beer.

What I'm suggesting is that the system may be getting out of kilter. Profit at the top level may no longer ensure that goods and services and employment are all humming along as we all depend upon them doing.

[uscitizen]

Too much emphasis on short term profit and lack of proper planning for long term growth.

[honorknght]

Another cart trying to pull a horse.

I'm not talking about the motives of the people running the business. Nor am I talking about economic structural details. I'm talking about the material, functional level of society.

Why do we need business? What's it for? Well, it's a way of organizing people to produce and distribute goods and services. It is one of the most fundamental units of our social system. It also helps to integrate people into society: we tend to define ourselves by what we do.

What I'm suggesting is that the system may be getting out of kilter. Profit at the top level may no longer ensure that goods and services and employment are all humming along as we all depend upon them doing.

see now here is the problem, in your opening line you say that we're wrong.....

But in your closing arguement you're saying that we're right

you start off by saying that we're putting the cart before the horse when we say that profit is the main motive for business, but then you conclude by saying the way we have it now "profit at the top level" is "throwing the system out of kilter"

As it stands socially Profit is at the top, the priority for the business itself, as for our social structure, anyone's own business will be motivated for profit, or become a not for profit organization.

You're trying to state as a fact your interpretation(which is a socialist interpretation) of why business should exist.... to cater to society's needs. However the business in of itself(in a capitalist society) is created for profit.... because of such a business can change products over time and rather than always distribute the same product ,even when that product is no longer feasible, to make a profit it can change.

For instance America Online, started off as an Internet Service Provider, while they will keep on providing Internet Service on a much lower scale, they are offering their services as a software programmer(for their GUI) for free, so that they can now recieve a profit from advertising dollars.

If their purpose was to distribute internet service, then they would have changed accordingly, but their purpose is to make a profit, so their product is changing.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

A CEO makes a lot of money for a company. He is overpaid for what he does, but there's a scarcity of good leaders out there, and the taxcuts to the rich have made it more advantageous to pay ridiculous wages. Out of the total economy however, it really isnt' a large hit. I'd say it's maybe a billion dollars of unnecessary pay out of a 7 trillion dollar economy.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think what bothers me in all of this is the attitude that people who are on the low end of the socio-economic ladder are somehow lazy or don't "deserve" as much as those a few rungs higher.

My wife is now an echo-cardiographer. She spent ten years as a waitress but, luckily, had the intellect, the drive and the inate TALENT to learn a new skill. She readily admits that during her days as a waitress, she worked HARDER and LONGER than she ever does now.

Every day, we go to restaurants and eat off of plates washed by people making minimum wage with NO health benefits for themselves or their families...and they are busting their asses back in that kitchen washing those dishes in hot and humid surroundings for our dining pleasure...every day we come to our office and our offices have been vacuumed, and our waste baskets have been emptied by people making minimum wage with no health benefits and no retirement packages.... our garbage is removed, our lunch orders are taken and delivered, our shirts are washed and starched and ironed, our hotel room bedding is changed by an invisible class of people who are living on the margin of our world. And they work HARD for the pittance society pays them. And for the vast majority of them, they are at the limit of their potential. Many of them are NOT as smart as most of us... many of them are illiterate or nearly so.... most of them are anything BUT lazy.

Our lives are made infinitely easier by the fruits of their labor, yet many of us do not respect them, or reward their HARD work with a living wage.

How can people be all for allowing the filthy rich to become even richer as the ransom for a nearly inconsequential increase in the wage we pay those folks?

It is the callous disregard for that entire segment of society by the republican party that insures that I will NEVER be a republican or vote for a republican.

Waitressing is a difficult job, but anyone on Earth can do it. You need expertise to do be a doctor or such. Hell, I could be a garbage collector, but no a doctor. Although the general profession of grabage collection may be more valuable (I'm serious, the United States would be so diseased without garbage collection doctors would be practically useless), each individual garbage collecter doesn't deserve as much because it requires no expertise and everyone can do it.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Correct Maine. As the basic rule goes, the more money you make the less you work.

Ridiculous.

If I could get more worth in my company out of someone who sprays off cars than someone with a doctorate who directs my expansion then I certainly would pay that person more. The simple fact is that they are not worth as much.

[Care4all]

Capitalism is going nowhere and is solid as a rock in this country of ours...

All it would take is self regulation to stop these kind of wasteful and costly to the stock holder salaries in check....

to say we have to turn it in to some sort of fascist or socialist or communist type situation to correct this is just a strawman....

[Care4all]

Ridiculous.

If I could get more worth in my company out of someone who sprays off cars than someone with a doctorate who directs my expansion then I certainly would pay that person more. The simple fact is that they are not worth as much.

So in your opinion there are ONLY a hand full of people that could "do the job"?

I beg to differ with you and also, this doctorate crap won't get you the big job...

every ceo that I have worked for over the 26 year period WAS NOT A DOCTORATE, and some were only high school graduates, not even college grads.....but these were the old dogs that came from the old school and worked their way up the ladder through good hard work and business smarts.

(I worked for one vice president that had never even graduated from HIGH SCHOOL.... for 10 years, and he was by far the SMARTEST Business MAN I have ever met!!! or worked for....and I hated him for the longest time because he was an SOB....but heh! he knew what he was doing!)

[OrnotBitwise]

see now here is the problem, in your opening line you say that we're wrong.....

But in your closing arguement you're saying that we're right

you start off by saying that we're putting the cart before the horse when we say that profit is the main motive for business, but then you conclude by saying the way we have it now "profit at the top level" is "throwing the system out of kilter"

As it stands socially Profit is at the top, the priority for the business itself, as for our social structure, anyone's own business will be motivated for profit, or become a not for profit organization.

You're trying to state as a fact your interpretation(which is a socialist interpretation) of why business should exist.... to cater to society's needs. However the business in of itself(in a capitalist society) is created for profit.... because of such a business can change products over time and rather than always distribute the same product ,even when that product is no longer feasible, to make a profit it can change.

For instance America Online, started off as an Internet Service Provider, while they will keep on providing Internet Service on a much lower scale, they are offering their services as a software programmer(for their GUI) for free, so that they can now recieve a profit from advertising dollars.

If their purpose was to distribute internet service, then they would have changed accordingly, but their purpose is to make a profit, so their product is changing.
Stop thinking about "motive." Motive is secondary. Motive is method, the carrot, the means to the end. It is not the end in itself. It is the end only from the perspective of the individual. I don't care about why people think they're doing whatever they do. That's not my orientation. What I care about is what they do accomplishes for society as a whole.

Horatio may start a wonderful business building and selling gilt fronuses. The people decide they want to have gilded fronuses and Horatio becomes very wealthy. All is blyth and bonnie and good and gay. The net effect of this business activity is not that Horatio got wealthy, but rather than many people each got a gilt fronus or two and a bunch of workers managed to stay alive by gilding fronuses. Horatio can look out for himself: I don't care about him.

All you've done is to hilight some of the weaknesses of the capitalist economic system -- which I was already well aware of. Note that weaknesses do not invalidate the system unless one can offer a better alternative.

[Immanuel]

[QUOTE=Immanuel;8779]LOL! Then why have businesses at all? What's the point? Why should I want to increase anyone's profit?

You're blinded by the structural conventions. Look at the more fundamental level. What is it that a business does? What function does it perform in society? What good is it? That's what really counts. The rest is just detail -- in which one can indeed find the devil, but let's not go there right now.

A business provides income for its owners. That is the sole purpose of any for profit business and many not-for-profit businesses.

Maybe you think it should do otherwise because you want to make a business be a good neighbor, but a business is not developed to be a good neighbor. It is developed to make money for its owners. If it can make money and still be a good neighbor fine, but when it gets down to making money or being a good neighbor the owners are going to side with the reason they own the company in the first place an generally that is to provide income.

Why would you want to increase anyone's profits? If you are a shareholder you want that company to provide you with a profit whether it is increased share price, dividends or both. That is why you invest. I have yet to meet an investor that invests to give his money away. As a customer, you would not want to increase the owners' profit. In fact, you want to minnimize it. Those are just market forces. However, the owners will charge you the going price for their product BECAUSE they want to make a profit.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

A business provides income for its owners. That is the sole purpose of any for profit business and many not-for-profit businesses.

Maybe you think it should do otherwise because you want to make a business be a good neighbor, but a business is not developed to be a good neighbor. It is developed to make money for its owners. If it can make money and still be a good neighbor fine, but when it gets down to making money or being a good neighbor the owners are going to side with the reason they own the company in the first place an generally that is to provide income.

Why would you want to increase anyone's profits? If you are a shareholder you want that company to provide you with a profit whether it is increased share price, dividends or both. That is why you invest. I have yet to meet an investor that invests to give his money away. As a customer, you would not want to increase the owners' profit. In fact, you want to minnimize it. Those are just market forces. However, the owners will charge you the going price for their product BECAUSE they want to make a profit.

Immie
LMAO! This is hysterical. It's like a Marx Brothers routine.

Read my glyphs: motive doesn't matter. I don't care about motive. I'm talking about function. Social function. What does the business accomplish? How does society benefit from its existence? Those are the questions that matter.

Society doesn't really need businesses. Society needs to organize labor. Society needs to have food produced and distributed. It needs to have shelter constructed and maintained. Society needs to support a specialization of labor if people want to live in something more elaborate than hovels. This is what I mean by "function." It has nothing to do with money or motive.

Business is one method of meeting those needs. It happens to be a rather good and elegant method, but one should never confuse method with function: it's a good way to get your horse rear-ended.

[BRUTALITOPS]

so you don't think the shareholders, for their own benefit, should put a stop to this practice?

you really expect the shareholders to put up with their profits being just given away each year, $400 million a shot?

well, i disagree with you....it is stealing profits from the shareholder when it is something like $370 million a year as the pay for just ONE CEO imo...
and the stock holders must become more informed instead of their ostrich heads in the ground!

Well I am pretty sure that shareholders ARE aware of it, if you are aware of it care. And this Hasn't been a problem so far, has it?

Secondly, you're argument isn't about returning that money to the shareholders, but instead giving it to the janitors and the rest of the low class. And if that's the case, what difference would it make to the shareholders...?

Look, all I am asking is for you just to be honest instead of using a cloak for class warfare.

[BRUTALITOPS]

function doesn't matter. motive matters.

There, we flipped it.

[OrnotBitwise]

function doesn't matter. motive matters.

There, we flipped it.
Motive matters to a psychologist or, perhaps, a market analyst. It certainly matters to the business executive. :) It doesn't matter at all, however, to someone trying to evaluate whether business, in general, is functioning effectively.

Function. Are we -- society -- getting what we need out of the economy? The only way to answer that question is to first identify what it is we need. What is it that business is supposed to do?

Look, if you don't like "purpose" or "function" use the word "effect" instead. What are the effects -- negative and positive -- of the business' activity?

[Care4all]

Well I am pretty sure that shareholders ARE aware of it, if you are aware of it care. And this Hasn't been a problem so far, has it?

Secondly, you're argument isn't about returning that money to the shareholders, but instead giving it to the janitors and the rest of the low class. And if that's the case, what difference would it make to the shareholders...?

Look, all I am asking is for you just to be honest instead of using a cloak for class warfare.

That was not my argument Grind.... I used the average worker's salary as a comparrison to show how ridiculous the salaries of some of these CEO's have become...making in one hour what the average worker makes in one year and that I believe this is unethical and STEALING from the stock holders....

I believe wall street agrees with me and is working on some regulations to prevent this from happening...

The only reason I know it is because I watched a 1 minute clip on Lou dobbs not because this has been all over the news, and in addition to this, most shareholders DO NOT KNOW what ceo's are making and they don't care because they feel the board must be doing their job...kinda like how they elect their representative in congress and then really don't pay attention until the next election....

There are a few men like Chap and topspin that do pay attention but most people do not and obviously the market Funds that carry these stocks have been MUM on the issue....they are part of the BOYS CLUB too, as was proven with the Enron case and the global crossing case....

[Annie]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?


I have no problem with anyone making what they legally can. We may all be created equal, but from there on, life is not fair. Some things are the luck of the draw: Which parents, which country, etc. Sticking with the US, the other variables are within each of us, by the choices we make along the way. If genetics gives one the luck of athleticism and height and interests lead to basketball, one may well be lucky indeed.

Then again, if one's interests and gifts puts them in the front of a classroom, the dreams of a yacht may not be strong enough to overcome the daily job of a career that brings joy. It's not like the salary thing is a secret.

Choices of not performing in school, but being really interested and working at a craft, may not bring the $$$ of the CEO, but will probably still support a family well, perhaps building custom cabinets or furniture for the CEO that can do so?

Someone with the same attitude about school as just preceding, but without any development of skills will in all liklihood be the ones some are so worried about at Walmart, a trash collector-not bad $$$, or some other low paying position. (Note: I said legally earning money).

[BRUTALITOPS]

Motive matters to a psychologist or, perhaps, a market analyst. It certainly matters to the business executive. :) It doesn't matter at all, however, to someone trying to evaluate whether business, in general, is functioning effectively.

Function. Are we -- society -- getting what we need out of the economy? The only way to answer that question is to first identify what it is we need. What is it that business is supposed to do?

Look, if you don't like "purpose" or "function" use the word "effect" instead. What are the effects -- negative and positive -- of the business' activity?

A business's function is to make money. It is to make profit. That IS it's function. A business does not exist to serve society, society exists to serve the business.

[BRUTALITOPS]

That was not my argument Grind.... I used the average worker's salary as a comparrison to show how ridiculous the salaries of some of these CEO's have become...making in one hour what the average worker makes in one year and that I believe this is unethical and STEALING from the stock holders....

I believe wall street agrees with me and is working on some regulations to prevent this from happening...

The only reason I know it is because I watched a 1 minute clip on Lou dobbs not because this has been all over the news, and in addition to this, most shareholders DO NOT KNOW what ceo's are making and they don't care because they feel the board must be doing their job...kinda like how they elect their representative in congress and then really don't pay attention until the next election....

There are a few men like Chap and topspin that do pay attention but most people do not and obviously the market Funds that carry these stocks have been MUM on the issue....they are part of the BOYS CLUB too, as was proven with the Enron case and the global crossing case....


So then you are saying that all the extra money should go to the stockholders, not to the low class workers?

Cause I could accept that.

[OrnotBitwise]

A business's function is to make money. It is to make profit. That IS it's function. A business does not exist to serve society, society exists to serve the business.
<*sigh*> Has the collective IQ around here dropped 30 points today or are you all just sniffing glue? I'm leaning toward the latter. It's probably Robdawg's fault.

You're playing around with the fuzziness of vernacular language. I suspect you know that quite well. By "function" I explicitly do NOT mean the motivation/conscious reason why the owners of the business own it. I don't care why they own it, as I've said repeatedly. What I'm talking about is what the busines does.

Clearly, every business does something. I mean, they're not just in there printing money, right? They do something for which people pay them. They either make something, transport something or provide some other service. THAT is the function of the business. Don't be deliberately dense.

What does the business produce? That is it's contribution to society, along with the employment it provides for employees.

The original thesis -- one I happen to agree with -- was that our economic system is going through a dysfunctional period right now. Profitability has become somewhat decoupled from real productivity. The question is whether this is a big problem or just a little one.

Can we please stop the Toby-esque pimple-picking now?

[BRUTALITOPS]

"Can we please stop the Toby-esque pimple-picking now?"

I disagree with you and I don't think you are making much sense.

"what the busines does."

The business generates profit. That is the universally binding function of every business (at least the successful ones) I don't see why it matters that the way in which a a business may go about obtaining this goal is of any significance.

You keep going back to what a business does, or what it's function to society is, but generating profit isn't something to be put aside and relegated to what you would call the carrot. I really don't even see your point.

[Care4all]

So then you are saying that all the extra money should go to the stockholders, not to the low class workers?

Cause I could accept that.

I think there are a number of things that could be done with this extra money... that could produce MORE for the stockholder's return on investment...

it could be reinvestment back in to the company or in to the company's people that produce, or higher dividend returns to the stockholder....
whatever brings the best ROI for the company/and the shareholder...at least in the long run.

[OrnotBitwise]

"Can we please stop the Toby-esque pimple-picking now?"

I disagree with you and I don't think you are making much sense.

"what the busines does."

The business generates profit. That is the universally binding function of every business (at least the successful ones) I don't see why it matters that the way in which a a business may go about obtaining this goal is of any significance.

You keep going back to what a business does, or what it's function to society is, but generating profit isn't something to be put aside and relegated to what you would call the carrot. I really don't even see your point.You really don't see that?

:wall:

No wonder the cons are so screwed up.
:dunno:

[BRUTALITOPS]

Look care, stockholders don't care. It's not rocket science that ceo's get paid A LOT OF MONEY. This isn't a groundbreaking discovery. And the amount of money that the ceos DO get isn't going to make THAT much of a difference if you throw it back into the company...

You just don't like people being very rich, well guess what? too bad.

[BRUTALITOPS]

You really don't see that?

:wall:

No wonder the cons are so screwed up.
:dunno:

Yeah I don't see anything. I don't see any point you are attempting to make.

[Topspin]

I missed UScitizen!!!
Something needs to be done. No one is in favor of the system except the boards and the ceo's. Some kind of regulation regarding outside directors and improved shareholder power.

[Immanuel]

LMAO! This is hysterical. It's like a Marx Brothers routine.

Read my glyphs: motive doesn't matter. I don't care about motive. I'm talking about function. Social function. What does the business accomplish? How does society benefit from its existence? Those are the questions that matter.

Society doesn't really need businesses. Society needs to organize labor. Society needs to have food produced and distributed. It needs to have shelter constructed and maintained. Society needs to support a specialization of labor if people want to live in something more elaborate than hovels. This is what I mean by "function." It has nothing to do with money or motive.

Business is one method of meeting those needs. It happens to be a rather good and elegant method, but one should never confuse method with function: it's a good way to get your horse rear-ended.

You allow your arrogance to take over again. Once again, we see that it is only your opinion (and a ridiculous one at that) that matters. Businesses are created for the sole purpose (open any business text) of providing income to their owners. There is no other purpose for which a business is created.

Whether you like it or not we live in a capitalistic society.

It appears that what you want is nothing more than socialism. Let the government run all businesses for the betterment of the common good. That is NOT the system of government we have chosen nor the one I want to live under. Pictures of Adolf Hitle entering your mind?

Immie

[Care4all]

You allow your arrogance to take over again. Once again, we see that it is only your opinion (and a ridiculous one at that) that matters. Businesses are created for the sole purpose (open any business text) of providing income to their owners. There is no other purpose for which a business is created.

Whether you like it or not we live in a capitalistic society.

It appears that what you want is nothing more than socialism. Let the government run all businesses for the betterment of the common good. That is NOT the system of government we have chosen nor the one I want to live under. Pictures of Adolf Hitle entering your mind?

Immie

good morning immie!

i think you are wrong, or our government thinks you are wrong....they are supposedly so involved in promoting business FOR ''WE THE PEOPLE'S'' benefit thru regulation, deregulation, legislation, corporate welfare, trade negotiations, stock market regulations, the SEC, etc..... all for us... not to make one individual business owner profitable!


just think about it, our own government believes ''businesses'' are there for us...at least i believe they treat it that way most of the time...

care

[Care4all]

our government even takes home owner's land away to promote and give favor to businesses thru eminent domain... :(

[Immanuel]

good morning immie!

i think you are wrong, or our government thinks you are wrong....they are supposedly so involved in promoting business FOR ''WE THE PEOPLE'S'' benefit thru regulation, deregulation, legislation, corporate welfare, trade negotiations, stock market regulations, the SEC, etc..... all for us... not to make one individual business owner profitable!


just think about it, our own government believes ''businesses'' are there for us...at least i believe they treat it that way most of the time...

care

Wrong, Care, the government takes taxes from businesses and use those taxes for the benefit of the people. The government also regulates those businesses to keep those businesses from putting profit so far out in front of everything else that the motive hurts the general public.

In many ways the government can be viewed as a leech.

Immie

[Care4all]

immie, our government considers business as a lifeline to ''we the people'', part of the ''pursuit of happiness'' i would imagine, are you continuing to deny this? or am i misunderstanding this whole stance of yours?

[Immanuel]

immie, our government considers business as a lifeline to ''we the people'', part of the ''pursuit of happiness'' i would imagine, are you continuing to deny this? or am i misunderstanding this whole stance of yours?

What is the "Pursuit of Happiness"? Wealth for the most part.

I am sure you see it as everyone being considered equal and having exactly the same things (income, wealth, materials etc.) But that is not the "American Dream".

Immie

[Care4all]

What is the "Pursuit of Happiness"? Wealth for the most part.

I am sure you see it as everyone being considered equal and having exactly the same things (income, wealth, materials etc.) But that is not the "American Dream".

Immie

Am I missing something? Or did you just totally avoid answering any of my questions?

;)

[Immanuel]

Am I missing something? Or did you just totally avoid answering any of my questions?

;)

I'm saying neither you nor Ornot understand what Businesses are created for. They are not created to provide for your ideals, everyone being equal and happily working like ants (slaves) for the government. They are created to make the owners wealthy. That is capitalism. I understand you want to live in a socialistic country, but most of America does not.

Immie

[uscitizen]

But then there is the legal status as a person that business enjoy......

[Brent]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

Aren't there more important issues than deciding whether someone makes too much money?

[Care4all]

I'm saying neither you nor Ornot understand what Businesses are created for. They are not created to provide for your ideals, everyone being equal and happily working like ants (slaves) for the government. They are created to make the owners wealthy. That is capitalism. I understand you want to live in a socialistic country, but most of America does not.

Immie


we already live in a socialistic society...but
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A FASCIST SOCIETY.... :D

[Immanuel]

we already live in a socialistic society...but
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A FASCIST SOCIETY.... :D

Guess again.

We live in a Capitalistic Society. Regardless of what you Socialists want.

Thank God.

Immie

[Cypress]

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- ABRAHAM LINCOLN

[Care4all]

unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”

[Immanuel]

unequal distribution of the economy’s spoils could derail the trade liberalization of recent decades. Because recent economic changes “threaten the livelihoods of some workers and the profits of some firms,” Mr. Bernanke said, policy makers must try “to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared.”

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

First of all, regardless of what Mr. Bernanke says, we are still a Capitalistic Society.

Second of all, you make it sound as if Capitalists don't care about other people. It seems to me that Capitalists are more giving and caring than anyone else in the world even when compared to you Socialist who want to rob from the "rich" and give to the "poor" until everyone is exactly equal. You being the poor of course. Capitalists make more and give more.

Immie

[evince]

Some capitalists are ,the ones in control NOW are not

[uscitizen]

I think capitolism now means that you have suction in the capitol :)

[Care4all]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

First of all, regardless of what Mr. Bernanke says, we are still a Capitalistic Society.

Second of all, you make it sound as if Capitalists don't care about other people. It seems to me that Capitalists are more giving and caring than anyone else in the world even when compared to you Socialist who want to rob from the "rich" and give to the "poor" until everyone is exactly equal. You being the poor of course. Capitalists make more and give more.

Immie

the FIGURES SHOW right now that the rich are robbing from the poorer person.

will i see the same effort made by you to defend the wealthiest among us for those that have less and less because money is being robbed from them?

probaby NOT! Knowing YOU! :( on this subject!

a reminder to all that are Christians, including myself!!!!:readit:

James 2
Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

[Immanuel]

the FIGURES SHOW right now that the rich are robbing from the poorer person.

will i see the same effort made by you to defend the wealthiest among us for those that have less and less because money is being robbed from them?

probaby NOT! Knowing YOU! :( on this subject!

a reminder to all that are Christians, including myself!!!!:readit:

James 2
Favoritism Forbidden
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?


What figures? I'll bet once again you are looking at only one set of figures (tax rates?) and assuming that bullshit that those are the only figures that matter. Ho humm it never changes with socialists. Give me, give me, give me!

Immie

[Immanuel]

Hey Care, maybe you should consider reading that passage. You know favortism? You realize that favortism goes both ways don't you? You play your brand of favortism and condemn others. Typical of you, isn't it?

Immie

[uscitizen]

Hey Care, maybe you should consider reading that passage. You know favortism? You realize that favortism goes both ways don't you? You play your brand of favortism and condemn others. Typical of you, isn't it?

Immie

Just sort of a basic human nature thing Immie.
Glad you are catching on.

[Care4all]

What figures? I'll bet once again you are looking at only one set of figures (tax rates?) and assuming that bullshit that those are the only figures that matter. Ho humm it never changes with socialists. Give me, give me, give me!

Immie

this thread has nothing to do with taxes? nor does it have anything to do with, give me, give me; give me.... you are doing exactly what you always do, take the side of the wealthiest over those ''give me'' people YOU SPEAK SO LOWLY ABOUT....

Shame on YOU!

[Immanuel]

this thread has nothing to do with taxes? nor does it have anything to do with, give me, give me; give me.... you are doing exactly what you always do, take the side of the wealthiest over those ''give me'' people YOU SPEAK SO LOWLY ABOUT....

Shame on YOU!

You are the one that plays favorites. Shame on you!

So produce these so called numbers you speak of.

Immie

[Immanuel]

Just out of curiosity, Care, did you look down upon your employers at that well known shoe company (not the "Just Do It" company, the other well known one) the way you do Wal-mart? Or were they okay because, well, you as a capitalist were employed by them?

Immie

[Care4all]

You are the one that plays favorites. Shame on you!

So produce these so called numbers you speak of.

Immie


here's a small article about it but the times has a bigger one, covering more...

Report: Most not seeing real wage gains
Expansion could be first since WWII when wages don't outpace prices for most workers.
August 28 2006: 8:12 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most workers have not seen wage gains keep pace with inflation during the current economic expansion, the first time that has happened since World War II, according to a published report.

The New York Times reports that the median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. Median wages are the point at which equal numbers of workers earn more and less.

The paper reports that while average family income, adjusted for inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, that has been helped by gains by the top wage earners.

The paper says that about nine out of 10 workers have seen inflation that has outpaced their pay increases over the last three years, according to the Labor Department. That includes workers earning up to $80,000 a year, a level that puts them in the 90th percentile of wage earners.

The paper reports that with employment gains softening in recent months, inflationary pressures stay high due to factors such as high energy prices, so the gap between wages and prices could increase for many workers.

The paper reports that the gap between the top wage earners and other workers is growing. It cites research from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty that showed that in 2004, the top 1 percent of earners --a group that includes many chief executives --received 11.2 percent of all wage income, up from 8.7 percent a decade earlier and less than 6 percent three decades ago.

In addition, corporate profits are growing more quickly than wages and salaries. Employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, according to the paper, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s.

[Immanuel]

All that says is that costs are going up faster than wages. How does this apply to the rich robbing the poor? This would mean that the costs of doing business would also increase.

You didn't answer my question. Did you look down upon your employers the way you do other people's employers?

Immie

[Care4all]

All that says is that costs are going up faster than wages. How does this apply to the rich robbing the poor? This would mean that the costs of doing business would also increase.

You didn't answer my question. Did you look down upon your employers the way you do other people's employers?

Immie

it most CERTAINLY did answer your question....in many ways it showed how the wealthiest are TAKING MORE from those that make less...making them work harder, and produce more for the company without sharing in the spoils of the worker's hard labor....greed....at the top...

the wealthiest, taking from the lower worker.

[uscitizen]

Trickle up economics ?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's not that Immy favors the rich...

He's just playing on their side because they're the ones being unfairly attacked.

I'm sure if a bunch of turbo-cons came in here and argued that the poor were sucking off the rich and deserved to die he'd do the same thing for the poor. It's simply that he's unbiased.

[Care4all]

It's not that Immy favors the rich...

He's just playing on their side because they're the ones being unfairly attacked.

I'm sure if a bunch of turbo-cons came in here and argued that the poor were sucking off the rich and deserved to die he'd do the same thing for the poor. It's simply that he's unbiased.

that would be how HE SHOULD handle it watermark, but that is not how he WOULD handle it....

because this opportunity to defend those that have less when someone is screwing them has arisen before this one and even then, he has chosen to show his favoritism towards the rich....they mesmerize him! :D

care

[Topspin]

Care4, your are a shining example of an unamerican socialist. Your rants paint wealthy people as bad and poor as good just because.
Facts are 80% of the wealthy are first genaration and are just like you except they "SAVE THEIR ASSES OFF" instead of sucking the gov tit. And most of the poor choise to avoid "FREE EDUCATION".
You would be much more happy in FRANCE

[Care4all]

All that says is that costs are going up faster than wages. How does this apply to the rich robbing the poor? This would mean that the costs of doing business would also increase.

You didn't answer my question. Did you look down upon your employers the way you do other people's employers?

Immie

I was very proud of the company I worked for...they did their employees good, most all of the time...with pay and so many benefits that you couldn't even count them on two hands....it won HUMAN RESOURCES best company of the year in ALL of the usa, for its size company, two of the years that I worked for them....

I had no reason to look down upon them....I wish every company out there could treat their employees with the same care and respect and compassion.

hope that answers your question!

[Immanuel]

that would be how HE SHOULD handle it watermark, but that is not how he WOULD handle it....

because this opportunity to defend those that have less when someone is screwing them has arisen before this one and even then, he has chosen to show his favoritism towards the rich....they mesmerize him! :D

care


You are so full of shit, not only are your eyes brown but your grey hair has turned brown too.

I don't give a damned about the rich. I simply despise the authoritarianism of the socialist. I don't want to be forced to give. I will chose to give when I can. You want to steal from me (and I am definitely not rich) to give to other people who cheat the system, many of whom have a hell of a lot more than I do.

Let me repeat Tops statement which bears repeating:

"Care4, your are a shining example of an unamerican socialist."

Immie

[Care4all]

You are so full of shit, not only are your eyes brown but your grey hair has turned brown too.

I don't give a damned about the rich. I simply despise the authoritarianism of the socialist. I don't want to be forced to give. I will chose to give when I can. You want to steal from me (and I am definitely not rich) to give to other people who cheat the system, many of whom have a hell of a lot more than I do.

Let me repeat Tops statement which bears repeating:

"Care4, your are a shining example of an unamerican socialist."

Immie

What EXACTLY is it that you are professing that I am MAKING you give?

I have no idea what you are even talking about? It seems as though you are trying to change this conversation in to something your passionate over or something? But whatever it is, I am not buying in to it...

btw, I was only teasing you on the mesmerizing thingy...:eek: I thought I would get your attention with it! :D

[Immanuel]

What EXACTLY is it that you are professing that I am MAKING you give?

I have no idea what you are even talking about? It seems as though you are trying to change this conversation in to something your passionate over or something? But whatever it is, I am not buying in to it...

btw, I was only teasing you on the mesmerizing thingy...:eek: I thought I would get your attention with it! :D

You got my attention alright.

Look, Socialist such as yourself, think that the government should get all income, take out their share (the majority of it) and then give back whatever is left (a very small portion of it), to the people equally. In other words, they want to redistribute income so that everyone is equal regardless of the work performed.

That is ridiculous and definitely unamerican.

Immie

[Topspin]

Its really funny how the turbo-libs and socialist think that it's the rich's faul that the poor shun education/skills training/ and investment.
Care4 is commically funny with the rich screwing the poor routine. She could win last comic standing. So could Desh

[uscitizen]

You are so full of shit, not only are your eyes brown but your grey hair has turned brown too.

I don't give a damned about the rich. I simply despise the authoritarianism of the socialist. I don't want to be forced to give. I will chose to give when I can. You want to steal from me (and I am definitely not rich) to give to other people who cheat the system, many of whom have a hell of a lot more than I do.

Let me repeat Tops statement which bears repeating:

"Care4, your are a shining example of an unamerican socialist."

Immie

As oposed to the authoritarianism of the cons ?

[uscitizen]

Its really funny how the turbo-libs and socialist think that it's the rich's faul that the poor shun education/skills training/ and investment.
Care4 is commically funny with the rich screwing the poor routine. She could win last comic standing. So could Desh

I could not afford college, my dad died when I was 16. Had to help support the family. Then I got drafted, then I was stupid and got married. To invest you have to have something left after basic living expenses.

[Immanuel]

As oposed to the authoritarianism of the cons ?

Well, not that of the Neo-cons or the Religious Right.

Why not something middle of the road like Capitalism?

Capitalists can be either left or right. Plenty of left wing capitalists out there. Despite what Care4all preaches constantly, there is nothing wrong with making money. She even seems to revere it when it is her or her company ripping poor people off, ($80 sneakers ring a bell?) but when it is others well, they have no rights to make money.

Immie

[uscitizen]

I have to agree Immie, plenty or right wing socialsits out there too. I wonder why, could it have something to do with democracy and what the people want or is it something else ?

[Immanuel]

"I have to agree Immie, plenty or right wing socialsits out there too."


social sits? Is that a social baby-sitter?

Immie

[uscitizen]

Oh come on debate the issue not the spelling :)

[Immanuel]

I have to agree Immie, plenty or right wing socialsits out there too. I wonder why, could it have something to do with democracy and what the people want or is it something else ?

I doubt there are that many out there.

Most Americans believe in the freedom to make money and to keep what you make. Most Americans dislike the IRS and the amount of money that is confiscated from them every year. Confiscated then wasted, I might add. Most Americans are giving and willing to give to the needy but do not want to be forced to do so. At least, that is the America that I thought I lived in.

Maybe Care's philosophy has taken over and we are one step from NAZI Germany and I didn't realize it?

Immie

[Immanuel]

Oh come on debate the issue not the spelling :)

Ah, I was just picking on you while I was thinking how to reply. ;) At least you didn't make it worse with "socialshits". I could have had a lot of fun with that! :D

Immie

[uscitizen]

LOL, good one Immie.
How about the Repub support for the medicare pill bill and similiar things Immie ?

[Care4all]

You got my attention alright.

Look, Socialist such as yourself, think that the government should get all income, take out their share (the majority of it) and then give back whatever is left (a very small portion of it), to the people equally. In other words, they want to redistribute income so that everyone is equal regardless of the work performed.

That is ridiculous and definitely unamerican.

Immie

okkkk?

so you and topspin have decided to go on this rant about socialism FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, and have decided to be this drama queen about some ridiculous subject that has nothing to do with this thread?

and it CERTAINLY does not represent any of the views i have ever expressed in my life so.....

i guess i'll just write you off to lunacy?

care

[Immanuel]

okkkk?

so you and topspin have decided to go on this rant about socialism FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, and have decided to be this drama queen about some ridiculous subject that has nothing to do with this thread?

and it CERTAINLY does not represent any of the views i have ever expressed in my life so.....

i guess i'll just write you off to lunacy?

care

Be my guess lunatic. Would you like me to point out the ignore feature for you? :D ;)

[Care4all]

Be my guess lunatic. Would you like me to point out the ignore feature for you? :D ;)

I don't think i will ever use the ignore feature.

unless pimptaddy decided to write f-u up and down a page..or something like that, but certainly not because of some nasty debate of any sort.

[Topspin]

wow mr excuse himself Uscitizen is back. LOL
I feel sorry for you wife on the mistaken marrige routine.
A lot of millionaires had less to work with than you USC, you just don't have the discipline.

[uscitizen]

LOL spinner, go back to the other board and count your stocks :)

[Topspin]

still don't like being called out on your lazy/ecuses card do you. LOFL

[uscitizen]

Still think the stock market is a cure all for all ? Hey some of us actually have to produce the products to keep your stock prices up :)

On the lazy issue. Come on office boy, I can work your ass into the ground any day :)

[Topspin]

careful old man I bet I'm in twice the physical shape your in. LOL
Yes I think "LONG TERM" the facts are on my side only an idiot would argue against a long term average of 12%. That said I expect to hear a lot from you.

[uscitizen]

I sort of doubt that spinner. I have been cutting firewood for the last couple of months for 4 hours a day in this heat ? whatcha been doin playing sissy stuff like tennis ?

[Topspin]

sissy stuff, tennis is great for cardio!!!
I boxed, am a black belt in TKD, know a little Judo
you think an old man axing a little wood matches up. LOL

[uscitizen]

Black in Shaolin, brown in TKD, Combat vet from nam. Bring it on tennis twinkie :)

[Topspin]

Never met a good martial artist who would call someone a sissy.
I'd have you on your back saying uncle in less than 5 minutes.

[uscitizen]

Never met a good martial artist who would call someone a sissy.
I'd have you on your back saying uncle in less than 5 minutes.

Never met me have you :)
No you wouldn't, I am not stupid, If you looked like you could whip me I would just have to shoot your ass :)

[Topspin]

I haven't been in a fight since hs and don't plan on it anytime soon. LOL
I'd have tons more respect for you if you wouldn't blame the system for your financial conditions/situation. That said I'm stuck with pittying you.

[uscitizen]

Oh, I blame the system for my situation ? You assume too much and are spinning again. but then that is your handle is it not.
Your biggest mistake is trying to pigeonhole me. I don't fit.

[Topspin]

Seems to me your relentless on your attacks of the upper middle class and I know for sure you continually poopoo investing in the stock market which is proven to be the highest returing long term investment. I'm out
good luck with your fishing

[uscitizen]

I just like to poopoo on your and your touting the market spinner.
My finiancial stuff I blame on my wife and or my not beating her enough.
You forget.

[Topspin]

your a bitter old fool USC, and usually fisherman I find kinda laid back and cool

[uscitizen]

your a bitter old fool USC, and usually fisherman I find kinda laid back and cool

Well there is no fool like an old fool, unless it is a young fool like you spinner :)

[Topspin]

I'll await anything positive form you usc, but alas I won't hold my breath.
I choose optimism as we live in the greates land on earth.
You choose pessimism in the foothills of Kent prob a cool place to.
Probably ample evidence for both, just depends on wether are not you harness your CHI.

[uscitizen]

Chi flows with you , you don't really harness it. You flow with it.

[Topspin]

you can stregnthen and harness your chi!!!

[uscitizen]

Strengthen yes, harness I do not think is the correct phrase. Use is more how I think of it. You follow it's flow in directions you want to go. Tapping into it is more like ti to me. Perhaps you never experienced the true flow ?
The best master I had was a little bitty chinese guy in coloumbus Ohio, he had it down pat and taught me the most about the energy flow of Chi. He could appear to casually bump into a 250 pound guy and send him crashing accross the room. Awsome little guy.
This was Tai chi (sp? been a long time).

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

What is too much, if there is such a thing?

Should a man that sits behind a desk, get paid for ONE HOUR of his work, what their average worker gets paid for one FULL YEAR of work?

Why don't stockholders speak out against this, since it is really taking money from them and their profits....

And how does things like this happen, without SOMEONE thinking that perhaps this is not really the right thing to do, for the corporation on a whole?

I am all for getting a good raise and a good salary and fighting for every penny that I deserve, but when does it reach a point where the person receiving and actually ASKING for this kind of salary think that they really might be asking for too much money? That getting paid in one HOUR what your worker gets paid for working one FULL YEAR?

Is this greed on the CEO's part? what is it that could lead a person to ask for this kind of salary?

These people don't believe in conventional morality. They don't believe in equality or fairness. They're only concerned about themselves and their place in the hierarchy. They follow the esoteric teaching.