9 Out Of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact

It's funny that you see that definition as some sort of pwnage; it really reflects on your lunacy.

Here is the definition, as provided: "1. jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself."

Can you point out what I've said that is supported by that definition? I don't see CEO's as "rivals." I have displayed no resentment whatsoever. My arguments are economic.

The "jealousy" argument is just a lazy one, because you have little creativity, and deep down, you probably have no idea why you support such a broad disparity in wealth.
 
Dixie said:
Nonsense. The government did not even begin to get involved with regulation of capitalism until the mid 1900s. From 1776 to 1939, capitalism did just fine and dandy without government interference. Even with the reasonable government regulations, capitalism flourished through depressions and recessions, and continues to do well to this day. Capitalism is in no danger of collapse, unless Socialists manage to completely destroy it with more and more excessive regulation. What you are saying here is just abject ignorance and stupidity, marked by your inability to spell above a 4th grade level. Not exactly the person to be lauding the marvels of public education, are you?

I have no idea where you heard this shit about "Universal Public Education is one of the greatest wealth distrabution (sic) programs ever..." sounds like something Obama or John Kerry might say on the campaign trail. Public education simply doesn't take money from wealthy people and give it to poor people. Long ago, we developed what many will argue, is an inadequate education system, and in spite of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the system, we still have kids who can't compete internationally... We even have supposedly 'educated' adults on the Internet, spelling like 4th graders.

But look, don't feel bad about this, Jughead, through the years, many ignorant fools like you, have bought into the rhetoric of Socialists who promised a better life. Most of them ended up being executed by their government, but hey... it sounded good at the time! I can't fault you for going after the shiny objects, you are a moron who doesn't really know any better. In your mind, you honestly believe you are fighting the good fight, helping the poor and needy, making things better for all. It probably won't be until you are lined up in front of an open ditch for execution, that you realize how stupid and foolish you've been.
Click to expand...
Dixie.....please continue.....and don't let facts get in your way! :)
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The basic point in the video is that this huge disparity only started to happen in the '80s.
Click to expand...
Essentially with the advances in US productivity that began in the 80's and continue to this date, our GDP has quadrupled since 1980. Virtually all of that increased productivity has gone to the top 1% of income earners.

Here's the fucked up logic of conservative thinking on this issue, particularly the southern/rural kind. They believe that it's ok for me to work my ever loving ass off to make some else rich but when I demand my fair share of the pie for my productivity I magically become a socialist for wanting nothing more than what I have earned.

As long as we have large numbers of simple minded low rent mouth breathers who continue to believe that, income inequity will continue to grow with our growing productivity.
 
Thing1 said:
You're an hysterical lunatic. I'm not jealous one iota; I'm concerned about the economic impact once you extrapolate the current trend of the vast majority of wealth ending up in a very small % of the population's hands. As you should be.

You don't understand the concept of jealousy. It's a knee-jerk argument for you when you are unable to make a more compelling argument.

And it's not Marxism/Socialism to suggest that there shouldn't be such a wide gap between CEO and worker pay. No one is suggesting that these payscales be "close." Most are suggesting that they shouldn't be ridiculously out of line.
Click to expand...

So what is the appropriate gap in your view?

How much more should a CEO be allowed to make?

What are these negative ramifications an why haven't they happened?

Is it OK for Barabra Streisand to make 1000 times more than the guys who put up her stage?
 
Thing1 said:
It's funny that you see that definition as some sort of pwnage; it really reflects on your lunacy.

Here is the definition, as provided: "1. jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself."

Can you point out what I've said that is supported by that definition? I don't see CEO's as "rivals." I have displayed no resentment whatsoever. My arguments are economic.

The "jealousy" argument is just a lazy one, because you have little creativity, and deep down, you probably have no idea why you support such a broad disparity in wealth.
Click to expand...

When you stated that you believe CEOs earn more than they deserve, that is resentment toward their success, you idiot. I don't know how that could be any plainer or easier to comprehend. Now you can fucking bow up and just deny the obvious here, but that just shows you are unwilling to admit you are jealous, which is a very common symptom of those who are jealous.

Learn to read the fucking definitions so you won't be totally ignorant. The one I posted doesn't say it has to be against a "rival" for it to be jealousy. You see the little comma following rival, it means there is more to the sentence, it's not complete. If you continue to read the sentence, you see that jealousy can also be over an advantage or success of another, it doesn't have to be a rival. I shouldn't have to break down basic definitions of words for you, I assume you are educated enough to read and comprehend basic English. Resenting people because of what they earn, IS JEALOUSY!
 
Dixie said:
When you stated that you believe CEOs earn more than they deserve, that is resentment toward their success, you idiot. I don't know how that could be any plainer or easier to comprehend. Now you can fucking bow up and just deny the obvious here, but that just shows you are unwilling to admit you are jealous, which is a very common symptom of those who are jealous.

Learn to read the fucking definitions so you won't be totally ignorant. The one I posted doesn't say it has to be against a "rival" for it to be jealousy. You see the little comma following rival, it means there is more to the sentence, it's not complete. If you continue to read the sentence, you see that jealousy can also be over an advantage or success of another, it doesn't have to be a rival. I shouldn't have to break down basic definitions of words for you, I assume you are educated enough to read and comprehend basic English. Resenting people because of what they earn, IS JEALOUSY!
Click to expand...

It must be fucking wonderful to be paid shedloads for repatriating jobs abroad, closing factories down or selling useless derivatives to gullible punters. Now here is your chance to rail about unions!!
 
Dixie said:
When you stated that you believe CEOs earn more than they deserve, that is resentment toward their success, you idiot. I don't know how that could be any plainer or easier to comprehend. Now you can fucking bow up and just deny the obvious here, but that just shows you are unwilling to admit you are jealous, which is a very common symptom of those who are jealous.

Learn to read the fucking definitions so you won't be totally ignorant. The one I posted doesn't say it has to be against a "rival" for it to be jealousy. You see the little comma following rival, it means there is more to the sentence, it's not complete. If you continue to read the sentence, you see that jealousy can also be over an advantage or success of another, it doesn't have to be a rival. I shouldn't have to break down basic definitions of words for you, I assume you are educated enough to read and comprehend basic English. Resenting people because of what they earn, IS JEALOUSY!
Click to expand...

How is it "resentment" to say that someone is paid more than they have earned? That's called a fact. Resentment brings emotion into it that is not warranted by that argument. I have no such emotion about that outcome.

You're just lazy, or stupid. It's a boring, repetitive counter-argument. "You're just jealous!" You sound like a kid. Grow up, Count Chocula.
 
I Love America said:
So what is the appropriate gap in your view? How much more should a CEO be allowed to make?
Click to expand...

If I were to get what I want? About 6:1.

What are these negative ramifications an why haven't they happened?
Click to expand...

They have happened. Class stagnancy, poverty, mechanization, unemployment, monopolies, etc.

Is it OK for Barabra Streisand to make 1000 times more than the guys who put up her stage?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Does this seem about right or is it exaggerated?
Click to expand...

I couldn't watch all of this. Just a tool for marxists. Funny how lazy people think they should have something coming to them other than the lack of fruits, for their lack of labor.

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

Perspective: $1.4 billion is equal to spending seven times Mitt Romney’s entire net-worth every year. If Romney had to pay for Barack and Michelle’s lifestyle this year, he would have been bankrupted by the third week in February.

Now, can we please get back to talking about the evil, freeloading rich people, who didn’t build anything and who need to "pay a little bit more."
 
Thing1 said:
You're an hysterical lunatic. I'm not jealous one iota; I'm concerned about the economic impact once you extrapolate the current trend of the vast majority of wealth ending up in a very small % of the population's hands. As you should be.

You don't understand the concept of jealousy. It's a knee-jerk argument for you when you are unable to make a more compelling argument.

And it's not Marxism/Socialism to suggest that there shouldn't be such a wide gap between CEO and worker pay. No one is suggesting that these payscales be "close." Most are suggesting that they shouldn't be ridiculously out of line.
Click to expand...

"ridiculously out of line" is subjective. if we cut it down to 50x more than the average worker - the next generation will be trying to get it down to 10x more. There is never an end point for your kind. You are takers, you will never stop taking. If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile.
 
Thing1 said:
How is it "resentment" to say that someone is paid more than they have earned? That's called a fact. Resentment brings emotion into it that is not warranted by that argument. I have no such emotion about that outcome.

You're just lazy, or stupid. It's a boring, repetitive counter-argument. "You're just jealous!" You sound like a kid. Grow up, Count Chocula.
Click to expand...

While it is also my opinion that many CEO's and other execs (especially in banking) are vastly overpaid, that is an opinion. Not a fact.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
"ridiculously out of line" is subjective. if we cut it down to 50x more than the average worker - the next generation will be trying to get it down to 10x more. There is never an end point for your kind. You are takers, you will never stop taking. If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile.
Click to expand...

That's pure conjecture. Some things are just common sense, if people wouldn't get all knee-jerky about it.

I'm actually a pretty pure capitalist at heart; I like the opportunities that the system affords. But there are clearly inherent flaws in that system. One of them is the extremes in pay inequity. No one is suggesting that worker bees should make the same as the higher ups, or even anything close to it.

But we all know that some of the compensations are way out of wack, and that the end result of that is a growing wealth disparity which undermines our economic health.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
no one said it had anything to do with the performance of a company. The point is that the level of "work" is irrelevant. It's a question of value.

Value != work
Click to expand...

And you think an executive is more valuable than the employees their company company couldn't function without?
 
I can buy into the argument that a strong middle class is mandatory for a strong and resilient democracy. I can also buy the argument that extreme concentrated wealth can result in an oligarchy where the masses become slaves. I, (mr. kill all takers) can even buy into the argument that there needs to be a fail safe to prevent that from happening, as a necessary evil, not because it's unfair or mean or because "bawwwwww poor people," but because it's the only way to ensure the masses are free and we don't descend into tyranny. I get all that on a fundamental level.

The problem is, that's not where the video is coming from. It's coming from the "woe is me, this isn't fair, this is mean, this guy makes 400x more than me I should make 100k as a janitor. :(" They aren't concerned about freedom or autonomy. It's coming from a taker perspective that isn't concerned about the welfare of a free society, it's just people looking to get theirs. It's an argument that they believe they are entitled to other peoples money, entitled for things to be more fair. That's where they lose me. You aren't entitled to shit.
 
Thing1 said:
That's pure conjecture. Some things are just common sense, if people wouldn't get all knee-jerky about it.

I'm actually a pretty pure capitalist at heart; I like the opportunities that the system affords. But there are clearly inherent flaws in that system. One of them is the extremes in pay inequity. No one is suggesting that worker bees should make the same as the higher ups, or even anything close to it.

But we all know that some of the compensations are way out of wack, and that the end result of that is a growing wealth disparity which undermines our economic health.
Click to expand...

If you look at Germany, a massively successful country by anyone's standards, the ratio between directors and workers pay is far less than in Anglo-American companies.

pay.jpg
 
Thing1 said:
That's pure conjecture. Some things are just common sense, if people wouldn't get all knee-jerky about it.

I'm actually a pretty pure capitalist at heart; I like the opportunities that the system affords. But there are clearly inherent flaws in that system. One of them is the extremes in pay inequity. No one is suggesting that worker bees should make the same as the higher ups, or even anything close to it.

But we all know that some of the compensations are way out of wack, and that the end result of that is a growing wealth disparity which undermines our economic health.
Click to expand...

When has a government ever taken money and had all groups in agreement saying "ok we don't need anymore"

When has there ever been a time where wealth would be redistributed and all parties said "ok, that's enough"

There WILL be plenty of takers, after knocking it down to 50x more than the average working, saying that such a standard is absolutely ridiculous.

It will never stop. I don't trust your kind.
 
YOU may have an end number, but you dont see the long term game. The next generation wont just abide by the standard you set. They will want more. They are takers and they will take.
 
Dr. Krieger said:
I can buy into the argument that a strong middle class is mandatory for a strong and resilient democracy. I can also buy the argument that extreme concentrated wealth can result in an oligarchy where the masses become slaves. I, (mr. kill all takers) can even buy into the argument that there needs to be a fail safe to prevent that from happening, as a necessary evil, not because it's unfair or mean or because "bawwwwww poor people," but because it's the only way to ensure the masses are free and we don't descend into tyranny. I get all that on a fundamental level.

The problem is, that's not where the video is coming from. It's coming from the "woe is me, this isn't fair, this is mean, this guy makes 400x more than me I should make 100k as a janitor. :(" They aren't concerned about freedom or autonomy. It's coming from a taker perspective that isn't concerned about the welfare of a free society, it's just people looking to get theirs. It's an argument that they believe they are entitled to other peoples money, entitled for things to be more fair. That's where they lose me. You aren't entitled to shit.
Click to expand...

We've got some common ground there. I don't like the "woe" argument either, though a more equitable compensation system would alleviate a lot of that as well. I was just at Wal-Mart, and it is kind of screwed up that most of the people that work at a successful enterprise such as that can't really get by at even the most minimal level.

If that chart that Tom just posted is correct, it's a real eye-opener. There is just something wrong there. To me, it smacks more of a system that people who understand it can exploit to their personal advantage, rather than one which is set up with just a basic fairness in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top