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

[cancel2 2022]

Why is it you motherfuckers want everyone to go look at your propaganda? Do these people pay you by the click or something? What the fuck is going on here? Are you looking for honest and intelligent debate, or are you here to promote propaganda websites?

Yes, it's a RICH fucking stretch to claim that capitalism can't work without government interference, since it worked fine without government interference for years. It's a fucking stretch to claim the capitalist system is going to collapse unless we allow government to do more to destroy it. I don't need a goddamn graph from propagandists to understand this, I have a fucking brain. MORON!

It is amazing how unhinged you get over this issue. Maybe you can explain why CEO pay has gone up 300% since 1990? This graph is from 2006.

http://underthemountainbunker.com/2...rs-pay-up-4-minimum-wage-has-dropped-discuss/

 

[tinfoil]

None of those things have anything to do with how well capitalism worked.

LOL

 

[wanderingbear]

Seems right to me.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

It is amazing how unhinged you get over this issue. Maybe you can explain why CEO pay has gone up 300% since 1990? This graph is from 2006.

http://underthemountainbunker.com/2...rs-pay-up-4-minimum-wage-has-dropped-discuss/

I can explain it.

In 1993 the democrat controlled Congress passed and Clinton signed into law that a company could not expense more than $1 million in executive compensation. You know because it wasn't "fair" that CEOs made so much money.

What happened as a consequence? Did the companies say "Oh darn looks like we can't pay anyone more than $1 million"? Nope. They just moved into other forms of compensation. You see before the democrats decided to meddle, stock options were a very small part of a CEO's compensation. Now instead of being a fixed amount, the CEOs lay became variable and attached to the price of the stock. As I have argued previously I believe that this helped lead to much of the financial crisis in the late 90s.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1844244,00.html

Now, it has been thoroughly been explained to you which leaves you and those like you with some options in how to respond

1) you can say "WOW. I didn't know that, that makes me rethink my position"

2) you can say "bullshit, Time magazine is a right wing rag and that article is full of shit. Congress didn't pass a law like that"

3) you can say "Yeah, but they made too much money in 1990 too"

 

[cancel2 2022]

You beat me to it.

Sorry.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I can explain it.

In 1993 the democrat controlled Congress passed and Clinton signed into law that a company could not expense more than $1 million in executive compensation. You know because it wasn't "fair" that CEOs made so much money.

What happened as a consequence? Did the companies say "Oh darn looks like we can't pay anyone more than $1 million"? Nope. They just moved into other forms of compensation. You see before the democrats decided to meddle, stock options were a very small part of a CEO's compensation. Now instead of being a fixed amount, the CEOs lay became variable and attached to the price of the stock. As I have argued previously I believe that this helped lead to much of the financial crisis in the late 90s.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1844244,00.html

Now, it has been thoroughly been explained to you which leaves you and those like you with some options in how to respond

1) you can say "WOW. I didn't know that, that makes me rethink my position"

2) you can say "bullshit, Time magazine is a right wing rag and that article is full of shit. Congress didn't pass a law like that"

3) you can say "Yeah, but they made too much money in 1990 too"

Or you could read this detailing how stock options were first passed into law in 1950.

Salaries of the 1950's

The salaries of a US manufacturing manager, one of the top positions in employment, hovered close to $100,000 in the 1950's. CEO salaries, depending on the corporation, grew far more slowly than that of middle management and other employees, according to Fortune Magazine, June 2001. In 1950 in the USA, President Harry Truman signed into law The Revenue Act, tying stock options to pay. This would have immeasurable ramifications for the future on how executive employees would receive salary increases. The average middle class salary for a single earner in 1950 was well below $32,000 annually in most non-professional, non-licensed fields. White collar jobs paid far less in salaries while benefits such as medical, retirement and stock options added to the value of most 1950's jobs. The 1950's, for the most part, was an "employee's market". However, one of the personal attitudes required to be hired for a position was longevity. Employees of the 1950's sought employment with the frame of mind that if they worked hard, earned a good salary with employer-paid benefits
and adhered to "company policy", they were insured a job for a lifetime.

http://goarticles.com/article/Employment-in-the-1950-s/2039210/

 

[The Dude]

Same reason England is bare of top companies.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Or you could read this detailing how stock options were first passed into law in 1950.



http://goarticles.com/article/Employment-in-the-1950-s/2039210/

OK as I expected you went with option 3. I am not surprised. You ask a question. You are provided with a very thoughtful response which is backed up with verifiable facts but since they don't fit neatly into your world view you shift lanes and speed off down another highway.

How stock options came to be is irrelevant to your question about CEO pay. In fact stock options were a very small part of executive compensation before 1993 and the meddling democrats.

Lets see, in the 1990s the leftists think CEO pay is too high so they set about fixing it. What happens as a consequence? CEO pay goes even higher.

So no matter how many examples you are shown of government incompetence you clamor for more.

Isn't it grand that you are free to wallow in your willful ignorance?

 

[I'm Watermark]

Few bones to pick with this video

"It's not fair"

Who the fuck said life is fair? That's the weakest argument the video presents

"CEO makes 380x times more, but does he work 380x more than the average worker"

We don't measure the value of a ceo in terms of how much he might fill in spreadsheets or how many hours he puts in. That's irrelevant. The question is a question of value, not how much he "works." A CEO may absolutely be 380x more valuable than the average worker, if without a visionary CEO at the helm a company might go under or lose direction.

Lebron james may not "work harder" than many middle class workers but he provides more value to society. If he didn't people wouldn't pay money to see him play.

We know businesses can function without management, and that it's better for the economy if they do. CEOs are parasites.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

We know businesses can function without management, and that it's better for the economy if they do. CEOs are parasites.

What a crock. What a fantasy land you live in. I guess you could extend your argument that a country could function without management and that politicians are parasites

 

[Banned]

Charisma and timing.

Heck after Bush anyone looked good.

 

[Jarod]

So you admit that the "recient Democrats" are nothing but bastards.

When someone who was born a "bastard" in the true sense of the word makes it to the white house, I am so much more impressed than when someone whose father was President of the United States makes it to the White House.

 

[I'm Watermark]

What a crock. What a fantasy land you live in. I guess you could extend your argument that a country could function without management and that politicians are parasites

Co-ops take in an collective annual 400M in the US. They've survived the Italian and Spanish declines as top-down institutions failed. They also stimulate demand by eliminating labor value extraction. Keep living in your fantasy land.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is amazing how unhinged you get over this issue. Maybe you can explain why CEO pay has gone up 300% since 1990? This graph is from 2006.

http://underthemountainbunker.com/2...rs-pay-up-4-minimum-wage-has-dropped-discuss/

You already explained it.

CEO pay has very little to do with the performance of a company and far more to do with the "going rate"

Now how the hell can you completely forget what you posted in 13 minutes?

I don't get petty and jealous about what other people make. I was raised to believe it's wrong to covet your neighbor's possessions. If some CEO is making 300% more than he/she was before, I say, GOOD FOR THEM! It's one more person who is becoming wealthy, one more person who has enjoyed success in a capitalist free market system, one more person realizing prosperity. One less person struggling to survive. It means we, as a nation, earn more tax revenue. It means some waiter or waitress is going to get a $100 tip at the CEOs celebratory dinner. It means some salesman is going to make a butt-load of commission when he sells the CEO his new Cadillac. Some real estate agent is going to sell a hard-to-move upscale home. ETC., ETC., ETC.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You already explained it.



Now how the hell can you completely forget what you posted in 13 minutes?

I don't get petty and jealous about what other people make. I was raised to believe it's wrong to covet your neighbor's possessions. If some CEO is making 300% more than he/she was before, I say, GOOD FOR THEM! It's one more person who is becoming wealthy, one more person who has enjoyed success in a capitalist free market system, one more person realizing prosperity. One less person struggling to survive. It means we, as a nation, earn more tax revenue. It means some waiter or waitress is going to get a $100 tip at the CEOs celebratory dinner. It means some salesman is going to make a butt-load of commission when he sells the CEO his new Cadillac. Some real estate agent is going to sell a hard-to-move upscale home. ETC., ETC., ETC.

It has nothing to do w/ jealousy. That's such a distraction to the gist of what's important.

It's nice that a CEO who is paid an inordinate amount regardless of performance can trickle down some of that money to waitresses & salesmen, but it doesn't change the fact that he/she is simply getting paid too much in relation to other workers. It's not equitable - and no, that doesn't mean that everyone should be paid equally.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It has nothing to do w/ jealousy. That's such a distraction to the gist of what's important.

It's nice that a CEO who is paid an inordinate amount regardless of performance can trickle down some of that money to waitresses & salesmen, but it doesn't change the fact that he/she is simply getting paid too much in relation to other workers. It's not equitable - and no, that doesn't mean that everyone should be paid equally.

Yes it is ABSOLUTE jealousy, we can read it in your reply. You are jealous that the CEO is making "too much in relation to other workers," you said it yourself. In your little selfish mind, he doesn't deserve what he earns, but he competed against others vying to be CEO, and was selected by his BOD to run their company. They obviously disagree with you and feel he does deserve what he earns. It's really none of your fucking business.

Now, if your parents had raised you with any kind of moral foundation, you'd understand that being jealous of the CEO because he has more than you, is WRONG. Unfortunately, we stopped teaching kids morals about 30 years ago, and now we have a couple of generations of punks who think the world is there to cater to their needs, wants and desires. You honestly don't see a thing in the world wrong with being jealous of the CEO or demanding we take what belongs to him and give it to others. It's probably how you treated your parents, and they allowed it, when they should have slapped your ass across the room.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yes it is ABSOLUTE jealousy, we can read it in your reply. You are jealous that the CEO is making "too much in relation to other workers," you said it yourself. In your little selfish mind, he doesn't deserve what he earns, but he competed against others vying to be CEO, and was selected by his BOD to run their company. They obviously disagree with you and feel he does deserve what he earns. It's really none of your fucking business.

Now, if your parents had raised you with any kind of moral foundation, you'd understand that being jealous of the CEO because he has more than you, is WRONG. Unfortunately, we stopped teaching kids morals about 30 years ago, and now we have a couple of generations of punks who think the world is there to cater to their needs, wants and desires. You honestly don't see a thing in the world wrong with being jealous of the CEO or demanding we take what belongs to him and give it to others. It's probably how you treated your parents, and they allowed it, when they should have slapped your ass across the room.

I don't think you understand what jealousy is, which wouldn't be surprising. It's not jealousy.

I don't begrudge someone like Bill Gates his fortune; that guy produced, and changed the world. A CEO who underperformed while his company failed who gets a huge golden parachute? That's a problem, as are some of the ridiculous gaps between CEO pay & worker pay.

It's disproportionate, and what it ends up doing is creating a new aristocracy, which is something our founding fathers were very wary about. It ends up putting too much of the wealth in the hands of too few of the people, which takes a lot of that wealth out of the economy.

It's not a "jealousy" argument, at all. It's an economic argument. That you cannot see the economic issues with the trends in CEO pay speaks only to your ignorance.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't think you understand what jealousy is, which wouldn't be surprising. It's not jealousy.

Yes, it fucking IS jealousy! HERE, you stupid little retard!

jeal·ous·y [jel-uh-see]
1. jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.

PWNED!

I don't begrudge someone like Bill Gates his fortune; that guy produced, and changed the world. A CEO who underperformed while his company failed who gets a huge golden parachute? That's a problem, as are some of the ridiculous gaps between CEO pay & worker pay.

You shouldn't begrudge anybody, anything! It's not YOUR DECISION! It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If a CEO is being paid, it is the result of action taken by a Board of Freaking Directors, do you comprehend that? It's THEIR choice, THEIR decision, not YOURS! THEY obviously disagree with YOU and since THEY are running THEIR company, and not YOU, it's entirely up to them what they pay the CEO. If the CEO is really bad and the BOD still pay him, the shareholders can replace the BOD, or the company goes bankrupt and the CEO becomes unemployed. Again, this is not up to YOU to decide.

It's disproportionate, and what it ends up doing is creating a new aristocracy, which is something our founding fathers were very wary about. It ends up putting too much of the wealth in the hands of too few of the people, which takes a lot of that wealth out of the economy.

Look, the fucking people who run companies and manage others, are always going to make more money. That's a fact of life you need to fucking accept. We're never going to be in the universe where some menial laborer is going to make anywhere near what a CEO makes. What you are promoting is Marxist Socialism. I know you retards cringe when I say that, and you think I'm being absurd, but go fucking read Karl Marx! You're advocating the exact same thing! It doesn't work! We The People end up in front of a ditch with a gun to the back of our heads because the Marxist government can't afford to take care of us anymore. It happened in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia... everywhere people have attempted to try the philosophy you are spouting.

It's not a "jealousy" argument, at all. It's an economic argument. That you cannot see the economic issues with the trends in CEO pay speaks only to your ignorance.

YES, it IS a jealousy argument, and that is ALL it is! It's due to a total lack of morals and ethical upbringing. Your parents never taught you that you aren't supposed to be jealous of others who have more than you. Instead, they encouraged your jealousy by constantly trying to please you with more and more materialism. Now that you are an adult, you think the whole world is supposed to cater to your whims and do what you think is best. And you are so rooted in this selfish jealousy which has consumed most of your life, you don't even realize it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

I'm not hysterical or a lunatic. You are jealous, as proven by the fucking definition of jealously juxtaposed with your rant. You're not concerned with the economy, you are concerned with destroying the capitalist system so we can replace it with Marxist policies you are convinced will make things better for the people as a whole. If you were at all concerned with the economy, you'd be promoting LESS government interference with free market capitalism. Because THAT is what has historically created economic prosperity.