Obama: "Profits have to be shared by workers" ... Idiodic Statements for $500 please!, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times
Topic started on 7-2-2011 @ 11:57 AM by gncnew

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.

RealClearPolitics Video

This is the kind of moronic statement that only makes sense to the minimum wage and the stupid.

Every time you get a paycheck they're "sharing" their profits with you. And here's a hint:

Any company that produces a product (of ANY kind) will expand their production base (i.e. hire more workers) if it will increase their profits. They will give raises to the people that increase the effecience and hence the profit margin of that production.

There is only ONE case where this is not true: Unionized Labor. In these specific cases where Labor Unions get to determine workers' pay - those evil corporate fat cats are not allowed to individually reward people for harder work and better productivity.

A job is not a right - it's a privilege. And you can only expect to enjoy that privilege so long as you make more money than you cost your bosses. This is a very simple concept. But it seems even our uber-educated president is clueless about how the world actually works outside of government.

Before you rant into your socialistic diatribe: When you get a raise at work ... do you immediately go out and pay your waitresses more money on a tip? What about for movie rentals? Do you volunteer to pay more for each film? How about gas? Do you give the gas attendant more for each gallon now that you're making more?

Then why should a private corporation? If you want more money from your company - ask for it. If they refuse, leave. If they want you bad enough - they'll offer more.

If you don't work in a field where you can ever get more - maybe it's time to change fields of work.

Ambition is not expecting more money for the same job - Ambition is a willingness to work harder for more.


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:29 PM by gncnew
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
That is all well and good, but looking at population growth compared to the pace in which manufacturing is being deconstructed and shipped away, everyone is going to have to learn Chinese, get an MBA, become a cop, a doctor or a nurse. Not that those professions are bad, but the job market is unarguably crap right now and those jobs are not coming back. This "get a job and work your way up" paradigm is dying fast and will be replaced with "grow your own food or starve" at the rate things are declining. Of course, I have a feeling the government will be happy to step in and place the last few shackles around our arms and legs.


Look, as a high school kid coming out and picking a major in college - if you're still expecting the car factory job mom and dad had to be what gets you through you're being stupid.

People need to look at what jobs WILL be available and move themselves towards them. Just because you don't want to, or because you were too short sighted to take these steps does NOT mean we need to regulate companies to essentially subsidize your choice with artificially higher wages.

Like I said - the idea that corporations will take tax breaks and just sit on a pile of money and laugh manically is ludicrous. They'll re-invest that money into something they think will produce more profits.

Guess what - that's where you need to be - where they think there will be more profits. Not trying to squeeze out a couple more drops of juice from the same old turnip.


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:43 PM by marg6043
reply to post by gncnew


I don't know what Obama is trying to say with the statement, but what I Do know is that our prestigious chamber of commerce have now eyes on foreign investors, they are all for free trade and killing the US production in favor of foreign one and that they are laundering money from foreign nations doantions for campaign money.

Specially money for Republican candidates.


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:44 PM by ~Lucidity
reply to post by gncnew

My point, which I clearly failed to make, was that he merely said this was something to consider. It's not going to be a mandate. He's intelligent enough to know this. Methinks people either don't understand his language or just want to pick on everything this man says, or maybe both. And it's getting really tedious.


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:46 PM by gncnew
Originally posted by stars15k
I agree with the OP completely, even though my husband is a living example of someone who is being kept from full-time work because he out-worked everyone who worked the same position.

He works in repair, and there is a company goal regarding turn-around time. My husband reached and has maintained a rate that is three times better or more. The company goal was for a full-time position, my husband works part-time hours. He's stayed caught up at a high-quality level........so why promote him to full-time with more pay and benefits? It's in any company's interest to maintain a part-time status where possible, and he's doing the work. So no promotion, no good benefits......no advancement either. If he were to slow down to their goal rate, he'll be working obviously much slower. No one is going to want someone who was doing the job at one rate suddenly not producing as he's proven he can.
The place he worked for 32 years was restructuring and he was given a very generous buy-out. Now we both wish we had stayed. He keeps gettting told they "want" him full-time and they call him in to work many departments......but still make sure he isn't getting too many hours.
So work hard, but no harder than they expect you to? That's not right either.


To me this is where your husband has to make the ultimatum. Find another job offer, and then tell his currently employers either they retain his obviously valuable services and give him full-time employment, or he's going to take his valued skill set to a place that will give him full time employment.

We often forget that WE demand the wage and benefits that we work for. What they pay is what they value your services at. If you disagree with their valuation system, then terminate the contract and find someone who does agree with your valuation.

If you can't find ANYONE who agrees with your valuation - then you probably need to either adjust your measure of fair pay for that service, or find another service that does pay what you're looking for.

People keep confusing "fair pay" with "what I want to get paid".


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:50 PM by gncnew
Originally posted by lilsmurf
Originally posted by gncnew
Where have you worked... ever.. that's done this? I can tell you now that I'm one of my top performers at my job - and if they paid me the "least amount of pay" I'd quit and go work for their competitor that would pay me more because I now give them an advantage since I'm a top performer.

You're using socialist text book logic that simply doesn't play out in reality.


British Airways who i worked for did this and the current railway i work for also does this. If you took 20% of profits made and share it equally between all workers, while also making sure no worker can earn more than 200% more than any other worker the world would be alot fairer place.

You seem to be afraid of socialist logic even though out of control Captilism logic is tearing the world apart.
edit on 7-2-2011 by lilsmurf because: (no reason given)


So let's be clear: You worked for British Airways, and they actually took their top performers and gave them crappy jobs and paid them less than sub-par performers....

And those top performers stayed why? No seriously - I think you're just using the "I got bad pay and crap assignments because my boss hated me" excuse that so many non-performers use all the time.

You CANNOT mandate what a "fair" wage is ... and you CANNOT mandate what a salary "cap" is. If I want to make more than everyone else in my field, I will work harder and smarter than all of them... but if there is a cap on it... why should I? What if I reach that cap - but I could still do a better job? What is my motivation to improve the efficiency or innovation of my position?


reply posted on 7-2-2011 @ 12:51 PM by gncnew
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by gncnew


I don't know what Obama is trying to say with the statement, but what I Do know is that our prestigious chamber of commerce have now eyes on foreign investors, they are all for free trade and killing the US production in favor of foreign one and that they are laundering money from foreign nations doantions for campaign money.

Specially money for Republican candidates.



Hmm, methinks you are blinded by political bias... Democrats are also receiving political donations from laundered foreign sources... that is one issue that is truly bi-partisan in Washington.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags
Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags
" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags
Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags
Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags