It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Documented, Wisconsin's Debt. Result Of Corporate Tax Breaks, Not Unions!
page: 4share:
reply to post by alyoshablue
I do indeed agree with your post and I would specifically take note of the "order out of chaos" statement contained within. I am beginning, at least in one sense, to believe that this chaos might just end up being the catalyst needed for the people to wake up and recognize what's going on.
As I watch CSPAN almost daily, I am somewhat grateful for the fact that the republic/tea party is being publicly exposed for who they really are, on a regular basis. Now that they're in control of the house, we get to see how they function and what their motives are and they're putting it out there for all to see.
Wake up America, the Republican/Tea Party is attempting to make you, the american worker, the "Them" in the "Them vs. Us" scenario they so often like to envision.
I do indeed agree with your post and I would specifically take note of the "order out of chaos" statement contained within. I am beginning, at least in one sense, to believe that this chaos might just end up being the catalyst needed for the people to wake up and recognize what's going on.
As I watch CSPAN almost daily, I am somewhat grateful for the fact that the republic/tea party is being publicly exposed for who they really are, on a regular basis. Now that they're in control of the house, we get to see how they function and what their motives are and they're putting it out there for all to see.
Wake up America, the Republican/Tea Party is attempting to make you, the american worker, the "Them" in the "Them vs. Us" scenario they so often like to envision.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
You anti-union corporate lackys suck you spew nothing but lies.
Try responding to the facts presented in this thread instead of rambling on with your anti-union drivel.
Corporations have no morals or ethics, they don't respect the air we breath the water we drink or the soil we plant in.
Human and animal life means nothing to them only profits and money at any expense.
And unions are bastions of virtue only wishing to benefit their members by increasing taxes on an already overburdened and stressed public.
I hate to say this but unions are in the same place as corporations. They don't care about anything else but their own. The corporatist government, government unions, and multi-national corporations have contributed crap to society but have acted like vampires sucking the wealth out of the public.
Stop being so self righteous, there is a lot of blame to go around and all the unions are doing is using their political muscle to keep their cushy status while the general public makes do with less (and gives up more in taxation).
reply to post by MrXYZ
That typically means you're too intellectually incompetent to consider other possibilities. Analysts work in terms of probability rather than certainty - only fools are certain.
You do realize that those businesses - that employ people - would have built in -other- states had they not been granted a tax break.... of course you didn't.
Why should Toyota set up an assembly plant in your state if you have a 12% corporate tax rate, and Oklahoma has an 8% corporate tax rate? All other factors being equal - Toyota is going to choose to build in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma will see the benefits of a higher employment rate - which are far superior to higher corporate tax rates, in terms of revenue generation.
What is it about events like this that drag out all of the douche-bags?
I'm not saying the governor is saintly, or saying republicans have been the best party out there. But, really, you people are far too incompetent to be making such declarative statements with such certainty.
You do realize that corporations are owned and governed by share holders, correct? You also realize that share holders are people? Quite a few average people have shares in companies. Too many do it by proxy (mutual funds) - but a lot still do it directly.
It also doesn't help that people demand unsustainable wages from corporations. Sure - I can make $15 an hour at some of the larger factories in the city. I will still spend about the same number of hours each day working to pay my rent (higher than what it is here), food, and other basic needs. Nothing has really changed, the numbers I pass back and forth just get bigger.
We could all be billionaires. Doesn't do us much good if a loaf of bread costs $20K.
Your job is only worth what it contributes to the substance of society. This is what labor unions have never understood (or have simply chosen to ignore). You can jack minimum wage up all you want - as wages go up, so must the costs of what those wage earners produce or do. You can extort higher pay checks through organized strikes - won't do you much good when you end up out of work because your employer is losing bids for contracts.
If you look up the last few budget measures supported by the GOP, you realize they're doing only one thing:
That typically means you're too intellectually incompetent to consider other possibilities. Analysts work in terms of probability rather than certainty - only fools are certain.
Redistributing money from the poor and middle class to the rich and corporations. Every single tax cut they proposed is futile as the tax breaks they pushed through are a ton higher than any cuts they propose.
You do realize that those businesses - that employ people - would have built in -other- states had they not been granted a tax break.... of course you didn't.
Why should Toyota set up an assembly plant in your state if you have a 12% corporate tax rate, and Oklahoma has an 8% corporate tax rate? All other factors being equal - Toyota is going to choose to build in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma will see the benefits of a higher employment rate - which are far superior to higher corporate tax rates, in terms of revenue generation.
The GOP is a fully owned subsidiary of corporate America, if you vote for them, you are voting for CORPORATIONS and NOT people!!
What is it about events like this that drag out all of the douche-bags?
I'm not saying the governor is saintly, or saying republicans have been the best party out there. But, really, you people are far too incompetent to be making such declarative statements with such certainty.
You do realize that corporations are owned and governed by share holders, correct? You also realize that share holders are people? Quite a few average people have shares in companies. Too many do it by proxy (mutual funds) - but a lot still do it directly.
It also doesn't help that people demand unsustainable wages from corporations. Sure - I can make $15 an hour at some of the larger factories in the city. I will still spend about the same number of hours each day working to pay my rent (higher than what it is here), food, and other basic needs. Nothing has really changed, the numbers I pass back and forth just get bigger.
We could all be billionaires. Doesn't do us much good if a loaf of bread costs $20K.
Your job is only worth what it contributes to the substance of society. This is what labor unions have never understood (or have simply chosen to ignore). You can jack minimum wage up all you want - as wages go up, so must the costs of what those wage earners produce or do. You can extort higher pay checks through organized strikes - won't do you much good when you end up out of work because your employer is losing bids for contracts.
reply to post by Flatfish
Well, I am not a huge TP person, but when the movement started out, I was kind of behind them. When Sara Palin "assumed control" I wasn't sure if that is what the TP wanted or if it was a way for the Republicorp Priests (the ones behind the Republican spin machine) to hijack it and look at it as an opportunity to push through their agenda. However, as soon as it became kind of linked to the Republicans, I think I saw it for what it was.
Who knows, if this is not what the TP is, there better be some outcry to the recent votings made by their darling freshmen, especially on the Patriot Act.
By the way, I am neither a Democrat or Republican ... more of a Libertarian. Not that that matters.
Well, I am not a huge TP person, but when the movement started out, I was kind of behind them. When Sara Palin "assumed control" I wasn't sure if that is what the TP wanted or if it was a way for the Republicorp Priests (the ones behind the Republican spin machine) to hijack it and look at it as an opportunity to push through their agenda. However, as soon as it became kind of linked to the Republicans, I think I saw it for what it was.
Who knows, if this is not what the TP is, there better be some outcry to the recent votings made by their darling freshmen, especially on the Patriot Act.
By the way, I am neither a Democrat or Republican ... more of a Libertarian. Not that that matters.
reply to post by alyoshablue
I happen to be a registered democrat but I don't think I've ever voted a straight party ticket. I tend to vote for the person who I feel I can trust to do what makes sense and what is right for all of America and not just one ideological group. I saw several republicans on CSPAN today that I would vote for in a second if I were in their district, although I do admit that for the most part, I am ideologically inclined to lean to the left.
I happen to be a registered democrat but I don't think I've ever voted a straight party ticket. I tend to vote for the person who I feel I can trust to do what makes sense and what is right for all of America and not just one ideological group. I saw several republicans on CSPAN today that I would vote for in a second if I were in their district, although I do admit that for the most part, I am ideologically inclined to lean to the left.
reply to post by Flatfish
Unless you're implying that we closed a $2.71 billion gap in the last 12 months, then it has everything to do with the "facts you relied on from The Cap Times- Your Progressive Voice.
Here is a post I made in another one of your threads.
My Post
Here is the jist of that post
Here is that Link
it was an interesting read but I'm not sure what it has to do with the current 2011/2012 statistics.
Unless you're implying that we closed a $2.71 billion gap in the last 12 months, then it has everything to do with the "facts you relied on from The Cap Times- Your Progressive Voice.
Here is a post I made in another one of your threads.
My Post
Here is the jist of that post
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's administration on Friday told Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker that he would have to cope with a $2.2 billion deficit in the state's upcoming two-year budget, but this brighter-than-expected forecast contained more than $1 billion in hidden pain. .
To arrive at the favorable estimate, the Doyle administration's estimate assumed that Walker and lawmakers would make spending cuts that have yet to actually happen - two more years of state employee furloughs, no pay raises, a virtual hiring freeze and belt tightening in state health programs.
Without that $1.1 billion in savings, the state's projected shortfall rises to $3.3 billion - a significant increase over previous estimates that put the gap at between $2.7 billion and $3.1 billion.
Here is that Link
reply to post by Aim64C
Contribute to society?
Do corporations that outsource their jobs from America contribute to THIS society?
NOT ANYMORE!
That’s your problem not understanding that unions give ordinary powerless people access to power.
Remember the owner capitalist needs us as much as we need a job.
They get rich off the labor of many and should be obligated to give their workers a decent living.
That’s been the American way that the Republicans are trying to destroy.
What do you want to go back to 18 hour work days?
No days off
No vacations
An employer can do to you anything he wants
Is that what you want?
Contribute to society?
Do corporations that outsource their jobs from America contribute to THIS society?
NOT ANYMORE!
That’s your problem not understanding that unions give ordinary powerless people access to power.
Remember the owner capitalist needs us as much as we need a job.
They get rich off the labor of many and should be obligated to give their workers a decent living.
That’s been the American way that the Republicans are trying to destroy.
What do you want to go back to 18 hour work days?
No days off
No vacations
An employer can do to you anything he wants
Is that what you want?
Originally posted by Flatfish
This is what the republican party has planned for the rest of working America if we sit back and allow them to do it. Wake up America, these republicans and their corporate sponsors are out to totally destroy your standard of living and they have chosen Wisconsin as the site for their first salvo of attacks
I remember when Ronald Reagan ran for office the first time, promising to do something about inflation. Well, he never said exactly how that would be done, but the American people soon knew the cure was unemployment.
This governor was probably voted in on tax cuts, without exactly saying what would get cut. A budget is nothing more than a list of priorities, and apparently this governor is throwing in union busting along with his priorities.
Although he was referring to banks, Woody Guthrie's words could today be applied to budgets. "Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen." Middle class citizens have been robbed ever since Reagan (hell, not only robbed but sent to die in foreign lands in wars for energy security, which enriched war profiteers).
Yeah, all this talk from Republicans about jobs...what they don't exactly say is that they want to get rid of jobs as we have known them.
My parents generation, termed the Greatest Generation, survived the Great Depression, fought WW2 for our freedom, came home and built this nation to the superpower it became. To steal the middle class wealth they created speaks loudly of the lack of morals and ethics in this nation, To steal the rights of their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to partake in the mutual benefits of employment is the real deficit, a moral and ethical one.
edit on 18-2-2011 by desert because: spelling
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
Years ago, the Oligarch Party came up to you and they said, hey, vote for us! We'll make it so that US companies can expand more readily overseas, which will reduce the costs of the stuff you buy! you'll have lots of extra money laying around to buy all these Chinese and Sri Lankan manufactured goods! And being a thrifty sort, you voted for the oligarchs, and they delivered on their promise; they removed all the laws and regulations that kept US jobs in the US, and your boss promptly dumped you and your co-workers and moved his operations over to Laos. Yes, all the Chinese goods were cheaper, but with your reduced buying power, the real price actually remained about the same.
Next election cycle, the Oligarchs came back to you and saw how things had gotten worse for you. They nodded their sympathy and threw an arm over your shoulders and told you, "Pal, your boss had to dump you! The poor fellow pays SO much in taxes, that he had no choice but to relocate!" Now, you had noticed that despite this apparently onerous tax burden, your former boss' standard of living had been climbing, but you figured that you didn't want to think too bad of the guy; you used to go fishing once in a while, after all! So you voted to give him a tax break, and in exchange, the Oligarch partisans gave you a big handshake and went on their way.
Years later, you looked around. Your state is in debt. The bridges are falling apart. Several state projects such as the school lunch program and state assistance for the homeless have been cut. You still didn't get your job back, but you did admire your boss' new yacht that him and his friends sometimes went fishing with out on the lake. You've been making do with a low-income job in the service sector, but the bills are giving you grey hair, and your dollar doesn't seem to buy as much Chinese plastic as it used to. Seeing your condition, the Oligarch party sidles up to you and whispers in your ear. "Hey, buddy,Ii hate to see you're down. Know why that is? It's those unions. Those damned dirty commies, man. See, they keep asking for benefits, and threaten to strike if they don't get what they want! They're bankrupting us all, man! Vote for me, and I'll show them who's boss!" Well, you figure the oligarchs haven't steered you wrong yet, and it's just a matter of time before they finally manage to turn things around for you, so you gave 'em your vote.
Next year, you'll still be living hand to mouth. You'll have more debt, your state will be worse-off. Your former boss will be richer, and your rare correspondence from him bears stamps from the Virgin Islands. You can't afford gas, and public transit has been cut to pay the state debt, which just keeps getting deeper, no matter how many of those pesky "entitlement programs" the Oligarchs keep crushing to help you out. They're going to come to you next year, like they do every voting season, and hook your arm with theirs, and they're going to ask you to give your support to them, so they can lower the minimum wage. They'll argue that you need to do this, so you can compete with those sneaky Asians and dirty Mexicans, who work for pennies on the dollar. only then will you see prosperity come back to your life, the Oligarchs tell you.
And you'll cast your vote, confident as always that the oligarchs are looking out for you, the American worker.
Years ago, the Oligarch Party came up to you and they said, hey, vote for us! We'll make it so that US companies can expand more readily overseas, which will reduce the costs of the stuff you buy! you'll have lots of extra money laying around to buy all these Chinese and Sri Lankan manufactured goods! And being a thrifty sort, you voted for the oligarchs, and they delivered on their promise; they removed all the laws and regulations that kept US jobs in the US, and your boss promptly dumped you and your co-workers and moved his operations over to Laos. Yes, all the Chinese goods were cheaper, but with your reduced buying power, the real price actually remained about the same.
Next election cycle, the Oligarchs came back to you and saw how things had gotten worse for you. They nodded their sympathy and threw an arm over your shoulders and told you, "Pal, your boss had to dump you! The poor fellow pays SO much in taxes, that he had no choice but to relocate!" Now, you had noticed that despite this apparently onerous tax burden, your former boss' standard of living had been climbing, but you figured that you didn't want to think too bad of the guy; you used to go fishing once in a while, after all! So you voted to give him a tax break, and in exchange, the Oligarch partisans gave you a big handshake and went on their way.
Years later, you looked around. Your state is in debt. The bridges are falling apart. Several state projects such as the school lunch program and state assistance for the homeless have been cut. You still didn't get your job back, but you did admire your boss' new yacht that him and his friends sometimes went fishing with out on the lake. You've been making do with a low-income job in the service sector, but the bills are giving you grey hair, and your dollar doesn't seem to buy as much Chinese plastic as it used to. Seeing your condition, the Oligarch party sidles up to you and whispers in your ear. "Hey, buddy,Ii hate to see you're down. Know why that is? It's those unions. Those damned dirty commies, man. See, they keep asking for benefits, and threaten to strike if they don't get what they want! They're bankrupting us all, man! Vote for me, and I'll show them who's boss!" Well, you figure the oligarchs haven't steered you wrong yet, and it's just a matter of time before they finally manage to turn things around for you, so you gave 'em your vote.
Next year, you'll still be living hand to mouth. You'll have more debt, your state will be worse-off. Your former boss will be richer, and your rare correspondence from him bears stamps from the Virgin Islands. You can't afford gas, and public transit has been cut to pay the state debt, which just keeps getting deeper, no matter how many of those pesky "entitlement programs" the Oligarchs keep crushing to help you out. They're going to come to you next year, like they do every voting season, and hook your arm with theirs, and they're going to ask you to give your support to them, so they can lower the minimum wage. They'll argue that you need to do this, so you can compete with those sneaky Asians and dirty Mexicans, who work for pennies on the dollar. only then will you see prosperity come back to your life, the Oligarchs tell you.
And you'll cast your vote, confident as always that the oligarchs are looking out for you, the American worker.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by MrXYZ
Your job is only worth what it contributes to the substance of society.
Then why do you support over-paid CEOs?
What, really, does a typical CEO personally contribute to society that make him or her worth 1,000 times what the average worker gets?
newsjunkiepost.... com/2011/02/06/the-disastrous-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-in-charts/ceo-vs-worker-pay-1940-2004-nytimes/
sociology.ucsc.edu...
Fact of the matter is that those who have gamed and rigged the system for their private benefit need to cough up the dough to fix things here, not gamble overseas. If they like the business climate so well overseas, then move the hell there and be a citizen of that country. If yuo are a patriot of this one, you invest yuor money here in your fellow citizens. Otherwise you're just a selfish creep abusing the system worse than the most flagrant welfare queen who ever cashed mutliple checks for the same kid.
American workers tightened their belts, took pay cuts, and upped their productivity only to see the corporate class give themselves bonusses for getting their workers to work so hard, and pink slips for themselves while their jobwent overseas to a new sucker.
Business management needs to be the ones tightening their belts and working harder...the American worker has had enough.
Here's my proposal: an across-the-board cut of 20% in all managemnt salaries in state government, a repeal of all tax incentive programs for businesses that don't pay for themselves with at least a proven 10% return on the investment each year, as shown by increased taxable economic activity.
End wasteful business tax breaks.
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
Excellent!
The Oligarch Party also got votes by tossing cultural wedges to lure the voter to the voting booth, in order to gain power to be able to loot the wealth built up by the middle class. Abortion, guns, gays, God, and now "tax cuts" and "Constitution", "Anti-union" was kept hidden until now, being the Oligarch Party's equivalent of Sherman's March to the Sea.
This country has been torn apart not by Osama Bin Laden or al-Queda or foreign terrorists. No, the cultural wedges used so cynically by the Oligarch Party to gain power established a people willing to fight each other rather than the criminals who robbed them.
Yes!
The American private sector has chosen NOT to invest in this country. The American private sector chose to move their wealth literally overseas to keep it from this nation. The financial sector specifically chose to make deals that stole wealth from this nation.
Re public workers...a friend's son just got a $5000 bonus from his job in the private sector. These good people in Wisconsin and other states did not become public servants to get rich or expect bonuses. That just does not happen! Unless you become an elected leader, then you can count on making money from the very businesses that gave you campaign contributions and hire you once you've left office after doing their bidding.
Excellent!
The Oligarch Party also got votes by tossing cultural wedges to lure the voter to the voting booth, in order to gain power to be able to loot the wealth built up by the middle class. Abortion, guns, gays, God, and now "tax cuts" and "Constitution", "Anti-union" was kept hidden until now, being the Oligarch Party's equivalent of Sherman's March to the Sea.
This country has been torn apart not by Osama Bin Laden or al-Queda or foreign terrorists. No, the cultural wedges used so cynically by the Oligarch Party to gain power established a people willing to fight each other rather than the criminals who robbed them.
Originally posted by apacheman
American workers tightened their belts, took pay cuts, and upped their productivity only to see the corporate class give themselves bonusses for getting their workers to work so hard, and pink slips for themselves while their jobwent overseas to a new sucker.
Business management needs to be the ones tightening their belts and working harder...the American worker has had enough.
Yes!
The American private sector has chosen NOT to invest in this country. The American private sector chose to move their wealth literally overseas to keep it from this nation. The financial sector specifically chose to make deals that stole wealth from this nation.
Re public workers...a friend's son just got a $5000 bonus from his job in the private sector. These good people in Wisconsin and other states did not become public servants to get rich or expect bonuses. That just does not happen! Unless you become an elected leader, then you can count on making money from the very businesses that gave you campaign contributions and hire you once you've left office after doing their bidding.
reply to post by SM2
Sorry, you are mistaken. Last I heard, GM was doin alright. Ford never skipped a beat. The Unions made MAJOR concessions. Call them whatever name or label you want, but don't call them fools.
Unions are good for buisness, and the public sector. More pay equals more consumption my middle class earners. Buisiness is good when your riding on 24's!
The unions want more money, well, that money has to come from somewhere, and lets look at GM, they were putting GM out of business with thier unions.
Sorry, you are mistaken. Last I heard, GM was doin alright. Ford never skipped a beat. The Unions made MAJOR concessions. Call them whatever name or label you want, but don't call them fools.
Unions are good for buisness, and the public sector. More pay equals more consumption my middle class earners. Buisiness is good when your riding on 24's!
reply to post by SM2
And if they collapsed, there would be 100 small companies rise from the ashes to provide the services these huge corporations provided, or manufactured. If we had a free market economy.
It would probably make more buisness owners out of the middle class than providing an education, alone, could.
Our economy would go into overdrive to provide services, energy and materials to all these new buisnesses, ushering America into a new century in a grand way.
Well, maybe a little drama there.... Now if the Cubs would win the World Series, that WOULD be something, wouldn't it.
You do realize what would happen to your modern way of life if you taxed the big corporations into breaking up don't you? Most goods and services you consume or utilize daily that many take for granted, are provided by the huge corporations.
And if they collapsed, there would be 100 small companies rise from the ashes to provide the services these huge corporations provided, or manufactured. If we had a free market economy.
It would probably make more buisness owners out of the middle class than providing an education, alone, could.
Our economy would go into overdrive to provide services, energy and materials to all these new buisnesses, ushering America into a new century in a grand way.
Well, maybe a little drama there.... Now if the Cubs would win the World Series, that WOULD be something, wouldn't it.
reply to post by apacheman
Never said I did.
Wrong way of looking at it. What does the CEO contribute to the corporation? Managers, particularly upper-level managers, are not there to labor. They are there to make sure that the efforts of laborers (skilled and unskilled) are effectively and productively used. Or, I should say - that is what they should be doing. Some just don't gaheet it.
I could ask you what you personally contribute to society - you're likely a wage or salary earner in a service, information, or manufacturing industry. What you personally do is often specialized and of little apparent use to the big picture. Your employing corporation (even if you are working for a ma and pa store, they have likely incorporated) benefits society, and your supervisors work to manage the cumulative efforts to meet the necessities and demands of society.
In that respect - a competent CEO is invaluable. Although a number of people holding the position of a CEO are not exactly competent, but there just the same, much to the frustration of those directly impacted by the lack of competence.
Welcome to the international economy. America lead the world in technological and industrial capability following World War II - prior to that, -we- were the source of cheap labor and high-demand resources (lumber, cash crops, etc).
Now, we have shifted over to an information and service driven economy. In order to facilitate that, we must begin utilizing labor sources elsewhere, as we can no longer provide our own cheap labor. You can thank anti-slavery laws and minimum wage for that. That, combined with high tax rates on industry, make it impossible for all but the most high-tech industries to compete with industries from other nations.
If you want to see manufacturing jobs return to the U.S., you are going to have to reduce taxes, freeze or eliminate minimum wage laws, and abolish laws that inhibit start-up and business growth. Wages in America are going to be far higher than they are in other nations, even if you were to get rid of minimum wage - we have a higher cost of living and there's no way around that. However, where America needs to compete is the next gadget and industrial process other countries absolutely have to have if they wish to keep up.
We need to lead in innovation, and clear the way for any Joe with an idea to make it happen. We need more highschoolers building nuclear reactors in their backyards, basically.
Sorry, buddy. You're not the center of the universe. Those asian hillbillies in the Philippines are wily and learning how to weld and stuff. Why should they sit there and see you doing the same job they can and get paid ten or more times what they are paid?
More aptly - why should a business pay you ten times what you are worth? And even more to the point - why should a business try to sell products at a price 40% greater than all of their global competitors due to their choice of using only American labor sources? The answer: they can't afford to.
It's all based around perspective and understanding. This has nothing to do with the personalities of CEOs and everything to do with market dynamics. The outsourcing of jobs and the problems our economy is facing have been forecast and projected for some time - as far back as the sixties and seventies.
You buy things from other countries because they are cheaper. This gives you more money to spend or save at your discretion. You wouldn't be on a computer if 80% of your income went to housing, food, and other living expenses. If your living expenses only took up 40% of your income, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a computer -not- made of components made and assembled in foreign locations.
Likewise - those countries wouldn't be buying beef and higher-tech products from American suppliers if they were not getting some of the economic activity added by your purchasing of stuff made in those countries.
You need to get over this whole win/lose view of the economy. It's really pretty simple - people need stuff to live and survive. They will make that happen, monetary mediums be damned.
You'll have to work according to your value, or figure out how to live with no income and a government collapsing under the weight of entitlement programs. The economy cannot handle your demands. Simple and immovable as that. Unions cannot save you from mathematical certainty.
Get in contact with your state legislators. Oh, they are out of state at the moment....
Here's the problem with your proposal - cutting 20% of pay to management would not fix the problems that come with government pension plans. Example: I plan on enlisting as an active duty member once my reserve contract is up - in theory, I'll be able to 'retire' and draw pension at 38 years old from the military. The average lifespan is something around the age of eighty for males in the U.S. - which places me at forty years drawing pension at half of my highest three years' average pay.... which means I will be paid more while not working than while I was (since my pay has nearly doubled already in my first five years with advancements and time in service adjustments).
That's also not counting that I will still be eligible to draw social security when I reach whatever the age is at the time - which will also include my civilian jobs and careers.
Yeah - it's a damned good deal. I like to think that it's because Americans really appreciate their armed service members and that we're considered worth it. It's sustainable since the military and its veterans make up less than 1% of the population.
It's not sustainable when you have such plans for all government employees.
You're going to have to pick and choose who gets such special treatment, because you - American Tax Payer - cannot afford to pay retirement benefits to 20% of the population (by time you add in all of those drawing social security and government pensions).
It. Does. Not. Work. The countries that try it fail miserably. Get it through your head, or watch your country collapse.
I fail to understand how a tax break is wasteful. By all means - don't allow your state to have any tax breaks. Those businesses will be happy to set up shop in my state and employ more people in this region. You all can figure out how to live on instant Ramen and Mac&Cheese while driving rusted out cars.
It's your state. Do what you want with it. I'm just telling you that you're going to shoot yourself in the foot. Of course, you seem to be under the impression you don't need your foot, so it's not like I'm going to be able to argue against delusional behavior.
Then why do you support over-paid CEOs?
Never said I did.
What, really, does a typical CEO personally contribute to society that make him or her worth 1,000 times what the average worker gets?
Wrong way of looking at it. What does the CEO contribute to the corporation? Managers, particularly upper-level managers, are not there to labor. They are there to make sure that the efforts of laborers (skilled and unskilled) are effectively and productively used. Or, I should say - that is what they should be doing. Some just don't gaheet it.
I could ask you what you personally contribute to society - you're likely a wage or salary earner in a service, information, or manufacturing industry. What you personally do is often specialized and of little apparent use to the big picture. Your employing corporation (even if you are working for a ma and pa store, they have likely incorporated) benefits society, and your supervisors work to manage the cumulative efforts to meet the necessities and demands of society.
In that respect - a competent CEO is invaluable. Although a number of people holding the position of a CEO are not exactly competent, but there just the same, much to the frustration of those directly impacted by the lack of competence.
Fact of the matter is that those who have gamed and rigged the system for their private benefit need to cough up the dough to fix things here, not gamble overseas. If they like the business climate so well overseas, then move the hell there and be a citizen of that country. If yuo are a patriot of this one, you invest yuor money here in your fellow citizens. Otherwise you're just a selfish creep abusing the system worse than the most flagrant welfare queen who ever cashed mutliple checks for the same kid.
Welcome to the international economy. America lead the world in technological and industrial capability following World War II - prior to that, -we- were the source of cheap labor and high-demand resources (lumber, cash crops, etc).
Now, we have shifted over to an information and service driven economy. In order to facilitate that, we must begin utilizing labor sources elsewhere, as we can no longer provide our own cheap labor. You can thank anti-slavery laws and minimum wage for that. That, combined with high tax rates on industry, make it impossible for all but the most high-tech industries to compete with industries from other nations.
If you want to see manufacturing jobs return to the U.S., you are going to have to reduce taxes, freeze or eliminate minimum wage laws, and abolish laws that inhibit start-up and business growth. Wages in America are going to be far higher than they are in other nations, even if you were to get rid of minimum wage - we have a higher cost of living and there's no way around that. However, where America needs to compete is the next gadget and industrial process other countries absolutely have to have if they wish to keep up.
We need to lead in innovation, and clear the way for any Joe with an idea to make it happen. We need more highschoolers building nuclear reactors in their backyards, basically.
American workers tightened their belts, took pay cuts, and upped their productivity only to see the corporate class give themselves bonusses for getting their workers to work so hard, and pink slips for themselves while their jobwent overseas to a new sucker.
Sorry, buddy. You're not the center of the universe. Those asian hillbillies in the Philippines are wily and learning how to weld and stuff. Why should they sit there and see you doing the same job they can and get paid ten or more times what they are paid?
More aptly - why should a business pay you ten times what you are worth? And even more to the point - why should a business try to sell products at a price 40% greater than all of their global competitors due to their choice of using only American labor sources? The answer: they can't afford to.
It's all based around perspective and understanding. This has nothing to do with the personalities of CEOs and everything to do with market dynamics. The outsourcing of jobs and the problems our economy is facing have been forecast and projected for some time - as far back as the sixties and seventies.
You buy things from other countries because they are cheaper. This gives you more money to spend or save at your discretion. You wouldn't be on a computer if 80% of your income went to housing, food, and other living expenses. If your living expenses only took up 40% of your income, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a computer -not- made of components made and assembled in foreign locations.
Likewise - those countries wouldn't be buying beef and higher-tech products from American suppliers if they were not getting some of the economic activity added by your purchasing of stuff made in those countries.
You need to get over this whole win/lose view of the economy. It's really pretty simple - people need stuff to live and survive. They will make that happen, monetary mediums be damned.
Business management needs to be the ones tightening their belts and working harder...the American worker has had enough.
You'll have to work according to your value, or figure out how to live with no income and a government collapsing under the weight of entitlement programs. The economy cannot handle your demands. Simple and immovable as that. Unions cannot save you from mathematical certainty.
Here's my proposal: an across-the-board cut of 20% in all managemnt salaries in state government, a repeal of all tax incentive programs for businesses that don't pay for themselves with at least a proven 10% return on the investment each year, as shown by increased taxable economic activity.
Get in contact with your state legislators. Oh, they are out of state at the moment....
Here's the problem with your proposal - cutting 20% of pay to management would not fix the problems that come with government pension plans. Example: I plan on enlisting as an active duty member once my reserve contract is up - in theory, I'll be able to 'retire' and draw pension at 38 years old from the military. The average lifespan is something around the age of eighty for males in the U.S. - which places me at forty years drawing pension at half of my highest three years' average pay.... which means I will be paid more while not working than while I was (since my pay has nearly doubled already in my first five years with advancements and time in service adjustments).
That's also not counting that I will still be eligible to draw social security when I reach whatever the age is at the time - which will also include my civilian jobs and careers.
Yeah - it's a damned good deal. I like to think that it's because Americans really appreciate their armed service members and that we're considered worth it. It's sustainable since the military and its veterans make up less than 1% of the population.
It's not sustainable when you have such plans for all government employees.
You're going to have to pick and choose who gets such special treatment, because you - American Tax Payer - cannot afford to pay retirement benefits to 20% of the population (by time you add in all of those drawing social security and government pensions).
It. Does. Not. Work. The countries that try it fail miserably. Get it through your head, or watch your country collapse.
End wasteful business tax breaks.
I fail to understand how a tax break is wasteful. By all means - don't allow your state to have any tax breaks. Those businesses will be happy to set up shop in my state and employ more people in this region. You all can figure out how to live on instant Ramen and Mac&Cheese while driving rusted out cars.
It's your state. Do what you want with it. I'm just telling you that you're going to shoot yourself in the foot. Of course, you seem to be under the impression you don't need your foot, so it's not like I'm going to be able to argue against delusional behavior.
reply to post by Aim64C
What you seem to fail to realize is that every single functional household is headed by a CEO, so competent ones aren't as hard to find as you might think among the laboring classes. In fact, since they alck a major support staff, they are actually more competent that the corporate CEO on a pragmatice level.
Most CEOs are only as competent as their support staff, their workforce, and their supply/distribution chain.
That they are plug-in replaceable is proven by the constant chair-switching at the top echelons, they come and go with little discernable effect unless they are really, really, lazy or especially incompetent. In actuality, they provide little of actual worth compared to what they extract.
Using people and resources efficiently is a manager/CEO's job; nothing inherent in it demands they be paid vastly more than the average worker. Their skills are no more special than a technician's. It's just another specialized skillset, but one utterly dependent upon the quality of other people's skillsets. If a business needs to return to profitability, the very first place to cut is at the executive level and maintain the trim there: if the current crop of CEOs can't deal with it, promote those who are willing to do the job for the lower price...isn't that sound business logic? Lay off 20 overpaid egoists who spend and invest their money in foreign markets rather than 2,000 employees who spend and invest in the local economy.
Tax breaks for businesses are always a form of business welfare: they are taking public money for private gain. If a tax break results in community growth and expansion of existing/new businesses with wage growth, then it might be justifiable, but a tax break that reduces local businesses and drives down wages is predatory and should be stopped.
The problem lies with those who think they must endlessly increase their wealth rather than be satisfied with merely more than enough and retire after a few tens or hundreds of millions. Without a cap on wealth, the more entry-level millionaires we have, the greater the pressure on the mid level millionaires to increase their financial distance from the rabble, and so on upwards. No matter how hard the lower classes work, they will never be able to work hard enough or be productive enough to fuel the 10-50% growth in wealth the top 1% demand.
The solution is simple, absolute, and singular:
CAP WEALTH.
Cap it a a billion, 500 million, 10 billion....I don't care where, just cap it: without a lid or a brim, trickle-down economics never works. The super-wealthy must stop sucking up all the wealth and allow the rest of humanity to catch up.
What you seem to fail to realize is that every single functional household is headed by a CEO, so competent ones aren't as hard to find as you might think among the laboring classes. In fact, since they alck a major support staff, they are actually more competent that the corporate CEO on a pragmatice level.
Most CEOs are only as competent as their support staff, their workforce, and their supply/distribution chain.
That they are plug-in replaceable is proven by the constant chair-switching at the top echelons, they come and go with little discernable effect unless they are really, really, lazy or especially incompetent. In actuality, they provide little of actual worth compared to what they extract.
Using people and resources efficiently is a manager/CEO's job; nothing inherent in it demands they be paid vastly more than the average worker. Their skills are no more special than a technician's. It's just another specialized skillset, but one utterly dependent upon the quality of other people's skillsets. If a business needs to return to profitability, the very first place to cut is at the executive level and maintain the trim there: if the current crop of CEOs can't deal with it, promote those who are willing to do the job for the lower price...isn't that sound business logic? Lay off 20 overpaid egoists who spend and invest their money in foreign markets rather than 2,000 employees who spend and invest in the local economy.
Tax breaks for businesses are always a form of business welfare: they are taking public money for private gain. If a tax break results in community growth and expansion of existing/new businesses with wage growth, then it might be justifiable, but a tax break that reduces local businesses and drives down wages is predatory and should be stopped.
The problem lies with those who think they must endlessly increase their wealth rather than be satisfied with merely more than enough and retire after a few tens or hundreds of millions. Without a cap on wealth, the more entry-level millionaires we have, the greater the pressure on the mid level millionaires to increase their financial distance from the rabble, and so on upwards. No matter how hard the lower classes work, they will never be able to work hard enough or be productive enough to fuel the 10-50% growth in wealth the top 1% demand.
The solution is simple, absolute, and singular:
CAP WEALTH.
Cap it a a billion, 500 million, 10 billion....I don't care where, just cap it: without a lid or a brim, trickle-down economics never works. The super-wealthy must stop sucking up all the wealth and allow the rest of humanity to catch up.
Originally posted by Flatfish
This is what the republican party has planned for the rest of working America if we sit back and allow them to do it. Wake up America, these republicans and their corporate sponsors are out to totally destroy your standard of living and they have chosen Wisconsin as the site for their first salvo of attacks.edit on 17-2-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)edit on 17-2-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)
S+F
I think they won't be happy until they bring about a new medieval feudal age in which the corporations are the vassals and the people are serfs living miserable existences just to survive for a daily ration of grain while the elite .01% live like Gods.
They hate the middle class that union jobs represent. The elite want the best medical technology science has to offer for the long term goal of immortality while the rest of us, can just die off as far as they're concerned. Don't have the money for your hospital stay ? Don't tax my 50 million dollar estate to pay for your laziness ! You should have been socking away 100k a year in your "private medical savings account" in case you needed that organ transplant. That's what I did, I'm responsible !
It's sad to realize how many brainwashed people are on ATS that buy the corporate agenda lock stock and barrel.
reply to post by apacheman
What you fail to realize is that you and I are different. We'll likely never agree, just take turns further explaining and giving examples until the other gives up.
While heads-of-households and managers/CEOs have a lot of shared skill requirements, they are entirely different jobs and goals.
Lack major support staff?
My father was the traditional head-of-household. He was also a plant manager of a factory for about six years, up until he died, and was senior level management all of my life (21 years when he died). Our household was functional up until my mom contracted and later died from cancer (about a four year process).
That's not to say it completely fell apart - but the function of the household was the responsibility of the relationship of my parents and their collective ability. Had my father been able to spend all of his day at home and not working - it is not likely things would have been all that better.
And my father was a -hell- of a manager. The factory he used to work for went from about fifty employees and a fairly competitive standing (he was, for all intents and purposes, "second in command" ) in the region to about five employees and barely existing following his leave. Where he began working, he pushed for ISO 9000 certification and made that factory the best one within the corporation, having personal reputation with many customers (to include such brands as Garmin and Bausch&Lomb) regarding cast/mold designs for the parts and manufacturing quality and assurance.
That's not to say he wasn't a great father - but he couldn't raise a family alone. What he did in manufacturing - those are his accomplishments. He could/would have still been a great manager even if he'd never met my mother and had me or my brothers. What he did as a father... couldn't have done it without my mother. And I can say that, because I was there when he tried to do it without her.
This is, quite frankly, a silly statement - and underlines your complete lack of competent understanding of the issue.
The quality of the staff generally indicates the quality of the manager. A manager carefully selects their direct subordinates and delegates effectively. If I'm managing a plant of fifty people - I don't need to be running around and micro-managing while making sure everyone is working hard and being competent. That's what I have supervisors for. That's why I have given them specific guidelines for what I expect, and have already decided to factor their word in very heavily when it comes to hiring/firing (even if they do not have the power to sign for a termination).
If I'm competent and presented with an incompetent staff - there's going to be a 90+% attrition rate for those jobs until I have a good team. If I'm competent and presented with competent staff, I'm going to continue to develop them and continue to be forward-looking. That's part of what a senior-level management job is about, looking forward to steer the company in the right direction while making sure you have people you can trust making sure the spark plugs fire in order and otherwise keep things going.
If I'm incompetent and handed with a competent or incompetent staff, then things will rapidly deteriorate (or show no improvement). A ship without a captain can, and will, continue to sustain itself on its last sets of orders. But as those orders run out and uncertainty sets in, the ship loses sight of its mission, purpose, and goals. Just like the factory I'm working at has been going for almost a month without a plant manager. Senior workers have stepped up and kept things going - but they are not looking forward so much as they are making sure not to trip and fall on what's there. More senior people in the company have had to pick up the slack that would have been handled by the plant manager and keep breaking down the big picture into relevant direction.
The current arrangement will work for the interim, but is not a good long-term solution.
Highly dependent upon the corporation. There are hundreds of thousands of corporations. Very few have such highly paid CEOs. Also, if the media is involved, then the CEO is likely incompetent - unless they are presenting a new must-have gadget for camera time.
How much more is "vast?"
Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times?
In terms of my father - for him to leave his position would have, more than likely, lead to a return to the standards held by the owners (who managed by the chaos theory - more chaos would breed more order, somewhere). Considering the amount volume improved under his leadership and how many jobs were created to handle that volume - he was easily worth the slightly less than $50K annual salary he was receiving. Not just to his superiors, but also to his employees. He was, quite honestly, horribly underpaid for his job. Easily worth twice as much as he was getting, managing a plant with over a hundred employees spanning three shifts.
Having someone of lesser caliber would have meant fewer employees and less job security. What's good management worth to you? It's, honestly, priceless. I have a new floor manager above me, now - a substantial improvement over the previous one. I honestly hope to see him bumped up in pay, as he's only making about a dollar more an hour than I am, at the time (and I can practically claim my work as community service).
I'm not really sure what you think about your supervisor - but if you have the slightest idea what makes a good manager, you'll want to see that guy paid enough to make sure he doesn't be-bop off and the position get taken by a moron deserving of the reduced pay, presuming he's competent.
My current supervisor - he deserves the extra pay for the position. He doesn't throw anyone under the bus, looks for ways to improve the overall flow of things, comes to work with a plan (and communicates that plan), and makes sure we have what we need to do the job (if we don't get it - it's not because he didn't let the people who are supposed to handle that know, and with plenty of advance).
Sounds pretty basic. We generally hire good quality workers to begin with, and have a high first-week turnover rate because, apparently, people can't come to work wanting to work, with a general plan of how to go about working the most basic stuff, and act confused when you ask them why they need to take ten bathroom breaks in an hour.
That's the average worker that some place ends up tolerating for at least some period of time, or they wouldn't be able to afford cars and food.
My dad had to deal with the same stuff in his factory - people who called in because their toe hurt, or thought it was more important to go fishing than show up to work.
No, it's not dependent upon other people's skill sets anymore than you depend upon how your cabinets are stocked for your dinner. A manager isn't expected to turn an apple into a tomato to put on a sandwich. A manager finds a tomato and disposes of stuff that's gone bad.
Inverted logic. The only reason you lay off workers is because you don't have work for them. If you don't have work for them, you don't need them to be there. Simple as that.
A competent CEO is still necessary (though he may take a pay cut, though even complete termination would not cover the costs of 2K employees) to head the company and keep it pursuing lines of work.
So, I should be thankful the government sends me welfare check worth about 85% of my income. Since I'm only being taxed about 15% on my income, but not being taxed equates to spending and taking of public money, I am therefor getting a welfare check equal to 85% of my income.
You're asking for what cannot really be known. Sure - Wal Mart has negatively impacted a lot of the old "down-town" segment of this town that had revolved around general commercial activity. However, inviting that large corporation in brought jobs (more than those local stores did) and increased this town's net income from travelers and commuters passing through. Where the old general stores stood, now we see specialty stores that have become ingrained into the down-town culture. The lower cost of living brought about by the introduction of a large store like WalMart has enabled these businesses to exist as people are spending less on existing and can spend more at discretion.
The net effect has been positive. Though, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how we can have a Lowe's, Sutherlands (another home improvement store), and a friggin' Menard's in the same damned town and they all still be operating at a financial gain. Toss in an Ace hardware and a few smaller lumber specialty stores, and it's one big mystery as to who in the hell is buying that much home improvement stuff to warrant three giants and several mid-size home improvement/hardware stores existing in the same place.
Oh?
And what's enough wealth?
I buy a plot of land for $50,000 and pay taxes on that land. I now set about building my dream home - which will actually be carved mostly out of the bedrock of a hill. I will not be able to just whip up some stone tools to do this - so there will be some costs involved, and there will be some materials added - but placing such a home there for a cost of $250,000 could easily be appraised as worth $500,000 by time you toss in the property. I've also got a gardening streak in me - I'd set about leveling off the top of the hill and making it suitable for agricultural purposes, as well as some of the other property regions. I may only spend $20,000 on such a task, and start running my own miniature farm - selling surplus on the open market or just giving it away at my church.
Let's say the cap on wealth is $750,000. My home and belongings are worth well over that by now - even though I've only spent $320,000 - less than half the wealth cap.
If you meant to say "earnings" - then you need to pick up a dictionary. In either case, you run into similar problems. I could do my gardening on the side and simply end up selling my surplus into taxes, since I'm being paid at the earnings cap, and am not allowed to make any more.
You could simply set a restriction on salaries and hourly wage earnings - but that leaves loopholes open for bonuses (that act as accrued salaries) and stock options (also a form of payment) - so the measure does nothing to change the environment it is meant to while complicating others - and therefor worthless.
You're delusional to be calling millionaires entry level.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Wealth is not the same as capital. As my example demonstrated above - my wealth varied due to factors outside the influence of capital, alone. The economy is the simple premise that someone out there does or makes something I need, and I give them something that they need or can exchange for something they do need.
The need for function is prior to capital metrics. We will find a way to feed people because they need to be fed - value of the dollar be damned.
Now you mean that there's no way for the average worker to "catch" the ultra-wealthy - then you're quite silly. All you need to do is look at origins of companies like Cisco, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, McDonald's, etc. They didn't just fall into wealth - they had an idea that benefited society - and you see what happened. Franchises start up all the time. New businesses start all the time from people in their garages - from teens with almost no experience but good ideas.
Capping earnings isn't going to solve the problem. It's only going to make it so that the companies that can offer the most in terms of loop-hole benefits and payment are going to pursue growth and expansion in the U.S.
Stifling ambition and innovation is what you're suggesting.
You're pretty dumb, aren't you?
You realize the average debt per citizen in this country is $52,000 - correct?
The "ultra wealthy" don't really have all of that wealth - it's all tied up in purchasing your loans and debt. The only reason you could get a loan was because such large sums of money existed in the bank.
While I am currently paying on a loan, I have more assets than I have liabilities - even outside of housing (IE - I'm not counting "my home is 'worth $120,000!'" type of thinking - as I don't own a home). Thus - even if the market were to completely melt down tomorrow - my assets and liabilities would, numerically, not change (though I would be pissed about having to spend $20 on a loaf of bread - the money in the bank won't last me long at that rate).
It's the microwave mentality that has lead to the concentration of capital in the nation.
And, as much as you all seem to hate those ultra-wealthy and want to see them "spend their money and get it out of the banks" - that would crush the economy as it would, effectively, flood the economy with at least twice the average flow of currency.
The entire premise of our economy hinges on them leaving the money in the bank so that you can have your car now, your house now, and all kinds of other things that will take you nearly half your natural life to pay off with a healthy 10% interest tacked on to it.
I know you'll turn this around to play the victim - but you're the idiot who wanted a house he could not afford with the attention span of a fly (describing the average person). Lending plays an essential part of the economy - but it's been allowed to get -way- out of hand due to the federal reserve and the demands of a society with zero patience or sens of fiscal responsibility.
Right now, I'm making money because I've got it sitting in a bank and subsidizing someone's need or desire to 'have it now.' I also have a simple interest loan on my car that can be paid off with far less than what I have in the bank (the due payment isn't going to change even if I paid it off tomorrow - so may as well let what I can sit and accrue interest and commit my wages to the car payment). I'll not likely break $20K annual income this year. But I don't live like a damned idiot and try to blame my problems on people who have more than I do.
Sure - I'm underpaid for my job. I personally see to the final assembly of units worth an average of $40K per, and see about 12-16 units off each week. Half a million dollars in defense subcontracting passes under my eyes and through my hands at several different stages of production each week. (For a plant with only about twenty to twenty-five employees - that's not too bad).
Each one of those units is worth more than three years of cumulative pay at my current average income from that place, working over 40hrs each week.
I know the song and dance.
But who doesn't have a degree? *raises hand* Who took the job for non-standard pay? *raises hand* - I'm in a spot now where I could reasonably ask for a more appropriate wage for my job(s) - as I can look forward to better pay working more locally at fast food than I can working there, and believe I've demonstrated I'm of above-average competency.
In the end - I can complain - that's perfectly reasonable. I can't, however, play the victim - nor do I really care to. Nor can many other people, for that matter.
Making yourself a victim will never lead you to success.
You, yourself, can't even get your priorities straight. You get upset with the ultra-wealthy for "not being satisfied making enough" - but then turn around and say "the working class can never catch them!" - ... can't you just be happy making enough?
Deep down - you aren't. You're just upset that you work and still have bills while someone else can play all day and end the day with more money in their bank account than they started with. I understand your frustration - but you're going about it all the wrong ways.
A fool and his money are soon departed - concentrated wealth goes against the laws of entropy and is, consequently, looking for a place to be exchanged.
What you seem to fail to realize is that every single functional household is headed by a CEO, so competent ones aren't as hard to find as you might think among the laboring classes.
What you fail to realize is that you and I are different. We'll likely never agree, just take turns further explaining and giving examples until the other gives up.
While heads-of-households and managers/CEOs have a lot of shared skill requirements, they are entirely different jobs and goals.
In fact, since they alck a major support staff, they are actually more competent that the corporate CEO on a pragmatice level.
Lack major support staff?
My father was the traditional head-of-household. He was also a plant manager of a factory for about six years, up until he died, and was senior level management all of my life (21 years when he died). Our household was functional up until my mom contracted and later died from cancer (about a four year process).
That's not to say it completely fell apart - but the function of the household was the responsibility of the relationship of my parents and their collective ability. Had my father been able to spend all of his day at home and not working - it is not likely things would have been all that better.
And my father was a -hell- of a manager. The factory he used to work for went from about fifty employees and a fairly competitive standing (he was, for all intents and purposes, "second in command" ) in the region to about five employees and barely existing following his leave. Where he began working, he pushed for ISO 9000 certification and made that factory the best one within the corporation, having personal reputation with many customers (to include such brands as Garmin and Bausch&Lomb) regarding cast/mold designs for the parts and manufacturing quality and assurance.
That's not to say he wasn't a great father - but he couldn't raise a family alone. What he did in manufacturing - those are his accomplishments. He could/would have still been a great manager even if he'd never met my mother and had me or my brothers. What he did as a father... couldn't have done it without my mother. And I can say that, because I was there when he tried to do it without her.
Most CEOs are only as competent as their support staff, their workforce, and their supply/distribution chain.
This is, quite frankly, a silly statement - and underlines your complete lack of competent understanding of the issue.
The quality of the staff generally indicates the quality of the manager. A manager carefully selects their direct subordinates and delegates effectively. If I'm managing a plant of fifty people - I don't need to be running around and micro-managing while making sure everyone is working hard and being competent. That's what I have supervisors for. That's why I have given them specific guidelines for what I expect, and have already decided to factor their word in very heavily when it comes to hiring/firing (even if they do not have the power to sign for a termination).
If I'm competent and presented with an incompetent staff - there's going to be a 90+% attrition rate for those jobs until I have a good team. If I'm competent and presented with competent staff, I'm going to continue to develop them and continue to be forward-looking. That's part of what a senior-level management job is about, looking forward to steer the company in the right direction while making sure you have people you can trust making sure the spark plugs fire in order and otherwise keep things going.
If I'm incompetent and handed with a competent or incompetent staff, then things will rapidly deteriorate (or show no improvement). A ship without a captain can, and will, continue to sustain itself on its last sets of orders. But as those orders run out and uncertainty sets in, the ship loses sight of its mission, purpose, and goals. Just like the factory I'm working at has been going for almost a month without a plant manager. Senior workers have stepped up and kept things going - but they are not looking forward so much as they are making sure not to trip and fall on what's there. More senior people in the company have had to pick up the slack that would have been handled by the plant manager and keep breaking down the big picture into relevant direction.
The current arrangement will work for the interim, but is not a good long-term solution.
That they are plug-in replaceable is proven by the constant chair-switching at the top echelons, they come and go with little discernable effect unless they are really, really, lazy or especially incompetent. In actuality, they provide little of actual worth compared to what they extract.
Highly dependent upon the corporation. There are hundreds of thousands of corporations. Very few have such highly paid CEOs. Also, if the media is involved, then the CEO is likely incompetent - unless they are presenting a new must-have gadget for camera time.
Using people and resources efficiently is a manager/CEO's job; nothing inherent in it demands they be paid vastly more than the average worker.
How much more is "vast?"
Ten times? A hundred times? A thousand times?
In terms of my father - for him to leave his position would have, more than likely, lead to a return to the standards held by the owners (who managed by the chaos theory - more chaos would breed more order, somewhere). Considering the amount volume improved under his leadership and how many jobs were created to handle that volume - he was easily worth the slightly less than $50K annual salary he was receiving. Not just to his superiors, but also to his employees. He was, quite honestly, horribly underpaid for his job. Easily worth twice as much as he was getting, managing a plant with over a hundred employees spanning three shifts.
Having someone of lesser caliber would have meant fewer employees and less job security. What's good management worth to you? It's, honestly, priceless. I have a new floor manager above me, now - a substantial improvement over the previous one. I honestly hope to see him bumped up in pay, as he's only making about a dollar more an hour than I am, at the time (and I can practically claim my work as community service).
Their skills are no more special than a technician's.
I'm not really sure what you think about your supervisor - but if you have the slightest idea what makes a good manager, you'll want to see that guy paid enough to make sure he doesn't be-bop off and the position get taken by a moron deserving of the reduced pay, presuming he's competent.
My current supervisor - he deserves the extra pay for the position. He doesn't throw anyone under the bus, looks for ways to improve the overall flow of things, comes to work with a plan (and communicates that plan), and makes sure we have what we need to do the job (if we don't get it - it's not because he didn't let the people who are supposed to handle that know, and with plenty of advance).
Sounds pretty basic. We generally hire good quality workers to begin with, and have a high first-week turnover rate because, apparently, people can't come to work wanting to work, with a general plan of how to go about working the most basic stuff, and act confused when you ask them why they need to take ten bathroom breaks in an hour.
That's the average worker that some place ends up tolerating for at least some period of time, or they wouldn't be able to afford cars and food.
My dad had to deal with the same stuff in his factory - people who called in because their toe hurt, or thought it was more important to go fishing than show up to work.
It's just another specialized skillset, but one utterly dependent upon the quality of other people's skillsets.
No, it's not dependent upon other people's skill sets anymore than you depend upon how your cabinets are stocked for your dinner. A manager isn't expected to turn an apple into a tomato to put on a sandwich. A manager finds a tomato and disposes of stuff that's gone bad.
Lay off 20 overpaid egoists who spend and invest their money in foreign markets rather than 2,000 employees who spend and invest in the local economy.
Inverted logic. The only reason you lay off workers is because you don't have work for them. If you don't have work for them, you don't need them to be there. Simple as that.
A competent CEO is still necessary (though he may take a pay cut, though even complete termination would not cover the costs of 2K employees) to head the company and keep it pursuing lines of work.
Tax breaks for businesses are always a form of business welfare: they are taking public money for private gain.
So, I should be thankful the government sends me welfare check worth about 85% of my income. Since I'm only being taxed about 15% on my income, but not being taxed equates to spending and taking of public money, I am therefor getting a welfare check equal to 85% of my income.
If a tax break results in community growth and expansion of existing/new businesses with wage growth, then it might be justifiable, but a tax break that reduces local businesses and drives down wages is predatory and should be stopped.
You're asking for what cannot really be known. Sure - Wal Mart has negatively impacted a lot of the old "down-town" segment of this town that had revolved around general commercial activity. However, inviting that large corporation in brought jobs (more than those local stores did) and increased this town's net income from travelers and commuters passing through. Where the old general stores stood, now we see specialty stores that have become ingrained into the down-town culture. The lower cost of living brought about by the introduction of a large store like WalMart has enabled these businesses to exist as people are spending less on existing and can spend more at discretion.
The net effect has been positive. Though, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how we can have a Lowe's, Sutherlands (another home improvement store), and a friggin' Menard's in the same damned town and they all still be operating at a financial gain. Toss in an Ace hardware and a few smaller lumber specialty stores, and it's one big mystery as to who in the hell is buying that much home improvement stuff to warrant three giants and several mid-size home improvement/hardware stores existing in the same place.
The problem lies with those who think they must endlessly increase their wealth rather than be satisfied with merely more than enough and retire after a few tens or hundreds of millions. Without a cap on wealth,
Oh?
And what's enough wealth?
I buy a plot of land for $50,000 and pay taxes on that land. I now set about building my dream home - which will actually be carved mostly out of the bedrock of a hill. I will not be able to just whip up some stone tools to do this - so there will be some costs involved, and there will be some materials added - but placing such a home there for a cost of $250,000 could easily be appraised as worth $500,000 by time you toss in the property. I've also got a gardening streak in me - I'd set about leveling off the top of the hill and making it suitable for agricultural purposes, as well as some of the other property regions. I may only spend $20,000 on such a task, and start running my own miniature farm - selling surplus on the open market or just giving it away at my church.
Let's say the cap on wealth is $750,000. My home and belongings are worth well over that by now - even though I've only spent $320,000 - less than half the wealth cap.
If you meant to say "earnings" - then you need to pick up a dictionary. In either case, you run into similar problems. I could do my gardening on the side and simply end up selling my surplus into taxes, since I'm being paid at the earnings cap, and am not allowed to make any more.
You could simply set a restriction on salaries and hourly wage earnings - but that leaves loopholes open for bonuses (that act as accrued salaries) and stock options (also a form of payment) - so the measure does nothing to change the environment it is meant to while complicating others - and therefor worthless.
the more entry-level millionaires we have, the greater the pressure on the mid level millionaires to increase their financial distance from the rabble, and so on upwards.
You're delusional to be calling millionaires entry level.
No matter how hard the lower classes work, they will never be able to work hard enough or be productive enough to fuel the 10-50% growth in wealth the top 1% demand.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Wealth is not the same as capital. As my example demonstrated above - my wealth varied due to factors outside the influence of capital, alone. The economy is the simple premise that someone out there does or makes something I need, and I give them something that they need or can exchange for something they do need.
The need for function is prior to capital metrics. We will find a way to feed people because they need to be fed - value of the dollar be damned.
Now you mean that there's no way for the average worker to "catch" the ultra-wealthy - then you're quite silly. All you need to do is look at origins of companies like Cisco, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, McDonald's, etc. They didn't just fall into wealth - they had an idea that benefited society - and you see what happened. Franchises start up all the time. New businesses start all the time from people in their garages - from teens with almost no experience but good ideas.
Capping earnings isn't going to solve the problem. It's only going to make it so that the companies that can offer the most in terms of loop-hole benefits and payment are going to pursue growth and expansion in the U.S.
Stifling ambition and innovation is what you're suggesting.
Cap it a a billion, 500 million, 10 billion....I don't care where, just cap it: without a lid or a brim, trickle-down economics never works. The super-wealthy must stop sucking up all the wealth and allow the rest of humanity to catch up.
You're pretty dumb, aren't you?
You realize the average debt per citizen in this country is $52,000 - correct?
The "ultra wealthy" don't really have all of that wealth - it's all tied up in purchasing your loans and debt. The only reason you could get a loan was because such large sums of money existed in the bank.
While I am currently paying on a loan, I have more assets than I have liabilities - even outside of housing (IE - I'm not counting "my home is 'worth $120,000!'" type of thinking - as I don't own a home). Thus - even if the market were to completely melt down tomorrow - my assets and liabilities would, numerically, not change (though I would be pissed about having to spend $20 on a loaf of bread - the money in the bank won't last me long at that rate).
It's the microwave mentality that has lead to the concentration of capital in the nation.
And, as much as you all seem to hate those ultra-wealthy and want to see them "spend their money and get it out of the banks" - that would crush the economy as it would, effectively, flood the economy with at least twice the average flow of currency.
The entire premise of our economy hinges on them leaving the money in the bank so that you can have your car now, your house now, and all kinds of other things that will take you nearly half your natural life to pay off with a healthy 10% interest tacked on to it.
I know you'll turn this around to play the victim - but you're the idiot who wanted a house he could not afford with the attention span of a fly (describing the average person). Lending plays an essential part of the economy - but it's been allowed to get -way- out of hand due to the federal reserve and the demands of a society with zero patience or sens of fiscal responsibility.
Right now, I'm making money because I've got it sitting in a bank and subsidizing someone's need or desire to 'have it now.' I also have a simple interest loan on my car that can be paid off with far less than what I have in the bank (the due payment isn't going to change even if I paid it off tomorrow - so may as well let what I can sit and accrue interest and commit my wages to the car payment). I'll not likely break $20K annual income this year. But I don't live like a damned idiot and try to blame my problems on people who have more than I do.
Sure - I'm underpaid for my job. I personally see to the final assembly of units worth an average of $40K per, and see about 12-16 units off each week. Half a million dollars in defense subcontracting passes under my eyes and through my hands at several different stages of production each week. (For a plant with only about twenty to twenty-five employees - that's not too bad).
Each one of those units is worth more than three years of cumulative pay at my current average income from that place, working over 40hrs each week.
I know the song and dance.
But who doesn't have a degree? *raises hand* Who took the job for non-standard pay? *raises hand* - I'm in a spot now where I could reasonably ask for a more appropriate wage for my job(s) - as I can look forward to better pay working more locally at fast food than I can working there, and believe I've demonstrated I'm of above-average competency.
In the end - I can complain - that's perfectly reasonable. I can't, however, play the victim - nor do I really care to. Nor can many other people, for that matter.
Making yourself a victim will never lead you to success.
You, yourself, can't even get your priorities straight. You get upset with the ultra-wealthy for "not being satisfied making enough" - but then turn around and say "the working class can never catch them!" - ... can't you just be happy making enough?
Deep down - you aren't. You're just upset that you work and still have bills while someone else can play all day and end the day with more money in their bank account than they started with. I understand your frustration - but you're going about it all the wrong ways.
A fool and his money are soon departed - concentrated wealth goes against the laws of entropy and is, consequently, looking for a place to be exchanged.
reply to post by Aim64C
I'm sure your dad was a great manager...but I'm also sure he was an exceptional one.
Just because some CEOs are good, it doesn't follow that all are, or even that most are.
Have you ever listened to any of the testimony of the CEOs before any Congressional committees? I've listened to far too many, and the vast majority of the time the CEOs are incoherent, ill informed, and make outrageously specious arguments.
In 2009, the average compensation of the CEO of a Forbes 500 company was just shy of $12 million dollars, down from just shy of $16 million in 2007. Since record bonusses were given last year, I suspect the compensation is bck up or past 2007 levels.
Meanwhile, the average American worker is paid just over $38K a year. So in 2009, the average Fotune 500 CEO took home over 310 times what the average worker did, or more than the worker could earn in seven lifetimes of labor in 40 year careers. In 1989 the average CEO only took home a little over $2 million a year, while a worker made a litle over $32K per year, roughly 72:1. Worker pay went up 20% in 20 years, while CEO pay went up ~600%.
The increase in corporate CEO pay coincided with huge increases in American worker productivity, the profits from which where not shared but funneled upwards.
www.forbes.com... e-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-09-bosses_map.html
Corporations do not create jobs, they destroy them. Whenever a corporation absorbs a smaller firm, they cut jobs in the name of efficiency. Effieciency for them, but highly ineficient for the society. Pretty much every economic model I've studied says you need a minimum of seven or so top feeders in any industry to spur competition and drive prices down. As the number of top corporations drop in any given industry, so do the jobs, and the economy contracts.
A good CEO is worth a fair wage, but not over 300 times the average, absolutely no one is, much less 500 people. Do you realize that those 500 CEOs make more than 150,000 average workers? It makes no sense to pay them that much because there is no way they can possible generate as much economic activity as you would get if you cut their compensation in half and hired another 40 or 50,000 workers.
And the work is there: most people I know who have the luxury of a job complain about their workloads. It isn't that corporations don't have the work or the money to hire more workers. They actively choose not to in order to use the money on bloated executive salaries.
What is stupid about capping wealth (and I do know the difference between wealth and income)? No one has a moral, ethical, legal or natural right to unlimited wealth. Show me the part of the Constitution that says so. To continue to accumulate wealth long past the point of satisfying every conceivable need is a sign of either mental illness (economic hoarding syndrome, let's call it) or sociopathy.
Current wealth is always a zero-sum game: at any given time it is finite (infinite potential, but that's not the same thing) allowing X number of billionaires usually means ~10 millionX poor people.
Capping wealth is a better and more civilized alternative to the historic method of correcting severe weath imbalances: the wholesale slaughter of the ruling class a la the French and Russian revolutions.
I'm sure your dad was a great manager...but I'm also sure he was an exceptional one.
Just because some CEOs are good, it doesn't follow that all are, or even that most are.
Have you ever listened to any of the testimony of the CEOs before any Congressional committees? I've listened to far too many, and the vast majority of the time the CEOs are incoherent, ill informed, and make outrageously specious arguments.
In 2009, the average compensation of the CEO of a Forbes 500 company was just shy of $12 million dollars, down from just shy of $16 million in 2007. Since record bonusses were given last year, I suspect the compensation is bck up or past 2007 levels.
Meanwhile, the average American worker is paid just over $38K a year. So in 2009, the average Fotune 500 CEO took home over 310 times what the average worker did, or more than the worker could earn in seven lifetimes of labor in 40 year careers. In 1989 the average CEO only took home a little over $2 million a year, while a worker made a litle over $32K per year, roughly 72:1. Worker pay went up 20% in 20 years, while CEO pay went up ~600%.
The increase in corporate CEO pay coincided with huge increases in American worker productivity, the profits from which where not shared but funneled upwards.
www.forbes.com... e-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-09-bosses_map.html
Corporations do not create jobs, they destroy them. Whenever a corporation absorbs a smaller firm, they cut jobs in the name of efficiency. Effieciency for them, but highly ineficient for the society. Pretty much every economic model I've studied says you need a minimum of seven or so top feeders in any industry to spur competition and drive prices down. As the number of top corporations drop in any given industry, so do the jobs, and the economy contracts.
A good CEO is worth a fair wage, but not over 300 times the average, absolutely no one is, much less 500 people. Do you realize that those 500 CEOs make more than 150,000 average workers? It makes no sense to pay them that much because there is no way they can possible generate as much economic activity as you would get if you cut their compensation in half and hired another 40 or 50,000 workers.
And the work is there: most people I know who have the luxury of a job complain about their workloads. It isn't that corporations don't have the work or the money to hire more workers. They actively choose not to in order to use the money on bloated executive salaries.
What is stupid about capping wealth (and I do know the difference between wealth and income)? No one has a moral, ethical, legal or natural right to unlimited wealth. Show me the part of the Constitution that says so. To continue to accumulate wealth long past the point of satisfying every conceivable need is a sign of either mental illness (economic hoarding syndrome, let's call it) or sociopathy.
Current wealth is always a zero-sum game: at any given time it is finite (infinite potential, but that's not the same thing) allowing X number of billionaires usually means ~10 millionX poor people.
Capping wealth is a better and more civilized alternative to the historic method of correcting severe weath imbalances: the wholesale slaughter of the ruling class a la the French and Russian revolutions.
I had no reply to this thread before so I stayed away;: Well screw youse guys its been debunked:
theres always two sides to every black and white political argument :
newsbusters.org...
newsbusters.org...
next this'll be a"right wing blog "so itscompletely b.s,.only the huff post counts around here..
Theres always manipulation of govt accounting numbers.." outyears/on the book s vs off the books spending etc...
igher taxaton is not the answer.. we don't want to drive any relocating business away...
theres always two sides to every black and white political argument :
So, contrary to what Maddow and many in the media including on MSNBC have been claiming, Wisconsin does indeed have a budget deficit.
And what about that tax cut Maddow and others in the press have been focusing so much attention on? Well, they've been misrepresenting that as well:
The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.
newsbusters.org...
Hey, wait. That’s about exactly the size of the shortfall.
What is happening in Wisconsin right now has absolutely nothing to do with public workers. The headline here, the way this keeps getting shorthanded, is workers angry after state is forced by budget crisis to crack down.
That’s not what’s going on. The state is not being forced to crack down. A lot of states do have budget crises right now, but heading into this year, Wisconsin was not one of them.
Oh really, Rach?
Well, that's not what Politifact found:
Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.
There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it. [...]
The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in [Director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau Robert] Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.
But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.
The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.
It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.
So, contrary to what Maddow and many in the media including on MSNBC have been claiming, Wisconsin does indeed have a budget deficit.
And what about that tax cut Maddow and others in the press have been focusing so much attention on? Well, they've been misrepresenting that as well:
The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.
Amazing. Politifact concluded:
There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.
We rate Maddow’s take False.
Nice job, Rach. Your employers must be so proud of you.
But Maddow wasn't alone in presenting this lie. Her colleague Ed Schultz did it Friday evening:
Governor Scott Walker wants you to believe that the only way he can solve his made-up budget crisis is by taking away union rights. He says if he raises taxes on the wealthy, jobs will die and businesses will leave Wisconsin. That, my friends, is an old, outright lie.
And here's the proof. The previous governor, Democrat Jim Doyle, was handed a $3.2 billion deficit when he took office. But he passed a budget that left the state poised for a surplus this year.
Read more: newsbusters.org...
newsbusters.org...
next this'll be a"right wing blog "so itscompletely b.s,.only the huff post counts around here..
Theres always manipulation of govt accounting numbers.." outyears/on the book s vs off the books spending etc...
igher taxaton is not the answer.. we don't want to drive any relocating business away...
edit on 23-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason
given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
reply to post by apacheman
Of course not. See my claims against the average worker. The number of positions that need to be filled often exceeds the number of individuals that will competently fill them within the population. Although my standards are fairly high, so my judgment of competence is going to be more hard-nosed than others - it should still stand to reason that you're going to find incompetency everywhere you turn.
Have you listened to some of the congressmen/women we put in front of the microphone? I swear to God, I listened to one of them talk about how overpopulation on an island nation (forget which one) causing it to fall into the ocean.
Sounds like our current head of the National executive office.
Politicizing aside - what you and I consider being informed and a specious argument are going to differ. Without specific examples - it's hard to pass any kind of judgment on the merit. And, one must also consider the purpose of a CEO being up in front of a congressional committee to begin with - are those generally recognized as competent going to be in such a position, to begin with?
Okay. Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Kind of difficult to draw that conclusion from the available data.
That's the drawback of being an employee, however. You don't set your wages. You, and even I, may see our pay as unfair - but it's pay that can only be negotiated to a limited degree. That's part of working for another person. No matter "how I would run things" - I'm not running them.
Any time you reduce the number of man-hours necessary to produce a good or service, it is a good thing. It will be more apparent later.
As a fellow studier and builder of models - I can tell you that my model airplanes don't fly, and don't equate to the real thing. Also, I can build some good models - doesn't mean I can build a good airplane.
A good thing to keep in mind when studying and discussing models of intangible things like the economy.
Your models forget about one thing - creation of new markets and competitors. It's a factor that is often excluded because it is difficult, if not impossible to model and predict. Few economists anticipated the internet boom.
Most of my examples come from the electronics and computer technology industry - as that's the one I'm most familiar with when it comes to history.
We will go back to the glory days of electronics - Intel was an up and coming CPU manufacturing giant, but they lacked the foundry capacity to keep up with demand. They subcontracted to a little-known company known as American Micro Devices (AMD) to build the 8486 (commonly called the 486). As the first -real- 32bit processor, this thing was all the rage - particularly the DX version with its on-die arithmetic coprocessor that made it a real hit among the growing CAD industry.
AMD took a look at the design as they were building it and said "what a piece of crap" - and designed their own model that would work as a drop-in substitute. The architecture was more efficient on a per-clock basis, and the "AMD 486" started appearing alongside the "Intel 486."
A lawsuit, of course, ensued. The courts decided that Intel couldn't copyright a number, and AMD's design was not a violation of patents. Hence, the 8586 was titled the "Pentium" to give their product a unique title. AMD came to call their competitor to the Pentium the "Athlon."
AMD has since grown, and in 2008, they decided to split off their manufacturing department as an entirely separate business - "Global Foundries." GF would be its own separate entity and contract for production of AMD's designs (as well as other companies).
We've come full circle - from a subcontractor turned industry competitor to splitting off the manufacturing as a subcontractor. What prevents Global Foundries from taking the same route ten years down the line?
And that, there, is the free-market element. When a few -kids- got together with an idea for an online warehouse (Amazon.com), or graduate students developed the search engine coding for Google, they rapidly boomed and created hundreds - thousands of jobs out of 'thin air.'
The economy is always shifting and changing. As large corporations get larger, they end up fighting against the weight of their own operations. Many collapse, or begin to fragment, with smaller companies simply beating these large institutions to addressing changes in the market.
When we started consolidating agricultural operations, it meant the individual families and villages no longer had to have their own crops to maintain and live off of. They were suddenly free to take up other pursuits. When a thousand jobs are cut following a merger - that's a thousand people able to pursue other interests, or take their skills elsewhere.
Ingenuity and the ability to put that ingenuity to use drives the economy, not labor. People being free to take an idea for a good or service and run with it is what pushes the economy forward. Always has - always will be. We don't move forward in a "stable" economy where there aren't corporate mergers, fractures, and new businesses popping up and disappearing overnight.
And what are you going to hire those 50,000 workers to do? Stand around and pick their butt? You have to have something for those workers to do. That requires one of two things - increased market share (or volume) within that company's market segment, or expanding into new markets. Expanding into new markets for large companies often requires billions, if they wish to be a major competitor. This also requires the formation of entire new departments and leadership and experienced positions.
Honestly - I'd tuck most of such surpluses away to develop new businesses on other market fronts (not necessarily split off parts of existing businesses into other markets), rather than hand them to a single individual or even divide them amongst the workers (having a healthy sum of black numbers in the corporate bank account is a pretty good service to the worker who looks for some sense of job security - when things get slow, I can still afford to pay them to do maintenance on the facilities without having to lay off).
But - it's not my money to work with. It's really not the CEO's either, unless the board of directors seems to think that's what he/she should be paid.
This is a "yes and no" sort of statement. From an employer standpoint, it's better to be overworked than it is to be standing around and looking for something to do. For example - a 20% manpower boost to the place I work at (assuming all competent workers) could easily bump our throughput up by 50+%. At that rate, we'd burn through April's work by the end of March, and we're looking at a bit of a slow-down about the time summer rolls around - though the higher-up margins have been looking to secure a few new contracts that supplement the work we do for the GBU-39 SDB, MALD, and RIM-67.
Well, in our building. In the other buildings, they don't have room for what they are doing, much less more people. Probably why the owners are buying up land like crazy around the area - they are looking to expand but have been locked up in small, unexpandable properties.
Generally, you find the work, then hire the people to do the work - rather than work in reverse.
Here is where I vehemently disagree - to the point of bringing weaponry to the 'discussion' table.
The Constitution was not intended to be an inclusive list of rights - it was meant to be an exclusive list of restrictions on the power of the National government. Along with defining the National government's role and relationship to the states.
It would also be highly implied that, since one of the largest instigators of the revolutionary war stemmed from the increased taxation of Colonial products, that many of those who founded our country would have been shocked and even "pissed" over the notion of capping wealth.
It's funny that you're against this whole deal in Wisconsin of restricting the benefits unions can lobby for... but for arbitrarily restricting wealth.
I would always have a need for such wealth. I've always got some idea for something or another - I want to create the "industry to end all industries" - not a monopoly, by any means - but a complete start-to-finish set of industries continually pushing the boundaries of manufacturing capability - building complex nanostructure meta-materials, high-energy physics applications, etc. I want to be one of the first to be out there mining asteroids and pioneering practical space travel and sustainability.
There will never be an end to my curiosity and never an end to my need for more funding to satisfy it.
I don't think that's on the plate of a number of people receiving such an income - but, again - it's not my income, and not my place to dictate how it is to be spent. It's also not my place to decide what their income should be. I may not agree with what they are getting paid.
Just like I don't agree with homosexuality, in general. I don't generally like abortion, or seeing Spanish on everything I buy at the store. I also hate the smell of someone smoking.
I just realize that it's not my place to ban everything I don't like or see as destructive.
And, yet, there is not a causal link between the number of ultra-wealthy and the poverty rate. Not even a correlation.
I'm going to do what I feel I need to do. Government and society be damned, if necessary. I would dismantle entire governments if I felt it necessary without so much as batting an eye. In short - society has no jurisdiction over me. I comply with laws because I see no reason not to comply at this point in time.
The problem with your idea is that you do the inverse - you preemptively correct severe wealth imbalances by slaughtering anyone who attempts to go above a certain metric point. Figuratively speaking, I suppose.
Just because some CEOs are good, it doesn't follow that all are, or even that most are.
Of course not. See my claims against the average worker. The number of positions that need to be filled often exceeds the number of individuals that will competently fill them within the population. Although my standards are fairly high, so my judgment of competence is going to be more hard-nosed than others - it should still stand to reason that you're going to find incompetency everywhere you turn.
Have you ever listened to any of the testimony of the CEOs before any Congressional committees?
Have you listened to some of the congressmen/women we put in front of the microphone? I swear to God, I listened to one of them talk about how overpopulation on an island nation (forget which one) causing it to fall into the ocean.
I've listened to far too many, and the vast majority of the time the CEOs are incoherent, ill informed, and make outrageously specious arguments.
Sounds like our current head of the National executive office.
Politicizing aside - what you and I consider being informed and a specious argument are going to differ. Without specific examples - it's hard to pass any kind of judgment on the merit. And, one must also consider the purpose of a CEO being up in front of a congressional committee to begin with - are those generally recognized as competent going to be in such a position, to begin with?
Meanwhile, the average American worker is paid just over $38K a year. So in 2009, the average Fotune 500 CEO took home over 310 times what the average worker did, or more than the worker could earn in seven lifetimes of labor in 40 year careers.
Okay. Sounds like a pretty good deal.
In 1989 the average CEO only took home a little over $2 million a year, while a worker made a litle over $32K per year, roughly 72:1. Worker pay went up 20% in 20 years, while CEO pay went up ~600%.
The increase in corporate CEO pay coincided with huge increases in American worker productivity, the profits from which where not shared but funneled upwards.
Kind of difficult to draw that conclusion from the available data.
That's the drawback of being an employee, however. You don't set your wages. You, and even I, may see our pay as unfair - but it's pay that can only be negotiated to a limited degree. That's part of working for another person. No matter "how I would run things" - I'm not running them.
Corporations do not create jobs, they destroy them. Whenever a corporation absorbs a smaller firm, they cut jobs in the name of efficiency. Effieciency for them, but highly ineficient for the society.
Any time you reduce the number of man-hours necessary to produce a good or service, it is a good thing. It will be more apparent later.
Pretty much every economic model I've studied says you need a minimum of seven or so top feeders in any industry to spur competition and drive prices down. As the number of top corporations drop in any given industry, so do the jobs, and the economy contracts.
As a fellow studier and builder of models - I can tell you that my model airplanes don't fly, and don't equate to the real thing. Also, I can build some good models - doesn't mean I can build a good airplane.
A good thing to keep in mind when studying and discussing models of intangible things like the economy.
Your models forget about one thing - creation of new markets and competitors. It's a factor that is often excluded because it is difficult, if not impossible to model and predict. Few economists anticipated the internet boom.
Most of my examples come from the electronics and computer technology industry - as that's the one I'm most familiar with when it comes to history.
We will go back to the glory days of electronics - Intel was an up and coming CPU manufacturing giant, but they lacked the foundry capacity to keep up with demand. They subcontracted to a little-known company known as American Micro Devices (AMD) to build the 8486 (commonly called the 486). As the first -real- 32bit processor, this thing was all the rage - particularly the DX version with its on-die arithmetic coprocessor that made it a real hit among the growing CAD industry.
AMD took a look at the design as they were building it and said "what a piece of crap" - and designed their own model that would work as a drop-in substitute. The architecture was more efficient on a per-clock basis, and the "AMD 486" started appearing alongside the "Intel 486."
A lawsuit, of course, ensued. The courts decided that Intel couldn't copyright a number, and AMD's design was not a violation of patents. Hence, the 8586 was titled the "Pentium" to give their product a unique title. AMD came to call their competitor to the Pentium the "Athlon."
AMD has since grown, and in 2008, they decided to split off their manufacturing department as an entirely separate business - "Global Foundries." GF would be its own separate entity and contract for production of AMD's designs (as well as other companies).
We've come full circle - from a subcontractor turned industry competitor to splitting off the manufacturing as a subcontractor. What prevents Global Foundries from taking the same route ten years down the line?
And that, there, is the free-market element. When a few -kids- got together with an idea for an online warehouse (Amazon.com), or graduate students developed the search engine coding for Google, they rapidly boomed and created hundreds - thousands of jobs out of 'thin air.'
The economy is always shifting and changing. As large corporations get larger, they end up fighting against the weight of their own operations. Many collapse, or begin to fragment, with smaller companies simply beating these large institutions to addressing changes in the market.
When we started consolidating agricultural operations, it meant the individual families and villages no longer had to have their own crops to maintain and live off of. They were suddenly free to take up other pursuits. When a thousand jobs are cut following a merger - that's a thousand people able to pursue other interests, or take their skills elsewhere.
Ingenuity and the ability to put that ingenuity to use drives the economy, not labor. People being free to take an idea for a good or service and run with it is what pushes the economy forward. Always has - always will be. We don't move forward in a "stable" economy where there aren't corporate mergers, fractures, and new businesses popping up and disappearing overnight.
A good CEO is worth a fair wage, but not over 300 times the average, absolutely no one is, much less 500 people. Do you realize that those 500 CEOs make more than 150,000 average workers? It makes no sense to pay them that much because there is no way they can possible generate as much economic activity as you would get if you cut their compensation in half and hired another 40 or 50,000 workers.
And what are you going to hire those 50,000 workers to do? Stand around and pick their butt? You have to have something for those workers to do. That requires one of two things - increased market share (or volume) within that company's market segment, or expanding into new markets. Expanding into new markets for large companies often requires billions, if they wish to be a major competitor. This also requires the formation of entire new departments and leadership and experienced positions.
Honestly - I'd tuck most of such surpluses away to develop new businesses on other market fronts (not necessarily split off parts of existing businesses into other markets), rather than hand them to a single individual or even divide them amongst the workers (having a healthy sum of black numbers in the corporate bank account is a pretty good service to the worker who looks for some sense of job security - when things get slow, I can still afford to pay them to do maintenance on the facilities without having to lay off).
But - it's not my money to work with. It's really not the CEO's either, unless the board of directors seems to think that's what he/she should be paid.
And the work is there: most people I know who have the luxury of a job complain about their workloads. It isn't that corporations don't have the work or the money to hire more workers. They actively choose not to in order to use the money on bloated executive salaries.
This is a "yes and no" sort of statement. From an employer standpoint, it's better to be overworked than it is to be standing around and looking for something to do. For example - a 20% manpower boost to the place I work at (assuming all competent workers) could easily bump our throughput up by 50+%. At that rate, we'd burn through April's work by the end of March, and we're looking at a bit of a slow-down about the time summer rolls around - though the higher-up margins have been looking to secure a few new contracts that supplement the work we do for the GBU-39 SDB, MALD, and RIM-67.
Well, in our building. In the other buildings, they don't have room for what they are doing, much less more people. Probably why the owners are buying up land like crazy around the area - they are looking to expand but have been locked up in small, unexpandable properties.
Generally, you find the work, then hire the people to do the work - rather than work in reverse.
What is stupid about capping wealth (and I do know the difference between wealth and income)? No one has a moral, ethical, legal or natural right to unlimited wealth. Show me the part of the Constitution that says so.
Here is where I vehemently disagree - to the point of bringing weaponry to the 'discussion' table.
The Constitution was not intended to be an inclusive list of rights - it was meant to be an exclusive list of restrictions on the power of the National government. Along with defining the National government's role and relationship to the states.
It would also be highly implied that, since one of the largest instigators of the revolutionary war stemmed from the increased taxation of Colonial products, that many of those who founded our country would have been shocked and even "pissed" over the notion of capping wealth.
To continue to accumulate wealth long past the point of satisfying every conceivable need is a sign of either mental illness (economic hoarding syndrome, let's call it) or sociopathy.
It's funny that you're against this whole deal in Wisconsin of restricting the benefits unions can lobby for... but for arbitrarily restricting wealth.
I would always have a need for such wealth. I've always got some idea for something or another - I want to create the "industry to end all industries" - not a monopoly, by any means - but a complete start-to-finish set of industries continually pushing the boundaries of manufacturing capability - building complex nanostructure meta-materials, high-energy physics applications, etc. I want to be one of the first to be out there mining asteroids and pioneering practical space travel and sustainability.
There will never be an end to my curiosity and never an end to my need for more funding to satisfy it.
I don't think that's on the plate of a number of people receiving such an income - but, again - it's not my income, and not my place to dictate how it is to be spent. It's also not my place to decide what their income should be. I may not agree with what they are getting paid.
Just like I don't agree with homosexuality, in general. I don't generally like abortion, or seeing Spanish on everything I buy at the store. I also hate the smell of someone smoking.
I just realize that it's not my place to ban everything I don't like or see as destructive.
Current wealth is always a zero-sum game: at any given time it is finite (infinite potential, but that's not the same thing) allowing X number of billionaires usually means ~10 millionX poor people.
And, yet, there is not a causal link between the number of ultra-wealthy and the poverty rate. Not even a correlation.
Capping wealth is a better and more civilized alternative to the historic method of correcting severe weath imbalances: the wholesale slaughter of the ruling class a la the French and Russian revolutions.
I'm going to do what I feel I need to do. Government and society be damned, if necessary. I would dismantle entire governments if I felt it necessary without so much as batting an eye. In short - society has no jurisdiction over me. I comply with laws because I see no reason not to comply at this point in time.
The problem with your idea is that you do the inverse - you preemptively correct severe wealth imbalances by slaughtering anyone who attempts to go above a certain metric point. Figuratively speaking, I suppose.
new topics
-
Israeli strikes on southern Gaza city of Rafah kill 22, mostly children, as US advances aid package
Middle East Issues: 1 hours ago -
Really Unexplained
Paranormal Studies: 6 hours ago -
The Vaccine Injured
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 6 hours ago -
Leading Surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital Dies in Israeli Custody
Middle East Issues: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Zionists of ATS assemble
Political Issues: 12 hours ago, 11 flags -
Leading Surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital Dies in Israeli Custody
Middle East Issues: 9 hours ago, 5 flags -
The Vaccine Injured
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 6 hours ago, 4 flags -
Really Unexplained
Paranormal Studies: 6 hours ago, 3 flags -
Israeli strikes on southern Gaza city of Rafah kill 22, mostly children, as US advances aid package
Middle East Issues: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Shocking moment four men 'try to force Jewish pedestrian into car boot' in North London
Breaking Alternative News • 85 • : 19Bones79 -
Zionists of ATS assemble
Political Issues • 86 • : Degradation33 -
Killings of Palestinian children are soaring in the West Bank.
World War Three • 180 • : FlyersFan -
Israeli strikes on southern Gaza city of Rafah kill 22, mostly children, as US advances aid package
Middle East Issues • 36 • : FlyersFan -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 798 • : Thoughtful3 -
Study Finds The More Covid Vaccine Doses You Have, the More Likely You Are to Get Covid
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 37 • : NoCorruptionAllowed -
Wounded Orangutan seen using a Plant as Medicine for the First Time
Fragile Earth • 28 • : andy06shake -
Leading Surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital Dies in Israeli Custody
Middle East Issues • 37 • : cherokeetroy -
UN Estimates Rebuilding Gaza Will Cost Up To 40 Billion Dollars
Middle East Issues • 79 • : Threadbarer -
Poll - Catholic Support Swings to Trump By Significant Margin
2024 Elections • 58 • : andy06shake