Liberal Hypocrisy

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.

Yeah, I've pointed it out before as well. Sometimes people rather believe a meme than actually thinking logically. It is far easier to feign outrage at a CEO getting $25 million than to actually think critically.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.

Yeah, I've pointed it out before as well. Sometimes people rather believe a meme than actually thinking logically. It is far easier to feign outrage at a CEO getting $25 million than to actually think critically.

In all fairness, Walmart is an extreme example. Not many companies have millions of employees. I just did Exxon, that has 17,000 employees and pays its CEO about $17M a year. They could rebalance that and give all their employees a much bigger raise than Walmart could, $4 a month instead of $1.33. Yay for social justice!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.

Yeah, I've pointed it out before as well. Sometimes people rather believe a meme than actually thinking logically. It is far easier to feign outrage at a CEO getting $25 million than to actually think critically.

In all fairness, Walmart is an extreme example. Not many companies have millions of employees. I just did Exxon, that has 17,000 employees and pays its CEO about $17M a year. They could rebalance that and give all their employees a much bigger raise than Walmart could, $4 a month instead of $1.33. Yay for social justice!

The thing is the bulk of that compensation is actually stock options which actually overstates how much of a raise each employee would get. The actual salary of the CEO of Exxon is about $3.875 million. The rest of the compensation is stock.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.

Yeah, I've pointed it out before as well. Sometimes people rather believe a meme than actually thinking logically. It is far easier to feign outrage at a CEO getting $25 million than to actually think critically.

In all fairness, Walmart is an extreme example. Not many companies have millions of employees. I just did Exxon, that has 17,000 employees and pays its CEO about $17M a year. They could rebalance that and give all their employees a much bigger raise than Walmart could, $4 a month instead of $1.33. Yay for social justice!

The thing is the bulk of that compensation is actually stock options which actually overstates how much of a raise each employee would get. The actual salary of the CEO of Exxon is about $3.875 million. The rest of the compensation is stock.

Yeah I was being generous. Not like it matters. The people who think cutting CEO pay would somehow boost blue-collar wages will probably think what you just said helps their case rather than what it actually does, which is cripples it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

This is a tired, old, debunked concept. CEO pay has virtually no impact on worker pay. Let me give you an example:

Walmart's CEO makes $24M. Walmart has 1.5 million employees. If you cut the CEO's pay to $50,000 a year and spread the other $23.95M around to the rest of the workers to make it "fair," they will get a raise of $16 PER YEAR. A whopping $1.33 a month raise by cutting the CEO pay down to something "fair."

In the meantime, Walmart would no longer be able to attract the best CEOs by paying only $50,000 a year and their business would probably suffer because of that, leading to lost jobs and eventually having to cut wages.

Like most progressive ideas, cutting CEO pay goes from a great idea to a terrible idea really fast if you apply a tiny bit of logical thought, and in this case some simple arithmetic. For some reason, this puts it beyond the understanding of many progressives.

Math and logic are hard for progressives. Amazing how easy it is to debunk the fat cat CEO meme with some basic math.

I really should make it its own thread. That stupid idea needs to die.

Yeah, I've pointed it out before as well. Sometimes people rather believe a meme than actually thinking logically. It is far easier to feign outrage at a CEO getting $25 million than to actually think critically.

In all fairness, Walmart is an extreme example. Not many companies have millions of employees. I just did Exxon, that has 17,000 employees and pays its CEO about $17M a year. They could rebalance that and give all their employees a much bigger raise than Walmart could, $4 a month instead of $1.33. Yay for social justice!

I must have done some common core math, it's actually $20 a month, not $4. $5 a week, or 12.5 cents an hour for a 40-hour week. Ooo, now we're really getting justicy!

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course they were a major driving force. What's your point? Also, unions started in the US in the 1880s, and began gaining steam around the time you linked me to.

Also, I wasnt talking about unions in the states, unions started during or shortly after the industrial revolution stated in europe, well before it caught on in the US.

I think what a lot of people seem to leave out of the equation is that with deindustrialization comes the shattering of unions, it's what happened when the neo liberal agenda kicked off in the 1970s. If industrial industry returns unions will most likely follow again. Or a system like what we see in basically everywhere else in the world, a more socialized one will arise.

a reply to: Edumakated

a reply to: Edumakated

Your post is another proof of how conservatives are lying, greedy antichrists. Jesus son of Joseph was the BIGGEST liberal/progressive in history.