Stubby Member
You know, you force employers to pay their employees more and then they lay people off, or they increase cost, which could lead to the same result. You go after the job creators and they won't create jobs, this is pretty simple shit. Obamacare is one big question mark up hanging up there for some companies, who won't hire until they see how bad it'll hit them. Stop being angry at the rich, they aren't all greedy assholes, and they're not all screwing you.Originally Posted by theruiner
Active Member
I never said they were all greedy assholes. And I'm sorry, but having to work three jobs just to make ends meet because the minimum wage in this country is so low is completely unacceptable. Maybe that's the society you enjoy living in, but I sure as hell don't.
And yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for the guy at the top making a hundred million a year while everyone on the bottom makes seven bucks an hour. OH WOE IS THEM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Sometimes the best response is satire
Hairy Member
Jesus, man, seriously? Yeah, poor CEOs FORCED to pay their employees a livable wage, life is real fucking hard for them. I guess maybe, MAYBE, if CEOs' wages weren't over 300 times higher than the average worker's in the US(and the second highest figure in the world is 50), then a little bit of money would be freed up, and these corporations might be able to handle the higher costs of treating their workers fairly.
You're right, though, it is pretty simple shit: you see, if consumers aren't buying anything, and companies are losing revenue, they have no reason to hire anyone. Pretty simple, right? More money in the pockets of average Americans, kind of automatically means more revenue for businesses. This isn't advanced stuff, man, in fact it's pretty simple economics. If there's no one to buy goods and services, businesses have no incentive to hire. In fact, they're better off closing shop and downsizing; no matter how much capital is thrown at a company, it's going to SIT ON IT unless there are people to BUY what they're offering.
Throbbing Member
Aaron, what is a fair pay ratio for bottom-rung grunt to CEO?
Throbbing Member
This is so funny. Do you know what is being asked of them in comparison to before? Do you have any idea how much these people USED to be taxed compared to now? Also stop kidding yourself. The big thing they are being asked to do is pay people an almost living wage. They use labor from abroad because they are allowed to hire people for miniscule amounts (that I consider to be evil). Do you not remember how a lack of regulation got us into this mess? Not to mention how can you ignore the wealth disparity in comparison to what it used to be. The top 400 earners in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 150 MILLION. I don't want to live in a country like this.
Not to mention these big earners have Washington by the balls, when Washington are supposed to be representing the people. Oh yes, they are being asked to do too much. If only they ever got their way.
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 12-09-2011 at 05:01 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
It's impossible to decide upon a "fair" ratio, but it should be startling to see how much more outrageous the divergence is in the United States by comparison to every other industrialized nation.
Throbbing Member
Steven Pearlstein wrote in the Washington Post:
"We already know from numerous studies that chief executives of large U.S. corporations make hundreds of times what an average worker makes, with the gap growing steadily wider. We also know it's possible to run successful advanced market economies with large corporations where the ratio is 25-1 (Britain), 13-1 (Sweden), 11-1 (Germany) and 10-1 (Japan). Whether the ratio at Exxon-Mobil last year was 320-to-1 or 276-to-1 seems rather beside the point."
Pretty startling numbers.
Active Member
But they're the job creators, guys! We can't piss off the job creators! Give them whatever they want, as long as they keep creating those jobs! Oh, what's that? They're not creating jobs? Well, they need a bigger tax cut, then! What's that? They're not paying very much already? Well, what do they want? Sacrifice some virgins if you have to, I don't care, just give them what they want!
You can't see it right now, but my eyes have rolled into the back of my head.
Throbbing Member
For any non-US friends and folks here who have seen candidate Rick Perry's recent online ads: what do you think?
Flaccid Member
While I'm not surprised, it's still outrageous. The worst kind of right-wing populism (arguably second-worst, with anti-immigration-populism on top of the pedistal). "Omg, we need to take the country back from teh gays and let our schools openly discriminate against non-christian religions, so we can become the 'strong christian nation' we once were!" Yes, that will fix the economy!
Stubby Member
I was researching my mothers Morman geneology on the internet and discovered we are related to Mitt Romney. We share the same great, great, great Grandfather; Philemon Duzette. I think that makes us cousins. How weird is that? This doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him though.
Hairy Member
I appreciate everyone else chiming in, but I want to call attention to this question. It's a real bait-and-switch, and it's pretty nonsensical, too. No one asked what the ratio should be between the CEO and the "bottom-rung" as you say. The ratio in question is between the CEO and the AVERAGE WORKER. But let's play your game. The bottom-rung, as you say, would make minimum wage. In the most generous minimum-wage state, Washington, a minimum-wage worker would make a yearly salary of $17,784. That's full-time. The average CEO of a large company made about $11 million in yearly salary in 2010. That's not counting bonuses, stock options, capital gains, etc. Let's see, 11 million divided by about 18,000? It's about 600. 600 times more. Obviously, it's unfair to just throw that number around, but since you brought it up, what do you think of it? An American working hard for 40 hours (or more) a week, often with little to no chance for advancement, makes over 600 times less than the guy at the top of the food chain. Does that seem fair? Does 340 seem like a fair number, even for the median worker? Does it seem fair, when put into context, that in the United Kingdom CEOs and corporations are doing just fine, and the number is closer to 25?
I'd also like to reiterate: throwing money at companies does NOT create jobs. This has been proven time and time again. More money in the pockets of consumers creates jobs. When people don't spend money, businesses retract and sit on their capital. When people do spend money, businesses expand and hire. Give small start-ups tax cuts, fine. But if there is no one to buy your product, you have no reason to expand your business.
Stubby Member
Let's not pretend like the guys at the top of the food chain don't work hard and long hours either presently or have at some point in their careers, if not more than those below them. That they didn't take tremendous risks and make sacrifices to get where they are, or had a vision, idea, or talent that those below them simply didn't possess. There are certainly cases where people have simply walked into these positions based on family, friends, or situations, but I would be willing to bet that the top of the food chain has put in significant amounts of work and risk to get where they're at. Does it make it fair for them to be 600 times more wealthy than a minimum wage worker? I find that debatable.
Active Member
It shouldn't be debatable. It's flat out wrong. I don't know how any human being with any sense of compassion or common sense can look at the people at the bottom barely scrapping by then look at the people at the top screwing over the people at the bottom and making 600 TIMES more than them and go, "Well, I'm really not sure the guys at the top are doing anything wrong." If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a blatant, "I've got mine so fuck you" attitude from the top.
Not to mention the blatant corruption of our government from corporate money. You really think the rules are fair? You really think that corporate money and influence isn't helping to skew all the odds in favor of the rich? You really think that it's an even playing field and the people on the bottom have a fair chance of making it out? If you do, you're delusional.
Last edited by theruiner; 12-09-2011 at 08:05 PM.
Throbbing Member
Exactly. If it were a fair system (or an even acceptable one) then these numbers wouldn't exist. We are at the point where nohting is morally wrong if you make a profit out of it. Then its simply "can you blame them?" Yes. Yes I can.
Active Member
Morally it's reprehensible, but I long ago gave up on expecting morality out of these people. What we need is corporate money out of politics and stricter regulation. They need to pay their fair share of taxes, there has to actually be a living wage in this country, people need to be able to get access to healthcare without going bankrupt in the process...
There's a lot that needs to be done. But for someone to defend these people? Or worry about scaring away the poor wittle "job creators" by asking them to pay more in taxes? Ridiculous. And completely ignoring the reality that we live in.
Throbbing Member
The taxes thing drives me absolutely insane. You have people that are yearning for a time when the middle class thrived but won't admit that taxes on the top dollar were in the 80's and 90s percentage wise. COMMUNISM!
gettin' jiggy wit it
For every idea or business that's conceived and is successful, dozens of others fail, regardless of the time and effort of the person behind it. They put in just as much time and risk into their endeavor as the successful ones. And plenty at the bottom of the "food chain" work their asses off (and always have) just to survive. Like 2 or more minimum-wage jobs (part time, they don't pay benefits most places).
Nobody's debating that some people "deserve" a higher income than others! Well, not me, anyway. The inequity is staggering, though, even among the top 1%. I think the 1%'s income starts at 500K or so, not really deserving of sympathy, but the targets are banking executives and CEO's that run their companies into the dirt yet still make astounding amounts of money.
I'm a doctor. I'm comfortable financially, but not in the 1%. But I worked my fucking ass off to get where I'm at. To hear people say that super-rich people "deserve" their money because they "work hard" and "take risks" makes my blood boil. Especially when used to justify cuts to food stamps, health care, etc. FOOD STAMPS?! We'd rather let children starve than tax millionaires a little bit more in taxes.
Sick.
Last edited by sublimaze; 12-09-2011 at 09:59 PM.
Stubby Member
Ya I'm not budging on this, someone like Steve Jobs is worth infinitely more value than someone that flips burgers, and theruiner, not every CEO is out to screw those below them.
Im also generally in opposition to any sort of welfare or entitlement programs, I believe they've caused more harm than aid over the long haul.
Active Member
Well, Steve Jobs certainly did.
And any CEO that makes millions of dollars while the people on the bottom make minimum wage is screwing over their employees. And, for the SECOND time, I never said every CEO was like that. And that isn't a counter-argument for anything we've said.
Well, aren't you full of compassion? Yeah, definitely dude. Every man, woman and child for themselves. Who cares if people starve in the streets? Fuck 'em. They should have decided to be Steve Jobs instead of flipping burgers, even if they are only a child.Im also generally in opposition to any sort of welfare or entitlement programs, I believe they've caused more harm than aid over the long haul.
So...let me get this straight. You're not for raising the minimum wage, so the people at the bottom can't make enough to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. You have no problem with CEOs making 600 times the salary of the people at the bottom, thus ensuring that they probably can't make enough to make ends meet. And on top of that, you're against any government program designed to help them from starving in the street. Do I have that right? Should we just shoot the poor and get it over with? Put them out of their misery?
Last edited by theruiner; 12-09-2011 at 10:21 PM.
gettin' jiggy wit it
Forget him. Just like he forgets that Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare when she got old. We're arguing with a block of concrete, here. As he/she already told us.
Bite me
Watch this movie to see where all these huge salaries started ..
btw, I made minimum wage in high school. It was $3.25 per hour. I got $1.00 per hour babysitting. Whoa. But, that's capitalism. Minimum wage is a stepping stone, not a career choice. That's capitalism. We used to have SLAVES in this country. The cheaper the labor, the cheaper the goods. It's the American way. When companies are faced with the dilemma of turning a profit vs. human rights, they'll usually choose profit. Because, ultimately, more people "benefit" from turning a profit. (Or, so they say.) The middle and top stand on the backs of the bottom. That's capitalism.
Last edited by allegro; 12-10-2011 at 02:42 PM.
Add Violins
Man, I am so fucking tired of seeing the worshipful idolization of people like Steve Jobs.
Honestly, some people have the most backwards values, always taking the side of the wrong people. They'll be tripping all over themselves in awe of some "titan of industry," gushing with admiration for his success, and meanwhile they have little to no concern for people who are forced to rot at the bottom of society. That's why I'm so repelled by that absurd free market Ayn Rand horseshit, where the "leaders" are venerated for their so-called contributions to mankind while the "moochers" down below are disdained. It's such an undeniably immoral ideology, and yet it seems to indoctrinate people so deeply that they become incapable of seeing obvious truths.
And that's also why I roll my eyes at these right-wingers who cry "class warfare!" anytime someone dares to ask for a decent wage. Our "heroes" of industry are the ones who started this class warfare a long time ago.
Bite me
This. Exactly.
Throbbing Member
Really were now actually saying a person is only as valuable as their assets and business success? Steve Jobs owes a lot to the people he pays FOR ALMOST NOTHING in Chinese factories that sustain a system that's nothing short of indentured servitude.
Bite me
Please, can we NOT get into China? I've been doing my grad school work and research on China and it's WAY different than the vast majority of you understand. Let's focus on the Presidential race and ignore the incendiary non sequitur comments?
Last edited by allegro; 12-10-2011 at 09:40 PM.
Stubby Member
Ya, except they didn't create the original vision and design, they only build it. Listen, you're not going to get me to see it the way most of you do. I mean you all talk about how important it is for the workers to work and have jobs, while unions and federal boards tried to halt the Boeing plant in South Carolina which had 4000 immediate jobs available and arguably more. Obama and his labor goons say they want job creation, but here they are actively trying to stifle it. Sorry companies are becoming wise to the fact that union labor is for the most part total shit. That's okay though, I get to pay for a bunch of their benefits while trying to look out for my own interests. I'm compassionate, I give the homeless food and money, I feel bad for the situations of some people, but at some point you have to say enough is enough.
Throbbing Member
Sorry. I was referring to that specific case (which I think everyone should have the right to criticize) and didn't mean to generalize about China's economy and workforce.
Bite me
Understood. It's a vast, complicated, political socioeconomic topic that would most certainly drift this thread, and you apparently understand that. Awesome. (Even the Apple case is not completely understood by the West and the media info that we're getting is greatly slanted. The labor unions in China are handling it, and Apple should be paying attention since it is in the middle of a complicated, growing state capitalist system, for which we all benefit greatly, of course. As I type this from a 27" iMac.)
On a different note, I'm oddly drawn to Mitt Romney. Maybe I've been watching too many episodes of Sister Wives.
Last edited by allegro; 12-10-2011 at 11:17 PM.
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
