bills_fan Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Usually the case when the economy takes a downturn. The less productive (at all income levels) are the first to go and the remaining get a larger workload. What's missing from our economy now IMO are many of the jobs that could be done by the masses without a lot of specialization or education. We're more specialized now. Showing up on time and working hard doesn't go as far as it once did. You have to add value to an organization. You mean decent paying jobs that could be done by the masses without a lot of specialization or education. Because Wal-Mart greeter jobs are out there, they just pay peanuts.
keepthefaith Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 You mean decent paying jobs that could be done by the masses without a lot of specialization or education. Because Wal-Mart greeter jobs are out there, they just pay peanuts. Caterpillar has an assembly plant in Illionois and they pay about $13 for entry level jobs there, about the same as what GM paid in Tonawanda in the 70's. Difference being you could raise a family on that in Bufalo then with a little overtime here and there. Same job 40 years later with the same requirements pays the same.
IDBillzFan Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Really? I'm pretty sure the last stimulus was a pretty good example of "trickle down" economics as a strategy. I'm sure the Democratic apologists wouldn't agree but it's not like they can really argue it, either. I read someone who referred to Obama's economic policy as "trickle up poverty."
Adam Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 I never quite understood why successful people and corporations are often demonized, oh yeah that's right, because most people aren't successful. Are you saying the poor and lazy don't get demonized too
billsfan89 Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 To quote Rebecca from Cheers you spend your whole life hating rich people until you become one then you start hating poor people.
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 To quote Rebecca from Cheers you spend your whole life hating rich people until you become one then you start hating poor people. which one was rebecca? was she the kinda hot one who's now fat?
GG Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 which one was rebecca? was she the kinda hot one who's now fat? So picking on poor people is bad, but picking on fat people is ok?
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 So picking on poor people is bad, but picking on fat people is ok? yes, all fat people are evil. i hate them
finknottle Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 It's not the case that the average CEO makes 300 times the average workers salary. According to the article, it is CEO's of the Fortune 500, the 500 companies in the US with the largest revenues. As revenue goes up, compensation at the top goes up. The salaries at the Fortune 500 should be considered outliers. By way of comparison, the top 5 non-profit CEO's took home about $2 million apiece in salary. That's probably 80 times the average salary of an average non-profit employee. Where's the outrage?
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 It's not the case that the average CEO makes 300 times the average workers salary. According to the article, it is CEO's of the Fortune 500, the 500 companies in the US with the largest revenues. As revenue goes up, compensation at the top goes up. The salaries at the Fortune 500 should be considered outliers. By way of comparison, the top 5 non-profit CEO's took home about $2 million apiece in salary. That's probably 80 times the average salary of an average non-profit employee. Where's the outrage? there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year. do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make only 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't.
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year? do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't. Just out of curiosity, who are you...or anyone...to determine when someone has "earned enough" income? Are you suggesting the federal government should set a salary cap for private industry? Or maybe you're suggesting the federal government should decide precisely how much can be earned in certain professions? Maybe heart surgeons should earn CEO salaries and CEOs should earn a heart surgeon's salary because, ummmm, why? Because you think so? Jesus.
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 there should be outrage. the average from the 1940's to 80's was 40x. 80 is obviously twice that. have ceo's become twice as good? twice as valuable? twice as productive? are they worth more than professionals in other fields with equivalent or more education and similar levels of responsibilities? There are very few lawyers or doctors (even neurosurgeons or heart surgeons) making anywhere near $2mil/year. do you think they're underpaid? i don't (and i'm one of those professionals). there's no shortage of applicants for professional school with remuneration set at more reasonable levels. ya think the best and brightest would give up the quest for CEOdom if they were gonna make only 40X average? I think 80X average is unjustifiable. it appears you don't. It's the price of freedom. People can pay others what they choose for their services and free to sell their services to the highest bidder. Freedom isn't free, there's a hefty fkn fee.
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 Just out of curiosity, who are you...or anyone...to determine when someone has "earned enough" income? Are you suggesting the federal government should set a salary cap for private industry? Or maybe you're suggesting the federal government should decide precisely how much can be earned in certain professions? Maybe heart surgeons should earn CEO salaries and CEOs should earn a heart surgeon's salary because, ummmm, why? Because you think so? Jesus. yes, i'm suggesting a cap. unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is failing and will continue to fail unless some reasonable limits are placed. i believe consensus could be reached on what is reasonable. Many factors could go into determining what someones skills are worth including rarity, value to society, need for incentives to pursue difficult career paths etc... it would be much better than the womb lottery and old boys network that often determines compensation now
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 yes, i'm suggesting a cap. unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is failing and will continue to fail unless some reasonable limits are placed. i believe consensus could be reached on what is reasonable. Many factors could go into determining what someones skills are worth including rarity, value to society, need for incentives to pursue difficult career paths etc... it would be much better than the womb lottery and old boys network that often determines compensation now I gotta ask, where has it failed?
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 yes, i'm suggesting a cap. unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is failing and will continue to fail unless some reasonable limits are placed. i believe consensus could be reached on what is reasonable. Many factors could go into determining what someones skills are worth including rarity, value to society, need for incentives to pursue difficult career paths etc... it would be much better than the womb lottery and old boys network that often determines compensation now If you eliminate the rich, who are you going to tax?
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 yes, i'm suggesting a cap. unfettered, uncontrolled capitalism is failing and will continue to fail unless some reasonable limits are placed. i believe consensus could be reached on what is reasonable. Many factors could go into determining what someones skills are worth including rarity, value to society, need for incentives to pursue difficult career paths etc... it would be much better than the womb lottery and old boys network that often determines compensation now This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board, and that includes every tidbit ever typed by Conner. The minute you cap earning potential in the private sector, you can kiss your country's leadership goodbye. Unless, y'know, that's not important to you. And I suspect it's not. But at least you're honest. Ridiculous, but honest. If you eliminate the rich, who are you going to tax? We'll figure that out later. Right now we must STOP people from earning what they want because that idea has failed. Besides, we have a printing press.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 Whatever happened to the "Evil Capitalist" dude with the Snerdley avatar?
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2010 Author Posted July 22, 2010 This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board, and that includes every tidbit ever typed by Conner. The minute you cap earning potential in the private sector, you can kiss your country's leadership goodbye. Unless, y'know, that's not important to you. And I suspect it's not. But at least you're honest. Ridiculous, but honest. We'll figure that out later. Right now we must STOP people from earning what they want because that idea has failed. Besides, we have a printing press. sure, the scandanavian countries are so much worse off than us right now and have no leadership.
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sure, the scandanavian countries are so much worse off than us right now and have no leadership. Well, in fairness, where would the world be without Ikea? The leader in cheap furniture. Maybe if we stunt American ingenuity we could make our own cheap furniture, and even name it something we can understand. Are you for real, or is this one of those conversations that's going to end with "Geez, guys, I was just kidding."
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2010 Posted July 22, 2010 sure, the scandanavian countries are so much worse off than us right now and have no leadership. Since when do Scandinavian countries cap private salaries?
Recommended Posts