Socialist entitlements are Not whats bankrupting our country

[Bum Luck]

WOW,, Again. Think you could post how evil corporations are on every single thread? Your perceptions are badly warped.

I didn't get that out of Book's post.

I remember when the CEO of General Motors made $4 million a year. That article in the Wall Street Journal generated a lot of comment.

I know one VP that got a $900,000 bonus and is amused at why he got it (unoffically anyway). One of those would be enough for me to live on and do the rest of my life of community service with great satisfaction.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[packerbacker]

Singapore was closer than the US ben.
Richest Countries in the World - World Top Ten

 

[packerbacker]

What you really need to look at is the lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of the citizens. That would be a tough call I would think.

 

[jerseyben]

Singapore was closer than the US ben.
Richest Countries in the World - World Top Ten

Yea it depends on how you define wealthiest. The US has the most wealthy people.

 

[Native Floridian]

Ah, the problem is wages arguement. I don't disagree with this, in that wages aren't what they were. I really disagree with the disconnect most people display for why wages are where they are.

The reason has little to do with greed. That is the greed beyond corporate survival. The primary reason is that we are no longer a local economy. 100 years ago the textile mills in North Carolina competed only with each other. Today they compete with mills around the world. The lowest cost supplier is the one that will survive. Today, in order for the Mills in North Carolina to compete they must cut cost. They are competing globally. The most expensive line item is employee wages. They do this to compete.

This same business model has played out across almost every industry. We as consumers demand the lowest prices for our goods. That's just the way the world works. The lowest cost provider is who wins.

The disconnect comes into play when the same people who demand the lowest prices also complain about the lower wages in play. That you can't have the lowest prices without lower wages seems lost on them. I scratch my head?

As for corp execs taking too big a slice of the pie for themselves - Ok there are examples of over doing it. Generally, though, the big paycheck is needed to attract the top talent. And talent in today's business world is a premium attribute.

Then there is this - profit. profit is why businesses exist. They aren't charities. They don't exist to make the world a better place, even though their product or service may do just that. In the end, it's about money. it is the engine that makes our economy go. It now makes the world's economy go.

With profit comes financial risk. The employees take no financial risk themselves. They are paid regardless of profit level. But what about those who do take that risk? Those who stake the company? Those who are willing to protect that stake by paying up big bucks for top managers and CEO? Do they deserve to be rewarded? Of course they do. Without them there is no company.

Those of you who own your own businesses or invest in other's businesses understand this perfectly. You took the risk, you deserve the reward. Without you there are no jobs. regardless of wage level.

Unfortunately, in times of recession pointing at those who make the big numbers becomes no more than an uninformed game of hate the rich.

 

[Dave44]

Ah, the problem is wages arguement. I don't disagree with this, in that wages aren't what they were. I really disagree with the disconnect most people display for why wages are where they are.

The reason has little to do with greed. That is the greed beyond corporate survival. The primary reason is that we are no longer a local economy. 100 years ago the textile mills in North Carolina competed only with each other. Today they compete with mills around the world. The lowest cost supplier is the one that will survive. Today, in order for the Mills in North Carolina to compete they must cut cost. They are competing globally. The most expensive line item is employee wages. They do this to compete.

This same business model has played out across almost every industry. We as consumers demand the lowest prices for our goods. That's just the way the world works. The lowest cost provider is who wins.

The disconnect comes into play when the same people who demand the lowest prices also complain about the lower wages in play. That you can't have the lowest prices without lower wages seems lost on them. I scratch my head?

As for corp execs taking too big a slice of the pie for themselves - Ok there are examples of over doing it. Generally, though, the big paycheck is needed to attract the top talent. And talent in today's business world is a premium attribute.

Then there is this - profit. profit is why businesses exist. They aren't charities. They don't exist to make the world a better place, even though their product or service may do just that. In the end, it's about money. it is the engine that makes our economy go. It now makes the world's economy go.

With profit comes financial risk. The employees take no financial risk themselves. They are paid regardless of profit level. But what about those who do take that risk? Those who stake the company? Those who are willing to protect that stake by paying up big bucks for top managers and CEO? Do they deserve to be rewarded? Of course they do. Without them there is no company.

Those of you who own your own businesses or invest in other's businesses understand this perfectly. You took the risk, you deserve the reward. Without you there are no jobs. regardless of wage level.

Unfortunately, in times of recession pointing at those who make the big numbers becomes no more than an uninformed game of hate the rich.

Uhmm Wow, good post!

 

[Bum Luck]

Ah, the problem is wages arguement. I don't disagree with this, in that wages aren't what they were. I really disagree with the disconnect most people display for why wages are where they are.

The reason has little to do with greed. That is the greed beyond corporate survival. The primary reason is that we are no longer a local economy. 100 years ago the textile mills in North Carolina competed only with each other. Today they compete with mills around the world. The lowest cost supplier is the one that will survive. Today, in order for the Mills in North Carolina to compete they must cut cost. They are competing globally. The most expensive line item is employee wages. They do this to compete.

This same business model has played out across almost every industry. We as consumers demand the lowest prices for our goods. That's just the way the world works. The lowest cost provider is who wins.

The disconnect comes into play when the same people who demand the lowest prices also complain about the lower wages in play. That you can't have the lowest prices without lower wages seems lost on them. I scratch my head?

As for corp execs taking too big a slice of the pie for themselves - Ok there are examples of over doing it. Generally, though, the big paycheck is needed to attract the top talent. And talent in today's business world is a premium attribute.

Then there is this - profit. profit is why businesses exist. They aren't charities. They don't exist to make the world a better place, even though their product or service may do just that. In the end, it's about money. it is the engine that makes our economy go. It now makes the world's economy go.

With profit comes financial risk. The employees take no financial risk themselves. They are paid regardless of profit level. But what about those who do take that risk? Those who stake the company? Those who are willing to protect that stake by paying up big bucks for top managers and CEO? Do they deserve to be rewarded? Of course they do. Without them there is no company.

Those of you who own your own businesses or invest in other's businesses understand this perfectly. You took the risk, you deserve the reward. Without you there are no jobs. regardless of wage level.

Unfortunately, in times of recession pointing at those who make the big numbers becomes no more than an uninformed game of hate the rich.

I'm going to risk making Dave upset - and I'm sure he deserves his top executive salary - but I'm not convinced that most CEOs are really as good as their salary multiplier, many hundreds of times of the average worker in the company.

I am going to exempt from my remarks those that built their company from the bottom up - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, and so on.

Do the the rest really add that much to the corporations?

 

[Dave44]

I'm going to risk making Dave upset - and I'm sure he deserves his top executive salary - but I'm not convinced that most CEOs are really as good as their salary multiplier, many hundreds of times of the average worker in the company.

I am going to exempt from my remarks those that built their company from the bottom up - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, and so on.

Do the the rest really add that much to the corporations?

You exempt some from your wage scale limit?

I don't deny that many CEOS of large companies probably aren't worth a hill of beans, Matter of fact it is starting to look like most CEO's are Lawyers, Simply living off of government cronyism. It is truly an epidemic now. And government is full of "business" owners that got rich simply by being in politics.

 

[Bum Luck]

You exempt some from your wage scale limit?

I don't deny that many CEOS of large companies probably aren't worth a hill of beans, Matter of fact it is starting to look like most CEO's are Lawyers, Simply living off of government cronyism. It is truly an epidemic now. And government is full of "business" owners that got rich simply by being in politics.

No wage scale limit? - don't know what you're talking about. Where did I mention that?

 

[Dave44]

No wage scale limit? - don't know what you're talking about. Where did I mention that?

You rascals. You do this to test my typing skills huh? Did you say this?
".... but I'm not convinced that most CEOs are really as good as their salary multiplier, many hundreds of times of the average worker in the company."

So you were not talking limits, what were you talking about? Simply too much more than the average worker? What range should it be?
Weird habit you all have.

 

[Bum Luck]

You rascals. You do this to test my typing skills huh? Did you say this?
".... but I'm not convinced that most CEOs are really as good as their salary multiplier, many hundreds of times of the average worker in the company."

So you were not talking limits, what were you talking about? Simply too much more than the average worker? What range should it be?
Weird habit you all have.

C'mon, Dave. the two statements don't equate.

noun
noun: limit; plural noun: limits

• 1.
  a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
  "the limits of presidential power"
  
  
  • the terminal point or boundary of an area or movement.
    "the city limits"
    [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]boundary, border, bound, frontier, edge, demarcation line; Moreperimeter, outside, confine, periphery, margin, rim
    "the city limits"
    
    
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    
    
    
    
  • the furthest extent of one's physical or mental endurance.
    "Mary Ann tried everyone's patience to the limit"
    [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
    [TD]utmost, breaking point, greatest extent More"resources are stretched to the limit"
    
    
    one's/the breaking point, the last straw;
    informalthe end, it, one's wits' end, one's/the max
    "I've reached my limit !"
    
    
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    
    
    
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
  "an age limit"
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]maximum, ceiling, limitation, upper limit;
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  
  

rascal: I'll buy that though. Thanks.

Reasonable. Being of a math turn of mind, I'm more likely than most to look at things from that viewpoint. The idea that CEO salaries are proportional to their contributions to their companies is a null hypothesis. They're simply not that statistically different from other talented people.

That isn't the end of my thinking on this though, just a start.

They are managers. They manage the company, along with a lot of others. It's more like a team. Most good companies are, and more, most good managers operate like that.

There is a tribal element to the corporate structure though; we still have a lot of tribal brain architecture. There is a lot of humor developed around that premise.

Of course, there is no "limit", just "reasonable".

 

[Dave44]

C'mon bum,

While you were busy trying to baffle with brilliance you could have included "Lower Limits", "outer limits", "unacceptable limits", or any myriad of social limits.

In reality it looks like you base your imagination in equal distribution, and whatever is acceptable to you and the other people that do not believe in exceptionalism?

Nice try at evasion.

 

[Bum Luck]

C'mon bum,

While you were busy trying to baffle with brilliance you could have included "Lower Limits", "outer limits", "unacceptable limits", or any myriad of social limits.

In reality it looks like you base your imagination in equal distribution, and whatever is acceptable to you and the other people that do not believe in exceptionalism?

Nice try at evasion.

Dave, you're the one who's evading - the focus. You're the one who brought up the word "limits". Whatever are you saying? Cough it up.

 

[davest]

could I ask? In times of recession is it normal to have record corporate profits and amazingly high incomes for the 1% or is it a case of "caviar for the rich, austerity for the rest"?

What does a hedge fund manager contribute to the growth of the economy?

 

[Dave44]

I'm going to risk making Dave upset - and I'm sure he deserves his top executive salary - but I'm not convinced that most CEOs are really as good as their salary multiplier, many hundreds of times of the average worker in the company.

I am going to exempt from my remarks those that built their company from the bottom up - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, and so on.

Do the the rest really add that much to the corporations?

Dave, you're the one who's evading - the focus. You're the one who brought up the word "limits". Whatever are you saying? Cough it up.

Well your brilliance has blinded me then? Whatever do you mean by the outlined thoughts bum? I guess it was rambling? Kind of a "doodle" with no real point to be made?
Do you feel stuck in a dead end job Bum?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Bum Luck:

Less than half of Dave44's average post actually responds to what someone else wrote. The balance is spin, interpretation, generalization, etc.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Dave44]

Bum Luck:

Less than half of Dave44's average post actually responds to what someone else wrote. The balance is spin, interpretation, generalization, etc.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Strike a nerve? If you would tell everyone your intentions we could have an honest discussion.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Dave44:

The "strike a nerve" pose is a cliche. I pointed out a fact, that anyone who reads these posts can verify.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Chadeaux]

Strike a nerve? If you would tell everyone your intentions we could have an honest discussion.

With his attitude, I sometimes think he might be related to Dano ... posting style is eerily similar, political view as well.

Beginning to wonder if the dems have mastered cloning.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]