People Power [Archive] - Page 3

Malbec

18th November 2011, 00:56

What you say here is correct. However, just as the banks were starting to sort everything out, the govenment got wind of things, said "something" must be done, give us a bit to figure it out. So the credit market remained frozen while the government sorted out what "must be done". Then they came back with the cockamamie scheme of forcing the top nine banks to take billions in federal loans even if they didn't need them want them and said no to them. Then things got really interesting because you had banks which were forced to add money to their books they didn't want or need, so they ended up buying up more banks, making them not just too big to fail but too enormous to fail now. That really seemed to work out just swell. And to top it all off, employment went in the tank and hasn't even made an attempt at recovery. Credit is extremely had to get even if you have well established credit. The housing market hasn't recovered, and is still sliding in many areas. And inflation is starting to kick in.

How exactly has government intervention made things better here?

Are you kidding?

You realise that the CEO of Goldman Sachs along with other financial institutions actually cried as they begged for bailout money?

None of them were forced to take a penny. Do not rewrite history for your convenience.

It is the desperation that these financial institutions showed when they were on their knees contrasting with their arrogance now as they claim they didn't need the bailout money that is so distasteful.

Now you say that credit is still hard to get, how much easier would out have been if the government hadn't underwritten those banks three years ago?

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

Bob Riebe

18th November 2011, 03:23

In that case, would you complain if someone here were to wish, say, a terrorist attack against a major corporation or financial institution? I think we know full well that you would consider it in bad taste and go on a rant about 'vacuous rhetoric' or some such familiar thing.
No a terrorist attack is people killing people; a tsunami is an act of nature.

You could say a hurricane so strong, it sucked out all the windows in a building and leeches inside with them.

Bob Riebe

18th November 2011, 03:29

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.Yep and these boys just asked for another 13 billion of our tax money.

Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams and Freddie Mac CEO Charles Haldeman have received, along with eight other executives, a combined $13 million in bonuses for their work at the failing companies. In the hearing before the House Oversight Committee, they argued that their compensation levels are necessary to attract the talented workers needed to see the companies through difficult times.

“We need to compensate our executives and employees to ensure that we have and keep the leadership we need to continue our progress,” Williams said.

chuck34

18th November 2011, 14:37

Are you kidding?

You realise that the CEO of Goldman Sachs along with other financial institutions actually cried as they begged for bailout money?

None of them were forced to take a penny. Do not rewrite history for your convenience.

It is the desperation that these financial institutions showed when they were on their knees contrasting with their arrogance now as they claim they didn't need the bailout money that is so distasteful.

Now you say that credit is still hard to get, how much easier would out have been if the government hadn't underwritten those banks three years ago?

Sure things are not easy with government intervention, i'm arguing things would have been worse without.

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

You are arguing things would have been worse. Perhaps you are right, at least in the short term. But this has been dragging on for basically three years now with no end in sight. I'm not sure that once you figure in the length of this, that you can claim a short painful crash would have been "worse".

BDunnell

18th November 2011, 18:40

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

Is there not some degree of good sense behind that, in that it stopped people panicking about their money (a la the absurd scenes at Northern Rock branches in the UK)?

Malbec

18th November 2011, 19:26

On GS you are right they "needed" the money. But reports at the time, and some private conversations I have heard about, say that the government made the top 9 banks take money so that no one could know for sure which banks were ok and which were not.

You are arguing things would have been worse. Perhaps you are right, at least in the short term. But this has been dragging on for basically three years now with no end in sight. I'm not sure that once you figure in the length of this, that you can claim a short painful crash would have been "worse".

chuck, GS didn't "need" money as you put it, they NEEDED money with full capital bold underlined letters. As for your claim that the Fed forced banks to take their money I see no evidence for that although it would have added liquidity to the system. If the Fed did what the British did and charged exorbitant levels of interest (10-12% with added penalties for failure to repay) to the banks then I think those banks 'forced' to take that money would have kicked up a hell of a stink.

In the UK the government did not force anyone to take money, in fact HSBC who had run a very tight ship throughout were offended at the talk of bailouts. Barclays thought about it but turned to Arab investors instead as they were not in so much trouble. Money was lent to the banks that needed it at exorbitant rates and I'm pretty certain the government made a small profit out of that initial bailout, although it has subsequently had to take shares in two British banks.

chuck34

18th November 2011, 21:12

chuck, GS didn't "need" money as you put it, they NEEDED money with full capital bold underlined letters. As for your claim that the Fed forced banks to take their money I see no evidence for that although it would have added liquidity to the system. If the Fed did what the British did and charged exorbitant levels of interest (10-12% with added penalties for failure to repay) to the banks then I think those banks 'forced' to take that money would have kicked up a hell of a stink.

In the UK the government did not force anyone to take money, in fact HSBC who had run a very tight ship throughout were offended at the talk of bailouts. Barclays thought about it but turned to Arab investors instead as they were not in so much trouble. Money was lent to the banks that needed it at exorbitant rates and I'm pretty certain the government made a small profit out of that initial bailout, although it has subsequently had to take shares in two British banks.

I am posting from a phone so it is extremely hard to post links. However if you simply google "banks forced to take tarp" you will get a quick education on the subject. I am not simply making it up as you suggest.

ioan

18th November 2011, 21:42

ioan

18th November 2011, 21:44

Yep and these boys just asked for another 13 billion of our tax money.

Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams and Freddie Mac CEO Charles Haldeman have received, along with eight other executives, a combined $13 million in bonuses for their work at the failing companies. In the hearing before the House Oversight Committee, they argued that their compensation levels are necessary to attract the talented workers needed to see the companies through difficult times.

“We need to compensate our executives and employees to ensure that we have and keep the leadership we need to continue our progress,” Williams said.

Looks like they were reading Dilbert, oh wait...

chuck34

18th November 2011, 21:48

:up: Agree.
Funny how some people have such short memories.

Not all financial institutions needed, wanted, or desired tarp funds.

Funny how some that are ignorant chastise others' memories.

ioan

18th November 2011, 21:51

Not all financial institutions needed, wanted, or desired tarp funds.

Funny how some that are ignorant chastise others' memories.

OK, only 90% needed it.

BTW in the US you can force a bank to take money they don't need?

chuck34

18th November 2011, 22:00

OK, only 90% needed it.

BTW in the US you can force a bank to take money they don't need?

It was less than 90%

And yes the federal government has been allowed to grow so powerful in this country that they can force people to do pretty much whatever they want. In this particular case it was "take this money or we will saddle you with so many investigations and plug up your offices with so many investigators that you will literally not be able to conduct business".

Bolton Midnight

18th November 2011, 23:40

Glad to see them move the smelly rentamobs out.

in the UK most of these protesters go home to the home counties, hypocrites with their iphones and the like. Batter them.

Malbec

19th November 2011, 00:08

I am posting from a phone so it is extremely hard to post links. However if you simply google "banks forced to take tarp" you will get a quick education on the subject. I am not simply making it up as you suggest.

OK fair enough I was wrong.

Interesting to hear quotes from the BoA CEO claiming that the TARPs were much needed at the time and things would have been much worse without them.

Before you deride others though chuck perhaps you ought to wonder if your claim that the credit crunch was government caused is correct. Was the government responsible for packaging home loans of different credit ratings as AAA?

The problem with this 'debate' is that you've already predecided that government is at fault. The banks misbehave, its the governments fault for mishandling the aftermath. If the government tries to preempt problems, its their fault for misbehaving. Try taking a step back.

chuck34

19th November 2011, 00:56

OK fair enough I was wrong.

Interesting to hear quotes from the BoA CEO claiming that the TARPs were much needed at the time and things would have been much worse without them.

Before you deride others though chuck perhaps you ought to wonder if your claim that the credit crunch was government caused is correct. Was the government responsible for packaging home loans of different credit ratings as AAA?

The problem with this 'debate' is that you've already predecided that government is at fault. The banks misbehave, its the governments fault for mishandling the aftermath. If the government tries to preempt problems, its their fault for misbehaving. Try taking a step back.

Have I once said the banks were not at fault? Have I once defended the banks? No quite the opposite in fact, I have said all along that they were in the wrong and that they should have suffered the consequences.

It is the government's fault for mishandling the aftermath of this bubble. It is also the government's fault for not properly investigating the GSEs (Fannie and Freddy). Bush requested that investigation numerous times, only to be stopped by Rep Frank ans Senator Dodd. And no Bush is not blameless either, he could have done more.

The whole situation is and was a mess. My whole argument is that the banks made a bunch of shady deals, and should have paid rhe price for them. But there were many points where the government stepped in "to make thimgs better for the greater good" only to make things worse. Their policies continued to inflate a housing bubble that should have never been inflated, or at the very least popped early on before much damage would have been done. Or failing that, they should have gotten out if the way and let the free market and well established bankruptcy proceedings take their natural course so that we could have moved through a very painful (yet natural and necessary) period of market correction.

ioan

19th November 2011, 11:36

It was less than 90%

And yes the federal government has been allowed to grow so powerful in this country that they can force people to do pretty much whatever they want. In this particular case it was "take this money or we will saddle you with so many investigations and plug up your offices with so many investigators that you will literally not be able to conduct business".

There goes the land of freedom tag down the drain. ;)
Not that it's anything new.

ioan

20th November 2011, 23:19

Rollo

20th November 2011, 23:39

Well well, look what happens in the land of freedom:

Officers in pepper spray incident placed on leave - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/officers-pepper-spray-incident-placed-leave-182151195.html)

We can do better than that. Here's the video:
UC Davis Protestors Pepper Sprayed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4)

Aren't people in the United States supposed to have some kind of right to peaceful assembly or something?

Bolton Midnight

21st November 2011, 09:24

Give the unwashed a good kicking, all they are good for.

Dave B

21st November 2011, 15:10

Or, put another way, assault innocent protesters in direct violation of their human rights and the US constitution.

Bolton Midnight

21st November 2011, 15:17

Not just the American ones, they are achieving nothing and are just getting in the way and creating a health hazard, give them 24hrs to leave, then batter those still left.

But make sure it isn't done at night or when cold as the hypocrites won't be there then they will have sloped off to mummy and daddy's mansion to enjoy the trappings of capitalism.

That'll learn em.

race aficionado

21st November 2011, 16:55

they are achieving nothing . . . .

Pissing you off for sure. Trying to 'learn" you too.

:s mokin:

Bolton Midnight

21st November 2011, 17:10

Pissing you off for sure. Trying to 'learn" you too.

:s mokin:

Fortunately I don't come into contact with these wasters as I'm Oop North where they know they'd get short shrift at best but probably a good kicking for being hypocritical soft Southern Jessies.

Bolton Midnight

21st November 2011, 17:26

Doubt it, watching QT the other week and they kept on mentioning how bad it was in the North East.

And not forgetting the huge percentage of public sector jobs in traditional Labour stronghold (vote buying) - so when they get the axe it'll make it worse.

BBC News - Unemployment in graphics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117)

Sorry it is not from the Guardian but Beeb is almost as biased, so will it do?

race aficionado

21st November 2011, 19:44

People Power taking a beating in Egypt (with all respect for those who have perished)

And the movement continues . . .

one of many links:

Cairo clashes rage on, 24 people killed - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57328507/cairo-clashes-rage-on-20-people-killed/)

Rollo

21st November 2011, 22:14

Worth a look - XKCD: xkcd: Money (http://xkcd.com/980/)

Worker/CEO Pay Comparision:
1965 Production Worker Average Hourly Wage: $19.61
2007 Production Worker Average Hourly Wage: $19.71
Typical 1965 CEO Pay For The Same Period: $490.31
Typical 2007 CEO Pay For The Same Period: $5419.97

The US's 400 richest people have a greater combined net worth than the poorest 50% of the country.

BDunnell

21st November 2011, 23:08

Give the unwashed a good kicking, all they are good for.

Were someone to be so rude as to suggest that all you were good for is a good kicking, would you consider this offensive? I should imagine you would. Why mete out such rudeness to others, then?

race aficionado

21st November 2011, 23:26

Were someone to be so offensive as to suggest that all you were good for is a good kicking, would you consider this offensive? I should imagine you would. Why mete out such rudeness to others, then?

Because he has a wind farm in his pants!

whoops! wrong thread, sorry. :D

It's a joke dammit!! :s mokin:

. . . and yes, BDunnell, I agree with with you. Let's do our best to be civil. And that is not a joke.

Bob Riebe

22nd November 2011, 04:51

Were someone to be so rude as to suggest that all you were good for is a good kicking, would you consider this offensive? I should imagine you would. Why mete out such rudeness to others, then?

This would say that is all they are worth. From the New York Post.

By CANDICE M. GIOVE

Occupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel

Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his s****y platinum-card room

chuck34

22nd November 2011, 13:00

ioan

22nd November 2011, 19:20

Bob Riebe

22nd November 2011, 21:23

BDunnell

22nd November 2011, 21:41

These figures are based on what?
In 1965 my father was working for 3M and had been for over a decade, he waas making less than five dollars an hour.

In what sense does your father's rate of pay in 1965 necessarily have any bearing on the matter? The figures quoted are averages. You do know what 'average' means, don't you?

Rollo

22nd November 2011, 21:47

These figures are based on what?
In 1965 my father was working for 3M and had been for over a decade, he waas making less than five dollars an hour.

I take it that you a> didn't follow the link and b> didn't read through the list of cited sources

The Sources are here: http://xkcd.com/980/sources/DataDump.csv
An opening note says:
This chart is entirely in 2011Dollars
Every value associated with a year before 2011 was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Nearly every amount has a cited source - when possible a scholarly work or government publication

In this case:
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 - Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz - Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_State_of_Working_America_2008_2009.html?id=_iF PW3TXlN4C&redir_esc=y)

BDunnell

22nd November 2011, 22:49

I take it that you a> didn't follow the link and b> didn't read through the list of cited sources

The Sources are here: http://xkcd.com/980/sources/DataDump.csv
An opening note says:
This chart is entirely in 2011Dollars
Every value associated with a year before 2011 was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Nearly every amount has a cited source - when possible a scholarly work or government publication

In this case:
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 - Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz - Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_State_of_Working_America_2008_2009.html?id=_iF PW3TXlN4C&redir_esc=y)

You mean the sole source of data wasn't Bob's father?

Bob Riebe

23rd November 2011, 06:31

I take it that you a> didn't follow the link and b> didn't read through the list of cited sources

The Sources are here: http://xkcd.com/980/sources/DataDump.csv
An opening note says:
This chart is entirely in 2011Dollars
Every value associated with a year before 2011 was adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Nearly every amount has a cited source - when possible a scholarly work or government publication

In this case:
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz
The State of Working America, 2008/2009 - Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, Heidi Shierholz - Google Books (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_State_of_Working_America_2008_2009.html?id=_iF PW3TXlN4C&redir_esc=y)The only thing that came up when I hit the original link was some one trying to sell me a chart.
My computer will not the first here either.

Bob Riebe

23rd November 2011, 06:32

You mean the sole source of data wasn't Bob's father?My father is dead. What is your point?

Bob Riebe

23rd November 2011, 06:45

In what sense does your father's rate of pay in 1965 necessarily have any bearing on the matter? The figures quoted are averages. You do know what 'average' means, don't you?
Rollo explained the numbers---- but if you were not such a legend in your own mind, you would know not even Detroit payed anywhere near nineteen dollars an hour in 1965. Ignorance is bliss and you are a very happy man.
At that pay an average person could have bought and fully paid for three to four houses in one year.
Of course any one capable of using logic would say that was impossible, but then we are dealing with Dunnell here.

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 09:48

Rollo explained the numbers---- but if you were not such a legend in your own mind, you would know not even Detroit payed anywhere near nineteen dollars an hour in 1965.

Bob, there is surely no basis to your 'logic' here. The average could still end up as $19 even if no-one in Detroit came close to earning that. You really don't seem to know what 'average' means.

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 10:28

Average wage per hour in 1965 was around the $6 mark.

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 10:29

Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry:

1965 $290
1970 297
1973 315
1975 292
1976 297
1977 299
1978 301
1979 291
1980 274
1981 271
1982 267
1983 272
1984 274
1985 271
1986 271
1987 269
1988 266
1989 263
1990 259
1991 255
1992 255

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 11:35

My father is dead. What is your point?

Irony. Don't worry.

ArrowsFA1

23rd November 2011, 12:21

Effin' hell. That speaks volumes.
Indeed. Hence the talk of rising inequality being an issue that should concern us all.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 13:18

Indeed. Hence the talk of rising inequality being an issue that should concern us all.

I'll try again ... If it is such a concern to all of us, what do you propose to do about it?

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 13:32

I'll try again ... If it is such a concern to all of us, what do you propose to do about it?

Come to that, I don't see how someone could not find it concerning, no matter whether we may disagrees on what to do about it.

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 13:32

Indeed. Hence the talk of rising inequality being an issue that should concern us all.

I don't see any concern at all. If someone wants the big dollars too, they should go and get them, not expect someone to deliver them on a silver platter with a Hallmark card saying "here you go mate".

There seem to be a lot of Communists in this world lately :crazy:

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 13:33

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 13:38

Utter rubbish. Are you seriously suggesting that those of us who are concerned about such things are Communists? I find that a most offensive accusation, as well as a baseless exaggeration.

Did I say your name? No! I'm refering to the protesters worldwide who bitch about everything, protesting, disrupting others lives and get nothing done etc etc, d!ckhead. There, now you can be justifiably offended.

:wave:

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 13:43

Did I say your name? No! I'm refering to the protesters worldwide who bitch about everything, protesting, disrupting others lives and get nothing done etc etc, d!ckhead. There, now you can be justifiably offended.

:wave:

A few of those people are my friends, so yes, I am offended that you should choose to lump these hard-working, intelligent people in with everyone else. They're not as rude as you either.

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 13:58

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 14:25

And calling my post (which is my opinion that I am entitled to) utter rubbish, baseless, exaggerated and falsely accusing me of calling / insinuating that you are a communist is polite? If I am rude you are also cut from the same cloth then.

Go argue with a mirror.

I didn't resort to offensive language like you, and put my objection politely. But anyway, this discussion is fruitless.

555-04Q2

23rd November 2011, 14:29

I didn't resort to offensive language like you, and put my objection politely. But anyway, this discussion is fruitless.

If that was your polite I would hate to see the opposite. Like you say, fruitless.

:wave:

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 14:39

If that was your polite I would hate to see the opposite.

Whatever you say.

ArrowsFA1

23rd November 2011, 15:13

If it is such a concern to all of us...
Clearly it is not.

From my perspective I view it as inherently unfair (an old fashioned condept I know); not that there are wealthy people in the world you understand (that tends to be a common misconception), but that there is an ever increasing gap for no justifiable reason. We've all see the figures in this thread. What justification is there for the ever more pronounced disparity between production worker and CEO?

The argument goes that it's the free market, and everyone could become a CEO and earn lots of money. Two failings to that argument: 1) not everyone could and 2) if they did who would produce the goods that make the profits?

The free market simply does not value the different contributions of people equitably.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 15:19

I don't see any concern at all. If someone wants the big dollars too, they should go and get them, not expect someone to deliver them on a silver platter with a Hallmark card saying "here you go mate".

With this I pretty much agree. But my point is to try and see what these people who think it's unfair, a tragedy, a crisis, etc. want to do about it. Do they genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way they see?

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 15:22

With this I pretty much agree. But my point is to try and see what these people who think it's unfair, a tragedy, a crisis, etc. want to do about it. Do they genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way they see?

Again, you 'jump the shark' with your references to Communism. Honestly, do you see no middle ground between unfettered capitalism and Communism at all?

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 15:35

From my perspective I view it as inherently unfair (an old fashioned condept I know); not that there are wealthy people in the world you understand (that tends to be a common misconception), but that there is an ever increasing gap for no justifiable reason. We've all see the figures in this thread. What justification is there for the ever more pronounced disparity between production worker and CEO?

Why is this (gap) inherently unfair? Are workers on the lower end of the scale forced to work for "unfair" wages? Is there something unfairly holding these people "down"?

The argument goes that it's the free market, and everyone could become a CEO and earn lots of money. Two failings to that argument: 1) not everyone could and 2) if they did who would produce the goods that make the profits?

Clearly everyone can not become a CEO. Some simply are not cut out for such work. So if you do not possess the ability, desire, skills, luck, etc to be a CEO, why should you be paid as one?

Your second point is a staw man argument. Basically it is suggesting that no one should be a CEO, we should all somehow be workers. If that were the case, where would the capital come from to run the business? Who would spend the time and energy it takes to set up, and run the company? There has to be CEOs (managment), and there has to be workers (labor). Both are important in their own rights.

The free market simply does not value the different contributions of people equitably.

This is simply false. The free market pays for labor at the rate in which the market will support. Think of it this way, would you pump sh!t out of someone's septic tank for $1 a day? Probably not, so the market forces drive the labor rate for this job up.

But yet again, you have failed to address what should be done to fix this "problem". Should governments confiscate income from the "wealthy" and simply give it to the "poor"? How do you define "wealthy" and "poor"? Or do you propose some type of cap on income? How much is that cap? Who gets to decide what that cap is? How is capping or confiscating someones wealth fair?

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 15:37

Again, you 'jump the shark' with your references to Communism. Honestly, do you see no middle ground between unfettered capitalism and Communism at all?

Come on Ben read my post. I asked do these people genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way? Apparently you believe that there is some other way, a middle ground as you call it. Yet I have yet to see you or anyone else explain how this "middle ground" would work.

Please enlighten me. I really do want to know what you think this "middle ground" is.

race aficionado

23rd November 2011, 16:19

I now see we are running in circles - a dejavú all over again moment - middle grounds have been discussed already where a combination of capitalism and socialism - as is being practiced successfully in some parts of the world - would be a way to start combatting the gigantic social gap.

We have to get away from this "stop trying to punish the successful ones" philosophy for a more compassionate one like "Wholy crap! this is messed up and we cannot allow this to continue any longer"

I think this is a case of awareness - of having a global consciousness - which means to be aware that we are all in this together - that there is a bigger picture here that blends us all as one human family, that has us caring for others,not only for ourselves or for our country but for all of humanity as one.

Okay, I'm getting too "hippie" for some right now, I know . . . :p but I am encouraged by my 15 year old son that is now being taught present world history at school (and is now a big fan of the movie "Woodstock") and he comes to me after school and out of the blue he says: "Dad! I now understand why the hippies talked about peace and love and brotherhood of man. This world is messed up! It's full of crazy people with bombs!" of course now I have to deal with my son's impending existentialist phase where he will go through the "why is it worth living then if everything is so messed up anyway?"phase.

Teenage angst and existentialism is alive and well as it was in our times. :cool:

any way . . .

Life goes on and I for one - as you now well know - am excited about the present people power outrage.

peace dammit!!! :s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

23rd November 2011, 16:21

Why is this (gap) inherently unfair?
Because, as I've said, there is no justifiable reason for it. Not for the gap itself - we agree that different work attracts a different salary - but for the ever increasing gap.

This is simply false. The free market pays for labor at the rate in which the market will support.
The free market generates a pot of money, out of which salaries are paid. That pot is what it can support, not how or why it is divided up the way it is. The issue is not with the former, but with the latter.

How is capping or confiscating someones wealth fair?
Is it less fair than allowing an ever widening gap on the basis that "the free market sets salaries"?

People set salaries. Individuals. Look to them for the answers. Or could it be that it's in their own self interest to maintain the gap? In which case do we just sit back and let wealth accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people? Or is the aim to be among the wealthiest and damn the rest of you?

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 16:29

Come on Ben read my post. I asked do these people genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way? Apparently you believe that there is some other way, a middle ground as you call it. Yet I have yet to see you or anyone else explain how this "middle ground" would work.

Please enlighten me. I really do want to know what you think this "middle ground" is.

Chuck, don't patronise me, please. I understand full well your meaning. You, by contrast, have difficulty understanding how anyone protesting against aspects of the operation of the free market could be anything other than a Communist. You will understand why I find this a bit hard to take seriously.

I would have thought also that my view has been expressed enough times to have got through to you. I am far from against the existence of a free market, and would believe this to be true of many who are protesting, but equally I do not wish for the private sector to dominate every aspect of life, nor for a world in which large corporations can get away with everything under the sun in the name of profit. As for the details of how much tax should be levied and so forth, about which you seem mildly obsessed, I am not an economist. Nor, I would hazard a guess, are you.

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 16:31

I think this is a case of awareness - of having a global consciousness - which means to be aware that we are all in this together - that there is a bigger picture here that blends us all as one human family, that has us caring for others,not only for ourselves or for our country but for all of humanity as one.

Okay, I'm getting too "hippie" for some right now, I know . . .

I wouldn't say that. It's just called being a nice person, a rapidly disappearing concept, it seems, for we are told so often that it doesn't matter if one is anything other so long as one is 'successful'.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 16:32

Because, as I've said, there is no justifiable reason for it. Not for the gap itself - we agree that different work attracts a different salary - but for the ever increasing gap.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but I don't see a problem with what others make. My income is only bound by my willingness to work for it, so if someone chooses to work harder and makes more, why does that matter to me. He is not stealing from me. Economics is not a zero sum game.

The free market generates a pot of money, out of which salaries are paid. That pot is what it can support, not how or why it is divided up the way it is. The issue is not with the former, but with the latter.

Economics is not a zero sum game. If person A makes x% more this year than last year, it does not mean that person B must make x% less. And besides, what business is it of your's if someone makes wild amounts of money, as long as they aren't stealing it from you? I just can't wrap my head around this type of jealousy.

Is it less fair than allowing an ever widening gap on the basis that "the free market sets salaries"?

Yes capping or confiscating someones weath is not fair at all. How can you possibly suggest that? I have no idea what you make or what you are worth. But I guaruntee you it is many times more than what millions of people around the world make. How about we just come in and take away your money until you make the same as the poorest people in Africa. Would that be fair to you?

People set salaries. Individuals. Look to them for the answers. Or could it be that it's in their own self interest to maintain the gap? In which case do we just sit back and let wealth accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people? Or is the aim to be among the wealthiest and damn the rest of you?

Yes individuals set salaries. So if someone takes a job at a company that pays their CEO 1000000x as much as them, who's fault is that? Damn skippy it's in their own interest to maintain a gap. I'm sorry to break it to you but the sole purpose of a business is to create profit, not ensure equal results.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 16:36

Chuck, don't patronise me, please. I understand full well your meaning. You, by contrast, have difficulty understanding how anyone protesting against aspects of the operation of the free market could be anything other than a Communist. You will understand why I find this a bit hard to take seriously.

I would have thought also that my view has been expressed enough times to have got through to you. I am far from against the existence of a free market, and would believe this to be true of many who are protesting, but equally I do not wish for the private sector to dominate every aspect of life, nor for a world in which large corporations can get away with everything under the sun in the name of profit. As for the details of how much tax should be levied and so forth, about which you seem mildly obsessed, I am not an economist. Nor, I would hazard a guess, are you.

Honest question. What do you want? What do the protestors (that you support) want? To me it appears they want the "rich" to be taxed so that the "poor" can be given more stuff. Is that not the case? If not, please explain it to me. If so a) how is that not at least a mild form of Communism/socialism and b) how much do you want? How much is enough? How much should the "rich" pay? How much do you make before you are "rich"?

Yes perhaps I am playing to the extremes here, but I'm just following the logical road. The road that has been well blazed by history. You tell me that I'm going too far, that there needs to be a "middle ground". Well fine, all I'm asking is for a bit of a discription of what that "middle ground" looks like.

ArrowsFA1

23rd November 2011, 16:58

...if someone chooses to work harder and makes more, why does that matter to me.
If someone chooses to work as hard or harder than you and makes a lot less does that matter to you?

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 17:01

Honest question. What do you want? What do the protestors (that you support) want? To me it appears they want the "rich" to be taxed so that the "poor" can be given more stuff.

A statement such as that betrays your obsession with consumerism. Who, apart from you, said anything about 'stuff'? This isn't what I want at all. I believe people should work for their money and be paid accordingly — I'm aware the concept of someone holding mildly left-wing views also being a hard worker is a bit alien to you, given some of your remarks about the protesters, but stay with me. But I also believe that the growing gap between richest and poorest needs to be considered. Why has it grown? Why does it need to grow? In this case, it isn't necessarily the increasing remuneration of those at the top that is the problem, but the way in which their pay increases have outstripped those lower down the scale. How is this healthy?

As for the specifics of how much people should be taxed, I don't know. An uncommon thing to say on an internet forum, I'm aware, but that part of the answer is simply beyond me, and for those better-versed in economics than I am to decide. (By the way, those people don't include your good self, unless you'd like to inform us otherwise.)

And as for your previous responses to Arrows in the post prior — well, again, they are simplistic beyond belief, with their assumption that jealousy must be at the root cause of his views. A complete cop-out of an opinion, if I may say so. Has it never crossed your mind that not everyone is afflicted by a blind respect and admiration for out-and-out wealth — that there may be some people for whom it's just not important as a personal attribute. We don't all have to genuflect towards money, you know.

BDunnell

23rd November 2011, 17:03

If someone chooses to work as hard or harder than you and makes a lot less does that matter to you?

To that I must say that it's difficult to define 'hard work'. Someone may work extremely hard as a cleaner, but I wouldn't expect or wish for them to receive as much as someone working just as hard at what I would define to be a skilled job.

Lousada

23rd November 2011, 17:40

To that I must say that it's difficult to define 'hard work'. Someone may work extremely hard as a cleaner, but I wouldn't expect or wish for them to receive as much as someone working just as hard at what I would define to be a skilled job.

People should be paid according to how much value they add. A hard worker should then be paid more than a lazy worker with the same job. A skilled worker adds more value than a cleaner, so he should be paid more. Most modern day CEOs aren't paid for how much value they add to the company, but rather how much value they extract from the company to give to shareholders. That is what makes people angry.

Lousada

23rd November 2011, 17:49

I'm sorry to break it to you but the sole purpose of a business is to create profit, not ensure equal results.

no no no! The purpose of a business is to maintain its long-term existence. Generating profits is a side-effect of that. This is the problem that many have with casino capitalism: the fixation on short term maximising profits and forgetting about the long term continuation of the business.

You can make profits by cutting R&D, by firing thousands of workers, by selling assets right down to a skeleton. You can even make profits by doing illigal things (if you don't get caught). Will this help the business in the long-term, I don't think so. But for many bankers, stocktraders, CEO's and the likes, these things are acceptable because they generate big short term profits. This is the philosophy that should change in my opinion.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 18:35

A statement such as that betrays your obsession with consumerism. Who, apart from you, said anything about 'stuff'? This isn't what I want at all. I believe people should work for their money and be paid accordingly — I'm aware the concept of someone holding mildly left-wing views also being a hard worker is a bit alien to you, given some of your remarks about the protesters, but stay with me. But I also believe that the growing gap between richest and poorest needs to be considered. Why has it grown? Why does it need to grow? In this case, it isn't necessarily the increasing remuneration of those at the top that is the problem, but the way in which their pay increases have outstripped those lower down the scale. How is this healthy?

As for the specifics of how much people should be taxed, I don't know. An uncommon thing to say on an internet forum, I'm aware, but that part of the answer is simply beyond me, and for those better-versed in economics than I am to decide. (By the way, those people don't include your good self, unless you'd like to inform us otherwise.)

And as for your previous responses to Arrows in the post prior — well, again, they are simplistic beyond belief, with their assumption that jealousy must be at the root cause of his views. A complete cop-out of an opinion, if I may say so. Has it never crossed your mind that not everyone is afflicted by a blind respect and admiration for out-and-out wealth — that there may be some people for whom it's just not important as a personal attribute. We don't all have to genuflect towards money, you know.

Apparently you do not understand me at all. I am not saying that a large wealth gap is healthy, just as I am not saying it is unhealthy. It just is. Apparently you think it is unhealth, why? How does someone making 1000000x more than someone else hurt anyone? I have never understood that. There are two possible reasons I can see for people holding that belifef. 1) they think economics is a zero sum game or 2) plain jealousy. If you have another reson please let me know what it is.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 18:39

no no no! The purpose of a business is to maintain its long-term existence. Generating profits is a side-effect of that. This is the problem that many have with casino capitalism: the fixation on short term maximising profits and forgetting about the long term continuation of the business.

You can make profits by cutting R&D, by firing thousands of workers, by selling assets right down to a skeleton. You can even make profits by doing illigal things (if you don't get caught). Will this help the business in the long-term, I don't think so. But for many bankers, stocktraders, CEO's and the likes, these things are acceptable because they generate big short term profits. This is the philosophy that should change in my opinion.

Actually you aren't quite correct either. Maximim profit is not a one year proposition. If my company make $1,000,000 this year but goes out if business next year because I have pulled all R&D funding, oversold the price of my stock, etc. I have less profit total than if i were to run my business with a view on the long term and only make $500,000 this year and for the next 10.

Short sightedness is not good business practice.

chuck34

23rd November 2011, 18:44

If someone chooses to work as hard or harder than you and makes a lot less does that matter to you?

Define "harder". Have I done something that means he can not earn the same as me? Perhaps I had the stones to ask for a raise and he did not. Should he automatically get a raise if I asked for it?

ioan

23rd November 2011, 19:14

I'll try again ... If it is such a concern to all of us, what do you propose to do about it?

Tax the heck out of the ones who are getting unjustifiably high salaries.

ioan

23rd November 2011, 19:19

I don't see any concern at all. If someone wants the big dollars too, they should go and get them, not expect someone to deliver them on a silver platter with a Hallmark card saying "here you go mate".

There seem to be a lot of Communists in this world lately :crazy:

How many management positions paying 1.000.000 + per year are available in your opinion? What about those getting over 10.000.000/year for making a few decisions, based on analysis done by much smarter people, and whom will get another 10.000.000 in case something goes wrong and they have to leave to another company?!

So let's be realistic, and believe me I am anything but a communist/desperate socialist, there is a problem, a huge one out there and it should be solved before the bubble burst and heads fall like it happened in France a few centuries back.

ioan

23rd November 2011, 19:20

Did I say your name? No! I'm refering to the protesters worldwide who bitch about everything, protesting, disrupting others lives and get nothing done etc etc, d!ckhead. There, now you can be justifiably offended.

:wave:

Asking for a fair chance has nothing to do with communism. Communists never asked for anything they just lived with what they were given.

ioan

23rd November 2011, 19:22

Clearly it is not.

From my perspective I view it as inherently unfair (an old fashioned condept I know); not that there are wealthy people in the world you understand (that tends to be a common misconception), but that there is an ever increasing gap for no justifiable reason. We've all see the figures in this thread. What justification is there for the ever more pronounced disparity between production worker and CEO?

The argument goes that it's the free market, and everyone could become a CEO and earn lots of money. Two failings to that argument: 1) not everyone could and 2) if they did who would produce the goods that make the profits?

The free market simply does not value the different contributions of people equitably.

:up:

Bob Riebe

23rd November 2011, 19:22

Irony. Don't worry.It was not ironic, it was asinine, but then that is just you.

Bob Riebe

23rd November 2011, 19:24

Bob, there is surely no basis to your 'logic' here. The average could still end up as $19 even if no-one in Detroit came close to earning that. You really don't seem to know what 'average' means.No you are a clueless twit here and this response makes that point well.

ArrowsFA1

24th November 2011, 09:49

To that I must say that it's difficult to define 'hard work'. Someone may work extremely hard as a cleaner, but I wouldn't expect or wish for them to receive as much as someone working just as hard at what I would define to be a skilled job.
Fair point.

Define "harder". Have I done something that means he can not earn the same as me? Perhaps I had the stones to ask for a raise and he did not. Should he automatically get a raise if I asked for it?
Perhaps as you brought up the term ("if someone chooses to work harder and makes more...") maybe you could provide your own definition.

One of the problems here is some seem to see the issues in narrow, individual terms. i.e. why should anyone care whether the next person is earning more or less than me? If it doesn't affect me it doesn't concern me.

It's that view of the world which, in my view has to change. We simply cannot isolate ourselves in that way from our neighbours, or those halfway across the world whether we are individuals or governements.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
"Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/meditation17.php)" by John Donne

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 09:51

With this I pretty much agree. But my point is to try and see what these people who think it's unfair, a tragedy, a crisis, etc. want to do about it. Do they genuinly want Communism, or is there some other way they see?

100% Correct :up: Asking for equality without putting in the effort is the same as communism. People can stand on their heads and shout otherwise, but it doesn't change what it is.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 09:54

If someone chooses to work as hard or harder than you and makes a lot less does that matter to you?

There is a big difference between working hard stupidly, and working hard smartly.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 10:00

How many management positions paying 1.000.000 + per year are available in your opinion? What about those getting over 10.000.000/year for making a few decisions, based on analysis done by much smarter people, and whom will get another 10.000.000 in case something goes wrong and they have to leave to another company?!

So let's be realistic, and believe me I am anything but a communist/desperate socialist, there is a problem, a huge one out there and it should be solved before the bubble burst and heads fall like it happened in France a few centuries back.

One word sums up peoples problems with the wage gap...jealousy. Besides the riches man in the world, there is always someone richer than you. Should the whole world be jealous of each other? No, work for the things you want then.

People always want what they don't have / cant afford, but don't appreciate the things they do have.

Rollo

24th November 2011, 11:21

Economics is not a zero sum game. If person A makes x% more this year than last year, it does not mean that person B must make x% less. And besides, what business is it of your's if someone makes wild amounts of money, as long as they aren't stealing it from you? I just can't wrap my head around this type of jealousy.

A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced, the net result and any given time is ALWAYS zero.

Who's not to say that management isn't stealing money from their workers buy not paying them for the rewards of their labour? Productivity has risen immensely over the past 50 years yet nominal wages have barely budged since 1965.
Jealousy might be a driver but what about equity?

How about we just come in and take away your money until you make the same as the poorest people in Africa. Would that be fair to you?

Isn't that precisely what companies are trying to do currently?
History has shown in the past that if people could get awat with it, then they would play their workers nothing. Heck, the United States fought a war over this subject (among others).

Yes individuals set salaries. So if someone takes a job at a company that pays their CEO 1000000x as much as them, who's fault is that? Damn skippy it's in their own interest to maintain a gap. I'm sorry to break it to you but the sole purpose of a business is to create profit, not ensure equal results.

Yes, the purpose of a business is to create profit but because people who offer labour inputs to the firm have a lower ability to negotiate wages (because firms are generally price makers whilst individual workers are price takers), then the net benefits that profits generate are increasingly being distributed less equitably. Since the firm would prefer to pay people the same as the poorest people in Africa, then that's who other workers are competing against.
Workers are playing a levelling down auction, which is quite unlike bosses further up the chain, who seem to be paid bonuses even if the companies are making losses and yet you think that's fair?

If it is such a concern to all of us, what do you propose to do about it?

It's not what I propose, it's more by way of warning:
all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When people reach the point where they feel that they have been made to suffer by the system of government (and yes, firms do engage in the fiscal administration of a country because they have a very big say in the basic economic question "what to produce") then they'll do what they've always done, fight for equity.

Remember, the French Revolution was mainly an economic one caused in part by rising national debt, aristocrats skimming the wealth off of the top of society and large portions of the populace facing poverty and a decreasing say in how the country was run (sounds familiar no?). History tells us that great sections of Paris were burned, civil disobedience and theft and violence soon found a home on those streets.
Suppose an echo of the French Revolution were to break out, where would it start and which buildings would be attacked? 11 Wall Street? 200 West Street? 33 Liberty Place? How hard would it be to pack a Ford E-Series van full of explosives and just sort of leave it parked outside?
I think that this would be terrible and despicable but given the civil disturbances across the Arab World and now Greece and possibly Italy, how far away is the US from following suit?

Rollo

24th November 2011, 11:23

There is a big difference between working hard stupidly, and working hard smartly.

Not in pay there isn't. Profits from their work in either case aren't distributed to them. Salaried workers in particular work all sorts of unpaid overtime and receive zero benefit.

ArrowsFA1

24th November 2011, 11:29

One word sums up peoples problems with the wage gap...jealousy.

...what business is it of your's if someone makes wild amounts of money, as long as they aren't stealing it from you? I just can't wrap my head around this type of jealousy.
Grasp the fact that the motivation for highlighting the wage gap issue is not jealousy then try to look at things again.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 11:37

Not in pay there isn't. Profits from their work in either case aren't distributed to them. Salaried workers in particular work all sorts of unpaid overtime and receive zero benefit.

When I worked for a boss I worked thousands of overtime hours (while also studying via correspondance) and never recieved a single cent for it! I never moaned once as I was grateful just to have a job that put a roof over my head and food on the table! It built my character, stabilised the company I used to work for which grew consistantly and in turn saw my salary go up to the point where I was able to save up enough money to start on my own. I still work overtime if required, right next to my workers.

If workers work for a company that does not remunerate them properly at present or in the future for efforts put in, then they have the choice to complain and try and sort it out, leave for greener pastures, or suck it up and live with it.

We are the masters of our own destiny. Don't rely on others to get what you want or you will never get it.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 11:38

Grasp the fact that the motivation for highlighting the wage gap issue is not jealousy then try to look at things again.

I beg to differ and this is my opinion, yours is obviously different to mine :)

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 11:41

When I worked for a boss I worked thousands of overtime hours (while also studying via correspondance) and never recieved a single cent for it! I never moaned once as I was grateful just to have a job that put a roof over my head and food on the table! It built my character, stabilised the company I used to work for which grew consistantly and in turn saw my salary go up to the point where I was able to save up enough money to start on my own. I still work overtime if required, right next to my workers.

If workers work for a company that does not remunerate them properly at present or in the future for efforts put in, then they have the choice to complain and try and sort it out, leave for greener pastures, or suck it up and live with it.

We are the masters of our own destiny. Don't rely on others to get what you want or you will never get it.

P.S. My personal experience mentioned above is why I remunerate my workers so well if they put the effort in.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 11:57

I beg to differ and this is my opinion, yours is obviously different to mine :)

What, in effect, you are saying is that those of us who state quite categorically that jealousy is not our motivation for highlighting the wage gap are liars. Would I be correct?

Again, I say that not everyone worships money and those with it.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:02

When I worked for a boss I worked thousands of overtime hours (while also studying via correspondance) and never recieved a single cent for it! I never moaned once as I was grateful just to have a job that put a roof over my head and food on the table! It built my character, stabilised the company I used to work for which grew consistantly and in turn saw my salary go up to the point where I was able to save up enough money to start on my own. I still work overtime if required, right next to my workers.

If workers work for a company that does not remunerate them properly at present or in the future for efforts put in, then they have the choice to complain and try and sort it out, leave for greener pastures, or suck it up and live with it.

We are the masters of our own destiny. Don't rely on others to get what you want or you will never get it.

I don't mean to sound rude, but my reaction to this is 'so what?' I work a lot of what could be classed as overtime without being paid any extra, yet I don't go on about it.

And I too believe that people are the masters of their own destiny, etc, etc. But it is possible to behave like you do, being industrious and hard-working, to think all of this and still believe that the growing gap between rich and poor is a problem. To me, there is nothing contradictory about this at all.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:03

No you are a clueless twit here and this response makes that point well.

Please explain why. The fact that your father earned less than the average does not necessarily prove that the average is wrong. Maybe you might like to explain your alternative view of how the term 'average' works.

Malbec

24th November 2011, 12:05

What, in effect, you are saying is that those of us who state quite categorically that jealousy is not our motivation for highlighting the wage gap are liars. Would I be correct?

I suspect that what he doesn't grasp is the extent to which those with excessively high pay negatively impact the lives of those who earn 'normal' incomes in highly developed economies as in cities like London and New York, which is why he can only see jealousy as the motivating factor behind these demonstrations.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:09

So let's be realistic, and believe me I am anything but a communist/desperate socialist

In fact, one look at the flag next to your name ought to tell anyone that this is unlikely to be the case.

What we see in play here is the expectation on the part of some people that certain opinions have to go with certain others, and that never the twain shall meet. If you don't mind me taking you as an example, ioan, you are someone who has obviously benefited from the free market, so therefore these people expect you also to believe that it should be allowed to go about its business completely unfettered. The fact you don't think this they seem in some way to find troubling, throwing accusations of hypocrisy/inconsistency around and suchlike.

When right-wingers who believe in a free market complain about immigration, now that IS hypocrisy in my book.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:12

Actually you aren't quite correct either. Maximim profit is not a one year proposition. If my company make $1,000,000 this year but goes out if business next year because I have pulled all R&D funding, oversold the price of my stock, etc. I have less profit total than if i were to run my business with a view on the long term and only make $500,000 this year and for the next 10.

Short sightedness is not good business practice.

Tell that to the successive US administrations, some of which you will have supported, who have armed countries with which they soon afterwards have quite major fallings-out.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:13

People should be paid according to how much value they add. A hard worker should then be paid more than a lazy worker with the same job. A skilled worker adds more value than a cleaner, so he should be paid more. Most modern day CEOs aren't paid for how much value they add to the company, but rather how much value they extract from the company to give to shareholders. That is what makes people angry.

Point well-made, but I instinctively don't like this modern use of the phrase 'adding value'. I have no idea what it means, and suspect it is difficult to define precisely in financial terms.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:15

Tax the heck out of the ones who are getting unjustifiably high salaries.

In this instance, what is your definition of 'unjustifiably'?

ArrowsFA1

24th November 2011, 12:20

I beg to differ and this is my opinion, yours is obviously different to mine :)

Fair enough, but opinions matter little. Whether the motivation for concerns about these issues is jealousy or not (and in my case, again, it is not) if you want hard work to be rewarded then you should want a more equal society.

more equal countries have higher social mobility[/*:m:v5jcms8m]
While income differences have widened in Britain and the USA, social mobility has slowed[/*:m:v5jcms8m]
Bigger income differences may make it harder to achieve equality of opportunity because they increase social class differentiation[/*:m:v5jcms8m]
(source (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility))[/*:m:v5jcms8m]

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:23

...if you want hard work to be rewarded then you should want a more equal society.

Something which does, or at least should, not involve giving endless welfare hand-outs or even the imposition of legislation.

Rollo

24th November 2011, 12:24

Point well-made, but I instinctively don't like this modern use of the phrase 'adding value'. I have no idea what it means, and suspect it is difficult to define precisely in financial terms.

"Value Added" is the difference between the written price of a good or service, once an input process has been done to it.

Blank Piece of Kryptonite = š15
Drilling of Kryptonite
Sale Price of Krypto-Widget = š20
Value Added = š5

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:30

"Value Added" is the difference between the written price of a good or service, once an input process has been done to it.

Blank Piece of Kryptonite = š15
Drilling of Kryptonite
Sale Price of Krypto-Widget = š20
Value Added = š5

Of course, but we do now hear the term being used in a very vague way, with no idea of specific figures involved.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 12:33

What, in effect, you are saying is that those of us who state quite categorically that jealousy is not our motivation for highlighting the wage gap are liars. Would I be correct?

Again, I say that not everyone worships money and those with it.

Yes, every person in this world is a liar. We have all lied at some stage of our lives. If someone says otherwise, they are lying.

People will not use the word jealousy as jealousy is not a reason to change anything or justify getting something someone else has. They rather use words like unfair, unacceptable, unjustified, oppression etc instead to justify/propose alternatives to getting things themselves and/or making their own positions in life better.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 12:38

if you want hard work to be rewarded then you should want a more equal society.

No, you want people to work harder to progress.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:40

Yes, every person in this world is a liar. We have all lied at some stage of our lives. If someone says otherwise, they are lying.

People will not use the word jealousy as jealousy is not a reason to change anything or justify getting something someone else has. They rather use words like unfair, unacceptable, unjustified, oppression etc instead to justify/propose alternatives to getting things themselves and/or making their own positions in life better.

You have a downbeat view of your fellow humans, don't you? Of course it is true that everyone lies, but I would not go so far as to call everyone a liar, reserving that term instead for certain circumstances. It would be a bit tough to say that someone is a liar if they say they've cleaned the bathroom floor when they haven't. I don't think such a thing merits such aggressive language.

But playing along with you, do you think in this instance that those of us who say jealousy is not an underlying motivation for our views are lying when we say so? And are you a psychologist?

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:40

No, you want people to work harder to progress.

What does that mean? Progress professionally? Personally? Allow their employer to 'progress' in financial terms?

Rollo

24th November 2011, 12:41

People will not use the word jealousy as jealousy is not a reason to change anything or justify getting something someone else has. They rather use words like unfair, unacceptable, unjustified, oppression etc instead to justify/propose alternatives to getting things themselves and/or making their own positions in life better.

Wage negotiations by their nature operate within imperfect markets. There is a difference in power between employers who are generally price makers and potential employees who having nothing to offer but labour are price takers.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 12:44

Wage negotiations by their nature operate within imperfect markets. There is a difference in power between employers who are generally price makers and potential employees who having nothing to offer but labour are price takers.

And who, thus, have little or no chance of ever moving on to become an employer themselves, having been at the bottom of the pile for so long. Only those with a romanticised notion of the free market would disagree.

ArrowsFA1

24th November 2011, 12:45

No, you want people to work harder to progress.
The greater the inequality the lower the social mobility.
As income differences widen social mobility slows.

How do hard workers progress?

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 14:31

The greater the inequality the lower the social mobility.
As income differences widen social mobility slows.

How do hard workers progress?

By being smart. It's not a difficult concept ;)

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 14:31

What does that mean? Progress professionally? Personally? Allow their employer to 'progress' in financial terms?

To progress in every aspect of their lives.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 14:41

To progress in every aspect of their lives.

Clearly it does not follow that this progress is always accompanied by commensurate wage increases.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 14:44

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 14:47

That is a defeatest attitude.

It is a realistic attitude.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 14:47

Clearly it does not follow that this progress is always accompanied by commensurate wage increases.

Like I posted earlier, people can find a way to earn more or live with what they have. I also posted that people don't appreciate what they already have, if they did, they would realise how lucky they really are and stop moaning/protesting.

Like I also said, people are jealous creatures and want what the Joneses have next door.

555-04Q2

24th November 2011, 14:48

It is a realistic attitude.

It is realistic only if you let it be. I don't expect you to understand the concept.

Dave B

24th November 2011, 14:53

That is a defeatest attitude.

It's probably more preferable to "the American Dream" where anybody can become President*

(*provided they're rich, well-connected, or son of a former President)

It's good to dream, but pointless being unrealistic.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 14:53

Like I posted earlier, people can find a way to earn more or live with what they have. I also posted that people don't appreciate what they already have, if they did, they would realise how lucky they really are and stop moaning/protesting.

Even if, in truth, they are entitled to more — say if they actually work harder, more effectively or whatever than someone in the same job who, for some reason, is paid more?

No, if people have a legitimate grievance, they should carry on complaining until it is righted. My internet radio doesn't work properly. I'm not about to stop hounding the company in relation to their blatantly faulty product on the grounds that I should be grateful to them for having made it available in the first place.

Like I also said, people are jealous creatures and want what the Joneses have next door.

Of course everyone suffers moments of jealousy. But, yet again, I must point out that not everyone is obsessed with material possessions, and therefore not jealous of those held by others. Is this such a hard concept to grasp?

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 14:54

It is realistic only if you let it be. I don't expect you to understand the concept.

This works both ways, believe me.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 14:55

ArrowsFA1

24th November 2011, 15:04

By being smart. It's not a difficult concept ;)
No, it's not but why is it so hard to grasp the fact that more equal countries have higher social mobility meaning that hard & smart work is more likely to be rewarded than at present.

At the moment inequality in society is increasing.

Why do you appear to be so opposed to working towards a more equal society when the evidence says we would all benefit?

anthonyvop

24th November 2011, 15:11

It's probably more preferable to "the American Dream" where anybody can become President*

(*provided they're rich, well-connected, or son of a former President)

It's good to dream, but pointless being unrealistic.

Obama was neither rich nor the son of a former President.

Being Well Connected is necessary to be successful in almost any endeavor and is the product of the person themselves. You can get connections through family but it is the individual who has to maintain them.

So Yes......Any American can still become President

anthonyvop

24th November 2011, 15:14

And who, thus, have little or no chance of ever moving on to become an employer themselves, having been at the bottom of the pile for so long. Only those with a romanticised notion of the free market would disagree.

That is a defeatist ideal supported by leftist policies to control the masses. No matter how bleak you predicament you have a chance to better your life.

BDunnell

24th November 2011, 15:26

That is a defeatist ideal supported by leftist policies to control the masses. No matter how bleak you predicament you have a chance to better your life.

As for the first sentence there, it's not that at all, but founded in simple fact and the limitations of human beings. The second half of your statement I wholeheartedly agree with. I do not believe the fact of not everybody having the chance to rise to the top means that no-one can better themselves — not for one moment. But bettering oneself if one is starting from a low point may not see one rising very far.

ioan

24th November 2011, 21:08

I don't mean to sound rude, but my reaction to this is 'so what?' I work a lot of what could be classed as overtime without being paid any extra, yet I don't go on about it.

And I too believe that people are the masters of their own destiny, etc, etc. But it is possible to behave like you do, being industrious and hard-working, to think all of this and still believe that the growing gap between rich and poor is a problem. To me, there is nothing contradictory about this at all.

Well said. Fully agree with that. :up:

ioan

24th November 2011, 21:12

In fact, one look at the flag next to your name ought to tell anyone that this is unlikely to be the case.

What we see in play here is the expectation on the part of some people that certain opinions have to go with certain others, and that never the twain shall meet. If you don't mind me taking you as an example, ioan, you are someone who has obviously benefited from the free market, so therefore these people expect you also to believe that it should be allowed to go about its business completely unfettered. The fact you don't think this they seem in some way to find troubling, throwing accusations of hypocrisy/inconsistency around and suchlike.

When right-wingers who believe in a free market complain about immigration, now that IS hypocrisy in my book.

It did benefit me a lot, you are right.
And I am certainly someone who thinks that the better qualified and harder working ones have to get a better paycheck, however the difference needs to be realistic and explainable, and this is not the case in today's economy.

ioan

24th November 2011, 21:17

No, you want people to work harder to progress.
What does that mean? Progress professionally? Personally? Allow their employer to 'progress' in financial terms?

The last one seems realistic.

ioan

24th November 2011, 21:19

To progress in every aspect of their lives.

Impossible, the employee can not advance his personal life while continuously working harder for you.

ioan

24th November 2011, 21:20

It is realistic only if you let it be. I don't expect you to understand the concept.

Ben was realistic, not everyone can become an employer cause then there will be no more employees, thus no one will be an employer anymore. Oh well...

Rollo

25th November 2011, 01:31

Obama was neither rich nor the son of a former President.

Being Well Connected is necessary to be successful in almost any endeavor and is the product of the person themselves. You can get connections through family but it is the individual who has to maintain them.

So Yes......Any American can still become President

Obama probably also went to a private school as well didn't he?

You may recall that during the 2004 presidential campaign that John Kerry was running against W. Kerry is part of the Forbes family and married to Teresa Heinz. During the campaign I remember that someone said that if elected Kerry would continue the trend that if adjusted for inflation, he would have been the 9th consecutive president to have been the richest president from private wealth in history. Obama bucks the trend but he still didn't start on the bottom rung did he?

Your claim that American can still become President simply isn't true. I very much doubt that the likes of a Haberdasher will ever be president ever again. Maybe once upon a time past but not anymore.

It's good to dream, but pointless being unrealistic.

Hear hear :up:

We don't have a "British Dream" over here. And this isn't because we lack any sort of morale purpose, or because we haven't got a sense of guide and destiny taking us towards a better tomorrow.
No. We British don't have a "Dream". Because we're awake.
- Al Murray, Pub Landlord

anthonyvop

25th November 2011, 05:13

Impossible, the employee can not advance his personal life while continuously working harder for you.

Maybe you can't but people smarter than you can.

anthonyvop

25th November 2011, 05:17

Obama probably also went to a private school as well didn't he?

Yes he did...With an Academic scholarship. Not because of any family wealth or connections. So I still maintain that anyone can be President of the United States.

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 05:23

No, it's not but why is it so hard to grasp the fact that more equal countries have higher social mobility meaning that hard & smart work is more likely to be rewarded than at present.

At the moment inequality in society is increasing.

Why do you appear to be so opposed to working towards a more equal society when the evidence says we would all benefit?

I don't have any problem with an equal society at all if people contribute positively. I am oppossed to just handing over more to lazy people who are disrupting our societies with protests instead of working to improve our society and/or their positions. Nothing in life is easy, it takes hard work and perseverance, that's just the way it is. Protesting about it will not change it, it just puts you another day behind those that bother to improve themselves. You have to have poor people and rich people, that is the driving force in our society that motivates one to improve. Millions of people who bother to try come from poor/oppressed to rich/liberated because they said, "bugger this, I want to improve my life". They didn't do it by standing in a park shouting, "this aint fair".

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 05:25

Impossible, the employee can not advance his personal life while continuously working harder for you.

I managed to do it. And it was not easy! Believe me, it sucked, but I did it. So what's the excuse now :)

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 05:26

That is a defeatist ideal supported by leftist policies to control the masses. No matter how bleak you predicament you have a chance to better your life.

Very good post :up:

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 05:28

Ben was realistic, not everyone can become an employer cause then there will be no more employees, thus no one will be an employer anymore. Oh well...

Correct, not everyone can become an employer. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, if someone is not happy with their present situation they can either leave for greaner pastures or suck it up and stop moaning. The choice is the individuals.

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 05:34

Obama probably also went to a private school as well didn't he?

You may recall that during the 2004 presidential campaign that John Kerry was running against W. Kerry is part of the Forbes family and married to Teresa Heinz. During the campaign I remember that someone said that if elected Kerry would continue the trend that if adjusted for inflation, he would have been the 9th consecutive president to have been the richest president from private wealth in history. Obama bucks the trend but he still didn't start on the bottom rung did he?

Your claim that American can still become President simply isn't true. I very much doubt that the likes of a Haberdasher will ever be president ever again. Maybe once upon a time past but not anymore.

Hear hear :up:

We don't have a "British Dream" over here. And this isn't because we lack any sort of morale purpose, or because we haven't got a sense of guide and destiny taking us towards a better tomorrow.
No. We British don't have a "Dream". Because we're awake.
- Al Murray, Pub Landlord

When the German war machine was flying over Britain to bomb the cr@p out of it during the second world war, did the British say "...well we are f@#$*# so lets go home", or did they do something about it? Even when all hope seems lost, there is a way if there is a will.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 07:15

When right-wingers who believe in a free market complain about immigration, now that IS hypocrisy in my book.They do not and never have.
They complain about illegal aliens.
I think you are smart enough to know the difference.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 07:31

Please explain why. The fact that your father earned less than the average does not necessarily prove that the average is wrong. Maybe you might like to explain your alternative view of how the term 'average' works.Let us put it this way son.

I started working in the late sixties. I knew what average wages were paid to the absolute vast majority of hourly U.S. workers. (We were taught those things in school back then. Our teachers said if you want to work in a factory and get rich, work in Detroit)

They had rejected a union. they had tried for a short time, and it was known (and protested by the union that their pay was what it was just to keep the union out) they received higher than average pay, JUST to keep the union out.

For anyone, anyone who is not simply too young to know, to not know that people were not paid almost twenty dollars an hour in 1965, or that that amount could even BE ANYWHERE NEAR the average.
That person is either a moron, or has serious mental health problems.

ArrowsFA1

25th November 2011, 08:28

I don't have any problem with an equal society at all if people contribute positively.
:up:

I am oppossed to just handing over more to lazy people who are disrupting our societies with protests instead of working to improve our society and/or their positions.
That makes a very big assumption that those protesting at what they perceive to be an injustice are all lazy. Also, as has already been pointed out, as inequality increases the oppotunities for people to improve their positions declines.

Nothing in life is easy, it takes hard work and perseverance, that's just the way it is.
:up:

Protesting about it will not change it, it just puts you another day behind those that bother to improve themselves.
So the movements personified by the likes of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela shouldn't have protested? They should have just tried to improve themselves as individuals and left other individuals to try to do the same? Every man for himself?

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 08:45

That makes a very big assumption that those protesting at what they perceive to be an injustice are all lazy. Also, as has already been pointed out, as inequality increases the oppotunities for people to improve their positions declines.

So the movements personified by the likes of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela shouldn't have protested? They should have just tried to improve themselves as individuals and left other individuals to try to do the same? Every man for himself?

Well if you are protesting about your financial position instead of trying to improve it, then yes, you are lazy in my book. Protesting about financial situations/inequalities fails to achieve anything in 99% of cases I have seen and only causes unneccessary disruptions to the rest of us whi actually do something with our lives.

Protests about racial abuse, segregation such as Apartheid etc are justified in my book and I am all for that sort of unhappiness. But I am firmly against people protesting that they want more just because others have more or they want the rich to hand over their hard earned efforts to people who have not earned it :down:

Rollo

25th November 2011, 11:56

the rich to hand over their hard earned efforts

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage), or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.

ArrowsFA1

25th November 2011, 12:37

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.
That's the key point. It's not "lazy" people being "jealous" of those who earn more. It's a fundamental economic inequality, just as protests against racial inequality were against a social inequality.

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 13:04

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage), or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries? And this is because their salaries are not on par with the salaries of the lower rung workers who don't make it up to the top of the ladder?

So help me here...are we now saying stop rewarding excellence more for their efforts and start rewarding mediocrity the same as excellence? I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with that :)

555-04Q2

25th November 2011, 13:10

That's the key point. It's not "lazy" people being "jealous" of those who earn more. It's a fundamental economic inequality, just as protests against racial inequality were against a social inequality.

What about CEO's who risked their homes, cars, families etc when starting their businesses by taking out loans, selling or bonding their houses, who keep companies going even in tough economic times, who stress about where the next dollar to pay the bills is going to come from etc etc? Is it not fair that they earn a higher increasing salary "percentage" to the worker who risks nothing at all?

airshifter

25th November 2011, 14:16

Just curious since many here claim that the major factor in all of this is "equality" or equal opportunity.....

Just how far does this utopian concept reach? Is it equality only within large developed countries seeking "fair and just" wages and standard of living for all workers, or does this equality have a global reach?

ArrowsFA1

25th November 2011, 16:21

What about CEO's who risked their homes, cars, families etc when starting their businesses by taking out loans, selling or bonding their houses, who keep companies going even in tough economic times, who stress about where the next dollar to pay the bills is going to come from etc etc? Is it not fair that they earn a higher increasing salary "percentage" to the worker who risks nothing at all?
No-one here is arguing for equal wages. Of course different roles attract different salaries and that is fair. What's not fair is that, as Rollo pointed out, an average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978 while a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11 times. How is that justifiable? The roles haven't changed but the salary gap has. Why?

ioan

25th November 2011, 16:46

Maybe you can't but people smarter than you can.

Than you shouldn't even be dreaming about it. :rotflmao:

ioan

25th November 2011, 16:48

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries? And this is because their salaries are not on par with the salaries of the lower rung workers who don't make it up to the top of the ladder?

So help me here...are we now saying stop rewarding excellence more for their efforts and start rewarding mediocrity the same as excellence? I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with that :)

I can't make a blind person see. Sorry.

anthonyvop

25th November 2011, 18:04

They do not and never have.
They complain about illegal aliens.
I think you are smart enough to know the difference.

If he was smart he wouldn't be an ultra-leftwinger

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:07

I managed to do it. And it was not easy! Believe me, it sucked, but I did it. So what's the excuse now :)

Again, so what? I doubt, with all due respect, that your life and career progression are in any sense exceptional. That isn't meant in a rude way, quite genuinely.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:08

When the German war machine was flying over Britain to bomb the cr@p out of it during the second world war, did the British say "...well we are f@#$*# so lets go home", or did they do something about it? Even when all hope seems lost, there is a way if there is a will.

People behave rather differently in times of war. (To all the Americans reading this, you have not, incidentally, been at war on home soil since 2001, despite what you may have been told, so this statement does not apply to you.)

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:09

For anyone, anyone who is not simply too young to know, to not know that people were not paid almost twenty dollars an hour in 1965, or that that amount could even BE ANYWHERE NEAR the average.
That person is either a moron, or has serious mental health problems.

Pots, kettles...

The alternative is that they could just have made an incorrect calculation. Why not go to the body whose figures were quoted and point out the error of their ways?

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:10

Protests about racial abuse, segregation such as Apartheid etc are justified in my book and I am all for that sort of unhappiness.

Do you mind me asking: are you South African yourself, and if so, what is the colour of your skin?

anthonyvop

25th November 2011, 18:11

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage),.

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings

or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

Again you fail at basic economics. It was the investments that allowed the "Other people" to work by creating the opportunity. The investor deserves every dime. They used their money. They did the homework. They took the risk.

The "other people", as you call them, invested nothing and in a free market are paid exactly what their labor is worth.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:12

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries?

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy of same, or an automatic respect for authority.

anthonyvop

25th November 2011, 18:14

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy of same, or an automatic respect for authority.

Which is what Socialism promotes!

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:14

If he was smart he wouldn't be an ultra-leftwinger

Ultra-left-wing by your standards, Tony, but to anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-left-wingers here.

By the way, I wouldn't go throwing comments around about others not being 'smart' if I were you. The best-written posts here in terms of the standard of English used are not from the right-wing Americans, let's put it that way.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 18:18

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings

Market forces = plural. Therefore, 'market forces ARE'. Earnings = plural. Therefore, 'what are proper earnings', or, better, 'what constitutes proper earnings'. Clearly the hard-left education you no doubt believe I received in the British state school system was rather an effective method of teaching me how to write properly.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 20:23

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.
I deleted part of your post not because I do not think it is not correct in points, but a bit over simplified; although among those who pay is far above anything that could be considered "earned" by their work is actors and education heads.

The actors are the greatest hypocrites but the general populace is just too damned stupid to notice for he most part; whereas beyond that, what makes the head of universities and colleges WORTH hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
What do they do to keep college affordable for the average person and stop the curricula across the land from becoming political hack jobs?
Are they any different from the Wall Street people which the protest originally brought attention to?

That the occupy thing happened actually was necessary.

What it became is exactly what I thought it would. A dog and pony freak show for rich kids who have too much time and are given too much money by their parents.

If people who "earn" money were paid for the labor involved, then those who use shovel and swing hammers would be the ones earning the most. Not college professors who sit on their throne paid for by families struggling to keep their kids in college.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 20:30

Pots, kettles...

The alternative is that they could just have made an incorrect calculation. Why not go to the body whose figures were quoted and point out the error of their ways?

Rollo, pointed out a long time ago---- how that figure was arrived at, which was logical and fit his purpose to show how the two extremes have become way to far apart for the word greed to not be accurate to at least some degree.
For what ever reason, my computer cannot bring up that site, nor do I need to, as Rollo EXPLAINED how it was calculated.

Your responses are becoming redundant.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 20:36

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy (of)... automatic respect for authority.

I would say that those in government should not be given the above, as they are supposed to be employees of the citizens.

In corporations, should they be automatically be given said same- no; whereas if one does not like any forced false respect, then the one should either go elsewhere, or tolerate till one can leave, or perhaps try to force a change.

Bob Riebe

25th November 2011, 20:40

Ultra-left-wing by your standards, Tony, but to anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-left-wingers here.

By the way, I wouldn't go throwing comments around about others not being 'smart' if I were you. The best-written posts here in terms of the standard of English used are not from the right-wing Americans, let's put it that way.

To anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-right-wingers among the conservative politicians, either.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 20:53

That the occupy thing happened actually was necessary.

What it became is exactly what I thought it would. A dog and pony freak show for rich kids who have too much time and are given too much money by their parents.

Do you know anyone on the protests, Bob?

If not, if all you base your opinion on is media reporting, you are not truly qualified in this instance to comment with such certainty.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 20:54

I would say that those in government should not be given the above, as they are supposed to be employees of the citizens.

In corporations, should they be automatically be given said same- no; whereas if one does not like any forced false respect, then the one should either go elsewhere, or tolerate till one can leave, or perhaps try to force a change.

Fairly put, I think.

BDunnell

25th November 2011, 20:54

To anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-right-wingers among the conservative politicians, either.

Not in Europe, certainly.

Rollo

25th November 2011, 21:32

Which is what Socialism promotes!

No. It's Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism can occur in both a highly Laissez-faire or a highly Socialist economy.

Rollo

25th November 2011, 21:56

anthonyvop

26th November 2011, 02:30

Market forces = plural. Therefore, 'market forces ARE'. Earnings = plural. Therefore, 'what are proper earnings', or, better, 'what constitutes proper earnings'. Clearly the hard-left education you no doubt believe I received in the British state school system was rather an effective method of teaching me how to write properly.

I bet you got beaten up a lot in grade school. You are soooooooooo predictable.

Rollo

26th November 2011, 21:50

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings.

The "other people", as you call them, invested nothing and in a free market are paid exactly what their labor is worth.

Let's test the consequences of this:

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf
I know most of you won't read the report but here are the highlights:

For a typical 200 employee Wal-Mart store, the average pay of a sales clerk in 2004 was $8.50/hr, or $14,000. The Federal Govt's definition of the poverty line was $15,000 for that year.

As a result of Wal-Mart paying such poor wages, the Federal Govt for an 200 employee store paid on average:
- $108,000/yr in children's health care
- $125,000/yr in tax credits and deductions for low income families
- $42,000/yr in housing assistance

This means that the net result of Wal-Mart paying "exactly what their labor is worth" cost the US Taxpayer $2.5bn in lost taxation and transfer payments; yet at the same time they turned a profit that year of just over $8bn.

Just to make this absolutely clear, because you have said that "Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings" and that people are paid "exactly what their labor is worth", huge costs have been socialised when they could have very easily been covered by simply paying higher wages.
For someone who approves of free-market economics, it seems very strange that you want a socialist system to operate. Are you a communist in disguise?

AAReagles

26th November 2011, 23:15

Post #565

I now see we are running in circles - a dejavú all over again moment...

When I first discovered this thread, it was about 10 or so days in dormant status. And to think that I merely mentioned myself as being Marxist, a flashpoint occurred, and hey ‘presto-chango’ it took off. But hey, this is the People Power thread is it not? :crazy: :)

Post # 585

.... It's that view of the world which, in my view has to change. We simply cannot isolate ourselves in that way from our neighbours, or those halfway across the world whether we are individuals or governements.
:up: This is exactly what British economist Barbara Ward recommend in her international speeches and her works in writing. In order to establish global peace and tranquility, she suggested that the rich nations (us Westerners) or the ‘Northern Hemisphere’ as she referred it to, contribute to the less fortunate nations - most of which we exploited by one means or another - so that they would be able to sustain themselves and advance accordingly with us.

Which she was regarded as a distribionist, that unfortunately would be translated to, here in America at least, as communist. Though her principles were noble, they were subject to the liability of human nature, like that of communism. That of which I’ll explain in the following….

Post #600

Tell that to the successive US administrations, some of which you will have supported, who have armed countries with which they soon afterwards have quite major fallings-out.
Indeed the pro-capitalists have ignored this statement, because it refers to the human toll. I have already brought this up before in one instance, so it’s fairly obvious that the subject is taboo - for obvious reasons I might add.

I must add that there was one peculiar statement, or so I feel, that you made and I wish to discover what it is that you meant:

Post #50

Oh, there is no doubt that those advocating Communism do suffer from certain delusions way beyond those on other sides of the argument, I grant you…

This comment here I found to be a bit, shall we say judgemental.

On the point of clarification, I am a Marxist in the sense that I think Marx/Engels had some pretty good community-based ideas, though I would have to say that their utopian concepts were just that, concepts. As I ‘ve stated on this forum many times before, mankind cannot, in any shape or form be trusted.

Which is why from time to time, most particularly during the CP (Capital Punishment) debates and 2nd amendment debates as well, I would contest you and anyone else who continually brought up the “civilized nation” bit. Not once have I stated that those beliefs were delusional, though I certainly did imply that those notions were a myth, and in some sense, an ultimate oxymoron.

I know that communism won’t work, but it’s obvious to me, and you, and even chuck from what I detected from one of his posts, just on the principles of mankind’s innate characteristics; competition.

It’s the ultimate reason why communism won’t work, it is of course the same reason that civilized nations” will never emerge, and it is course why capitalism will crumble in such a form that it will eventually create a socialist society… or worse, economic genocide. Such as what occurred in Ireland during the famine, which Marx duly noted, and stated that at first the English were first dispensing of the Irish by means of Cromwell, whereas during the famine it was by means of cattle (on the land being sold out for commodity purposes).

So, I have to ask you, what is it that you consider more delusional?

1) those with genuine communist beliefs
2) those who believe in the notion of ‘civilized nations’
3) or those who believe in a destructive economic system, that is designed to sustain powerful, egocentric sociopaths.

I am quite sincere on this question, as I presume that you, like many others throughout the globe, know what is at stake; knowledge and the ability to recognize when freedoms are rapidly diminishing in this current age of data exploitation.

AAReagles

27th November 2011, 10:03

Post #44

"psueo-patriotic"? Seriously? No, I just look at reality. Did I say everything was okay? No, just that communism is absolutely not the way to go.... The communist/socialist system by definition can not allow anyone to change station in life. Call me crazy, but I would like the opportunity to profit from my hard work. But if you would like to share your profits with me, feel free.

When Marx/Engels produced the Communist Manifesto in 1848, it was during a time when countries could respond to a threat from its’ neighbors in a reasonable amount of time, since most rail systems were still relatively in their infancy and mobilization of troops and equipment were for the most part transported by horse.

Since then instruments of warfare, most particularly during WWI, were rapidly improved to such an extent to it would not have been possible for a nation to completely conform to an ideology of communism without being vulnerable to a possible invasion of any sort.

Which explains why communism as Marx/Engels intended it to be understood, could not possibly be employed without some measure of a ruling class being involved in order to get the job done - should it be necessary. Hence the fact as to why Lenin, Stalin, Mao and such stayed power.

Translation: Marx and Engels had too much faith in mankind to believe that such a system could be implemented in one society (presumably Europe), let alone others.

Capitalism isn’t going anywhere - well, providing the fact that we don’t blow ourselves up to bits and pieces. Capitalism will survive, or so I believe anyways, on the grounds that:

1) we’re creatures of comfort. And in this day and age of digital nations, I think it’s fairly obvious.
2) national defense purposes
3) our species has an impetuous obsession with exploring the unknown. Which at some point, could get us into more trouble than it may be worth. One example being nuclear fusion. Another quite obviously would be the Voyager 1 spacecraft launched in 1977, with it’s Golden Record that contains pictures of the earth, information about us and the earth, and a navigation guide of some sort back to earth - bad idea. Real bad if something out there with more intelligence than us and perhaps not a cordial as well, ever discovered it.

Marx was right that capitalism would be an issue to be dealt with, it’s that he was wrong (so far) as to how it would end by means of a revolution. Well, maybe he was right about that after all, if you consider that we’re living in the era of technology revolution.

And there lies the problem. Technology. Steve Jobs might be gone, but Gates is still around, Ray Kurzweil is still active pushing AI (Artificial Intelligence), Trans Humanism, and Singularity. Combine that with Japan’s rapid advancements with robotics, and you got a increasing problem of the growth of automation. Automation that will eventually replace most workers to save on overhead costs.

Trust me, we’re going to see how popular capitalism is in the near future. Which means that our societies may have to make adjustments that most of us might not care for. The question is whether or not everyone is capable of getting on board with real world solutions. And that includes the global elite.

anthonyvop

27th November 2011, 13:18

No. It's Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism can occur in both a highly Laissez-faire or a highly Socialist economy.

Actually a Free market/Laissez-Faire economy cannot operate under authoritative government. One the the basic tenants of the Free Market is that the Freedom of the individual over the state!

ioan

27th November 2011, 15:01

The freedom of teh individual over the state is a myth nowadays.

Maybe you meant the freedom of the corporations over the state, that is true.

Eki

27th November 2011, 15:36

This is interesting:

Visitors found this page by searching for:
1965 production worker wage, aareagles people power, united states production worker wages 1965, â€Ž10 years ago we had steve jobs bob hope and johnny cash - now we have no jobs no hope and no cash ! blowjob, 1965 production worker hourly wages

Must have been a disappointment.

BDunnell

27th November 2011, 16:11

I bet you got beaten up a lot in grade school. You are soooooooooo predictable.

Maybe the other children at whatever the British equivalent of 'grade school' is had better written English skills than you.

BDunnell

27th November 2011, 16:13

The freedom of teh individual over the state is a myth nowadays.

As demonstrated by the anti-terrorist laws brought in by many governments including right-wing ones supported by certain individuals here.

AAReagles

27th November 2011, 17:16

... Must have been a disappointment.

Would have been even more dissappointing for that person if they read this entire thread, if not exhausting.

Rollo

27th November 2011, 17:41

Actually a Free market/Laissez-Faire economy cannot operate under authoritative government.

It may be worth your while to do some reading about Pinochet and Chile.

One the the basic tenants of the Free Market is that the Freedom of the individual over the state!

A free-market is one in which prices are determined by supply and demand. It has NOTHING to do with the "Freedom of the individual over the state". A free-market economy would be an unregulated one. They are different concepts.

AAReagles

27th November 2011, 18:27

Tell that to the successive US administrations, some of which you will have supported, who have armed countries with which they soon afterwards have quite major fallings-out.

Sorry, I meant to bring this up earlier with my response to this same post of yours.

I thought this deserved attention - since we’re all shareholders here. As they say, 'Killing is our business, and business is good.’

The Arms Trade is Big Business (http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#HiddenCorporateWelfare)

1. That the armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armaments.

2. That armament firms have attempted to bribe government officials, both at home and abroad.

3. That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programs of various countries, in order to stimulate armament expenditure.

4. That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.

5. That armament firms have organized international armament rings through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.

6. That armament firms have organized international armament trusts which have increased the price of armaments sold to governments.

— J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994

Don’t mind me folks, just tossing a little kindling on the fire to keep the place warm.

Now let’s see, what else can I bring up….? :devil:

AAReagles

27th November 2011, 19:11

... Now let's see, what else can I bring up...?

Well here we go, lookie what we got now….

We’ve got the finance industry, oil industry, some pharmaceuticals… oh why look, there’s even Fixed News Network, one of Rupert Murdoch’s outstanding sources of information - I’ll let the Brits handle that one as I’m sure they got something to say about it.

Hall of Shame | People's Congress (http://peoplescongress.org/corporate-hall-of-shame/)

Timeline - Corp. Scandal (http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=657&dayinhist=&date1=-99999999999&date2=99999999999&words=&title=Corp.%20Scandal&fromrec=300)

So take your cyber hand and reach on in there like it’s bag of chips. Sure is tasty! Ummmm-um, that’s capitalism at its best.

Post #382

... Government power scares me because there is little recourse if you find yourself on the wrong end of that power. The Founders of this nation knew that, all too well. That is why they set up a very limited government with enumerated powers they were not to exceed.

Yes restrain government! That is the lesson to be learned from history.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

ioan

27th November 2011, 19:28

Thanks for the great posts. :up:

AAReagles

27th November 2011, 19:34

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents
- Smedley Butler, former Major General of the United States Marine Corp.
(1881-1940)

From his book, War is a Racket.

Rollo

27th November 2011, 21:31

From the Twitter feed of QI, (@qikipedia), the QI Elves:

https://twitter.com/#!/qikipedia/status/140892760172531712
CORPOCRACY is a society ruled by corporations; COPROCRACY is one ruled by ****s.

BDunnell

27th November 2011, 22:26

It may be worth your while to do some reading about Pinochet and Chile.

I can sense some fierce Googling going on in Florida as I type.

anthonyvop

28th November 2011, 03:10

It may be worth your while to do some reading about Pinochet and Chile.

Quite familiar with Pinochet. In fact I visited Chile a few times during his regime. In no way shape or form was it a free market economy. It was a crony=capitalist economy where supporters received sweetheart government contracts, subsidies and favorable tax breaks and where those opposed or were even non-supportive risked losing everything including their lives.

I would suggest you read up on Pinochet.

A free-market is one in which prices are determined by supply and demand. It has NOTHING to do with the "Freedom of the individual over the state". A free-market economy would be an unregulated one. They are different concepts.

the 1st thing that is essential to a free market society is private property rights. Something that cannot exist under an authoritarian regime.

anthonyvop

28th November 2011, 03:13

I can sense some fierce Googling going on in Florida as I type.

Sweety.....I have forgotten more about Pinochet than you will ever know.

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 10:25

Do you mind me asking: are you South African yourself, and if so, what is the colour of your skin?

Yes and I am proudly a white African!

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 10:29

Again, so what? I doubt, with all due respect, that your life and career progression are in any sense exceptional. That isn't meant in a rude way, quite genuinely.

The point is that anyone who is at the bottom of the pecking order can become one of the people milking it at the top. Like I said, I went from going to bed as a child some nights without food or lunch the next day and now live in the top 5% of the rich in the world according to the worlds top 5% rating of richest people. I'm proud of where my life and my hard work has got me at the tender age of 34 and I hope my children never have to experience going to bed hungry.

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 10:34

Yes you are "saying stop rewarding excellence" because obviously if the average worker has made productivity gains, then the rewards of those gain should have by your logic gone to them.

Yes, the guy at the top is often the one that has put his life on the line financially, grouped the right people to get the job done and managed the success. That's why CEO's are paid well. It's basic economics.

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 10:38

No-one here is arguing for equal wages. Of course different roles attract different salaries and that is fair. What's not fair is that, as Rollo pointed out, an average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978 while a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11 times. How is that justifiable? The roles haven't changed but the salary gap has. Why?

Sad reality check is that life is not fair. I still don't see the problem. Get to the top of the pile if you don't like being at the bottom or quit protesting and enjoy what you do have in life (health, family, friends etc).

chuck34

28th November 2011, 13:11

So I know I sound like a broken record here .....

But why is it that no one wants to discuss "solutions" to the "problem of enequality"? I've asked a couple of times now, in order to move the conversation along, to assume that we all agree there is a problem. I genuinely want to know what your proposals are. Other than Ioan's "tax 'em all", and Ben's vague "middle ground", I haven't heard a thing.

To Ioan I say, how much do you want? Just tell us all what the magic number is so we can know just how much to work.

To Mr Dunnell I say again, please flesh out what this "middle ground is", how is it different than what we have now?

Honeslty I have been away for a few days so I only skimmed the last few pages, maybe I missed something?

chuck34

28th November 2011, 13:20

Post #382

... Government power scares me because there is little recourse if you find yourself on the wrong end of that power. The Founders of this nation knew that, all too well. That is why they set up a very limited government with enumerated powers they were not to exceed.

Yes restrain government! That is the lesson to be learned from history.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Ah so you completely misunderstand how our Federal Reserve system works. The Federal Reserve Banks, you know the one's that control our currency as Jefferson was speaking of, were set up by the US Congress. They are not in any way shape or form players in the free market system. They scream and moan any time someone even thinks of auditing them. That is not free market. No way no how.

So yes, I suppose I agree with you on this, let's end the Fed. Put the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof," (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8) back in the hands of the Congress where it belongs.

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 13:26

chuck34

28th November 2011, 13:34

I know that communism won’t work, but it’s obvious to me, and you, and even chuck from what I detected from one of his posts, just on the principles of mankind’s innate characteristics; competition.

It’s the ultimate reason why communism won’t work, it is of course the same reason that civilized nations” will never emerge, and it is course why capitalism will crumble in such a form that it will eventually create a socialist society… or worse, economic genocide. Such as what occurred in Ireland during the famine, which Marx duly noted, and stated that at first the English were first dispensing of the Irish by means of Cromwell, whereas during the famine it was by means of cattle (on the land being sold out for commodity purposes).

You are right on this point. I do believe in competition, and that left completely uncheck competition can be a bad thing. I think it was Madison (could be wrong) that said something like "If men were angels there would be no need for government". Make no mistake there is a role for government in our society. I happen to believe that it has overstepped it's bounds over the last 100 years or so that is all.

Oh and about the "civilized nations", and many of the arguments about equality and charity and so forth Madison has another great quote about that. "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Or in other words, charity (and equality) are not jobs of the Federal government, they are the jobs of the individual. I believe STONGLY that individuals should help their neighbors by donating to local charities, helping out where they can, etc, (now here's the distinction) BY CHOICE OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL . However what many of you seem to be advocating is the FORCED charity by the point of the government's gun. That is not charity. That is not equality. That is not what is morally right. That, excuse me for being so blunt, is slavery. And that is the natrual progression from your Marx/Engels "utopia", to the nightmare of Lennin/Stalin. Forgive me for wanting to promote the Madisonian ideals of a Constitutianally limitied government.

555-04Q2

28th November 2011, 13:40

You are right on this point. I do believe in competition, and that left completely uncheck competition can be a bad thing. I think it was Madison (could be wrong) that said something like "If men were angels there would be no need for government". Make no mistake there is a role for government in our society. I happen to believe that it has overstepped it's bounds over the last 100 years or so that is all.

Oh and about the "civilized nations", and many of the arguments about equality and charity and so forth Madison has another great quote about that. "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Or in other words, charity (and equality) are not jobs of the Federal government, they are the jobs of the individual. I believe STONGLY that individuals should help their neighbors by donating to local charities, helping out where they can, etc, (now here's the distinction) BY CHOICE OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL . However what many of you seem to be advocating is the FORCED charity by the point of the government's gun. That is not charity. That is not equality. That is not what is morally right. That, excuse me for being so blunt, is slavery. And that is the natrual progression from your Marx/Engels "utopia", to the nightmare of Lennin/Stalin. Forgive me for wanting to promote the Madisonian ideals of a Constitutianally limitied government.

Great post :up:

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 14:35

Yes and I am proudly a white African!

And did you protest against apartheid?

ArrowsFA1

28th November 2011, 16:49

IMHO there is too much focus on the individual in some quarters here. Yes, we all have our own rights, responsibiities and abilities but do we really not give a **** about others?

If charity and equality issues are no part of government then should overseas aid end? Should racial, sexual and other inequalities be simply ignored in the name of the "free market"?

chuck34

28th November 2011, 17:45

IMHO there is too much focus on the individual in some quarters here. Yes, we all have our own rights, responsibiities and abilities but do we really not give a **** about others?

Who said that we souldn't give a **** about others? I have not seen that here. All I've seen is an argument that it isn't the government's responsibility to enforce "equality". And I know that I have advocated for people giving a **** about others, just that it should be done on their own and not through the force of government.

If charity and equality issues are no part of government then should overseas aid end?

I would argue that most overseas aid should end. Not all of it, there are areas where our interests are being served that should be kept on. But now you're getting into a whole 'nother argument. I'm not going to chase you down that rabbit hole here. Start another thread if you want.

Should racial, sexual and other inequalities be simply ignored in the name of the "free market"?

No, a thousand times no. Why does every argument about free markets devolve to this basic falsehood, that "free markets" are slavery/segregation/discrimination? Those things are the farthest concepts from a free market that there are. The fact that those horrific practices can and do exists in the minds of men, is one of the best reasons for government there is.

But you (and those on "your side" of the argument) seem to want to conflate equal rights/opportunities with equal results. I want, and I believe strongly, that EVERYONE should have equal rights/opportunity. The US has done a fairly good job of that, we're not perfect, but pretty good. What you seem to be advoacting with all this talk of income inequality etc. is equal results. And as I have said many times before. I do not believe in equal results. If you and I have the same opportunities and I capitalize on them and you do not, why should I be penalized?

Oh yeah, and exactly what is your solution to making income more equitable than it currently is? I really am interested in hearing what you have to say.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:08

But you (and those on "your side" of the argument) seem to want to conflate equal rights/opportunities with equal results.

No, no, no. You are reading into our views what you wish to read into them. Hardly at all has it been accurate. All I have been saying is that I want to see the gap between richest and poorest narrowing, something which does not, I have to tell you, have to entail making the rich poorer. And even that only concerns those whose sole obsession is money, of whom there appear to be several here.

I want, and I believe strongly, that EVERYONE should have equal rights/opportunity.

So do I. Right-wingers do not have a monopoly on thinking that way, you know.

If you and I have the same opportunities and I capitalize on them and you do not, why should I be penalized?

You shouldn't, but this is not what is being argued, by most at any rate.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:16

No, no, no. You are reading into our views what you wish to read into them. Hardly at all has it been accurate. All I have been saying is that I want to see the gap between richest and poorest narrowing, something which does not, I have to tell you, have to entail making the rich poorer. And even that only concerns those whose sole obsession is money, of whom there appear to be several here.

This is what I have been harping on so much. How exactly do you go about making the gap between the richest and poorest narrower? The only way I have seen put forward by protestors and by Ioan on this board, is to tax the rich. What is your proposal? What way narrows the gap between richest and poorist without obsessing on money? That makes no sense. In order to define "rich" and "poor" one must use monetary metrics. Or are you saying rich in family? Soul? Happyness? If that is the case then I know plenty of miserable rich people, and plenty of very happy poor people. So why all the protesting of the "rich" and "greedy corporations"?

So do I. Right-wingers do not have a monopoly on thinking that way, you know.

I never said one group has a monopoly on that. I was being accused of not caring about people. So I was personally responding to that.

You shouldn't, but this is not what is being argued, by most at any rate.

Once again, this is why I keep asking ... What exactly are you protesting FOR? What is the SOLUTION? What do you WANT?

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:24

This is what I have been harping on so much. How exactly do you go about making the gap between the richest and poorest narrower? The only way I have seen put forward by protestors and by Ioan on this board, is to tax the rich. What is your proposal? What way narrows the gap between richest and poorist without obsessing on money? That makes no sense. In order to define "rich" and "poor" one must use monetary metrics. Or are you saying rich in family? Soul? Happyness? If that is the case then I know plenty of miserable rich people, and plenty of very happy poor people. So why all the protesting of the "rich" and "greedy corporations"?

So, to clear it up once and for all, you are happy to see the fiscal gap between richest and poorest continuing exponentially to increase? You don't consider this in any way representative of a societal problem, and you view it only as a positive because of the movement in one direction, without even considering the negative embodied by the movement in the other direction?

Why not increase the wages of the lowest-paid, another way, surely, of decreasing the gap?

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:33

The point is that anyone who is at the bottom of the pecking order can become one of the people milking it at the top. Like I said, I went from going to bed as a child some nights without food or lunch the next day and now live in the top 5% of the rich in the world according to the worlds top 5% rating of richest people. I'm proud of where my life and my hard work has got me at the tender age of 34 and I hope my children never have to experience going to bed hungry.

Yours probably won't but due to the skewed system that you are supporting millions of children are and will continue to die due to lack of food. Food for thought to you and the rest of teh 5% richest people in the world, including me.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:35

Yes, the guy at the top is often the one that has put his life on the line financially, ...

That's not true anymore, and it hasn't been so for more than a decade.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:38

Sad reality check is that life is not fair. I still don't see the problem.

We could make it fair, but for that we need to see the problem.
Did you think that this unfairness was good back when you were going to bed hungry as a young kid? I don't think you did, though I know that you will deny it now.
One should never forget where he/she started off, cause the target in life is not to become rich while others get crushed, not my target anyway.
I had your believes when I was young but it all changed and I can not complain.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:40

So, to clear it up once and for all, you are happy to see the fiscal gap between richest and poorest continuing exponentially to increase? You don't consider this in any way representative of a societal problem, and you view it only as a positive because of the movement in one direction, without even considering the negative embodied by the movement in the other direction?

We are obviously never going to agree on this, as can be seen with 36 pages of back and forth. I am tired of endlessly arguing about it. That is why, for the sake of moving things forward, I propose that we all agree you are right, it is bad.

Now ... What do we do about it? How do we fix it?

Why not increase the wages of the lowest-paid, another way, surely, of decreasing the gap?

Yes of course that would reduce the gap. How do you propose we go about enacting this wage increase for the lowest-paid?

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:41

To Ioan I say, how much do you want? Just tell us all what the magic number is so we can know just how much to work.

I don't want anything, in fact I am paying taxes approx 50% of my salary month after month.

My problem is with the rich and teh corporations who manage to pay close to nothing taxes year after year after year. They are taking from the society and not giving back anything. This has to stop.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:42

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:44

Did you think that this unfairness was good back when you were going to b(e)d hungry a(s) a young kid?

I know this isn't necessarily directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell no, it's not fair. But it (going to bed hungry) sure is a d@mn good motivator. It motivated him to better himself through education and hard work, so that neither he nor his family ever had to go hungry again. What would his motivation be to improve himself if the government just gave him and his family food? He very well may have had some motivation, but to say that it would have been as strong as it is, is foolish.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:44

I would argue that most overseas aid should end. Not all of it, there are areas where our interests are being served that should be kept on.

So you will help only those who serve your interests, that is not called caring about others, that is called economic slavery.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:48

I know this isn't necessarily directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell no, it's not fair. But it (going to bed hungry) sure is a d@mn good motivator. It motivated him to better himself through education and hard work, so that neither he nor his family ever had to go hungry again. What would his motivation be to improve himself if the government just gave him and his family food? He very well may have had some motivation, but to say that it would have been as strong as it is, is foolish.

This is not about giving food for free, it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free. How can you achieve that when 20% of the worlds population gets 80% of the revenue? You can't.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:48

I don't want anything, in fact I am paying taxes approx 50% of my salary month after month.

My problem is with the rich and teh corporations who manage to pay close to nothing taxes year after year after year. They are taking from the society and not giving back anything. This has to stop.

Well said, and I would pretty much agree.

But answer this then. Those corporations that are paying nothing, are they breaking any laws, or are they taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to benifit them?

I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:48

I know this isn't necessarily directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell no, it's not fair. But it (going to bed hungry) sure is a d@mn good motivator. It motivated him to better himself through education and hard work, so that neither he nor his family ever had to go hungry again. What would his motivation be to improve himself if the government just gave him and his family food? He very well may have had some motivation, but to say that it would have been as strong as it is, is foolish.

To look at it another way, I'm surprised the subject of ioan's post doesn't apply his free market principles across the board, and consider his parents failures for having not been able to provide for him. I wonder what stopped them from being able to do so.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:49

This is not about giving food for free, it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free. How can you achieve that when 20% of the worlds population gets 80% of the revenue? You can't.

So how do you propose to change that ratio without using government?

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:49

This is not about giving food for free, it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free. How can you achieve that when 20% of the worlds population gets 80% of the revenue? You can't.

It's about how a kid who had a difficult life should remember where he started of and try to make the world better not only get himself in the position of the new rich guy at the top.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:50

So how do you propose to change that ratio without using government?

Who said government doesn't have to be involved?

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:50

But answer this then. Those corporations that are paying nothing, are they breaking any laws, or are they taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to benifit them?

Such laws are generally enacted on the basis of governments wanting to be 'business-friendly'. Or they are not properly enforced.

I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

Do you not believe in taking personal responsibility? If you do, you should also feel that these corporations should take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should, and do the decent thing.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:53

Well said, and I would pretty much agree.

But answer this then. Those corporations that are paying nothing, are they breaking any laws, or are they taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to benifit them?

I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

I would say that they are 'taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to' be made for them. And this is the problem. They can buy pretty much anyone in order to suit their agendas and I hope it isn't to late to stop this, before their stronghold on the legislative will not be to strong for anything but war to change it.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:55

They can buy pretty much anyone in order to suit their agendas

Exactly.

ioan, we may sometimes have some vehement disagreements, but I genuinely applaud your sense of social conscience.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:55

To look at it another way, I'm surprised the subject of ioan's post doesn't apply his free market principles across the board, and consider his parents failures for having not been able to provide for him. I wonder what stopped them from being able to do so.

Again, not putting words into his mouth ... But perhaps he just sees his parents as simple failures. Perhaps he doesn't need to blame anyone other than them. Not wanting to disrespect his parents or anything like that, just offering one possibility.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 18:56

Again, not putting words into his mouth ... But perhaps he just sees his parents as simple failures. Perhaps he doesn't need to blame anyone other than them. Not wanting to disrespect his parents or anything like that, just offering one possibility.

Of course, though the application of 'blame' in such circumstances I find problematic.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 18:57

Who said government doesn't have to be involved?

You did.

post #714

it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:57

Exactly.

ioan, we may sometimes have some vehement disagreements, but I genuinely applaud your sense of social conscience.

Thanks. I used to have rather polarizing views, and in some aspects of life I still have them (as we know :) ) however lots of things happen in life that change one's views bit by bit.

ioan

28th November 2011, 18:59

Who said government doesn't have to be involved?

You did.

it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free

post #714

Because governments only hand out free food?!

You are bending reality too much there.

ioan

28th November 2011, 19:01

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:02

Such laws are generally enacted on the basis of governments wanting to be 'business-friendly'. Or they are not properly enforced.

That was exactly my point. Government has set up the system that allows for corporations to pay little or no tax. They would be foolish to pay more. And the people at Occupy Wall Street have their anger misplaced. It should be directed at D.C. and the politicians that have allowed this system to be.

Do you not believe in taking personal responsibility? If you do, you should also feel that these corporations should take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should, and do the decent thing.

I do believe strongly in personal resonsibilty.

"failure to pay as much as they should". According to who? According to the law, they payed exactly as much as they should have. That is except for Warren Buffett (one of the world's richest men, and one of the loudest voices advocating for taxing the rich), he is apparently about $1Billion behind in his legal obligation to pay taxes, and he's fighting that in court. Funny that. :D

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:03

I would say that they are 'taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to' be made for them. And this is the problem. They can buy pretty much anyone in order to suit their agendas and I hope it isn't to late to stop this, before their stronghold on the legislative will not be to strong for anything but war to change it.

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:04

You did.

post #714

Am I alone in thinking that ioan meant to write 'Who said government has to be involved'?

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:05

Because governments only hand out free food?!

You are bending reality too much there.

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

ioan

28th November 2011, 19:06

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:07

That was exactly my point. Government has set up the system that allows for corporations to pay little or no tax. They would be foolish to pay more. And the people at Occupy Wall Street have their anger misplaced. It should be directed at D.C. and the politicians that have allowed this system to be.

Ah, yes, that old get-out — 'it's the system that's at fault', as used by many British MPs in the aftermath of being found out over their expenses claims:

Alan Duncan MP - Embarrassing U-Turn on MP's expenses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xO4xEebNU)

If you believe in personal responsibility being taken, such an attitude is inherently contradictory.

That is except for Warren Buffett (one of the world's richest men, and one of the loudest voices advocating for taxing the rich), he is apparently about $1Billion behind in his legal obligation to pay taxes, and he's fighting that in court. Funny that. :D

Advocating higher taxes does not, surely, mean that one whould just automatically pay if one feels one has been taxed wrongly?

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:08

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

Because all mainstream parties now advocate the same 'business-friendly' (i.e. sucking up to the rich) approach, offering voters none of the choice they otherwise espouse. Funny, that.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:09

Am I alone in thinking that ioan meant to write 'Who said government has to be involved'?

Again, if we are speaking of charities, and not governments. Then I'm with you. I would support a movement asking "the rich" to give more, as Bill Gates has for just one example. But that is not what I have seen from the OWS people. If that really is their central message then I will change my mind about them. But you guys are going to have to do a lot of intellectual cartwheels to make me believe that one.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:09

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

Donating to charity does not stop one from being a dreadful person. (That statement is absolutely not directed at you, by the way.) Nor does it absolve companies from criticism.

ioan

28th November 2011, 19:10

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

No I am not for charities, not from you and not from the governments, I am for a system that doesn't need charity, where each healthy individual can make a living and where the less healthy ones can be supported by the healthy ones.
This is not possible with 20% of the population owning 80% of the resources.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:10

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

So you have given up? Excuse me for not being as defeated as you.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:11

So you have given up? Excuse me for not being as defeated as you.

Come on, be realistic here. Room for alternative views in mainstream politics has never been less.

ioan

28th November 2011, 19:11

Donating to charity does not stop one from being a dreadful person. (That statement is absolutely not directed at you, by the way.) Nor does it absolve companies from criticism.

Donating for charity has become another way of dodging some taxes and improve the image for most big corporations.

BDunnell

28th November 2011, 19:14

Come on, be realistic here. Room for alternative views in mainstream politics has never been less.

Oh, and I should add that when room for alternative views is found, it seems only to be for right-wing nutcases.

chuck34

28th November 2011, 19:14

Ah, yes, that old get-out — 'it's the system that's at fault', as used by many British MPs in the aftermath of being found out over their expenses claims:

Alan Duncan MP - Embarrassing U-Turn on MP's expenses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xO4xEebNU)

If you believe in personal responsibility being taken, such an attitude is inherently contradictory.

Didn't follow the expenses scandal. The little bit I heard about it, makes me think those MP's are dirty b@stards. You won't find me supporting them. But nice little diversion from the point.

Advocating higher taxes does not, surely, mean that one whould just automatically pay if one feels one has been taxed wrongly?

But if you have been all over the media saying "I want to pay more taxes", why would you fight not to pay more taxes?