People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

25th November 2011, 20:30
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.
25th November 2011, 20:36
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.
25th November 2011, 20:40
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.
25th November 2011, 20:53
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.
25th November 2011, 20:54
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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.
25th November 2011, 20:54
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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

Not in Europe, certainly.
25th November 2011, 21:32
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Which is what Socialism promotes!

No. It's Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism can occur in both a highly Laissez-faire or a highly Socialist economy.
25th November 2011, 21:56
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

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 :)

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.
26th November 2011, 02:30
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.
26th November 2011, 21:50
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

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?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page