Printable View
Is that really what you hear coming from the "Occupy" protests? I hear a confusing mess of differing ideas. From tax the rich, to end corporate greed, to destroy the system and rebuild it, to simple gimmie, gimmie, gimmie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I do not talk only about the Occupy movement, what matters to me is the fact that this movement exists and that it is the result of the huge differences that have been mentioned in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What I see is that if there is no serious change to reduce this enormous financial difference then the resulting social issue might culminate in something we do not want to see in our lifetime. And I sincerely hope that there will be a solution to avoid a huge fallout.
So do you perhaps now understand why there is, at the very least, concern about the way those at the top maintain and increase their wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Sure. I never said there wasn't corruption, or crony-ism, or anything like that. What I question is the need for massive protests, particularly on Wall Street. I think that if there is a need for protests, the center of those protests should be centered around Capital Hill, not Wall Street. But honestly most of the issues that have been brought up on this thread (pay gaps, etc.) are not a matter for massive protests, or mass movements. They are individual matters that should be delt with individually. What I believe should be protested are all sweet-heart deals that Congresscritters get, the kick-backs that corporations get from them, and the corruption within our politicians. I honestly can't blame the CEO's from trying to get the best deals they can, that's only natural. I tend to blame our elected officials for being so short sighted as to allow themselves to be bought in such a manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Whether or not 10 per cent is correct, who on earth could ever come up with a measure? I suspect it would even be beyond you.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I suspect you would be of the view that there is never a need to protest against the private sector, no matter what it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How hard is it to measure when a CEO has sunk his life savings into a company, and a "low earner" has zero invested? How hard is it to measure when a CEO dips into his own personal income to make ends meet, and a laborer has not a care in the world how the lights stay on? How hard is it to measure when the owner of the company works well over 100 hours a week, and the janitor barely works 40?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But yes, it may be beyond me to pin the exact value. But I am not the one that came up with a hair-brained concept of pegging earnings at 10%, so why should I be the one charged with defending such a scheme?
There are certainly times where protests are warranted. That is actually a vital part of the free market in my view. But you should be protesting something specific such as a company that has ripped you off, or discriminated against you, or other such specific instances. I just don't see what the point is in protesting a company you have no dealings with because you feel their CEO is making too much. Who cares? How does that effect you? Who are you to put a price on that CEO's value?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Huh?! What kind of Maths is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I think you'll find that the CEO in my proposal would get 10 times what the janitor gets.
That's some kind of urban legend that the usual suspects bring up again and again around here!Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How much money did Bill Gates invest in MS? I think you'll find that it wasn't exactly his lifetime savings, especially given his age when he started the company.
How much money did invest Porsche's CEO in the Porsche Company? Pretty much nothing as it was set up by someone else a long time ago.
And there is a bunch of example out there about how those who are paid most didn't really invest much in the business they are in charge of right now, mostly because most of the companies/banks paying exorbitant wages were not set up by their present CEOs, and the founders did not have a similar politics back in the day when they invested their 'lifetime savings'.