You seem to be confusing the words “interchangeable” with “expendable”
They’re not the same.
I see you accusing me of a rant yet you are the one with zero citations to backup any of your assertions choosing to nitpick to make your point. The overall wealth disparity of the US is not in question. The financial collapse is not in question. Unemployment is not in question. Flat wages in the past decade in the country are not in question. The rich getting richer while everyone else goes the other way is not in question. Corporate treatment of workers when the corporation has nothing restraining them is not in question.
Cites for them have been provided, plenty more where they came from.
These are nationwide issues. These are historical issues. You have supplied no answer for why people at the top, who make substantial amounts of money, are not accountable when it all goes south but continue to make that money. You have not answered why MY tax money should save them. Why MY tax money should pay their bonuses. Why I get taxed at a higher rate than they do. Why the people who actually generate that wealth for the company (i.e. the workers) should not share in the company’s prosperity (certainly they are the ones who take it in the ass when things go bad…bye bye job, be bye 401k, bye bye pension…guys at the top get a bonus though).
And unfortunately I was a little too loose with my verbiage. Everyone working generates some wealth. But consider that we have a lot of people making $30k a year, and a few people making $30million per year. When the numbers orders of magnitude different, I have a tendency to drop off the smaller portion. If you make $50k a year and your kid makes $10 a week with his paper route, which of you is the wage earner in the family? Do you list that $10 on your taxes?
What’s even more significant about the 1 in 100 is that generally speaking the other 99 fail. 100 people submit a story to be published, only 1 is selected meaning only 1 generates wealth. Like I said with Walmart, there have been hundreds of failed discount department stores. Walmart wasn’t the only one at the time in that location, but how many are still in existence?
Only if you get confused with what we’re talking about. Of NBA players only a handful get paid the big bucks. Teams compete to get those players.
Next you’ll notice there are a lot of NBA teams, only a few of which are any good in any given year. How many fail?
Then, consider basketball leagues. Why do people watch the NBA and not the WNBA? Or any other league? The NBA is just 1 of hundreds of leagues that people could watch.
And basketball is just one of many sports. Why aren’t people watching professional waterpolo? Of all the sports invented, why is basketball so popular?
The NBA provides a service people will pay a lot of money for, how much are tickets to a local high school game? Lots of leagues tried and most failed. The Bulls put together a team people will pay to watch. Lots of team owners fail to do that and go bankrupt.
And again, we look at the makeup of the Bulls and ask who is generating wins, Rose or the guy that washes the jerseys? Both are important, one is more interchangeable than the other.
Rose specifically may not be the best example, but look at all the basketball leagues without Rose and tell me which is doing better. How many other leagues can you name?
Like removing Stephen King, when you start taking away the top talent the fans stop showing up for games (or buying books), more importantly ad revenue falls. I’ve lived in cities where the top talent leaves and the team falters. A few years of that and ticket sales slump, then the team moves to Memphis.
That is true, like I said back in the beginning we have a situation where multiple people come together with their specialties. The owner of the Bulls can’t do what Rose does, Rose can’t do what the owner does. Rose will be a great basketball player even if he goes to Europe for a year. And that team will very likely do better as a result. The owner of the Bulls could start a hockey team and probably do very well.
Wait, what the fuck? When did that become a relevant question? I noticed you chose to ignore my questions.
But here’s the answer to yours: America voted for the wrong politicians, do you need a cite for that? Would you like me to link to the election results of the past 30 years? Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all two term presidents, voters were happy to re-elect them. They are the ones that taxed you and gave your money away. If you have a beef take it up with them, most are still in office. Your question has NOTHING to do with capitalism or the OP, but failed political policy. Face it, you get the politicians you deserve. They were the ones that removed regulation, failed to put in useful regulation, and failed to enforce the regulations on the books. 2008 happened because of that, not because of Dick Fuld.
Now tell me, with a cite, why does Derrick Rose get paid more than the concession stand, and why is that okay with you?
Corporations have overwhelming control of politicians and the political process. Should not be news to you.
Derrick Rose does not hire the concession stand employee nor does Derrick Rose pay him. Derrick Rose has zero to do with the concession guy.
It is news! I had no idea they got to vote, here I thought it was only citizens that got to vote.
Again, you’ve avoided the question: Why is Rose paid $5million per year when the concession guy makes minimum wage?
Because no one is arguing for absolute income equality, you are arguing against it, and are gleefully pointing out the absurdity of a position not offered.
You still need to prove this statement or admit it’s bullshit. I’ll wait.
Wrong. I am arguing that people should get paid for what they provide. Others are suggesting the opposite. Whack-a-Mole continues to bitch that CEO’s make 550x what the other employees make. So what’s the alternative? Step in and take a bunch of the CEOs money and give it to the employees?
We’ve now had the Gini coefficient dragged out (and claimed it was a cite), are you prepared to tell us what the goal should be? I think we should aim to be more like Ethiopia, there’s is nice and low. Wouldn’t we all be better off living in Ethiopia?
You’re kidding, right? We need to prove to you that in a consumer-driven economy, it is important that the consumers have enough money to buy the products?
What planet are you living on? You really think corporations and the wealthy have no more control over what happens in Congress than Joe the Plumber?
Derrick Rose has an agent and is in a union.
Besides which no one, including me, is suggesting the concession guy get paid the same as Derrick Rose. There is a distinct difference in their contribution to the profitability of the organization and that greater contribution should be reflected in their compensation.
Yes.
When the CEOs take that money they are taking it from shareholders and/or employees.
No one is saying they should earn minimum wage but why is 50x average compensation not enough? Works fine for people elsewhere in the world.
Good grief…
Warren Buffet may be a billionaire but he is still likely to buy only one iPod. Apple makes money by selling millions of them. If people do not have money to buy millions of them then Apple has no market to speak of.
No, you need to prove that wealth transfer is the way to achieve that.
That goes for Whack-a-Mole too.
Taking money from Steve Jobs, giving it to poor people, so that they can buy iPods from Steve Jobs.
It’s obvious trickle down doesn’t work, so either prove that trickle up does work, or accept that government involvement doesn’t always help.
Progress. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you about CEO’s. They get paid more because of their contribution to the profitability of the organization.
Tell me, how much is Dick Fuld getting paid now? More or less than $350million? You’ll notice he’s not a CEO any more.
First of all, the CEO is not stealing that money from anyone, you do realize that right? And the company that pays them isn’t stealing the money either. They provide a product/service people want, which is better than the competitor. Who are you to tell them what level of compensation is appropriate?
And I see you’ve once again posted that bullshit comparing US CEOs to Europeans. You know what, American basketball players get paid more too, are you ready to go after their salaries as well?
How about instead of posting the same bullshit rhetoric over and over you have the balls to tell us what you think should happen. Do you want a government panel to approve executive compensation? Do you want to mandate that it be a fixed ratio related to the average/median/lowest employee?
What are you actually trying to say when you post that stupid statistic?
This tells some of that story:
While it is not talking about a direct wealth transfer (e.g. take money from the rich and give to the poor) it does show that when income inequality shrunk the wealthy actually did a tad better than they do when income inequality grows.
More:
The issue is not so much having Steve Jobs write me a check.
It is about evening the playing field.
How about Dick Fuld and Jobs and Buffet pay the same tax rate I do (never mind the higher marginal rate they theoretically would pay but don’t). Most of Fuld’s income was in stock and that stock is taxed at the Capital Gains rate which is lower than I pay and probably lower than you pay on our salary.
You are also financing Wall Street profits right now. Essentially the banks are borrowing from the US government at shockingly low rates (0.5% or lower). They are then turning around and buying government debt and getting 2-3.5% on that money. The loans they took were backed by junk-rated bonds.
The government loans were meant to stimulate credit to the public. Banks have slashed that lending though tightening credit lines. Why bother lending to business when the government will essentially hand you free money with no risk?
Make no mistake, as a tax payer YOU are paying the banks. It’d be little different than if you just wrote a check to BofA every week.
Smart of the banks I suppose. Why not? Good for you or me or the economy? Nope. Good for bank CEOs? Yep.
Fuld works for a hedge fund now (Matrix Advisors). No details on how much he is making but I bet it’s not a $50,000/year desk job.
Why would Fuld care if he had no job now anyway? Living on $350 million a problem?
What Fuld did was make risky, short term bets that were terrible for long-term stability and growth. He was incented to make short term profits. His compensation did not align him with the best interests of his company or stock holders. He pilfered the system and walked away a rich man. I’m sure he’s all broken up about losing his job. :rolleyes:
Not to mention instead of allowing other Wall Street firms to fail (as they would have) taxpayers (you and me) bailed them out. Did they suffer consequences? None I see.
Poor guys…really suffered the downside of their actions (their investors did though).
Tax payer paying the banks? Worse, the sweetheart free money deal they got made it so tax payers are paying back the money we gave the banks. The banks tell Americans how great it was for them to pay back the loans. Hell .they did it with our tax money. The banks have done nothing to fix the economy. They have resisted as much as possible, any banking regulation and oversight.
Nothing has changed. They have kept all the horrible banking policies in place.
I think it’s fitting and ironic that one offhanded post by me has achieved a thread a hundred posts long.
IOW 1%.
