Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: AC Slater on September 11, 2011, 12:04:40 PM
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/uaw-said-to-seek-record-10-000-signing-bonuses-in-talks-with-automakers.html
These twinks have the gall to try and demand a $10,000 lump sum payment to each of the 113,000 union workers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler just for renewing their union contracts and agreeing not to strike? Have they not forgotten that if it wasn't for the US govt bailout they would all be unemployed right now?
I say the Big 3 should tell the UAW to shove it and tell the workers they will only receive $15 per hour for their unskilled labor, with no healthcare or retirement benefits. And if they dont like it, they can quit and go work some place else. With a downed economy and over 9% unemployment, this is the perfect chance for the Big 3 to stomp out the UAW disease once and for all. If the union workers dont agree to the above demands and strike, the Big 3 could easily replace them in a time like this.
-
Isn't "Union UAW" redundant?
-
why shouldnt the workers get paid well? why should all of the profits go to the chairmen and ceo? they dont do the work that makes the money, the employees do
-
why shouldnt the workers get paid well? why should all of the profits go to the chairmen and ceo? they dont do the work that makes the money, the employees do
You're clueless.. Get out on your own, get a job, pay taxes then you can spout off. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
-
You're clueless.. Get out on your own, get a job, pay taxes then you can spout off. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
::) please, enlighten me, why should the profits from a company not be shared with the people who put in all the work making those profits possible?
-
::) please, enlighten me, why should the profits from a company not be shared with the people who put in all the work making those profits possible?
they are to be shared with the people who put forth the capital (debt and equity holders) to build the factories and buy the raw materials so that these unskilled laborers can have a job.
-
they are to be shared with the people who put forth the capital (debt and equity holders) to build the factories and buy the raw materials so that these unskilled laborers can have a job.
oh, praise the rich, they are so kind for giving us our jobs ::)
your a brain washed idiot
-
oh, praise the rich, they are so kind for giving us our jobs ::)
your a brain washed idiot
You're not your - if I can accomplish nothing else in life, I will teach your uneducated ass the difference between you're & your.
-
You're not your - if I can accomplish nothing else in life, I will teach your uneducated ass the difference between you're & your.
yes, focus on the things that matter. your a genius
-
yes, focus on the things that matter. your a genius
You're unteachable, true sign of a tard
-
::) please, enlighten me, why should the profits from a company not be shared with the people who put in all the work making those profits possible?
ever hear of stock ownership, you stupid queer?
-
ever hear of stock ownership, you stupid queer?
do share holders particpate in the labor necessary to produce and make a profit?
-
do share holders particpate in the labor necessary to produce and make a profit?
no, they pay for the labor along with the materials necessary to provide the product.
i know you're trolling, you seriously can't be this stupid.
i feel like i type the sentence above about 4 times a week with you.
-
do share holders particpate in the labor necessary to produce and make a profit?
You don't get it man. Those union workers are lucky to have a job and they are the prime reason why so many jobs have been outsourced overseas. Their demands for wages and benefits do not correlate with what they provide - they could all EASILY be replaced within a month. The fact that they have the gall to demand this after the American public bailed their asses out and saved their pensions is astonishing. They have no shame and hopefully get owned, but I doubt it.
-
why shouldnt the workers get paid well? why should all of the profits go to the chairmen and ceo? they dont do the work that makes the money, the employees do
The profits are shared- It is called salaries, a paycheck.. No one is forced to work there. Gee twist my arm and force me to work there...
-
i know you're trolling, you seriously can't be this stupid.
He is. And It's quite shocking.
-
You don't get it man. Those union workers are lucky to have a job and they are the prime reason why so many jobs have been outsourced overseas. Their demands for wages and benefits do not correlate with what they provide - they could all EASILY be replaced within a month. The fact that they have the gall to demand this after the American public bailed their asses out and saved their pensions is astonishing. They have no shame and hopefully get owned, but I doubt it.
QFT
-
also, before anyone jumps in with "the job description demands high wages", i'd like to remind you that bmw in north carolina makes cars on non-union labor, and i think we can all agree that a bmw is better than a chrysler sebring.
-
no, they pay for the labor along with the materials necessary to provide the product.
i know you're trolling, you seriously can't be this stupid.
i feel like i type the sentence above about 4 times a week with you.
Meth will do that to ya :-\ :-\
-
He is. And It's quite shocking.
He is easily the dumbest sommabitch on there
-
Congratulations, another 15 brainwashed Republicans landed on the same thread.
You have no idea how many people had to get their heads busted in to get unions in this country.
You'll piss it all away, just like your civil liberties, because you swallow everything you hear on hate radio.
You and Rush are the smart ones, everyone else is a dumbass commie right?
Bet you can't wait until tomorrow so right wing radio can tell you what to think after an entire two days off. Probably going through withdrawals already.
How about you go piss on the graves of the soldiers who have defended your freedom with their lives? Rush would probably appreciate that as well, since he has no clue how the military works.
-
Congratulations, another 15 brainwashed Republicans landed on the same thread.
You have no idea how many people had to get their heads busted in to get unions in this country.
You'll piss it all away, just like your civil liberties, because you swallow everything you hear on hate radio.
You and Rush are the smart ones, everyone else is a dumbass commie right?
Bet you can't wait until tomorrow so right wing radio can tell you what to think after an entire two days off. Probably going through withdrawals already.
How about you go piss on the graves of the soldiers who have defended your freedom with their lives? Rush would probably appreciate that as well, since he has no clue how the military works.
Congratulations to you. To be as smart as you and to have you on this board is a real privilege to the rest of us. Wow...
-
oh, praise the rich, they are so kind for giving us our jobs ::)
your a brain washed idiot
lol :) however, there are plenty of idiots who really think this way....
-
Congratulations to you. To be as smart as you and to have you on this board is a real privilege to the rest of us. Wow...
I think he just read "The Jungle"
-
lol :) however, there are plenty of idiots who really think this way....
True - It is everyone else's fault that their lives are so miserable. Everyone but their own.
-
Congratulations, another 15 brainwashed Republicans landed on the same thread.
You have no idea how many people had to get their heads busted in to get unions in this country.
You'll piss it all away, just like your civil liberties, because you swallow everything you hear on hate radio.
You and Rush are the smart ones, everyone else is a dumbass commie right?
Bet you can't wait until tomorrow so right wing radio can tell you what to think after an entire two days off. Probably going through withdrawals already.
How about you go piss on the graves of the soldiers who have defended your freedom with their lives? Rush would probably appreciate that as well, since he has no clue how the military works.
Shut your pie hole you stupid jack ass. Unions have way to much power this day in age. Look how bad the teachers unions are. Unions are holding the economy back! Unions should be made illegal and if you want more in life you should learn to do something more valuable. TEaming up to threaten your employer is no different then one man robbing another at gunpoint. If you deserved the money the man would give it to you. If not then he wont. Unions are criminal organizations in this day and age. They existed for a purpose before labor laws enforced that employers have to pay for time that was worked. Now that we have laws teh unions serve no purpose other than promoting communists and making the average conseumer pay higher prices for products.
-
Shut your pie hole you stupid jack ass. Unions have way to much power this day in age. Look how bad the teachers unions are. Unions are holding the economy back! Unions should be made illegal and if you want more in life you should learn to do something more valuable. TEaming up to threaten your employer is no different then one man robbing another at gunpoint. If you deserved the money the man would give it to you. If not then he wont. Unions are criminal organizations in this day and age. They existed for a purpose before labor laws enforced that employers have to pay for time that was worked. Now that we have laws teh unions serve no purpose other than promoting communists and making the average conseumer pay higher prices for products.
You are incredibly gullible. I mean, it didn't even take them much effort.
Of course, this is probably due to a serious lack of education on your part.
You just don't know your history. EVERYBODY is accused of communism who doesn't support absolutism of the rich.
Do you have any idea of the redistribution of wealth that has taken place in this country over the last 30 years. The top 1 percent have as much wealth as the bottom 90. Anytime anybody fights for you (I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not in the top tier) you bark at them like a rabid dog. Enjoy your slave wages without healthcare. I have an education and can find work all over the world.
You're toast.
-
I have an education and can find work all over the world.
Get it at the school of hard cocks?
-
And I know you'll probably call me a traitor again, so I'll pre-empt - I went to college on the GI Bill and served my country in Afghanistan.
I'm sure you have a lot of American flags on your truck, though.
-
You are incredibly gullible. I mean, it didn't even take them much effort.
Of course, this is probably due to a serious lack of education on your part.
You just don't know your history. EVERYBODY is accused of communism who doesn't support absolutism of the rich.
Do you have any idea of the redistribution of wealth that has taken place in this country over the last 30 years. The top 1 percent have as much wealth as the bottom 90. Anytime anybody fights for you (I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not in the top tier) you bark at them like a rabid dog. Enjoy your slave wages without healthcare. I have an education and can find work all over the world.
You're toast.
Did you just say redistribution of wealth! Are you fucking kidding me. You're a dumbfuck! Who is doing all the redistributing?
-
The laziest, lowest common denominators in society, fear the abolishment of collective bargaining and affirmative action because they know they cannot survive and expect others to fend for them in an open job market.
The lazy and stupid that would be most affected by this social and economic Darwinism are the bulk of Obama's constituency.
-
Get it at the school of hard cocks?
State University.
I'll speak fluent Mandarin within a couple of years as well.
Most of you right wingers haven't mastered English yet. Probably never will.
-
The laziest, lowest common denominators in society, fear the abolishment of collective bargaining and affirmative action because they know they cannot survive and expect others to fend for them in an open job market.
The lazy and stupid that would be most affected by this social and economic Darwinism are the bulk of Obama's constituency.
You speak the truth.
-
The laziest, lowest common denominators in society, fear the abolishment of collective bargaining and affirmative action because they know they cannot survive and expect others to fend for them in an open job market.
The lazy and stupid that would be most affected by this social and economic Darwinism are the bulk of Obama's constituency.
Correct - those too lazy to get up and take care of themselves. These kind expect others to take care of them.
-
Did you just say redistribution of wealth! Are you fucking kidding me. You're a dumbfuck! Who is doing all the redistributing?
It's going from the middle class to the rich, you idiot. Do you really not know this?
No one is even going to debate about it. While you were so scared of communism the rich consolidated the wealth.
You are such a chump. This is not a secret. Been happening steadily since Reagan. What do you think happens when the rich get all the tax cuts? Have you not noticed the economic downturn?
You are not in the same demographic as right wing radio hosts. Are you that dense?
-
Call me a communist all you want. This is not my problem. It's yours.
Talk about lowest common denominator or whatever other BS you've heard a million times. YOU are the one getting left behind.
You can't say you haven't been warned.
-
What I see coming from the commies is that they SAY we need the rich to pay "their fair share" , but what they really mean is they want to CONFISCATE the riches money until they only have what the liberals decide is the right amount
Here you go gaybear pay attention
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
-
Unions themselves are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Membership continues to decline, as well as their influence. GM, Ford, and Chrysler continue to build factories in Mexico and China to utilize the much cheaper labor. Foreign manufacturers such as Toyota, Nissan, and BMW are building factories in places like Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi.....where taxes and cost of living are low, with great weather...............AN D...no unions to contend with. This is why the northeast and rust belt areas continue to become the shitholes of the US.........high taxes, high unemployment, reduced populations, cities like Buffalo, Detroit, and Cleveland...no one wants to do business there. Period.
Thank globalization. Both parties have sold us out and we have little to no protectionist policies in place.
-
It's going from the middle class to the rich, you idiot. Do you really not know this?
No one is even going to debate about it. While you were so scared of communism the rich consolidated the wealth.
You are such a chump. This is not a secret. Been happening steadily since Reagan. What do you think happens when the rich get all the tax cuts? Have you not noticed the economic downturn?
You are not in the same demographic as right wing radio hosts. Are you that dense?
Absolutely! People like Coach and 3.14 are so blinded by ideology, they don't realize that the uber-rich, the 1% who control the 40% of the wealth, couldn't care less how they vote as long as they themselves continue to get richer. Coach would want to feel like he was a comrade-in-arms with people like the Koch Brothers, but they, in turn, wouldn't piss on on him if he was on fire. Sad.
-
Redistribution of wealth my ass....you have two main components to Obama's economic plan: (1) tax the rich because all the Liberal economic stimulus/policies have failed, so make a panicked money grab somewhere, (2) collapse the middle-class and make them dependent on the government, thereby increasing your voter base.
It's time to see this Socialist and his thinly veiled socialist policies for what they really are.
-
Redistribution of wealth my ass....you have two main components to Obama's economic plan: (1) tax the rich because all the Liberal economic stimulus/policies have failed, so make a panicked money grab somewhere, (2) collapse the middle-class and make them dependent on the government, thereby increasing your voter base.
It's time to see this Socialist and his thinly veiled socialist policies for what they really are.
Bike Nut you're very intelligent. You know what you're talking about.
-
Absolutely! People like Coach and 3.14 are so blinded by ideology, they don't realize that the uber-rich, the 1% who control the 40% of the wealth, couldn't care less how they vote as long as they themselves continue to get richer. Coach would want to feel like he was a comrade-in-arms with people like the Koch Brothers, but they, in turn, wouldn't piss on on him if he was on fire. Sad.
Why does the left always say the right are blinded by Ideology. Obama is the most Ideological President ever!! What country are you from Chimps.
-
Why does the left always say the right are blinded by Ideology. Obama is the most Ideological President ever!! What country are you from Chimps.
Oh, the Left can be just as blinded, too, but I used two noted examples from this board noted for their lack of comprehension and ideological bullying. I suppose bomz could be used as a lefty. He tries hard, but his ideas are all over the place. And Obama is is not ideological. He can't be given the political and economic constraints he has. He's probably more correctly labeled a pragmatic moderate.
-
Obama wants Government to control and have their hand in everything.
Everything he does is expensive and he can't pay for any of it. Now he wants another 300 billion for what?
The first stimulus bill didn't do shit!
-
Obama caved to the right on tax cuts for the rich.
You got your way and you're here crying about commie takeover.
Keep looking for that big conspiracy while you get fvcked.
-
Shut your pie hole you stupid jack ass. Unions have way to much power this day in age. Look how bad the teachers unions are. Unions are holding the economy back! Unions should be made illegal and if you want more in life you should learn to do something more valuable. TEaming up to threaten your employer is no different then one man robbing another at gunpoint. If you deserved the money the man would give it to you. If not then he wont. Unions are criminal organizations in this day and age. They existed for a purpose before labor laws enforced that employers have to pay for time that was worked. Now that we have laws teh unions serve no purpose other than promoting communists and making the average conseumer pay higher prices for products.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
-
The total lack of commonsense with the left wing "progressives" is perplexing yet comical at the same time. lol
-
why shouldnt the workers get paid well? why should all of the profits go to the chairmen and ceo? they dont do the work that makes the money, the employees do
They don't.
-
do share holders particpate in the labor necessary to produce and make a profit?
They are the ones who buy the shares in the company, they invest in the company and they also may even by bonds issues by the company.
Shareholders take plenty of risk.
-
Unions are criminal organizations in this day and age. They existed for a purpose before labor laws enforced that employers have to pay for time that was worked. Now that we have laws teh unions serve no purpose other than promoting communists and making the average consumer pay higher prices for products.
100% correct.
-
You guys are right. As always, it's a big conspiracy.
When do these conspiracies complete? I mean, you find them all the time. Why hasn't one come true yet? Thousands of communist/ fascist/ Muslim conspiracies for decades and decades, why haven't they happened already?
-
I am apart of a Union and I see it day in day out the utter worthlessness that Unions offer. People shut down during the week to save work for the weekend(Overtime) Double time on Sunday. In my union depending on Job classification you will top out anywhere from 33.00/hour to 38.00/hr. Not too shabby given that engineers where I work start anywhere from 20 to 25 an hour. But an uneducated man with a GED (Not all) is making 38.00/ hr. Now I do not have a problem with someone making money but the funny thing is 38/hr is still not enough. They still complain, they want more, they constantly go to war with the company who pays their bills because they "deserve" more. Raises are outstanding. A guaranteed 2.00 to 2.50/hr raise a year. Do the math and see how may people are topped out at 38 within 5 to 10 years. Talk about crippling a company. Unions will be the utmost factor in the destruction of American Companies.
-
Im a Union Laborer outside Philly and make 24.85 an hour with health insurance/benefits and pension. I bust my ass at work. I will chip concrete, shovel rubble, even do "scab" work of putting of forms or mason work of finishing concrete. Whatever they want. Do I not deserve to make a decent living? Just because I couldnt afford college? If my work wasnt union, I would be making 10.00 an hour to do the same work. I wouldnt be able to live on my own or afford groceries. Go into Walmart and ask the employees how their lives are. Are they driving around in BMW's or 1987 Oldsmobiles? They work different hours and different shifts, have shitty insurance or dont have it at all.
Without Unions my company lay off everyone and bring Mexicans in for peanuts. Most people that complain about Unions are people who went thru 4 years of school or more and make 35,000 a year on salary and have to work every weekend for "free". Dont be mad because people like me can milk OVERTIME (something unions were responsible for in the first place) and I made 51,000 last year with a high school education.
By the way bitches, within the next two years I am moving up to Cement Mason and I will Be making 32 and change per hour ;)
WITH UNIONS WE BARGAIN.......WITHOUT UNIONS WE BEG!!!
-
they are to be shared with the people who put forth the capital (debt and equity holders) to build the factories and buy the raw materials so that these unskilled laborers can have a job.
But without the workers they would get zip - it's a team effort and it should be shared evenly..
-
Im a Union Laborer outside Philly and make 24.85 an hour with health insurance/benefits and pension. I bust my ass at work. I will chip concrete, shovel rubble, even do "scab" work of putting of forms or mason work of finishing concrete. Whatever they want. Do I not deserve to make a decent living? Just because I couldnt afford college? If my work wasnt union, I would be making 10.00 an hour to do the same work. I wouldnt be able to live on my own or afford groceries. Go into Walmart and ask the employees how their lives are. Are they driving around in BMW's or 1987 Oldsmobiles? They work different hours and different shifts, have shitty insurance or dont have it at all.
Without Unions my company lay off everyone and bring Mexicans in for peanuts. Most people that complain about Unions are people who went thru 4 years of school or more and make 35,000 a year on salary and have to work every weekend for "free". Dont be mad because people like me can milk OVERTIME (something unions were responsible for in the first place) and I made 51,000 last year with a high school education.
By the way bitches, within the next two years I am moving up to Cement Mason and I will Be making 32 and change per hour ;)
WITH UNIONS WE BARGAIN.......WITHOUT UNIONS WE BEG!!!
Precisely the problem. You perform unskilled manual labor and think just because it is hard you should be entitled to a nice wage. Anyone on this forum could do the same work you do with minimal training. I used to work at sears in high school and made 6.40 per hour, and I wished there was a union to get me a decent wage. After I went to college and became educated, I understood the reason I only made 6.40 per hour at Sears; it was unskilled labor and I could be replaced within a day. If the Sears employees had a union, the prices the store charged would be higher and their business would suffer as a result. Unions cripple companies.
-
You're clueless.. Get out on your own, get a job, pay taxes then you can spout off. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
hahah thats what I keep telling the kid.
-
Precisely the problem. You perform unskilled manual labor and think just because it is hard you should be entitled to a nice wage. Anyone on this forum could do the same work you do with minimal training. I used to work at sears in high school and made 6.40 per hour, and I wished there was a union to get me a decent wage. After I went to college and became educated, I understood the reason I only made 6.40 per hour at Sears; it was unskilled labor and I could be replaced within a day. If the Sears employees had a union, the prices the store charged would be higher and their business would suffer as a result. Unions cripple companies.
You wouldnt last one day doing what I do. Your back would be hurting and as soon as your shirt as soaked in sweat you would cry to the foreman that you need to do something easier. Your just mad that I make more money than you and I dont have any student loans to pay off for the next 30 years. :-*
-
it really is sad how easily manipulated people are, big business has been funding the spread of economic propaganda for hundreds of years in this country, and pretty much all the people who would benefit from more socialist policies are convinced unregulated capitalism is the best way to go.
-
You wouldnt last one day doing what I do. Your back would be hurting and as soon as your shirt as soaked in sweat you would cry to the foreman that you need to do something easier. Your just mad that I make more money than you and I dont have any student loans to pay off for the next 30 years. :-*
LOL bro I worked for a construction company, started in landscape for them...IN FUCKING HOUSTON!!!! 100+ degree temps and humidity to boot...
you dont deserved to get paid what you get paid, and this is coming from someone who was in your shoes. Most everybody can do that work if they want to it takes no special skills other than being able to work hard.
You said you couldnt afford to go to college...BULL SHIT!!!.
You could have gotten college loans like I did, you could have paid out of pocket like Im doing now.
You made the choice not to go to college, now if youre moving up good on you bro and you should get paid more for having skills that are desirable.
-
it really is sad how easily manipulated people are, big business has been funding the spread of economic propaganda for hundreds of years in this country, and pretty much all the people who would benefit from more socialist policies are convinced unregulated capitalism is the best way to go.
You should tell that to all the workers down south at the Toyota and other foreign car plants as they've consistently told the UAW and other unions to go fuck themselves. Funny how they know a good thing when they see it yet a junior college moron like yourself thinks he knows better.
If unions are as amazing as you say why do those people continually vote them down?
-
it really is sad how easily manipulated people are, big business has been funding the spread of economic propaganda for hundreds of years in this country, and pretty much all the people who would benefit from more socialist policies are convinced unregulated capitalism is the best way to go.
LOL the difference is some ppl still respect a honest days work and not taking something you didnt earn.
I dont think anyone is yearning for no regulation, just more sensible regulation that prevents and isnt a knee jerk reaction that causes even more problems then they solve.
-
But without the workers they would get zip - it's a team effort and it should be shared evenly..
the difference is that there are a vast number of qualified applicants for jobs that dont require alot of specialized skills. They would simply go out and hire other workers for half the cost to do the same job. This isnt a rant against workers, this is a rant again unions and overpaid, over compensated workers.
No it doesnt deserve to be shared equally, you have ppl who have put in millions into these companies taken risks that could ruin them. Then you have ppl who use the equipment that those ppl paid for to produce goods.
The investors are risking capital, what are the workers risking?
-
You should tell that to all the workers down south at the Toyota and other foreign car plants as they've consistently told the UAW and other unions to go fuck themselves. Funny how they know a good thing when they see it yet a junior college moron like yourself thinks he knows better.
If unions are as amazing as you say why do those people continually vote them down?
was i promoting UAW or even unionization in general?
LOL the difference is some ppl still respect a honest days work and not taking something you didnt earn.
I dont think anyone is yearning for no regulation, just more sensible regulation that prevents and isnt a knee jerk reaction that causes even more problems then they solve.
respecting an honest days work. absolutely. now your beginning to understand. any human being who does honest work full time should make enough money to support themselves and their children. you cant support a family on minimum wage.
taking something you didnt earn? how did this shift into a discussion about welfare? ::)
this is something conservatives just dont seem to get. you deserve what yu earn and you earn things trough labor, through work, through effort. the "owners of capital", the ultra rich, the big businesses.. all the fat cats at the top of the ladder... they dont do jack shit. they dont deserve all that wealth. they deserve their fair share, nothing more. if your an extremely well educated individual who happens to bring a bunch of value to a company through managerial duties then sure, you are worth a bit more than the "unskilled" laborer who does physical work all day long. without laborers, without "unskilled" labor even, there is no economy, there is no money to be made, no money to be spent. everything depends on the people, on the workforce, on the consumers. supply side economics is like wiping before you shit.
-
People should support people of their job choice and income. No jealousy. I respect nurses who have 2year degrees that make over 100,000. I respect 4 year college graduates who work as bartenders because they cant find anything better. Whatever you got to do to put food on the table. I went to college at University of Delaware for one semester for Mechanical Engineering and when I saw that I owed 4000 for that one semester, I said Fuck this. Id rather work with my hands. Working in an office setting has too much backstabbing, talking smack, and other bullshit. Think about it. A college degree is becoming like a high school deploma. Worthless. Shit, their is more college grads right now than college grad jobs. It will only get worse in the next ten years. You will have to have a Masters degree to even get a job interview. No one wants to do manual labor work. Thats why jobs for building buildings, bridges, highways, etc. Will never become disfunct. I work around guys out of jail, guys with 6 kids and a GED, Meth heads. All of us got new cars, 400,000 houses (not me yet but i got a mortgage on my place), and live confortable. Thats the way America SHOULD be!!!
-
You wouldnt last one day doing what I do. Your back would be hurting and as soon as your shirt as soaked in sweat you would cry to the foreman that you need to do something easier. Your just mad that I make more money than you and I dont have any student loans to pay off for the next 30 years. :-*
You don't make more money than me pal. MBA in Finance, BS in Mathematics, and an outstanding SAS programmer. I sit in an air conditioned office and take my 6 figures.
-
do share holders particpate in the labor necessary to produce and make a profit?
You really are one stupid fuck.
-
Im a Union Laborer outside Philly and make 24.85 an hour with health insurance/benefits and pension. I bust my ass at work. I will chip concrete, shovel rubble, even do "scab" work of putting of forms or mason work of finishing concrete. Whatever they want. Do I not deserve to make a decent living? Just because I couldnt afford college? If my work wasnt union, I would be making 10.00 an hour to do the same work. I wouldnt be able to live on my own or afford groceries. Go into Walmart and ask the employees how their lives are. Are they driving around in BMW's or 1987 Oldsmobiles? They work different hours and different shifts, have shitty insurance or dont have it at all.
Without Unions my company lay off everyone and bring Mexicans in for peanuts. Most people that complain about Unions are people who went thru 4 years of school or more and make 35,000 a year on salary and have to work every weekend for "free". Dont be mad because people like me can milk OVERTIME (something unions were responsible for in the first place) and I made 51,000 last year with a high school education.
By the way bitches, within the next two years I am moving up to Cement Mason and I will Be making 32 and change per hour ;)
WITH UNIONS WE BARGAIN.......WITHOUT UNIONS WE BEG!!!
I know guys that do work concrete forming and aren't in a union, they make way more then ten bucks like you suggested, in fact they make more then you.
-
You wouldnt last one day doing what I do. Your back would be hurting and as soon as your shirt as soaked in sweat you would cry to the foreman that you need to do something easier. Your just mad that I make more money than you and I dont have any student loans to pay off for the next 30 years. :-*
You just have thirty years of breaking your back and living like a twisted old man when you retire. Congrats.
-
was i promoting UAW or even unionization in general?
respecting an honest days work. absolutely. now your beginning to understand. any human being who does honest work full time should make enough money to support themselves and their children. you cant support a family on minimum wage.
taking something you didnt earn? how did this shift into a discussion about welfare? ::)
this is something conservatives just dont seem to get. you deserve what yu earn and you earn things trough labor, through work, through effort. the "owners of capital", the ultra rich, the big businesses.. all the fat cats at the top of the ladder... they dont do jack shit. they dont deserve all that wealth. they deserve their fair share, nothing more. if your an extremely well educated individual who happens to bring a bunch of value to a company through managerial duties then sure, you are worth a bit more than the "unskilled" laborer who does physical work all day long. without laborers, without "unskilled" labor even, there is no economy, there is no money to be made, no money to be spent. everything depends on the people, on the workforce, on the consumers. supply side economics is like wiping before you shit.
LOL it was in response to your socialism comment you idiot....
LOL so CEO's, CFO's, VP's etc only deserve to make a "little bit" more than some guy walking in off the street to work in an assembly line?
LMFAO by the same token you jack ass without the company the workers would have no job.
AGAIN the investors are risking capital, WHAT ARE THE WORKERS RISKING?
-
Ask yourself this question dizzle
If an assembly line worker only makes a little bit less than the CEO, VP, CFO, Upper management then why would anybody want to get the education that YES IS REQUIRED to do those jobs and assume THE RISKS associate with those jobs?
you know CEO's, CFO'S, VP's etc can go to jail for decisions they make?
you know its their names on documents for the company?
shit if that was the case i would go do mindless work right along side the assembly workers.
Fact is you do need special education to do certain jobs and those ppl have to get paid more b/c if they dont THEY WILL LEAVE!!!
if they leave it takes a while to find another qualified candidate. If a factory leaves, it takes A LOT less time to find another qualified candidate.
Thats why ppl with special skills get paid more, ppl on the factory line cant do the job of a CFO broham no matter how much you want it to be true.
-
I know guys that do work concrete forming and aren't in a union, they make way more then ten bucks like you suggested, in fact they make more then you.
My dad is a non union welder in Wilmington Delaware. Hes been working at the same company since 1987 and makes 2 dollars less than I do when I started my union job. Freaking sucks. Without unions, they dont have to give pay raises. Is Concrete work tough. It can be. In the summers Im dirty with concrete dust and sweat all over. The winters are freezing cold, and truthfully, I would rather be laid off in the winter and collect my 600 a week in New Jersey Unemployment. Going to get myself laid off before Christmas because Im going to Brasil for 3 weeks. Guys at my job who dont take care of themselves are chain smokers, fat, pill heads, etc. But at my gym I see alot of guys coming in with suits and ties, khakis, and they are 40 lbs overweight because they sit behind a desk all day. Its about what you enjoy. I dont hate going to work, I actually for the most part like it. Do I see myself lasting into my fifties doing this work. Not as a laborer, but maybe as a cement mason because they do more of the finesse work. Guys try to get their 25 years and retire with a pension. I should be able to retire at 49.
-
LOL it was in response to your socialism comment you idiot....
LOL so CEO's, CFO's, VP's etc only deserve to make a "little bit" more than some guy walking in off the street to work in an assembly line?
LMFAO by the same token you jack ass without the company the workers would have no job.
AGAIN the investors are risking capital, WHAT ARE THE WORKERS RISKING?
WHERE DID THEY GET ALL THAT CAPITAL TO BEGIN WITH? MOST OF THE PLANETS WEALTH IS INHERETED, NOT EARNED.
WHAT ARE THE WORKERS RISKING? WHAT ARE THE WORKERS SACRIFICING IS THE CORRECT QUESTION. BETTER YET... WHAT ARE THE INVESTORS RISKING? SURE MAYBE MILLIONS, BUT AS A % OF THEIR TOTAL WORTH ? OK SO ITS POSSIBLE ITS THEIR ENTIRE NET WORTH.. AND EVEN THEN.. WHAT ARE THEY RISKING.. THEY ARE RISKING LOSING THEIR LIFE OF LUXURY AND HAVING TO RESORT TO THE LIFE OF THE AVERAGE MAN, THE LABORER WHO MADE THEM AL THAT MONEY TO BEGIN WITH... YA, BIG RISK ::)
Ask yourself this question dizzle
If an assembly line worker only makes a little bit less than the CEO, VP, CFO, Upper management then why would anybody want to get the education that YES IS REQUIRED to do those jobs and assume THE RISKS associate with those jobs?
you know CEO's, CFO'S, VP's etc can go to jail for decisions they make?
you know its their names on documents for the company?
shit if that was the case i would go do mindless work right along side the assembly workers.
Fact is you do need special education to do certain jobs and those ppl have to get paid more b/c if they dont THEY WILL LEAVE!!!
if they leave it takes a while to find another qualified candidate. If a factory leaves, it takes A LOT less time to find another qualified candidate.
Thats why ppl with special skills get paid more, ppl on the factory line cant do the job of a CFO broham no matter how much you want it to be true.
PEOPLE WITH SKILLS DESERVE MORE THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT, ABSOLUTELY.. BUT THE MARGIN BETWEEN THEIR PAY SHOULD NEVER BE MORE THAN SAY 100-200%.. WE HAVE CEOS MAKING 10,000% MORE THAN THE LABORERS AND EVEN MORE IN SOME SITUATIONS... COMPLETELY UNFAIR
WHATS THE VALUE IN GETTING AN EDUCATION IF YOUR ONLY GOING TO GET PAID A LITTKLE BIT MORE THAN THE LABORERS? UMM... YOU GET TO SIT IN AN OFFICE ALL DAY FEELING IMPORTANT MAKING DECISIONS INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT YOUR TOLD OUT IN A FACTORY DOING MANUAL LABOR... YA, THATS A HUGE BENEFIT YOU DUMB FUCK
YOU CONSERVATIVE FUCKHEADS ARE TRULY SIMPLE
-
before anyone else replies... this is a fact you must know.. all value is created through labor
-
before anyone else replies... this is a fact you must know.. all value is created through labor
Cool, let management disappear for a few weeks and see how much value is created.
-
Cool, let management disappear for a few weeks and see how much value is created.
management is part of the labor process, a small part that directs the rest of the labor, the real work is not done by management
-
management is part of the labor process, a small part that directs the rest of the labor, the real work is not done by management
Have you been in the workforce? If not for management, labor would get NOTHING done.
Labor is useless without management.
-
The answer is somewhere in the middle. Managment is usally clueless as the needs of most workers and the workers would destroy anyone in managment who thought their jobs were easy. It also goes the other way around. Managing isnt easy either and when there needs to be blame assigned for something not getting done its managment that is in fear of the axe all the time. I feel unions could have their place, if the people want it and if they didn't make CONSTANT demands that ultimatly hurt the companies bottom line and result in that same company possibly relocating and leaving the worker with nothing at all.
-
The answer is somewhere in the middle. Managment is usally clueless as the needs of most workers and the workers would destroy anyone in managment who thought their jobs were easy. It also goes the other way around. Managing isnt easy either and when there needs to be blame assigned for something not getting done its managment that is in fear of the axe all the time. I feel unions could have their place, if the people want it and if they didn't make CONSTANT demands that ultimatly hurt the companies bottom line and result in that same company possibly relocating and leaving the worker with nothing at all.
Best post today
Labor is useless without management
Management is useless without labor
-
labor is ineffecient without management, but they will still get things done.. even if only a little.
management is incapable of getting things done without labor.
labor> management
still, managemenr should be paid more... but not by much.
the reason america lost jobs isnt because workers demanded too much its because management wasnt satisfied with the size of profits
-
the reason america lost jobs isnt because workers demanded too much its because management wasnt satisfied with the size of profits
Unsatisfied with the profits because they have to pay some meth head $30 per hour with full medical and pension benefits for turning a wrench on an assembly line.
-
WHERE DID THEY GET ALL THAT CAPITAL TO BEGIN WITH? MOST OF THE PLANETS WEALTH IS INHERETED, NOT EARNED.
WHAT ARE THE WORKERS RISKING? WHAT ARE THE WORKERS SACRIFICING IS THE CORRECT QUESTION. BETTER YET... WHAT ARE THE INVESTORS RISKING? SURE MAYBE MILLIONS, BUT AS A % OF THEIR TOTAL WORTH ? OK SO ITS POSSIBLE ITS THEIR ENTIRE NET WORTH.. AND EVEN THEN.. WHAT ARE THEY RISKING.. THEY ARE RISKING LOSING THEIR LIFE OF LUXURY AND HAVING TO RESORT TO THE LIFE OF THE AVERAGE MAN, THE LABORER WHO MADE THEM AL THAT MONEY TO BEGIN WITH... YA, BIG RISK ::)
Listen, if you don't allow the investors to earn an attractive return on their capital, then they simply wont invest it. That means NO new factories, jobs, products, etc. Economy comes to a screeching halt and there is no innovation.
-
WHERE DID THEY GET ALL THAT CAPITAL TO BEGIN WITH? MOST OF THE PLANETS WEALTH IS INHERETED, NOT EARNED.
WHAT ARE THE WORKERS RISKING? WHAT ARE THE WORKERS SACRIFICING IS THE CORRECT QUESTION. BETTER YET... WHAT ARE THE INVESTORS RISKING? SURE MAYBE MILLIONS, BUT AS A % OF THEIR TOTAL WORTH ? OK SO ITS POSSIBLE ITS THEIR ENTIRE NET WORTH.. AND EVEN THEN.. WHAT ARE THEY RISKING.. THEY ARE RISKING LOSING THEIR LIFE OF LUXURY AND HAVING TO RESORT TO THE LIFE OF THE AVERAGE MAN, THE LABORER WHO MADE THEM AL THAT MONEY TO BEGIN WITH... YA, BIG RISK ::)
PEOPLE WITH SKILLS DESERVE MORE THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT, ABSOLUTELY.. BUT THE MARGIN BETWEEN THEIR PAY SHOULD NEVER BE MORE THAN SAY 100-200%.. WE HAVE CEOS MAKING 10,000% MORE THAN THE LABORERS AND EVEN MORE IN SOME SITUATIONS... COMPLETELY UNFAIR
WHATS THE VALUE IN GETTING AN EDUCATION IF YOUR ONLY GOING TO GET PAID A LITTKLE BIT MORE THAN THE LABORERS? UMM... YOU GET TO SIT IN AN OFFICE ALL DAY FEELING IMPORTANT MAKING DECISIONS INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT YOUR TOLD OUT IN A FACTORY DOING MANUAL LABOR... YA, THATS A HUGE BENEFIT YOU DUMB FUCK
YOU CONSERVATIVE FUCKHEADS ARE TRULY SIMPLE
the workers arent sacrificing anything more than the management...and they risk nothing...
you idiot shit head investors arent all millionaires....you own stock or bonds? have a 401k?
THEN YOUR AN INVESTOR YOU MORON!!!!
why do you think companies go public you fucktard?
TO RAISE CAPITAL!!! you think only millionaires buy their stock?
what a fucking tool you are...
enroll in a finance class next semester dizzle.
how did you come up with your arbitrary 100-200% difference?
-
The reason management gets paid more is b/c their individual day to day duties have a MUCH bigger impact on the value of the company than an individual laborer.
One wrong decision by a CEO, CFO, VP etc can cost the company a huge amount of money. One wrong decison by a laborer may cost the company money but nothing in comparison to the potential loss from the managements decision.
Same goes for profit....This is why they get paid more b/c their decisions have a much bigger impact on the bottom line of the company then laborers.
-
yes without laborer the company wouldnt produce anything...but there are tons of ppl that can do manual labor. Only a small percentage are qualified to make decisions on the level of a CEO/CFO
Supply and demand bro, surely you understand this from your econ class. Demand for labor is low and supply for it is high, what happens to the price?
-
yes without laborer the company wouldnt produce anything...but there are tons of ppl that can do manual labor. Only a small percentage are qualified to make decisions on the level of a CEO/CFO
Supply and demand bro, surely you understand this from your econ class. Demand for labor is low and supply for it is high, what happens to the price?
While dizzle may be ignorant, I believe he does understand econ 101. He however decides to disregard the natural laws of supply and demand and prefer to side with the 'moral' aspect. I think this is mainly because he knows he won't ever get to an executive or VP position, and likes to hate on those that do.
-
While dizzle may be ignorant, I believe he does understand econ 101. He however decides to disregard the natural laws of supply and demand and prefer to side with the 'moral' aspect. I think this is mainly because he knows he won't ever get to an executive or VP position, and likes to hate on those that do.
Exactly his stance is based on his idea of "fairness" b/c he thinks its unfair for the higher ups and investors to make so much more than the ppl below. I think its unfair that labor doesnt risk anything while investors and mgmt with stock options as compensation risk a butt load.
What type of industry are you AC if you dont mind me asking?
Im on a pretty similar path BS in finance going for my MBA concentrating in finance.
-
Unsatisfied with the profits because they have to pay some meth head $30 per hour with full medical and pension benefits for turning a wrench on an assembly line.
::) even if that was the case, which it isnt (show me one example of a job where people got paid 30 dollars per hour with full medical and pension without drug testing and without any skills), it still would not make it right for a company to outsource.
as long as a company is making a penny of profit they have an obligation to remain with the workers and the community they started in.
the reason why the world is in such a shitty place right now is because of greedy rich people dominating the political realm.. america became a great country because we had good manufacturing jobs that paid well enough so that any man who desired to could get a job in a factory somewhere and be able to provide for his family. now days we dont have that option. hell id love to have a job in a factory making 10-15 dollars an hour, but the only job i cant get is at a fast food or retail store making minimum wage, barely getting any hours, with no benefits. the jobs available to the average american barely cover their gas bill to get to work and back.
you need to re evaluate your world view. its not the ultra rich who have the power. they have the resources. but the people have the power. we need to educate everyone on the realitiesof our system and force the owners of the means fo production to start producing at home, with good wages and benefits, and once we are bakc on our feet we can allow expansion back overseas, BUT ONLY UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THOSE PEOPLE OVERSEAS ALSO GET A GOOD WAGE, BENEFITS, AND ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS OUR COMPANIES. protecting the common man and th environment are the two most important roles the government has to fulfill... catering to the rich is not
Listen, if you don't allow the investors to earn an attractive return on their capital, then they simply wont invest it. That means NO new factories, jobs, products, etc. Economy comes to a screeching halt and there is no innovation.
first, there are ways around that. blocking outsourcing, heavy tariffs, lower tax rates on consumers to boost demand, etc. secondly, fuck investors. nobody has the right to mess with the prosperity of the globe. i dont care how you inhereted your money, who worked for it, what you think you have a right to... the world resources, the worlds wealth, belongs to.. the world! not to any individual. you can have your own possesiions that your personally worked for, within reason. anyone who is obstructing progress by holding onto vast amounts of resources that could be usedto make a big difference for the people of the planet ought to be forced to release those resources into the hands of the many, for the good of all.
stop being a pessimistic cynic who cant think about issues with an ideological idealism, start thinking about ways government can radically change things for the better, and dont let arbitrary principles of what you think appropriate government behavior is stop you from coming to necessary conclusions.
-
Exactly his stance is based on his idea of "fairness" b/c he thinks its unfair for the higher ups and investors to make so much more than the ppl below. I think its unfair that labor doesnt risk anything while investors and mgmt with stock options as compensation risk a butt load.
investors risk becoming laborers. laborers sacrifice thier lives for pennies on the dollar.
-
investors risk becoming laborers. laborers sacrifice thier lives for pennies on the dollar.
so money is meaningless then?
if you feel that they arent risking anything by putting up their money then why are you so mad about them getting more of the profit?
investors sacrifice their money so companies can buy equipment and hire laborers to build or serve...
managers, CEO's, CFO's etc work much longer hours than laborers do my friend...whos sacrificiing their lives when laborers get cut at 40 hours a week and the management works 60-80?
-
Exactly his stance is based on his idea of "fairness" b/c he thinks its unfair for the higher ups and investors to make so much more than the ppl below. I think its unfair that labor doesnt risk anything while investors and mgmt with stock options as compensation risk a butt load.
What type of industry are you AC if you dont mind me asking?
Im on a pretty similar path BS in finance going for my MBA concentrating in finance.
I work in risk management for an auto finance company. My degrees were in math and finance, but I am just doing stats all day in SAS.
-
so money is meaningless then?
theres no point in replying anymore if your stupid enough to think that is in any way extractable from my comments
-
theres no point in replying anymore if your stupid enough to think that is in any way extractable from my comments
LOL well please clear it up brain child
youre the one that thinks that investors only risk becoming laborers. You think that their investment of money is somehow inconsequential.
You also think that laborers sacrifice their lives, what do you think management is doing?
baking cakes and flying fucking kites?
fact is management works a lot more hours than labor does. At the end of the day labor gets to go home and forget about their jobs and many get cut at 40 hours b/c they get paid hourly. They dont take their jobs home with them the same way management(ceo's, cfo's, vp's etc.) do. They dont work 60-80 hours a week, every week to get their jobs done.
so please dizzle explain youre feelings that the investors only real risk is becoming laborers...::)
-
youre the one that thinks that investors only risk becoming laborers. You think that their investment of money is somehow inconsequential
their investments are not inconsequential to the economy as a whole but the risks associated with their investment , worst case scenario, only result in them having to work for a living. hell, they might not even have to become a laborer, since most investors have an education or at least some well connected friends anyways.
You also think that laborers sacrifice their lives, what do you think management is doing?
baking cakes and flying fucking kites?
fact is management works a lot more hours than labor does. At the end of the day labor gets to go home and forget about their jobs and many get cut at 40 hours b/c they get paid hourly. They dont take their jobs home with them the same way management(ceo's, cfo's, vp's etc.) do. They dont work 60-80 hours a week, every week to get their jobs done.
first of all management is brain work, not physical work. using your mind is something very different than using your body. most people are using their minds all day anyways. and while some managers might work endless hours, the majority dont.
so please dizzle explain youre feelings that the investors only real risk is becoming laborers...::)
what else are they risking? if they lose their money, they have to work. worst case scenario.
fucking brain washed idiot
-
LMFAO im brainwashed? you uneducated moron...
you do realize that if you own stock youre an investor right?
do you feel you embody the description of the investor you described?
and yes dizzle the managers you want to demonize...the majority do work many more hours than your common laborer.
Brain work is just as tiresome and even more frustrating then manual labor...TRUST FUCKTARD ive done both....id much rather do mindless manual labor than sit and stare at a computer creating budgets, doing analysis, making projects etc...
serious question dizzle, what is your work experience look like? you dont have to tell us where but give us an idea of your previous and current job titles and discriptions.
-
you must be really stupid if you prefer manual labor to intellectual 'labor' ;D
not demonizing management, just not idolozing them like your dumbass ;D
stock owners are investors, thats very wise observation you have there. ;D
-
you must be really stupid if you prefer manual labor to intellectual 'labor' ;D
not demonizing management, just not idolozing them like your dumbass ;D
stock owners are investors, thats very wise observation you have there. ;D
LOL so more slogans and mantras and no substance?
that education is doing you well... :D :D :D(I can be sarcastic too dummy)
so no rebuttles to my points and no answer to your previous and current work...sounds about right for someone backed into a corner with idiotic talking points. ;D :D ;D :D ;)
-
theres nothing to rebuttle against, you think by kissing the ass of the ultra rich they will somehow get up the desire to start sharing their wealth, which of course will never happen no matter how much you give them.. they only hoard , they dont share
-
theres nothing to rebuttle against, you think by kissing the ass of the ultra rich they will somehow get up the desire to start sharing their wealth, which of course will never happen no matter how much you give them.. they only hoard , they dont share
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA, this is the funniest shit ive ever read from you by far.
Im not kissing their ass any more than your sucking the cock of the poor and uneducated.
you seem to have missed the point of my posts, which is amazing seeing as your such an intelligent and educated business professional.
The point is that I DONT CARE IF THEY SHARE THEIR WEALTH YOU DUMB FUCK...BC IM PUTTING MYSELF INTO A POSITION TO GET MY OWN!!!!
I suggest you do the same and quit bitching and moaning how ppl who mow yards should get half of what the company makes ;D :D ;) :D ;D :D ;) :)
-
::) without government regulations and unionization it would be impossible for you to make your own wealth
learn some history idiot
-
::) without government regulations and unionization it would be impossible for you to make your own wealth
learn some history idiot
LMFAO so you think im against regulations and giving workers rights?
again youve missed the point of my post which is again astounding seeing as your business experience and education alone means your intelligence far surpasses my own.
I think regulation can be good, I think workers are entitled to rights as well...
I dont think that someone doing mindless work with very little responsibility and effect to the company. A person who takes no risk, and isnt invested in the company monetarily has the right to make close to a person whos actions directly impact the bottom line of the company. Whos income is largely based on how the companies value increase or decreases as a result of their decisions and who has a shit ton more responsibility deserves to.
any other talking points you want me to dismantle while im at it cumdrizzle?
you know whats funny? I spell checked this post and cumdrizzle didnt get hit...LMFAO
-
anyone who works has a right to make a wage which they can support their family with.
no one has a right to make obscene amounts of money, not when there are millons of americans and billions of humans who are in desperate need of it.
-
tbombz, please list us your work experience and titles.
So answer me this question, and name actual dollar amounts please.
How much money should the collectors who work at my company earn per year? All they do is sit at a computer, the computer dials a customer's number, and the collector attempts to get them to pay.
How much should the executives and vp's at my company earn? They all have an MBA/MS/Ph.D. in a quantitative field and work at least 60 hrs per week. I regularly see emails from my boss being sent at 6:00 am, 8:00 pm, etc. Even when not at the office they are getting shit done at their homes.
-
anyone who works has a right to make a wage which they can support their family with.
no one has a right to make obscene amounts of money, not when there are millons of americans and billions of humans who are in desperate need of it.
so you think a part time high school student worker has the right to make enough to support a family?
no they have a right to get paid a wage, the wage is consumerate to their worth to the company. This is why those with special skills get paid more b/c they contribute more value to the company and that goes for laborers with special skills as well like welders.
what your doing is taking your idea of fairness which isnt based in reality and trying to make it fit into real life situations.
Just like AC's question for you, if the collectors only get a little less then the CEO etc. The vast VAST MAJORITY of ppl are going to choose to be collectors...again reality!!!
-
anyone who works has a right to make a wage which they can support their family with.
no one has a right to make obscene amounts of money, not when there are millons of americans and billions of humans who are in desperate need of it.
No one has a right to anything. If you are worthless, you shouldn't get paid squat.
If this means you starve, then maybe you should have tried a little harder prior to that point.
-
tbombz, please list us your work experience and titles.
So answer me this question, and name actual dollar amounts please.
How much money should the collectors who work at my company earn per year? All they do is sit at a computer, the computer dials a customer's number, and the collector attempts to get them to pay.
How much should the executives and vp's at my company earn? They all have an MBA/MS/Ph.D. in a quantitative field and work at least 60 hrs per week. I regularly see emails from my boss being sent at 6:00 am, 8:00 pm, etc. Even when not at the office they are getting shit done at their homes.
depends on the cost of living in the area. could be anywhere from 25,000-40,000 per year after taxes for the collectors. 100,000-150,000 for the vps. those are reasonable.
so you think a part time high school student worker has the right to make enough to support a family?
no but a full time worker does
No one has a right to anything. If you are worthless, you shouldn't get paid squat.
If this means you starve, then maybe you should have tried a little harder prior to that point.
you dont have a right to police protection. if someone kills your family and steals all your money and possessions, oh well guess you should have prepared better.
-
anyone who works has a right to make a wage which they can support their family with.
no one has a right to make obscene amounts of money, not when there are millons of americans and billions of humans who are in desperate need of it.
All this time you spend pissing and moaning you could be doing something to earn a million dollars plus a year and give it away to charity or share it with possible employees or some shit.
-
depends on the cost of living in the area. could be anywhere from 25,000-40,000 per year after taxes for the collectors. 100,000-150,000 for the vps. those are reasonable.
no but a full time worker does
you dont have a right to police protection. if someone kills your family and steals all your money and possessions, oh well guess you should have prepared better.
and how did you come up with those arbitrary numbers dizzle?
so what does "raise a family" mean to you dizzle?
a 250k house and enough to raise 3 kids or leaving in an apartment with enough to pay for a spouse and no children...
what do you think gives you the right to tell others what they should pay ppl?
actually you do have a right to police protection
-
All this time you spend pissing and moaning you could be doing something to earn a million dollars plus a year and give it away to charity or share it with possible employees or some shit.
i could help a few people but on the world stage i couldnt be blip on the radar. the government has to make big changes. individuals can not.
and how did you come up with those arbitrary numbers dizzle?
so what does "raise a family" mean to you dizzle?
a 250k house and enough to raise 3 kids or leaving in an apartment with enough to pay for a spouse and no children...
what do you think gives you the right to tell others what they should pay ppl?
actually you do have a right to police protection
they arent really arbitrary, i came up with those figures based on the kind of spending/consuming that would be reasonable for each.
raise a family... enough to to pay for a decent home or apartment, a spouse, and one or two children.
i dont think the government has the right to interfere between two individuals, but the government can tell business's what to do as the actions of business effect everyone, regardless of whether the people support their actions.
explain to me why you have a right to police protection. ;D
-
All this time you spend pissing and moaning you could be doing something to earn a million dollars plus a year and give it away to charity or share it with possible employees or some shit.
its much easier to bitch and moan about not being paid a "fair" wage for your work than it is to get an good education and work hard to move up...
-
they arent really arbitrary, i came up with those figures based on the kind of spending/consuming that would be reasonable for each.
raise a family... enough to to pay for a decent home or apartment, a spouse, and one or two children.
i dont think the government has the right to interfere between two individuals, but the government can tell business's what to do as the actions of business effect everyone, regardless of whether the people support their actions.
explain to me why you have a right to police protection. ;D
and you decided what was "reasonable"? again arbitrary...
so a person mowing lawns full time should make enough to buy a decent house, raise two kids and support a wife? LMFAO
The govt can set standards and they already have its called the minimum wage...
explain to me why they dont have a right to police protection ;D
-
and you decided what was "reasonable"? again arbitrary...
so a person mowing lawns full time should make enough to buy a decent house, raise two kids and support a wife? LMFAO
The govt can set standards and they already have its called the minimum wage...
explain to me why they dont have a right to police protection ;D
i was asked what i though they should get paid, so i came up with reasonable numbers.
if a person is mowing lawns 5 days a week 9 hours a day, hell yes they should make enough to support their family. i didnt say buy a home. and the figure i provided is as low as 25k per year.
the minimum wage is not a liveable wage. full time minimum wage salary after taxes = about 13k a year. try living on that ::)
you cant assume you have a right to anything. first you must set a standard as to what the government should be doing. something along the lines of "protect you from death", "provide basic services", "promote the welfare of society".. etc. tell me what you think we have a right to, that will from now on in this thread function as your thesis as to what the government should be doing... and it can not be a list of programs, but a general statement about what the role of government is. we can begin from there.
-
i was asked what i though they should get paid, so i came up with reasonable numbers.
if a person is mowing lawns 5 days a week 9 hours a day, hell yes they should make enough to support their family. i didnt say buy a home. and the figure i provided is as low as 25k per year.
the minimum wage is not a liveable wage. full time minimum wage salary after taxes = about 13k a year. try living on that ::)
you cant assume you have a right to anything. first you must set a standard as to what the government should be doing. something along the lines of "protect you from death", "provide basic services", "promote the welfare of society".. etc. tell me what you think we have a right to, that will from now on in this thread function as your thesis as to what the government should be doing... and it can not be a list of programs, but a general statement about what the role of government is. we can begin from there.
and my point is your basis for believe is based on your idea of "fairness" not in reality...
the thing is the minimum wage isnt meant to support a family, but if you take your 13k number and multiply it by two then you get 26k which is above your arbitrary number ;)
LOL I assume youre going off of something you learned in a business law class or something? something about alaska or some northwest state where a lady got murdered and the supreme court decided that the state doesnt have to provide services?
if you are and going of your other elementary posts on the economy and business I assume its straight from your lib professor. Ask yourself this, why are ppl able to sue and win when the police dont act?
-
depends on the cost of living in the area. could be anywhere from 25,000-40,000 per year after taxes for the collectors. 100,000-150,000 for the vps. those are reasonable.
no but a full time worker does
you dont have a right to police protection. if someone kills your family and steals all your money and possessions, oh well guess you should have prepared better.
Actually, you do have a right to police protection, you stupid fuck. That's why we pay taxes to our local govt. Part of what those taxes go towards include things like a police force, firemen and working roads.
Stay in junior college, kid. Freshman Econ isn't the be all, end all.
And who are you to dictate what a private company or public company whose shares you don't own pays their employees?
-
Actually, you do, you stupid fuck. That's why we pay taxes to our local govt. Part of what those taxes go towards include things like a police force, firemen and working roads.
Stay in junior college, kid. Freshman Econ isn't the be all, end all.
mmmmmm, as much as it pains me to do so, I'm a have to agree with Taylor on this one. Cops aren't around to protect you, they are around to protect the government. Next time you get burglarized, see how long it takes the cops to show up, if they show up at all. Then take of note of what they do for an 'investigation'. Now go bulgrarize city hall and see what the response time is.
-
mmmmmm, as much as it pains me to do so, I'm a have to agree with Taylor on this one. Cops aren't around to protect you, they are around to protect the government. Next time you get burglarized, see how long it takes the cops to show up, if they show up at all. Then take of note of what they do for an 'investigation'. Now go bulgrarize city hall and see what the response time is.
Our taxes go towards paying for that police force. Regardless of whether they actually "protect" you isn't the point. Are they there to provide 24/7 round-the-clock protection? Of course not. Are they there to respond to your house being robbed or whatever? Yes.
However, where I live if I were to call the cops I guarantee there would be a car at my house within a half hour (or less if it's something serious). I've had the cops from my town show up to unlock my car after I locked the keys in it once during the winter while it was warming up and I even had the fire department pump my basement when it flooded during Hurricane Irene three weeks ago. That was paid for with my tax money.
-
and my point is your basis for believe is based on your idea of "fairness" not in reality...
the thing is the minimum wage isnt meant to support a family, but if you take your 13k number and multiply it by two then you get 26k which is above your arbitrary number ;)
LOL I assume youre going off of something you learned in a business law class or something? something about alaska or some northwest state where a lady got murdered and the supreme court decided that the state doesnt have to provide services?
if you are and going of your other elementary posts on the economy and business I assume its straight from your lib professor. Ask yourself this, why are ppl able to sue and win when the police dont act?
no dumbass, im trying to get you to realize something, before you can say what the government should or shouldnt do you have to develop some kind of general rule for the proper role of government.
anything you say after this point , unless you first come up with your thesis as to the proper role of government, is null.
Actually, you do have a right to police protection, you stupid fuck. That's why we pay taxes to our local govt. Part of what those taxes go towards include things like a police force, firemen and working roads.
Stay in junior college, kid. Freshman Econ isn't the be all, end all.
And who are you to dictate what a private company or public company whose shares you don't own pays their employees?
explain to me why you have a right to police protection. ;D
and then ill answer why the government can regulate the actions of business. which should be common sense ;D
mmmmmm, as much as it pains me to do so, I'm a have to agree with Taylor on this one. Cops aren't around to protect you, they are around to protect the government. Next time you get burglarized, see how long it takes the cops to show up, if they show up at all. Then take of note of what they do for an 'investigation'. Now go bulgrarize city hall and see what the response time is.
no dipshit, thats not at all where i was going. police response time is actully pretty good in most areas anyways. and as tony pointed out, if the police dont respond you are able to sue.
-
United States
Main article: Property tax in the United States
In the United States, property tax on real estate is usually levied by local government, at the municipal or county level. Rates vary across the states, between about 0.2% and 4% of the home value.[7] The assessment is made up of two components—the improvement or building value, and the land or site value. In some states, personal property is also taxed. The property tax is the main tax supporting local education, police/fire protection, local governments, some free medical services, and most of other local infrastructure. Also, many U.S. state and local jurisdictions impose personal property taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax
Stay in college junior college. My property tax dollars give me the ability to call my town's police when I need them and also allows me to expect them to respond (which they do).
By the way, you're not in government so whatever you think they can do to regulate business is irrelevant. I was specifically referring to you, a 20-something junior college student who thinks he can get an econ degree without having to use anything beyond basic arithmetic. ::)
-
completely irrelevant.
your argument is that you have a right to police protection because there are taxes in place which go directly towards that goal.
which means that if there wasnt a tax in place for that purpose, you wouldnt have a right to that service.. and thus no tax could have ever been created to begin with being that you dont have any inherent right without a pre existing tax in place.
since taxes are developed in order to fund programs that are deemed appropriate roles of government before said tax comes into being... that means there first has to be some kind of general rule as to what the proper role of government is, and within that rule said program must be included.
so... if youd like to get back on topic, please explain why you have a right to police protection?
-
You're really going to argue your point like that while at the same time making a claim like this:
anyone who works has a right to make a wage which they can support their family with.
no one has a right to make obscene amounts of money, not when there are millons of americans and billions of humans who are in desperate need of it.
You just refuted your own argument. ::)
I have a right to police protection because there is no way for me to avoid paying my property taxes. Because I pay said taxes to my town every year, I am entitled to the use of the services those tax dollars provide. You can try to weave your way around that anyway you like but you won't successful argue against it.
"The proper role of government". Hahahaha. Could you grasp any more?
So just out of curiosity, where does one "get the right to make a wage they can support a family with"?
-
i didnt refute my own argument dumbass
i have my own idea of what the proper role of government is and regulating business in a way that guarantees any full time worker can provide for his family is part of that.
you on the other hand have not said what you think the proper role of government is you have just asserted that you have a right to police protection with absolutely no reason why except that you pay taxes which go to that service.
im contending that you can not come up with a general rule for the proper role of government that would include such services as police, fire, roads, education, etc and at the same time would exclude regulations that ensure workers can provide for their families.
is that really so hard to understand? do i need to spell out everything for you? i had a higher regard for the institutions of the east coast than this..
-
I have a right to police protection because there is no way for me to avoid paying my property taxes. Because I pay said taxes to my town every year, I am entitled to the use of the services those tax dollars provide. You can try to weave your way around that anyway you like but you won't successful argue against it.
by this you would have to admit that in a scenario where no such tax existed, you would thus have no right to police protection.
-
i didnt refute my own argument dumbass
i have my own idea of what the proper role of government is and regulating business in a way that guarantees any full time worker can provide for his family is part of that.
you on the other hand have not said what you think the proper role of government is you have just asserted that you have a right to police protection with absolutely no reason why except that you pay taxes which go to that service.
im contending that you can not come up with a general rule for the proper role of government that would include such services as police, fire, roads, education, etc and at the same time would exclude regulations that ensure workers can provide for their families.
is that really so hard to understand? do i need to spell out everything for you? i had a higher regard for the institutions of the east coast than this..
Your own idea of what the proper role of government is means fuck all. Is that really what your basing your entire argument around? An opinion? This is why you're in junior college.
My claim that the property taxes I'm legally obligated to hand over year entitles me to the use of my town's police force when I have a legitimate need for them certainly carries more weight that your asinine claim that "every man has a right to a wage that can support a family".
I hand over my money and in return the government provides me with a service. Pretty simple, really.
by this you would have to admit that in a scenario where no such tax existed, you would thus have no right to police protection.
But it doesn't apply in my scenario so your argument is pointless. I have the right to police protection. Trying to paint this entire country under one broad brush stroke gives your argument no weight.
-
Your own idea of what the proper role of government means fuck all. Is that really what your basing your entire argument around? An opinion? This is why you're in junior college.
My claim that the property taxes I'm legally obligated to hand over year entitles me to the use of my town's police force when I have a legitimate need for them certainly carries more weight that your asinine claim that "every man has a right to a wage that can support a family".
I hand over my money and in return the government provides me with a service. Pretty simple, really.
::) oh brother you sure are simple
yes, im basing my opinion on... my opinion. thats what this whole discussion is about, sharing our opinions. dipshit ;D
now , because im actually interested in sharing and heraing others opinions, im going to try and help you out.
imagine a time when taxes didnt exist. there was no government. you are responsible with developing a government, top to bottom. you first need to come up with an idea about the proper role of government, what it shouldnt do and what it should do. put limits and set minimums. this is what im interested in, and this is what determines whether or not people have a right to police protection, a wage which can support their family, whatever.
so... you obviously think police should be included. and fire and roads you mentioned. think of all the programs and regulations you support, and all the ones you dont. after coming up with that, develop a short statement about the role your government will play in society.
thanks :)
-
::) oh brother you sure are simple
yes, im basing my opinion on... my opinion. thats what this whole discussion is about, sharing our opinions. dipshit ;D
now , because im actually interested in sharing and heraing others opinions, im going to try and help you out.
imagine a time when taxes didnt exist. there was no government. you are responsible with developing a government, top to bottom. you first need to come up with an idea about the proper role of government, what it should do and what it should do. put limits and set minimums. this is what im interested in, and this is what determines whether or not people have a right to police protection, a wage which can support their family, whatever.
so... you obviously think police should be included. and fire and roads you mentioned. think of all the programs and regulations you support, and all the ones you dont. after coming up with that, develop a short statement about the role your government will play in society.
thanks :)
Hahaha, it's beyond me how you think you can use this reasoning to make the argument that while one isn't entitled to police protection they're somehow entitled to a wage that can support a family. You can play "what ifs" all you want (economics is very good at this) but it matters not as my property taxes are unavoidable. If I didn't have to pay them and I didn't have any other taxes that funded that said police force then yes, your argument would be correct. However, I do have to pay them so your little theoretical play means nothing.
-
But it doesn't apply in my scenario so your argument is pointless. I have the right to police protection. Trying to paint this entire country under one broad brush stroke gives your argument no weight.
but there WAS time when that tax didnt exist. somebody had to decide that even though people werent paying taxes to fund police, that people had a right to police and so they created the tax. the need, the right to police protection came before the tax which funded it. so unless your entire view of politics and government is to preserve the status quo indefinitely, you need to develop some kind of thesis as to what the government should be trying to do, in general.
-
Hahaha, it's beyond me how you think you can use this reasoning to make the argument that while one isn't entitled to police protection they're somehow entitled to a wage that can support a family.
its beyond me how you can think that is what im arguing ;D
i think people have a right to both
you are the one who thinks people have a right to one but not the other
so make a distinction between the two which makes one essential and the other not so.
-
but there WAS time when that tax didnt exist. somebody had to decide that even though people werent paying taxes to fund police, that people had a right to police and so they created the tax. the need, the right to police protection came before the tax which funded it. so unless your entire view of politics and government is to preserve the status quo indefinitely, you need to develop some kind of thesis as to what the government should be trying to do, in general.
The right to a wage that can support a family has NEVER existed yet you argue in favor of that while claiming that because the property tax didn't exist at one point one isn't entitled to police protection.
You are contradicting your entire argument.
its beyond me how you can think that is what im arguing ;D
i think people have a right to both
you are the one who thinks people have a right to one but not the other
so make a distinction between the two which makes one essential and the other not so.
I don't think anything. I know that I'm entitled to the use of my town's police force when I legitimately need them because my property tax dollars goes to the funding of that police force.
-
The right to a wage that can support a family has NEVER existed yet you argue in favor of that while claiming that because the property tax didn't exist at one point one isn't entitled to police protection.
You are contradicting your entire argument.
NOPE
by YOUR LOGIC, because property tax didnt exist at one time people werent entitled to police protection AT THAT TIME.
because your argument, thus far, is that people are only entitled to things which they are taxed for.
-
I don't think anything.
good. the first step is admitting you have a problem. ;D
-
NOPE
by YOUR LOGIC, because property tax didnt exist at one time people werent entitled to police protection AT THAT TIME.
because your argument, thus far, is that people are only entitled to things which they are taxed for.
That's not my argument at all. My argument is solely about a police force. It is not applicable to anything else beyond the services I am entitled to through my payment of a yearly property tax. I'm not interested in nor am I arguing about theoretical what ifs.
good. the first step is admitting you have a problem. ;D
Sick burn.
Want to hear an even funnier joke? You're in junior college.
-
That's not my argument at all. My argument is solely about a police force. It is not applicable to anything else beyond the services I am entitled to through my payment of a yearly property tax. I'm not interested in nor am I arguing about theoretical what ifs.
Sick burn.
Want to hear an even funnier joke? You're in junior college.
um... so your argument is limited to police. right. thats what i said. you are saying you are entitled to it because you pay for it. right, got that. by saying that your entitled to what you pay for, you are indicating that you are not entitled to that which you dont pay for. you have some wiggle room, you can claim that you think we are entitled to things we dont pay for. im waiting to hear what you think those things are, if you do think that. but based on what youve said thus far, you think the role of government is to preserve the status quo and that people have a right to every current program and regulation but to no other. if you disagree, please, be explicit. ive been trying to get some ideas out of you, you obviously have an opinion abou the role of government, at least to the extent that you do not think the government should regulate the wages people earn. so, expand on this, why is this not a proper role of government, and why is preserving the status quo?
-
um... so your argument is limited to police. right. thats what i said. you are saying you are entitled to it because you pay for it. right, got that. by saying that your entitled to what you pay for, you are indicating that you are not entitled to that which you dont pay for. you have some wiggle room, you can claim that you think we are entitled to things we dont pay for. im waiting to hear what you think those things are, if you do think that. but based on what youve said thus far, you think the role of government is to preserve the status quo and that people have a right to every current program and regulation but to no other. if you disagree, please, be explicit. ive been trying to get some ideas out of you, you obviously have an opinion abou the role of government, at least to the extent that you do not think the government should regulate the wages people earn. so, expand on this, why is this not a proper role of government, and why is preserving the status quo?
Wrong. The only reason I'm entitled to police protection from my town's government is because I hand over a property tax that entitles me to the use of its services when I have a legitimate need for them. My town govt. stipulates that a police force is part of what my property tax goes towards funding (other things being the public schools, library, fire dept., etc) when they present the yearly budget we vote on. I'm not constitutionally entitled to police protection and there are multiple court cases that support that so Hereford is right in that regard.
I couldn't care less about the sweeping argument you're trying to make so you might as well give it a rest.
-
do you think the people who put that property tax in place initially were right in doing so? if so, why ?
-
tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx.
What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?
By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves. Why do you think communism has never worked?
-
tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx.
What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?
By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves. Why do you think communism has never worked?
::)
i said educated, skilled workers should be paid more than unskilled ones. just not obscene amounts. what part of that dont you understand, simple?
-
tbombz has been reading too much Karl Marx.
What makes you think the government has the obligation to override the natural laws of supply and demand, in addition to scarcity and utility?
By doing so you remove the incentive for people to work hard and try to better themselves. Why do you think communism has never worked?
dizzle believes that ppl will work hard b/c the want to feel respected and for the own sense of self worth...
this is based on his own work ethic and tireless efforts to climb the corporate ladder.
what is your work experience again drizzle?
-
::)
i said educated, skilled workers should be paid more than unskilled ones. just not obscene amounts. what part of that dont you understand, simple?
what about investors who give the companies millions to buy equipment and hire the workers?
where do they fall in your opinion?
you know part of the reason the top management make so much money is because their income is based on stock options(we can explain this to you if need be, econ didnt cover this) and b/c their actions have a much bigger impact on the stock price of the company than a laborer. So if b/c of their actions the stock price goes up the make money, if b/c of their actions the stock price goes down then well then you know what happens, right?
-
im a socialist, i think major business decisions are far too important and have much too large an impact on the economy and thus society as a whole to be left to private entities which may act irresponsibly.
oversight of management to ensure effecient and responsible business strategies, low prices, low cost of production, minimal pollution, fair wages and quality products. investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder.
-
im a socialist, i think major business decisions are far too important and have much too large an impact on the economy and thus society as a whole to be left to private entities which may act irresponsibly.
oversight of management to ensure effecient and responsible business strategies, low prices, low cost of production, minimal pollution, fair wages and quality products. investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder.
did you read this straight off your notebook from class?
fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.
One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.
you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?
actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.
the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.
-
did you read this straight off your notebook from class?
fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.
One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.
you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?
actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.
the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.
Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.
-
Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.
while taking a cut for themselves in the process...yea govt is great!!!!
-
For everyone out there who has multiple degrees and is making good money, just remember. In ten-fifteen years, everyone is going to have a bachelors, masters, and more and there will be less jobs out there so when you get laid off and they bring in a 20 something with no experience willing to do your 100,000 a year job for 60,000, your going to wish you had a union backing you up.
Its happening now. I know companies laying off people with 20 years with them and bringing in entry level people straight out of college to do their job for cheap. On the news they are always showing big up, 100,000 plus a year with a 700,000 house that is now laid off and cant live off the 400/week unemployment.
So even if your anti-union, you have to agree that it would be nice security knowing they couldnt do this.
Watch that episode of southpark where all the future people take all the "redneck" jobs. Stans dad doesnt care. But when they take his job as an scientist, "THEY TOOK MY JOB!!!"
-
For everyone out there who has multiple degrees and is making good money, just remember. In ten-fifteen years, everyone is going to have a bachelors, masters, and more and there will be less jobs out there so when you get laid off and they bring in a 20 something with no experience willing to do your 100,000 a year job for 60,000, your going to wish you had a union backing you up.
Its happening now. I know companies laying off people with 20 years with them and bringing in entry level people straight out of college to do their job for cheap. On the news they are always showing big up, 100,000 plus a year with a 700,000 house that is now laid off and cant live off the 400/week unemployment.
So even if your anti-union, you have to agree that it would be nice security knowing they couldnt do this.
Watch that episode of southpark where all the future people take all the "redneck" jobs. Stans dad doesnt care. But when they take his job as an scientist, "THEY TOOK MY JOB!!!"
LMFAO so what youre saying is b/c you cant compete you need someone to make sure you have an unfair advantage?
how about you create skills and education and that becomes your job security?
what a novel idea huh?
-
LMFAO so what youre saying is b/c you cant compete you need someone to make sure you have an unfair advantage?
how about you create skills and education and that becomes your job security?
what a novel idea huh?
+1
This is the typical union mindset. They NEED governmental or other unfair protection to survive. If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.
How about making yourself WORTH that 100K?
-
+1
This is the typical union mindset. They NEED governmental or other unfair protection to survive. If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.
How about making yourself WORTH that 100K?
Exactly. If you make 100k and someone else can do the job just as good as you for 60k, you aren't worth the 100k and the price of the job will fall (basic economics here fellas).
When people have the type of job security that muscleboy is mentioning, they slack off big time and are unproductive.
-
did you read this straight off your notebook from class?
fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.
One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.
you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?
actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.
the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.
youra lost cause, your entire post and every other from you in this thread demonstrates you do not have the ability to think on your own, your a brain washed idiot who idolizes the free market
Spot on. Government is actually only good at misspending other people's money.
right, better we just become anarchists, government isnt good at anything
If someone takes your 100K job and works for 60K, then your job is (was) a 60K job.
Exactly. If you make 100k and someone else can do the job just as good as you for 60k, you aren't worth the 100k and the price of the job will fall (basic economics here fellas).
^^^^
yup, so all tose manufacturing jobs that used to pay good wages when they were in america before they were outsourced, those jobs were never worth a decent wage, manufacturing jobs are only worth pennies per day, if you work in that industry you dont deserve anything but poverty, barely enough food to survive on.
i swear you fucktards really are something else.
-
youra lost cause, your entire post and every other from you in this thread demonstrates you do not have the ability to think on your own, your a brain washed idiot who idolizes the free market
LOL so you have no idea how business works?
hahaha go on drizzle, one day you will learn my friend
-
LOL so you have no idea how business works?
hahaha go on drizzle, one day you will learn my friend
you mean one day ill be an ignorant clown who listens to all the propaganda bullshit big business has been touting for the past 100 years in an effort to keep the public misinformed about the realitites of capitalism vs. socialism so they can keep profits at ludacris levels... o, great.. im so looking forward to it.. ::) ::) ;D ;D
-
you mean one day ill be an ignorant clown who listens to all the propaganda bullshit big business has been touting for the past 100 years in an effort to keep the public misinformed about the realitites of capitalism vs. socialism so they can keep profits at ludacris levels... o, great.. im so looking forward to it.. ::) ::) ;D ;D
if its propaganda bs then pls refute the points i made here...
did you read this straight off your notebook from class?
fact is govt is completely inept at distributing money and even if it wasnt it doesnt address the REALITY of the situation.
One of the MAIN REASONS for stock options is to limit the amount of self interested acts by management(im guessing econ and business law didnt teach that?) If their income is tied into the companies value(which the investors and workers is as well) they will act in a way that benefits the company, b/c whats good for the company is ultimately good for them.
you want low cost of production but high wages, do you not understand that these two contradict each other?
actually dizzle investors dont invest in the highest bidder? I dont know where the hell you got this shit.
the invest in companies b/c they feel that they will produce a good return on their investment or that they provide less risk than other alternatives and for a variety of other reasons. The companies arent bidding on anything to the investors...again iono where you got that.
Dont worry Ill wait until next week when youre done with chapter 5 of your text book ;)
-
Anyone who has ever been to Russia will tell you that Socialism doesn't work.
Back to main point if we didn't have the UAW we wouldn't need the high import tariffs on automobiles and cars would be cheaper giving every non UAW consumer in the U.S. a raise by offering us cheaper better cars and making U.S. cars viable in international markets. Instead BMW and Hyundai come to the U.S., make better cars with non-union labor and profit from the difference making the Germany and Korea richer and the U.S. poorer.
I also love how everyone cries whenever a union member is asked to take a cut in pay or benefits so a company or state can survive, but we are cutting thousands of military jobs this year and next with no regard to people who have served this country fighting wars for 10 plus years and are losing their jobs and it nobody cares. Especially since these "cost cutting measures" are made so we can give unions more money.
-
high wages , no , fair wages, and yes this would ential a higher cost associated with production. but your a fucking idiot. cutting pay for management can offfset increases for laborers, not to mention decreasing profits. companies today are making billions in profit per quarter.. cut that in half by decreasing cost to consumers and increasing wages/benefits to employees. double boost to the economy with no harm to company.
investors dont go with the highest bidder. right. again, your a fucking idiot. read my post again, i was talkign abut the distribution of resources going to the most effecient uses and not to the highest bidder. tard
nw shut the fuck up untill you have something intelligent to say
-
high wages , no , fair wages, and yes this would ential a higher cost associated with production. but your a fucking idiot. cutting pay for management can offfset increases for laborers, not to mention decreasing profits. companies today are making billions in profit per quarter.. cut that in half by decreasing cost to consumers and increasing wages/benefits to employees. double boost to the economy with no harm to company.
investors dont go with the highest bidder. right. again, your a fucking idiot. read my post again, i was talkign abut the distribution of resources going to the most effecient uses and not to the highest bidder. tard
nw shut the fuck up untill you have something intelligent to say
LOL so you think b/c a few of the millions of businesses in the country make billions that we should screw all of them over?
when you cut pay you lose qualified employees, seeing as the management need more qualifications to do their jobs they by the virtue of economics and supply and demand need to get paid more...
"investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder. "
^^^^
this is your quote brain child....
how does private sector investment of money i.e. the RESOURCES YOUR FUKING TALKING DUMB ASS go to the highest bidder like you said here?
please take your own advice drizzle and dont speak unless you have something intelligent to say...;)
-
yes, as i have said a million times before, educated workers in management deserve more than regular employees. but they dont deserve a 500k + per year. no one does. with wages like that its impossible to have a system where prosperity is maximized, far too much waste.
cutting wages from obscene amounts down to fair, respectable amounts would cause a loss of qualified employees... only if those cuts were made to an isolated part of the economy so that those qualified individuals could go elsewhere and continue making obscene amounts of money. but im talking economy wide, world wide policies here that would prevent that happening.
is your reading comprehension the level of a 1st grader? resources go to the highest bidder. instead they should go where they are most needed and can be used most efficiently.
you really are a waste of my time.. the only reason i keep responding is because people reading this who are easily swayed would adopt your ideas and spout them off as their own if i didnt comment on why your retarded. ive given up hope on you long ago
-
yes, as i have said a million times before, educated workers in management deserve more than regular employees. but they dont deserve a 500k + per year. no one does. with wages like that its impossible to have a system where prosperity is maximized, far too much waste.
cutting wages from obscene amounts down to fair, respectable amounts would cause a loss of qualified employees... only if those cuts were made to an isolated part of the economy so that those qualified individuals could go elsewhere and continue making obscene amounts of money. but im talking economy wide, world wide policies here that would prevent that happening.
is your reading comprehension the level of a 1st grader? resources go to the highest bidder. instead they should go where they are most needed and can be used most efficiently.
the goal of the system is not to maximize prosperity for everyone it is to provide an equal playing field to let individuals maximize the prosperity for themselves. If you spread everything around then the ppl who have to have special skills to do their job will stop obtaining those special skills b/c they can do less and still make about the same...dumb ass...
what resources of investors go to the highest bidder drizzle? lmfao this should be real good...
-
tbombz, how do you feel about professional athletes, musicians and actors making millions per year?
-
Should the people working on the concession stands at sporting events deserve some of the athletes million dollar salaries?
Should the music producers get some of the musicians millions?
Should the movie editors get a chunk of the actors millions?
-
LOL so you think b/c a few of the millions of businesses in the country make billions that we should screw all of them over?
when you cut pay you lose qualified employees, seeing as the management need more qualifications to do their jobs they by the virtue of economics and supply and demand need to get paid more...
"investment should not be a private sector process but a public sector one, funneling resources to where they are needed most, not to the highest bidder. "
^^^^
this is your quote brain child....
how does private sector investment of money i.e. the RESOURCES YOUR FUKING TALKING DUMB ASS go to the highest bidder like you said here?
please take your own advice drizzle and dont speak unless you have something intelligent to say...;)
Why are you such a dickhead all the time?
I mean, what do you get from it?
-
Why are you such a dickhead all the time?
I mean, what do you get from it?
so youve taken to trolling me now? hahahah
way to refute the points gare...you do your base proud ;)
-
Should the people working on the concession stands at sporting events deserve some of the athletes million dollar salaries?
Should the music producers get some of the musicians millions?
Should the movie editors get a chunk of the actors millions?
It's been a few days, tbombs. Running from this one?
-
It's been a few days, tbombs. Running from this one?
yes, yes he is...