CEOs Earn 354 Times More Than Average Worker


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Kahn Zordlon wrote:


That's it in a nutshell. Actually I think I'm sort of a schmuck at work sometimes, but I'll rise and fall on my own merit. I do think it's unfair for the company, since I don't believe they can fire those who try and unionize. I think collective bargining would result in lower wages and benifits, as the profit companies are paying for higher wages and benifits are coming out of profits for the company.

You are aware that makes no sense right? It would result in lower wages and benefits because they'd pay higher wages and benefits?

Not to mention the actual data that shows unions earn higher wages and benefits.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Do you think that if a union bargained for a higher wage that would be unfair to the company?
Do you think collective bargaining would result in lower wages and benefits?
On average, union workers receive higher pay and more benefits than their non-union equivalent (even after deducting union membership fees).
Kirth wrote:


If I understand his argument, he thinks he's way better than his co-workers, and that this will be recognized and rewarded by a benevolent management -- whereas if there were collective bargaining, all the other people who aren't as awesome as he is would just be dragging him down.
That's it in a nutshell. Actually I think I'm sort of a schmuck at work sometimes, but I'll rise and fall on my own merit. I do think it's unfair for the company, since I don't believe they can fire those who try and unionize. I think collective bargining would result in lower wages and benifits, as the profit companies are paying for higher wages and benifits are coming out of profits for the company.

Collective Bargaining usually means higher wages and benefits - or it wouldn't be as demonized by the equity holders.

As far as "unfair for the company" that's silly. They can fire you, take away all your benefits, and leave you on the street just because someone is having a bad day... if you live in a Right to Work state. Is that fair to you? "The Company" is an idea. It doesn't exist. On the other hand, you actually do...


KZ wrote:
Wages and benifits are less with collective bargining
thejeff wrote:


You are aware that makes no sense right? It would result in lower wages and benefits because they'd pay higher wages and benefits?
Not to mention the actual data that shows unions earn higher wages and benefits.

Who said I have to make sense :) Ok, I'm not just thinking of Zordlon toiling away in a lab, I'm thinking of as a whole economy. Walmart sells some of the cheapest fake dog poo anywhere. If they had to increase wages for unions, that cost would be passed onto us, the consumer. If the company doesn't survive (and doesn't get bailed out) your benifits and wages go to zero. Products are cheaper, and there is more capitol investment by companies when wages are market set.

diplomacy: 1d20 + 10 ⇒ (11) + 10 = 21


Yakman wrote:

Collective Bargaining usually means higher wages and benefits - or it wouldn't be as demonized by the equity holders.

As far as "unfair for the company" that's silly. They can fire you, take away all your benefits, and leave you on the street just because someone is having a bad day... if you live in a Right to Work state. Is that fair to you? "The Company" is an idea. It doesn't exist. On the other hand, you actually do...

I replied to the higher wages and benefits above. As far as being left on a curb, that did happen to me once when I was a lousy worker, but overall my work experience has been good. When we work it is voluntary by both parties, it should be kept that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meanwhile the rest of us pay anyway because many of Walmart's workers are so underpaid they get government assistance. Essentially the taxpayer is subsidizing Walmart's low prices.

More generally, a boost to low end worker's wages boosts demand, since those workers have more money to spend. This boosts the economy in general. In local areas where the minimum wage has been raised above the federal minimum, this has been observed despite all the dire prediction of companies collapsing and everyone losing their jobs.

I'd also argue that collective bargain is part of "wages being market set". It's just that the worker has a little more clout on their side when negotiating.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
I replied to the higher wages and benefits above. As far as being left on a curb, that did happen to me once when I was a lousy worker, but overall my work experience has been good. When we work it is voluntary by both parties, it should be kept that way.

I absolutely agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Do you think that if a union bargained for a higher wage that would be unfair to the company?
Do you think collective bargaining would result in lower wages and benefits?
On average, union workers receive higher pay and more benefits than their non-union equivalent (even after deducting union membership fees).
Kirth wrote:


If I understand his argument, he thinks he's way better than his co-workers, and that this will be recognized and rewarded by a benevolent management -- whereas if there were collective bargaining, all the other people who aren't as awesome as he is would just be dragging him down.
That's it in a nutshell. Actually I think I'm sort of a schmuck at work sometimes, but I'll rise and fall on my own merit. I do think it's unfair for the company, since I don't believe they can fire those who try and unionize. I think collective bargining would result in lower wages and benifits, as the profit companies are paying for higher wages and benifits are coming out of profits for the company.

I already showed that collective bargaining results in higher wages and benefits. People in unions earn about $10,000 more per year than non-union workers. 93% of union members of access to health care and retirement benefits, compared to 69/64% of non-union workers.

Non-union workers are paid less and less likely to have access to health care. This isn't me guessing, these are actual statistics in the real world.

In truth, I think unions are really only a stop-gap measure. I'd rather see more employee owned businesses. Not just small businesses either, but large corporations.

The John Lewis Partnership owns the largest chain of department stores in the UK and had about $13 billion in revenue in 2011 and over 81,000 employees, it would be in the Fortune 200 if it were in the US. They've maintained growth throughout the financial crisis both here in the US and Europe. They pay their employees more than their competitors and have a lower turn over rate.

Their stock isn't traded, the employees own 100% of the company. They take out loans when needed from investors, but they're loans, not equity in the company.

The problem with too many companies is that stockholders and CEO's are trying to extract profit from the company, they aren't trying to build an institution that will last, providing goods and services for years to come. They demand maximum profits now, instead of taking a long term view.

There are several lists of "100 best companies to work for". The list is dominated by employee owned businesses (though usually not 100%). Companies on this list tend to have consistent growth, even during the recession. They build loyalty with both their employees and their customers. It's a shocking concept, but the better you treat your employees, the better they treat each other and your customers.

The benefit of unions is that they improve the treatment of workers. The downside of unions is that they create a divide between management and workers, it creates an us vs them mentality on both sides. Unions have been invaluable in protecting workers rights though.

When the workers have control over the means of production, everyone benefits. Society gets higher employment, higher pay, higher benefits and higher economic growth.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Careful Irontruth, people will lump you in with Doodlebug. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Careful Irontruth, people will lump you in with Doodlebug. :)

He could be in worse company on these boards.

Shadow Lodge

Don't I know it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Careful Irontruth, people will lump you in with Doodlebug. :)

Trying to think of a way to phrase this to make it accurate. There is a myriad of differences between him and I, but a lot of them are basically semantic.

In a lot of ways I am a socialist at heart. Where I really differ from it is in the actual application of it. A super simplified concept behind Communism is basically a government enforced socialism (its not really accurate, but it kind of gets near the idea). The problem with Communism is that it doesn't proved an effective means of differentiating behind effective and ineffective ideas.

Capitalism does present a model for differentiating between ideas, but the problem is that what we in the West think of as corruption is often the most effective idea in capitalism. If the rules don't let you win, change the rules, whoever is best at changing the rules wins. The concept of trade and markets are effective though.

My favorite example is mosquito nets in Africa. It costs roughly $5 to make a net and another $5 to distribute them (supply chains, distribution nodes, etc). Selling them for $1 is more effective at getting them to the people in need than giving them away for free though. It's still clearly at a loss, but it triggers several psychological factors in the recipients that improves distribution and effectiveness though.

I think one of the major successes of Social Security is how people pay into it, but not just that they pay into it, that it is clearly labeled on their pay stubs and taxes that they paid into it. They feel a sense of ownership and investment into their benefits that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Both Socialism and Capitalism have good ideas.

I think our current reliance on the stock market, both as a regulating force of our economy and for retirement benefits is a bad idea. As it is, to retire without worry you almost need a second education and job to learn and play the stock market successfully. I think someone who works hard all their life shouldn't have to worry about how they will survive in old age, and that means not forcing them to play the stock market.

I have a vivid memory as a kid in my late teens, sitting on the banks of the Rhine, listening to a Rage Against the Machine CD and reading Noam Chomsky. I was still reading his, and other mildly subversive authors, while serving on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Pakistan in October 2001. I've grown away from his books specifically, he's too self-involved for my tastes, and I've become a little more moderate as I've gotten older, but not much.

I'm going to vote for the socialist candidate here in Minneapolis, thought mostly because we've adopted ranked choice, so I can still have my vote count for the DFL candidate too.


Vive le Galt!!!


thejeff wrote:

Meanwhile the rest of us pay anyway because many of Walmart's workers are so underpaid they get government assistance. Essentially the taxpayer is subsidizing Walmart's low prices.

More generally, a boost to low end worker's wages boosts demand, since those workers have more money to spend. This boosts the economy in general. In local areas where the minimum wage has been raised above the federal minimum, this has been observed despite all the dire prediction of companies collapsing and everyone losing their jobs.
I'd also argue that collective bargain is part of "wages being market set". It's just that the worker has a little more clout on their side when negotiating.

I spent some time slogging through the wiki page on minimum wage, and just as I thought, there are studies supporting both minimum wage = good and minimum wage = bad. I appreciate your argument, but I have a different opinion. Boosting the economy, material wealth, decrease in poverty rate etc. are caused by capitol investment. Minimum wage is relatively minor inconvienience. Paying PFS players 100k a year would make them better off, but wouldn't give the same benifit to the economy as investing in a factory, or investing in producing.

diplomacy :1d20 + 11 ⇒ (18) + 11 = 29


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
I replied to the higher wages and benefits above. As far as being left on a curb, that did happen to me once when I was a lousy worker, but overall my work experience has been good. When we work it is voluntary by both parties, it should be kept that way.
I absolutely agree.

two strikes in 1 post.

1 you're being sarcastic.
2 unless you wrote that webpage, try giving an opinion of your own.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
two strikes in 1 post.

One strike, actually.

You'd be surprised how often people mistake my honest expressions for sarcasm.

But then, what if my opinion was I find the claims of the linked webpage appalling if they are well founded?


Irontruth wrote:

I already showed that collective bargaining results in higher wages and benefits. People in unions earn about $10,000 more per year than non-union workers. 93% of union members of access to health care and retirement benefits, compared to 69/64% of non-union workers.

Non-union workers are paid less and less likely to have access to health care. This isn't me guessing, these are actual statistics in the real world.

In truth, I think unions are really only a stop-gap measure. I'd rather see more employee owned businesses. Not just small businesses either, but large corporations.

The John Lewis Partnership owns the largest chain of department stores in the UK and had about $13 billion in revenue in 2011 and over 81,000 employees, it would be in the Fortune 200 if it were in the US. They've maintained growth throughout the financial crisis both here in the US and Europe. They pay their employees more than their...

We differ on where the cost is for higher wages. I agree that unions would have higher wages, I just think that it is a net loss on the economy.

It sounds like an employee-owned business are fine. They probably don't unionize against themselves:). I agree with you that unions could cause strife between labor and management, and that generally wouldn't be an environment that I would find comfortable. The company that I work for had a union vote before I came aboard. It was voted down. One of the reasons I believe is that we are treated fairly.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
two strikes in 1 post.

One strike, actually.

You'd be surprised how often people mistake my honest expressions for sarcasm.

But then, what if my opinion was I find the claims of the linked webpage appalling if they are well founded?

I'm still confused. Probably because I'm not following links.

Sense motive: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (18) + 5 = 23

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ah, well. More's the pity. I love a good Pirates reference.


Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I already showed that collective bargaining results in higher wages and benefits. People in unions earn about $10,000 more per year than non-union workers. 93% of union members of access to health care and retirement benefits, compared to 69/64% of non-union workers.

Non-union workers are paid less and less likely to have access to health care. This isn't me guessing, these are actual statistics in the real world.

In truth, I think unions are really only a stop-gap measure. I'd rather see more employee owned businesses. Not just small businesses either, but large corporations.

The John Lewis Partnership owns the largest chain of department stores in the UK and had about $13 billion in revenue in 2011 and over 81,000 employees, it would be in the Fortune 200 if it were in the US. They've maintained growth throughout the financial crisis both here in the US and Europe. They pay their employees more than their...

We differ on where the cost is for higher wages. I agree that unions would have higher wages, I just think that it is a net loss on the economy.

It sounds like an employee-owned business are fine. They probably don't unionize against themselves:). I agree with you that unions could cause strife between labor and management, and that generally wouldn't be an environment that I would find comfortable. The company that I work for had a union vote before I came aboard. It was voted down. One of the reasons I believe is that we are treated fairly.

Well, the corralative evidence disagrees with you. The fact is, as we implemented unions the ecconomy grew leaps and bounds and then as we started dismantling unions the ecconomy has stagnated, with new growth primarily through sectors created through government spending.


Caineach wrote:
Well, the corralative evidence disagrees with you. The fact is, as we implemented unions the ecconomy grew leaps and bounds and then as we started dismantling unions the ecconomy has stagnated, with new growth primarily through sectors created through government spending.

Yup. Its a matter of group vs individual benefit. It isn't better for any one company to have a union company but its better for everyone if everyone does it.


caineach wrote:


Well, the corralative evidence disagrees with you. The fact is, as we implemented unions the ecconomy grew leaps and bounds and then as we started dismantling unions the ecconomy has stagnated, with new growth primarily through sectors created through government spending.

I think that unions/minimum wage is tinkering with the economy. The overall growth/decline of the economy I've heard attributed to other factors, but never unions. Help me out with some time periods of decline and stagnation, as well as some of the leaps and bounds.

diplomacy: 1d20 + 11 ⇒ (10) + 11 = 21


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I already showed that collective bargaining results in higher wages and benefits. People in unions earn about $10,000 more per year than non-union workers. 93% of union members of access to health care and retirement benefits, compared to 69/64% of non-union workers.

Non-union workers are paid less and less likely to have access to health care. This isn't me guessing, these are actual statistics in the real world.

In truth, I think unions are really only a stop-gap measure. I'd rather see more employee owned businesses. Not just small businesses either, but large corporations.

The John Lewis Partnership owns the largest chain of department stores in the UK and had about $13 billion in revenue in 2011 and over 81,000 employees, it would be in the Fortune 200 if it were in the US. They've maintained growth throughout the financial crisis both here in the US and Europe. They pay their employees more than their...

We differ on where the cost is for higher wages. I agree that unions would have higher wages, I just think that it is a net loss on the economy.

It sounds like an employee-owned business are fine. They probably don't unionize against themselves:). I agree with you that unions could cause strife between labor and management, and that generally wouldn't be an environment that I would find comfortable. The company that I work for had a union vote before I came aboard. It was voted down. One of the reasons I believe is that we are treated fairly.

There's a very simple concept that shows your thinking about how profits affect the economy is probably wrong.

Lets take $1 million dollars. If we give it to one guy who is already wealthy, the odds are that he'll either save it, or invest the money in a relatively safe way (an object likely to appreciate in value, low risk securities, etc). He might buy one new car that is expensive, or a boat or something in the luxury department.

If we instead distribute it amongst 100 families, that's $10,000 each, and those families are working class (say a family income of $50,000), those families will save some of the money, but they are also more likely to spend that money on goods and services. You'll see down payments on multiple cars, multiple vacations, potentially even new homes.

Higher income households have a higher rate of savings than lower income households. The bottom 40% of Americans save less than 1% of their income, because it's hard to afford to save, they spend everything they get. The 41-60% save around 10% of their income. The top 20% save about 23% of their income, and the top 1% save over 50% of their income.

Increasing the income of the bottom 60% of America means that 90% of that money immediately goes back into the economy. Increasing the income of the top 20% means that only 77% of that money goes back into the economy.

More profits should go to the workers, not the CEO.


Irontruth wrote:

There's a very simple concept that shows your thinking about how profits affect the economy is probably wrong.

Lets take $1 million dollars. If we give it to one guy who is already wealthy, the odds are that he'll either save it, or invest the money in a relatively safe way (an object likely to appreciate in value, low risk securities, etc). He might buy one new car that is expensive, or a boat or something in the luxury department.
If we instead distribute it amongst 100 families, that's $10,000 each, and those families are working class (say a family income of $50,000), those families will save some of the money, but they are also more likely to spend that money on goods and services. You'll see down payments on multiple cars, multiple vacations, potentially even new homes.
Higher income households have a higher rate of savings than lower income households. The bottom 40% of Americans save less than 1% of their income, because it's hard to afford to save, they spend everything they get. The 41-60% save around 10% of their income. The top 20% save about 23% of their income, and the top 1% save over 50% of their income.
Increasing the income of the bottom 60% of America means that 90% of that money immediately goes back into the economy. Increasing the income of the top 20% means that only 77% of that money goes back into the economy.
More profits should go to the workers, not the CEO.

I think there is room for workers to be paid more in the following senario. This morning I saw a construction crew building a structure. One of them was using a nail gun. Having a nail gun probably increases the rate of nailing 4-5x, with less fatugue. If the worker owns the gun, he should be paid more having made the investment. On the other hand there were also cranes, and there is no way a worker would be able to afford to even rent one. That's where the investment comes in by the company. I see the worker making an investment getting paid more and the pointy-haired boss making an investment and getting paid proportionately. The saving in the economy allows investment in cranes, spending in the economy directs production, but we need to produce to spend not spend to produce.

diplomacy:1d20 + 11 ⇒ (18) + 11 = 29


1 person marked this as a favorite.

May Day in your f&++ing face!

International proletarian socialist revolution is the only road forward and if you disagree you are a stooge of the plutocracy!

Diplomacy 1d20 - 20 ⇒ (2) - 20 = -18

Vive le Galt!


Rise like lions and shake your chains!: The Musical Interlude


Kahn Zordlon wrote:

I think there is room for workers to be paid more in the following senario. This morning I saw a construction crew building a structure. One of them was using a nail gun. Having a nail gun probably increases the rate of nailing 4-5x, with less fatugue. If the worker owns the gun, he should be paid more having made the investment. On the other hand there were also cranes, and there is no way a worker would be able to afford to even rent one. That's where the investment comes in by the company. I see the worker making an investment getting paid more and the pointy-haired boss making an investment and getting paid proportionately. The saving in the economy allows investment in cranes, spending in the economy directs production, but we need to produce to spend not spend to produce.

diplomacy:1d20 + 11 ⇒ (18) + 11 = 29

WTF?

Why would the company pay a worker who has bought his own nailgun more when they can just purchase a nailgun and have multiple people use it? Lets say they pay the guy with his own equipment $1/hr more. He is at most bringing a few hundred dollars of his own tools. He is the only one who can use them, so you only have access to those tools for 1 shift. Over the course of 2 months, the $1/hr will have paid for all of his tools. So, should the company take a 2 month hit to increase their ability to hire multiple people to use the tools and not be locked in to a specific person for a major efficiency upgrade on an investment that will pay off over multiple years? Add on that it would be cheaper than hiring 1 extra person for 1-2 days for a 4-5x efficiency increase. No buisness is going to pass that up.

Meanwhile, that gun would represent a significant investment on the part of the employee. It is more than a day's work to buy, for someone living paycheck to paycheck. It is a doable investment, but not one made lightly.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Lets take $1 million dollars. If we give it to one guy who is already wealthy, the odds are that he'll either save it, or invest the money in a relatively safe way (an object likely to appreciate in value, low risk securities, etc). He might buy one new car that is expensive, or a boat or something in the luxury department.

Actually the evidence is that he'll take that 'hot' money and go gamble with in on risky, short-term investments. When this is done on a large scale (ie the Reagan and Bush tax cuts) it blows up a bubble in the economy. That bubble eventually bursts, hurting the poor and middle class most.

This is part of why the economy was more stable and grew faster and more evenly when the top marginal rates were 70 to 90 percent. It's also why Eisenhower told his brother that the people who wanted to cut the top rate and get rid of Social Security, Medicare, etc. were stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to impose two extremely modest and common-sense rules on the trading markets:

1)If you buy something, you must wait one minute before selling it to someone else.
2)If you buy commodities, you have to actually purchase and store it.


Lord Fyre wrote:
This might be relevant ...

You know, I don't often find myself in agreement with self-described "fervent Christians" but, I gotta say, at least on the once-over, I'll be damned if there isn't a thing in here I disagree with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey Comrade, a friend posted this on her FB feed just now. Thought you'd have a chortle.


Kahn Zordlon wrote:
I think there is room for workers to be paid more in the following senario. This morning I saw a construction crew building a structure. One of them was using a nail gun. Having a nail gun probably increases the rate of nailing 4-5x, with less fatugue. If the worker owns the gun, he should be paid more having made the investment. On the other hand there were also cranes, and there is no way a worker would be able to afford to even rent one. That's where the investment comes in by the company. I see the worker making an investment getting paid more and the pointy-haired boss making an...

You haven't demonstrated any "saving in the economy". The crane is useless without workers.

I'm not opposed to the crane owner making a profit off the use of his crane.

What I am opposed to is the idea that the wealthy should make more profit purely because they are wealthy, which is what you are arguing. It's wealth incumbency, which I thought was not one of the ideals America was based on.

Your argument, that you just made, is that because a person invested more MONEY, they should receive more profit that the person investing WORK. That means the person who already has more money, gets more money, while the person who only has their work to contribute, gets paid less.

Your point is that MONEY is more important than WORK.

I want to see an America where a person can work hard and then retire with dignity and not have to worry about money the last few years of their life. I think a person who works hard should be able to retire without having to play the stock market, which is a rigged game in favor of the wealthy.

Income for the lower 60% of Americans has stagnated, while it was increased for the top 20%, dramatically for the top 1%.

You should watch this video. Do you think that accurately depicts the "American Dream"?


Irontruth wrote:


You should watch this video. Do you think that accurately depicts the "American Dream"?

The most remarkable thing about that video isn't it's content.

There are almost 6 million views and 60k likes. But ZERO dislikes.
Because everyone agrees that we're f#~%ed and this is why.


How many arguments/discussions have you had around the table about America's weakening (failed) middle class, and how many about Jar Jar Binks?

I'm pretty sure the downward spiral of Star Wars and America is linked.
The Shadow Government invented Jar Jar Binks to draw our attention away from wealth redistribution.

Eh? eh? See. That's how the Shadow Government gets you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Zero, and zero. We do not discuss real politics when we are gaming.


Guys it's simple trickle down economics. You sit there with a cup out and hope that some of the CEOs change falls out of his pocket into your cup if he's so generous to let you keep it. Doesn't everyone know this? Haven't you heard that capitalism is synonymous with meritocracy?


Trickle down economics given another name.


Motherf*@+in' May Day, yo!

(Make sure to scroll down and check out the Indonesian protesters who dressed up like ants!)

Vive le Galt!


Jail House Rock wrote:
How many arguments/discussions have you had around the table about America's weakening (failed) middle class, and how many about Jar Jar Binks?

We never discuss Jar Jar Binks, but we do occasionally go into the deteriorating living standards of the laboring classes.

Vive le Galt!


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


You should watch this video. Do you think that accurately depicts the "American Dream"?

The most remarkable thing about that video isn't it's content.

There are almost 6 million views and 60k likes. But ZERO dislikes.
Because everyone agrees that we're f+~%ed and this is why.

I see 2800 dislikes.


mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


You should watch this video. Do you think that accurately depicts the "American Dream"?

The most remarkable thing about that video isn't it's content.

There are almost 6 million views and 60k likes. But ZERO dislikes.
Because everyone agrees that we're f+~%ed and this is why.
I see 2800 dislikes.

It shows 0 dislikes for me as well.


Caineach wrote:
mordion wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


You should watch this video. Do you think that accurately depicts the "American Dream"?

The most remarkable thing about that video isn't it's content.

There are almost 6 million views and 60k likes. But ZERO dislikes.
Because everyone agrees that we're f+~%ed and this is why.
I see 2800 dislikes.
It shows 0 dislikes for me as well.

Huh, on my laptop I see zero too, but it showed ~2900 on my phone. I hit dislike and it still shows 0 on my laptop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The comrades from Anonymous hard at work...


Caineach wrote:

WTF?

Why would the company pay a worker who has bought his own nailgun more when they can just purchase a nailgun and have multiple people use it? Lets say they pay the guy with his own equipment $1/hr more. He is at most bringing a few hundred dollars of his own tools. He is the only one who can use them, so you only have access to those tools for 1 shift. Over the course of 2 months, the $1/hr will have paid for all of his tools. So, should the company take a 2 month hit to increase their ability to hire multiple people to use the tools and not be locked in to a specific person for a major efficiency upgrade on an investment that will pay off over multiple years? Add on that it would be cheaper than hiring 1 extra person for 1-2 days for a 4-5x efficiency increase. No buisness is going to pass that up.
Meanwhile, that gun would represent a significant investment on the part of the employee. It is more than a day's work to buy, for someone living paycheck to paycheck. It is a doable investment, but not one made lightly.

Often carpenters will have their own tools, and maybe run an odd job for a week or day. It's just an example, and I do see your point that over a longer period of time it would be more economical for a construction company to have their own tools. For an independant worker doing work for say a homeowner, it would be necessary to own his own tools.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The comrades from Anonymous hard at work...

They slipped, I just saw about 2840 dislikes.


Irontruth wrote:

You haven't demonstrated any "saving in the economy". The crane is useless without workers.

I'm not opposed to the crane owner making a profit off the use of his crane.

What I am opposed to is the idea that the wealthy should make more profit purely because they are wealthy, which is what you are arguing. It's wealth incumbency, which I thought was not one of the ideals America was based on.

Your argument, that you just made, is that because a person invested more MONEY, they should receive more profit that the person investing WORK. That means the person who already has more money, gets more money, while the person who only has their work to contribute, gets paid less.

Your point is that MONEY is more important than WORK.

I want to see an America where a person can work hard and then retire with dignity and not have to worry about money the last few years of their life. I think a person who works hard should be able to retire without having to play the stock market, which is a rigged game in favor of the wealthy.

Income for the lower 60% of Americans has stagnated, while it was increased for the top 20%, dramatically for the top 1%.

It isn't always the case that those with money make more. If an individual invests in a company and hires workers, then the company goes belly-up, it's the individual who takes the hit, and the workers still get paid. Investment is a risk and should be compensated. Work is time with little risk and is compensated differently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kahn Zordlon wrote:
It isn't always the case that those with money make more. If an individual invests in a company and hires workers, then the company goes belly-up, it's the individual who takes the hit, and the workers still get paid. Investment is a risk and should be compensated. Work is time with little risk and is compensated differently.

I think you're confusing the way it ought to be and the way it is.

When a company goes belly up, often those at the top know well beforehand. They cut benefits, try to squeeze as much out of their employees as possible, dangling vacation time or a final paycheck over their heads to compel them not to leave, and then axe everyone in a single day, refusing to pay the employees. And then declare bankruptcy and walk away scott free, burdening the taxpayers.

And starting to work for a startup is lesser but still risky for the employee. If it goes under they could be out of work for years in this economy.

Yes, investment is a risk and it should be rewarded. No one is arguing otherwise. The question is of proportion. If you create a company and you work 3 times as hard as your employees, but it's your money or startup investment on the line (which is so very seldom the case, as I remarked above, but nonetheless) what portion do you feel is owed you? If you have a company that makes 10 million in profits before paying employees, and you have 100 employees including yourself, what do you each get paid?

Socialism would dictate everyone takes home $100k. A fair distribution might be the owner/operator makes 25% and everyone else makes makes $75k. Our current system has the owner take home everything but $1.5 million, enough to pay his 99 workers minimum wage.

And don't say they can go somewhere else, because every other company does the same thing. Don't say start your own business because, by its nature, there must be less entrepreneurs than laborers.


Kahn Zordlon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You haven't demonstrated any "saving in the economy". The crane is useless without workers.

I'm not opposed to the crane owner making a profit off the use of his crane.

What I am opposed to is the idea that the wealthy should make more profit purely because they are wealthy, which is what you are arguing. It's wealth incumbency, which I thought was not one of the ideals America was based on.

Your argument, that you just made, is that because a person invested more MONEY, they should receive more profit that the person investing WORK. That means the person who already has more money, gets more money, while the person who only has their work to contribute, gets paid less.

Your point is that MONEY is more important than WORK.

I want to see an America where a person can work hard and then retire with dignity and not have to worry about money the last few years of their life. I think a person who works hard should be able to retire without having to play the stock market, which is a rigged game in favor of the wealthy.

Income for the lower 60% of Americans has stagnated, while it was increased for the top 20%, dramatically for the top 1%.

It isn't always the case that those with money make more. If an individual invests in a company and hires workers, then the company goes belly-up, it's the individual who takes the hit, and the workers still get paid. Investment is a risk and should be compensated. Work is time with little risk and is compensated differently.

In your example, when the company goes belly up, who is paying those workers?

Also, you didn't disagree with me. You have actually taken the position that money is more valuable than work.

You are in favor of wealth incumbency. You are against economic mobility, that someone who works hard is more likely to earn lots of money than someone who doesn't work as hard.

I'm in favor of people being paid for working hard.

You are in favor of people being paid for being rich.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The comrades from Anonymous hard at work...
They slipped, I just saw about 2840 dislikes.

They probably got busted by the man.


Also, no discussion of capitalist business practices and carpentry would be complete without at least a brief mention of 1099 misclassification.


From Dhaka, Bangladesh to West, Texas, Smash Capitalism!!!

201 to 250 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / CEOs Earn 354 Times More Than Average Worker All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.