Would someone please define "Greed". This is where the problem lies with all of this. Since a few on this forum have decided they are the only ones who are correct, that all the rest regardless of numbers are idiotic right wing nuts, what point is there in continuing the dialogue? After all, only the left leaning position can be correct.
Greed: The excessive desire to possess wealth or goods. Similar to avarice, but not as wide ranging
Also, pleae spare yoruself the part of the martyr or that you're being prosecuted or that you need to ask rhetorical questions----all are kind of silly. I am trying to stick to the topic and hand, and would love to talk if you want to do the same. But to assume anyone is saying any position (left or right) is the only correct one is not what I am doing... I am referring to a subcategory of people generally on the right----but more of a group of like minded people (political affiliation matters not). That would as silly as making blanket statements over and over about Muslims when it isnt remotely warranted.
Excessive is a relative term. Whats excessive in the eyes of a poor man is nothing in the eyes of the wealthy. I think greed, at least in terms relevant to the core of the point of these discussions, is desire to possess more than is absolutely necessary to survive.
There is no middle ground in terms of basic standpoint. No matter how much people try to compromise or meet in the middle, you either approve of personal gain, personal wealth, personal achievement and personal freedom, or you believe each and every person should be limited and alloted to only what they need to physically stay alive and do their job; the rest of the funds being appropriated to the governing body for use in regulating the constance of such a state.
Greed: The excessive desire to possess wealth or goods. Similar to avarice, but not as wide ranging
Also, pleae spare yoruself the part of the martyr or that you're being prosecuted or that you need to ask rhetorical questions----all are kind of silly. I am trying to stick to the topic and hand, and would love to talk if you want to do the same. But to assume anyone is saying any position (left or right) is the only correct one is not what I am doing... I am referring to a subcategory of people generally on the right----but more of a group of like minded people (political affiliation matters not). That would as silly as making blanket statements over and over about Muslims when it isnt remotely warranted.
And who gets to decide what is "excessive"? The Govt?, those who have less? That is why greed is a totally useless term. Every individual decides what they need and want therefore they are not greedy by their definition. Greed is a term the have nots like to throw at the haves out of envy and jealousy and is critical to establishing the class warfare that is emerging in the US. I don't care how much money someone else has, or what they do with it since it is theirs to do what they wish, and I do not want to be told by my Govt that I need to give what I earned to someone else because they are "less fortunate". What I earn has nothing to do with good fortune but everything to do with my ability and dedication to earning it.
I agree with alot of what you said Pillow. I do not agree it is black and white in terms of personal gain vs only what is needed----there is a middle ground, however of course this is dictated by supply and demand and other factors. I understand and am not for wage ceilings or any socialist measures....yet at the same time, yes...I do have personal issues with failing CEOs and huge bonuses, sports stars getting 25 million to hit a ball, ect. Do I have an answer of how to reach a compromise??? No..no one does or else we wouldnt have these debates to take up our time and make things interesting
PS I pay to watch said sports stars, so yes---I am part of the problem (at least I admit it...now I can begin recovery)
Gypsy---You asked for a defintion of greed...and now say it is useless, but you still use it for your "class warfare" debate...A debate as old as "the south will rise again". I will not take on the good fortune vs ability debate as we alredy beat that dead horse a few weeks ago but will say the concensus on that one was good fortune has SOMETHING to do with EVERYONES successes...its just a matter of degree.
. I do not agree it is black and white in terms of personal gain vs only what is needed----there is a middle ground, however of course this is dictated by supply and demand and other factors. I understand and am not for wage ceilings or any socialist measures....yet at the same time, yes...I do have personal issues with failing CEOs and huge bonuses, sports stars getting 25 million to hit a ball, ect.
That right there is my very point. The argument isn't that one side sees the black and one sides sees the white, it's that at the core foundation of their principals (even though not all practitioners seem to follow them), one side (the Right) sees it as a black and white issue; cut and dry, and the other side (the Left) claims that it is not, and there is a equilibrium so to speak that is attainable without completely destroying what many hold to be the essence of the American existence.
The argument, much as any other political/philosophical/social one, can go back and forth either way for an eternity without ever reaching an agreeable conclusion. One side will stick to it's proposition that the middle ground is there and can be had, working on the premise that some people don't "need" this or that (mainly money). Not that this isn't a logical induction, in fact it is perfectly sound and does in fact make sense. But operating on the tenant that someone does not "need" something and is therefore stripped of it, will be seen by the eyes of the Black & White party as a quick step towards attempting to revoke all luxuries that are not "needed" by every single person. Again, a perfectly logical prediction from the foreseeable trend of the execution of such a system in a environment governed by the human mind in it's current evolutionary state.
Neither side will ever be able to prove that it is empirically correct in its standpoint, as morals and personal tenants are not identifiably measurable from a scientific standpoint.
Thus, at our current point in history, we are at a bit of a stalemate. The stalemate will not be broken until the enactment of one sides preferred system proves to be so disastrous that it shifts the view of its previous followers to one that sympathizes with the other half. At this point im time, I personally believe the quo is shifting in favor of the Right. Once the Right takes hold, and produces some failure of one sort of another, the quo will shift back, and over again. Just as it has for years. Unfortunately, another key human component that is limiting the advancement/eradication of one field over the other, is compassion. We're far to "evolved" to allow a situation to reduce itself to a simple adaptation/evolution scenario. The far Right, now matter how obscure they may perpetuate themselves to be in this Country, would never simply let the entire population of people who are not self-supporting simply die and rot in the streets. Just the same, the Left doesn't venture to declare an all out communist revolution, as they know it would be immediately thwarted by the arguably better armed Right.
Eventually something will give, but as we all know evolution is a long, slow process. I'll be surprised if the quo takes a permanent stance to either side within this century.
To me this whole arguement is quite simple. You need to have a CEO or the company would suffer without organization. However you also need all those jobs between the Janitor and the highest level employee below the CEO.
So if we can agree that a company needs all these people and that ANY one of them could be replaced by another individual, then it all comes down to worth.
If a company needs all these people to function , then it becomes a matter of how much value is placed on your position. That is the arguement that a CEO deserves to make as much money as he / she can. The same people who make that arguement would likely be the first to talk badly about unions and people who belong to them. These people are also trying to maximize their value but people say they are just a bunch or overpaid, underworked greedy people.
Can anybody provide the list of duties and responsibilties that justify a CEO making 100 times more (in many cases much more) then the lowest paid people in a company? They both bring something to the company and either of them can be replaced. So why is one person looked at as trying to be greedy while the other receives the blessing from some people to go out and make as much as they can? Can someone explain this in a sensible way?
To me this whole arguement is quite simple. You need to have a CEO or the company would suffer without organization. However you also need all those jobs between the Janitor and the highest level employee below the CEO.
So if we can agree that a company needs all these people and that ANY one of them could be replaced by another individual, then it all comes down to worth.
If a company needs all these people to function , then it becomes a matter of how much value is placed on your position. That is the arguement that a CEO deserves to make as much money as he / she can. The same people who make that arguement would likely be the first to talk badly about unions and people who belong to them. These people are also trying to maximize their value but people say they are just a bunch or overpaid, underworked greedy people.
Can anybody provide the list of duties and responsibilties that justify a CEO making 100 times more (in many cases much more) then the lowest paid people in a company? They both bring something to the company and either of them can be replaced. So why is one person looked at as trying to be greedy while the other receives the blessing from some people to go out and make as much as they can? Can someone explain this in a sensible way?
Wow, I actually agree with something you said Laker. I don't think all union folks are overpaid and greedy (whatever that means) I have been a Teamster (local 947) and I think CEO's are overpaid but it is not up to me to decide that. It is up to the owners of those companies (private or corporate) to determibne what the CEO is worth. I venture to say that most CEO's work many more hours under much greater stress than the rank and file and feel they are worth every penny. I think it would be much better if every CEO's pay were tied to some performance paramters but again that is not my call either.
Gypsy---You asked for a defintion of greed...and now say it is useless, but you still use it for your "class warfare" debate...A debate as old as "the south will rise again". I will not take on the good fortune vs ability debate as we alredy beat that dead horse a few weeks ago but will say the concensus on that one was good fortune has SOMETHING to do with EVERYONES successes...its just a matter of degree.
I said it was useless because no one will ever apply it to themselves, and the only purpose for it is class warfare. It is rare for it to ever be used any other way.
This certainly has been an interesting thread, a number of good points on all sides, definetly worth reading and thinking about.
+1
+2. And I might add we have been keeping it pretty civil. We can discuss a lot more real issue things if we can keep the tone the way we have managed to in this thread.
Gypsy, I too was a union officer for about 10+ years. 6+ years as a shop steward and 4 as a Trustee, and I grew tired of the kinds of remarks I stated above. Not intending to put words in your mouth. I have now worked for 20+ years as a self emplyed person, so I have some experience with both sides of the fence so to speak. I agree about the amount of hours put in by CEO's and was not trying to downplay the role they play in a compnay. I was trying to point out that all facets of a company are important to that company's success. While I have no problem at all with CEO's being paid well for what they do, I still can't reconcile the disparity in compensation between working class folk and CEO's or high ranking managers.
To me this whole arguement is quite simple. You need to have a CEO or the company would suffer without organization. However you also need all those jobs between the Janitor and the highest level employee below the CEO.
So if we can agree that a company needs all these people and that ANY one of them could be replaced by another individual, then it all comes down to worth.
If a company needs all these people to function , then it becomes a matter of how much value is placed on your position. That is the arguement that a CEO deserves to make as much money as he / she can. The same people who make that arguement would likely be the first to talk badly about unions and people who belong to them. These people are also trying to maximize their value but people say they are just a bunch or overpaid, underworked greedy people.
Can anybody provide the list of duties and responsibilties that justify a CEO making 100 times more (in many cases much more) then the lowest paid people in a company? They both bring something to the company and either of them can be replaced. So why is one person looked at as trying to be greedy while the other receives the blessing from some people to go out and make as much as they can? Can someone explain this in a sensible way?
Wow, I actually agree with something you said Laker. I don't think all union folks are overpaid and greedy (whatever that means) I have been a Teamster (local 947) and I think CEO's are overpaid but it is not up to me to decide that. It is up to the owners of those companies (private or corporate) to determibne what the CEO is worth. I venture to say that most CEO's work many more hours under much greater stress than the rank and file and feel they are worth every penny. I think it would be much better if every CEO's pay were tied to some performance paramters but again that is not my call either.
I agree. Though a lot of CEO's especially those of the top few corps in the world get paid lightyears more than their workers and when these companies are firing people, then taking their jobs over to other low waged countries to deliver inferior products they take pay incentives/increases. What the big wall street thing showed is that even when these so called CEO's F up and bankrupt their company they give themselves bonus's while milions of workers are left out in the cold. Therefor what you said, they should have to prove they are worth their money with goals set forth or standards for business's. I know my dad talks about how CEO's use to build their company and develop it, now it seems it's all about making the most profit and buying other companies. Which results in American workers losing jobs, pay and benefits. Yes both you and Laker make a good point that not all Unions are bad but some are. Just like anything else. I've talked about how PGE's union (local electric company) is horrible but others in my area are really good. However at least there is some standard for the people in those unions. I dunno, I think we can agree that if you do your job to build a company you should get compensated but taking American jobs and putting them in other countries to save money I feel is just wrong.
To me this whole arguement is quite simple. You need to have a CEO or the company would suffer without organization. However you also need all those jobs between the Janitor and the highest level employee below the CEO.
So if we can agree that a company needs all these people and that ANY one of them could be replaced by another individual, then it all comes down to worth.
If a company needs all these people to function , then it becomes a matter of how much value is placed on your position. That is the arguement that a CEO deserves to make as much money as he / she can. The same people who make that arguement would likely be the first to talk badly about unions and people who belong to them. These people are also trying to maximize their value but people say they are just a bunch or overpaid, underworked greedy people.
Can anybody provide the list of duties and responsibilties that justify a CEO making 100 times more (in many cases much more) then the lowest paid people in a company? They both bring something to the company and either of them can be replaced. So why is one person looked at as trying to be greedy while the other receives the blessing from some people to go out and make as much as they can? Can someone explain this in a sensible way?
Wow, I actually agree with something you said Laker. I don't think all union folks are overpaid and greedy (whatever that means) I have been a Teamster (local 947) and I think CEO's are overpaid but it is not up to me to decide that. It is up to the owners of those companies (private or corporate) to determibne what the CEO is worth. I venture to say that most CEO's work many more hours under much greater stress than the rank and file and feel they are worth every penny. I think it would be much better if every CEO's pay were tied to some performance paramters but again that is not my call either.
I agree. Though a lot of CEO's especially those of the top few corps in the world get paid lightyears more than their workers and when these companies are firing people, then taking their jobs over to other low waged countries to deliver inferior products they take pay incentives/increases. What the big wall street thing showed is that even when these so called CEO's F up and bankrupt their company they give themselves bonus's while milions of workers are left out in the cold. Therefor what you said, they should have to prove they are worth their money with goals set forth or standards for business's. I know my dad talks about how CEO's use to build their company and develop it, now it seems it's all about making the most profit and buying other companies. Which results in American workers losing jobs, pay and benefits. Yes both you and Laker make a good point that not all Unions are bad but some are. Just like anything else. I've talked about how PGE's union (local electric company) is horrible but others in my area are really good. However at least there is some standard for the people in those unions. I dunno, I think we can agree that if you do your job to build a company you should get compensated but taking American jobs and putting them in other countries to save money I feel is just wrong.
This is enlightening, now I agree with a squirrel (albiet a phobic one), who'd have thunk it.
I agree with Squirrel as well. But if we do so, then we have to admit some people are unfairly compensated for the amout and quality of work they do...which Squirel said.
Now, how do we get from that point...to the point were they make less money, and still not have the idea we are "fixing/redistributing" wages or wealth?
Unfortunately it is not up to us, that belongs with the shareholders/owners. What you or I consider fair is irrelevant unless we are doling out the pay.
I think that it is interesting when the government says that tax cuts "cost" them money. That is utter BS! Spending too much "costs" you money, not taking stealing less from me.
If the government is having money problems, they need to look at their spending. I will fully admitt that I am a right wing nut and I will not appologize for it. However, both Bush and Obama have spent WAY too much of OUR money. That was Bush's biggest problem with conservatives and Obama has continued the trend. So much for "change".
For our economy to recover, taxpayers need to keep more of their money, and the government needs to spend less. There is no other way.
If I lost my job and had no income, I surely couldn't spend my way out of bankruptcy!
I think that it is interesting when the government says that tax cuts "cost" them money. That is utter BS! Spending too much "costs" you money, not taking stealing less from me.
If the government is having money problems, they need to look at their spending. I will fully admitt that I am a right wing nut and I will not appologize for it. However, both Bush and Obama have spent WAY too much of OUR money. That was Bush's biggest problem with conservatives and Obama has continued the trend. So much for "change".
For our economy to recover, taxpayers need to keep more of their money, and the government needs to spend less. There is no other way.
If I lost my job and had no income, I surely couldn't spend my way out of bankruptcy!
actually tax cut does cost them money. in order for govt to work they need money, and as that we have taxes. I admit the tax system needs work and needs to be fixed but if tax cuts continue to get lower and lower (meaning less of them) then there would be more money going into the treasury. Yes spending does need to level out, only problem is the govt is the one who is mostly pumping money into the economy, however that money comes from borrowed money but it's suppose to get things rolling. However the corporate wealth is holding up any real spending thus many many people are unemployed. Which thousands are now off the rolls which is also bad since they do not spend that money in their area. If for some reason the tax code was changed so that there were less loopholes and that everyone is taxed for the same things instead of cutting people off of social security at 200,000 or so dollars which after that they don't pay into, medicare needs to be paid by all, also there needs to be tax penalty for taking jobs over seas. We need to bring money into our economy by SELLIng things. Also tarrifs need to be implemented and it would be nice if any oil/gas/minerals taken from our SOIL is only used for our country. Instead of these companies robbing us of our treasure then selling it back to us. Its down right insane. I mean you wouldn't buy back your own stuff would you when you already owned it? doesn't make sense.
Gypsy, yes it is up the shareholders which is where I think it has gone wrong. It seems to me that it has become the norm to make only short term goals and short term money instead of a steady increase which causes growth for a long time. Essentially not milking the company for a fast paycheck. I dunno the system is very flawed.
John, the fact is the "change" wouldnt have been needed if it wasnt for Bush. I still wonder where the outcry is for the money spent on Iraq and poor planning for Afganistan? That has cost us much more than any of the "help the lazy" programs that are easy to criticize
Squirrely, agreed totallly about short term gain over long term investment. Still doesnt explain how a 15 million dollar bonus could be warranted for any one person. As far as big busines being taxed, the far right says this is what drives business and jobs overseas----but where was that sentiment for 8 years of Bush with the biggest loss of US jobs overseas in our nations history?
John, the fact is the "change" wouldnt have been needed if it wasnt for Bush. I still wonder where the outcry is for the money spent on Iraq and poor planning for Afganistan? That has cost us much more than any of the "help the lazy" programs that are easy to criticize
Squirrely, agreed totallly about short term gain over long term investment. Still doesnt explain how a 15 million dollar bonus could be warranted for any one person. As far as big busines being taxed, the far right says this is what drives business and jobs overseas----but where was that sentiment for 8 years of Bush with the biggest loss of US jobs overseas in our nations history?
We understand Vulchor, it is all Bush's fault, right?
John, the fact is the "change" wouldnt have been needed if it wasnt for Bush. I still wonder where the outcry is for the money spent on Iraq and poor planning for Afganistan? That has cost us much more than any of the "help the lazy" programs that are easy to criticize
Squirrely, agreed totallly about short term gain over long term investment. Still doesnt explain how a 15 million dollar bonus could be warranted for any one person. As far as big busines being taxed, the far right says this is what drives business and jobs overseas----but where was that sentiment for 8 years of Bush with the biggest loss of US jobs overseas in our nations history?
We understand Vulchor, it is all Bush's fault, right?
I don't think anyone is really saying "it's all Bush's fault", if so they're wrong. It is what it is, and Obama didn't create it. Bush's era helped, as did the last forty or fifty years of policy, that is all the "fault" of quite a number of players. No one is helped by the ongoing fingerpointing. To listen to The Right, Obama created all kinds of messes that took place long before he was of age to be of any significance, and to listen to The Left, Bush was to blame for all of the foreign policy of big business sycophant politics that have occured. I guess, at times, I really understand what FlaGypsy is saying when he points out that all of this is far beyond our control. On the other hand, that was the point behind the inception of the USA, that "mere citizens", so to speak, matter. Fairness, equity, freedom for all are worth the effort of arguing and fighting for. I don't think the Democrat/Republican party, (it is just one entity) is going to help us. So, despite Mr. Pillows eloquent and nearly unassailable arguements that there is no middle ground, if we're to survive as a culture, we're going to have to find that middle ground. At least, I think so. True, we're insignificant, those of us involved in the present converstation, but, isn't this where ideas begin? The smallest spark, etc. By the way, Mr. Pillow, I loved your quote. I'm not familiar with the speaker, but he certainly illustrates what I meant when I said that capitalism works. I'm not sure about his opening premise, though, the quote "money is the root of all evil". While it certainly is put this way all too often, isn't the proper quote: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"? I'll have to check my concordance in the a.m. Meanwhile, at least for me, this is worthwhile. As to Kriegs' original question, I think that we all deserve to keep as much of our own money as possible, and still pay the bills. This is the crux of the matter, the bills. I don't think it makes me a raving lefty to believe that our debts should be payed, or that we should hold those who created those debts, both the left and the right, accountable. JMO
John, the fact is the "change" wouldnt have been needed if it wasnt for Bush. I still wonder where the outcry is for the money spent on Iraq and poor planning for Afganistan? That has cost us much more than any of the "help the lazy" programs that are easy to criticize
Squirrely, agreed totallly about short term gain over long term investment. Still doesnt explain how a 15 million dollar bonus could be warranted for any one person. As far as big busines being taxed, the far right says this is what drives business and jobs overseas----but where was that sentiment for 8 years of Bush with the biggest loss of US jobs overseas in our nations history?
We understand Vulchor, it is all Bush's fault, right?
I don't think anyone is really saying "it's all Bush's fault", if so they're wrong. It is what it is, and Obama didn't create it. Bush's era helped, as did the last forty or fifty years of policy, that is all the "fault" of quite a number of players. No one is helped by the ongoing fingerpointing. To listen to The Right, Obama created all kinds of messes that took place long before he was of age to be of any significance, and to listen to The Left, Bush was to blame for all of the foreign policy of big business sycophant politics that have occured. I guess, at times, I really understand what FlaGypsy is saying when he points out that all of this is far beyond our control. On the other hand, that was the point behind the inception of the USA, that "mere citizens", so to speak, matter. Fairness, equity, freedom for all are worth the effort of arguing and fighting for. I don't think the Democrat/Republican party, (it is just one entity) is going to help us. So, despite Mr. Pillows eloquent and nearly unassailable arguements that there is no middle ground, if we're to survive as a culture, we're going to have to find that middle ground. At least, I think so. True, we're insignificant, those of us involved in the present converstation, but, isn't this where ideas begin? The smallest spark, etc. By the way, Mr. Pillow, I loved your quote. I'm not familiar with the speaker, but he certainly illustrates what I meant when I said that capitalism works. I'm not sure about his opening premise, though, the quote "money is the root of all evil". While it certainly is put this way all too often, isn't the proper quote: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"? I'll have to check my concordance in the a.m. Meanwhile, at least for me, this is worthwhile. As to Kriegs' original question, I think that we all deserve to keep as much of our own money as possible, and still pay the bills. This is the crux of the matter, the bills. I don't think it makes me a raving lefty to believe that our debts should be payed, or that we should hold those who created those debts, both the left and the right, accountable. JMO
Dang it now I am agreeing with you too! The fact is the meltdown began before Obama became president, but he and the entire congress since 06 with Bush's complicity have been spending like drunken sailors, wait a minute, at least the sailors spend their own money. As for Vulchors never ending tirade about the wars we are involved in, they are still going on and Bush is long gone so he must not have been the only one who thought it was worthwhile or we would have pulled out already. In fact Bush negotiated the deal that we have with the draw down going on in Iraq and Obama decided to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. I am OK with both as long as we commit to win them conclusively but I digress and that is another thread. Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
Back to the thread at hand, I am happy with people earning as much as they can and my Govt spending as little as they can to meet their constitutional mandates ONLY! I guess that makes me a strict constitutionist.
Me too!
You guys are just a couple of crazy right wing extremists! LIKE ME! lol
All you people are loons. Now pardon me as I go to bed with my bible and guns like all us right-wingers do.
Comments
Also, pleae spare yoruself the part of the martyr or that you're being prosecuted or that you need to ask rhetorical questions----all are kind of silly. I am trying to stick to the topic and hand, and would love to talk if you want to do the same. But to assume anyone is saying any position (left or right) is the only correct one is not what I am doing... I am referring to a subcategory of people generally on the right----but more of a group of like minded people (political affiliation matters not). That would as silly as making blanket statements over and over about Muslims when it isnt remotely warranted.
There is no middle ground in terms of basic standpoint. No matter how much people try to compromise or meet in the middle, you either approve of personal gain, personal wealth, personal achievement and personal freedom, or you believe each and every person should be limited and alloted to only what they need to physically stay alive and do their job; the rest of the funds being appropriated to the governing body for use in regulating the constance of such a state.
PS I pay to watch said sports stars, so yes---I am part of the problem (at least I admit it...now I can begin recovery)
The argument, much as any other political/philosophical/social one, can go back and forth either way for an eternity without ever reaching an agreeable conclusion. One side will stick to it's proposition that the middle ground is there and can be had, working on the premise that some people don't "need" this or that (mainly money). Not that this isn't a logical induction, in fact it is perfectly sound and does in fact make sense. But operating on the tenant that someone does not "need" something and is therefore stripped of it, will be seen by the eyes of the Black & White party as a quick step towards attempting to revoke all luxuries that are not "needed" by every single person. Again, a perfectly logical prediction from the foreseeable trend of the execution of such a system in a environment governed by the human mind in it's current evolutionary state.
Neither side will ever be able to prove that it is empirically correct in its standpoint, as morals and personal tenants are not identifiably measurable from a scientific standpoint.
Thus, at our current point in history, we are at a bit of a stalemate. The stalemate will not be broken until the enactment of one sides preferred system proves to be so disastrous that it shifts the view of its previous followers to one that sympathizes with the other half. At this point im time, I personally believe the quo is shifting in favor of the Right. Once the Right takes hold, and produces some failure of one sort of another, the quo will shift back, and over again. Just as it has for years. Unfortunately, another key human component that is limiting the advancement/eradication of one field over the other, is compassion. We're far to "evolved" to allow a situation to reduce itself to a simple adaptation/evolution scenario. The far Right, now matter how obscure they may perpetuate themselves to be in this Country, would never simply let the entire population of people who are not self-supporting simply die and rot in the streets. Just the same, the Left doesn't venture to declare an all out communist revolution, as they know it would be immediately thwarted by the arguably better armed Right.
Eventually something will give, but as we all know evolution is a long, slow process. I'll be surprised if the quo takes a permanent stance to either side within this century.
So if we can agree that a company needs all these people and that ANY one of them could be replaced by another individual, then it all comes down to worth.
If a company needs all these people to function , then it becomes a matter of how much value is placed on your position. That is the arguement that a CEO deserves to make as much money as he / she can. The same people who make that arguement would likely be the first to talk badly about unions and people who belong to them. These people are also trying to maximize their value but people say they are just a bunch or overpaid, underworked greedy people.
Can anybody provide the list of duties and responsibilties that justify a CEO making 100 times more (in many cases much more) then the lowest paid people in a company? They both bring something to the company and either of them can be replaced. So why is one person looked at as trying to be greedy while the other receives the blessing from some people to go out and make as much as they can? Can someone explain this in a sensible way?
Gypsy, I too was a union officer for about 10+ years. 6+ years as a shop steward and 4 as a Trustee, and I grew tired of the kinds of remarks I stated above. Not intending to put words in your mouth. I have now worked for 20+ years as a self emplyed person, so I have some experience with both sides of the fence so to speak. I agree about the amount of hours put in by CEO's and was not trying to downplay the role they play in a compnay. I was trying to point out that all facets of a company are important to that company's success. While I have no problem at all with CEO's being paid well for what they do, I still can't reconcile the disparity in compensation between working class folk and CEO's or high ranking managers.
Now, how do we get from that point...to the point were they make less money, and still not have the idea we are "fixing/redistributing" wages or wealth?
If for some reason the tax code was changed so that there were less loopholes and that everyone is taxed for the same things instead of cutting people off of social security at 200,000 or so dollars which after that they don't pay into, medicare needs to be paid by all, also there needs to be tax penalty for taking jobs over seas. We need to bring money into our economy by SELLIng things. Also tarrifs need to be implemented and it would be nice if any oil/gas/minerals taken from our SOIL is only used for our country. Instead of these companies robbing us of our treasure then selling it back to us. Its down right insane. I mean you wouldn't buy back your own stuff would you when you already owned it? doesn't make sense.
Gypsy, yes it is up the shareholders which is where I think it has gone wrong. It seems to me that it has become the norm to make only short term goals and short term money instead of a steady increase which causes growth for a long time. Essentially not milking the company for a fast paycheck. I dunno the system is very flawed.
Squirrely, agreed totallly about short term gain over long term investment. Still doesnt explain how a 15 million dollar bonus could be warranted for any one person. As far as big busines being taxed, the far right says this is what drives business and jobs overseas----but where was that sentiment for 8 years of Bush with the biggest loss of US jobs overseas in our nations history?
True, we're insignificant, those of us involved in the present converstation, but, isn't this where ideas begin? The smallest spark, etc.
By the way, Mr. Pillow, I loved your quote. I'm not familiar with the speaker, but he certainly illustrates what I meant when I said that capitalism works. I'm not sure about his opening premise, though, the quote "money is the root of all evil". While it certainly is put this way all too often, isn't the proper quote: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"? I'll have to check my concordance in the a.m. Meanwhile, at least for me, this is worthwhile.
As to Kriegs' original question, I think that we all deserve to keep as much of our own money as possible, and still pay the bills. This is the crux of the matter, the bills. I don't think it makes me a raving lefty to believe that our debts should be payed, or that we should hold those who created those debts, both the left and the right, accountable. JMO