U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY
30,539 posts, read 9,135,387 times
Reputation: 29101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by krug View Post
... imagine what would happen in the benefits were drastically cut, or removed all together.

...the government might have a reason to stop saying that Medicare's going broke?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2013, 09:55 AM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,571 posts, read 17,979,836 times
Reputation: 5929
Instead of paying one person $20 an hr why not pay $10 an hr and have two people doing what one person could actually be doing to begin with. I'm just using this as a minute possibility to get people off there rear ends and back to work.

Will give a reason for my words.

Here in Mexico (Rosarito) and also in Mexico City two men are used when delivering certain items wheras in the US only one man would be doing the work.

Have seen many times a small van that delivers snack items to a 7/11 type store that has two men working and we all know there is NO heavy lifting involved......same with two men delivering cases of soft drinks (Coca Cola/7 Up) etc.

I'm reminded when having a VIP tour of the VW plant in Puebla Mexico was told then that they did have Robots on the assembly one time but removed them in order to put people to work. Those days about 200 men a day were applying for work (mid 1980's or earlier).....just a thought that was crossing my mind while drinking my coffee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Looking over your shoulder
29,759 posts, read 26,809,762 times
Reputation: 79056
^^^
Why not cut a CEOs salary by 50% and hire more than 312 employees at $10 an hour. The CEO still continues to enjoy his riches and lots of poor workers get put on the payroll.

Warren Buffett earns 37milion a day! That's $1.5 million dollars an hour in pay!
(I'd have to ask for a raise if I had to live on just that... lol )

Warren Buffett made $37M a day this year | New York Post

Last edited by AksarbeN; 12-20-2013 at 09:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,401 posts, read 6,813,802 times
Reputation: 14464
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
^^^
Why not cut a CEOs salary by 50% and hire more than 312 employees at $10 an hour. The CEO still continues to enjoy his riches and lots of poor workers get put on the payroll.

Warren Buffett earns 37milion a day! That's $1.5 million dollars an hour in pay!
(I'd have to ask for a raise if I had to live on just that... lol )

Warren Buffett made $37M a day this year | New York Post
The increase in Mr. Buffet's wealth doesn't involve "compensation" -- that is, a salary or wages. It represents the increase in the value of the assets managed by Berkshire Hathaway, the company he founded many years ago and which includes, as its centerpiece, the railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

If a major spasm like that in 2008 (which occurred in part due to the prospect of the election of a showman pitching "class warfare" to the Presidency) drove the value of the assets held by Mr. Buffet's operations down, he could "lose" billions, but that doesn't mean money would go out of his pocket any more than it went in last year, or that it would be available to provide $10.00 wages to an army of burger flippers and janitors. Those guys and gals, if they were motivated, could likely make twice that in health care after a little education, but that field is demanding, stressful, and highly structured -- not very attractive for bozos who dream of becoming video-game testers and rock musicians,

The envy and oversimplification in your post is a prime example of what keeps cheap panderers pursuing political office. For too many of them, ignorance is more rewarding than education and understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Looking over your shoulder
29,759 posts, read 26,809,762 times
Reputation: 79056
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
^^^
Why not cut a CEOs salary by 50% and hire more than 312 employees at $10 an hour. The CEO still continues to enjoy his riches and lots of poor workers get put on the payroll.

Warren Buffett earns 37milion a day! That's $1.5 million dollars an hour in pay!
(I'd have to ask for a raise if I had to live on just that... lol )

Warren Buffett made $37M a day this year | New York Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
The increase in Mr. Buffet's wealth doesn't involve "compensation" -- that is, a salary or wages. It represents the increase in the value of the assets managed by Berkshire Hathaway, the company he founded many years ago and which includes, as its centerpiece, the railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

If a major spasm like that in 2008 (which occurred in part due to the prospect of the election of a showman pitching "class warfare" to the Presidency) drove the value of the assets held by Mr. Buffet's operations down, he could "lose" billions, but that doesn't mean money would go out of his pocket any more than it went in last year, or that it would be available to provide $10.00 wages to an army of burger flippers and janitors. Those guys and gals, if they were motivated, could likely make twice that in health care after a little education, but that field is demanding, stressful, and highly structured -- not very attractive for bozos who dream of becoming video-game testers and rock musicians,

The envy and oversimplification in your post is a prime example of what keeps cheap panderers pursuing political office. For too many of them, ignorance is more rewarding than education and understanding.
The extreme $10 ~ $37 million an hour differences!

Of course this is a ridiculous post. Few people earning $20 a hour would want to give half of his earnings to another worker, and those earning $10 an hour are not making enough money to exist and function as a middle class citizen in the U.S. itís an earning that is below poverty for most all of the country.

Next, showing the GREAT disproportion of earnings from one of the top five income earning people in this country, Warren Buffett made the news with his $37Million a day. Itís an extreme example of the high wealthy and the low poor incomes in America. Even when cutting half of the hourly wage of Mr. Buffett it would put those 312 employees at $10 an hour. Simply unbelievable!

As for Warren Buffett he is one of the VERY few wealthy Americans who actually contributes most of his wealth and earnings to those in need and different causes. He and Bill Gates used their personal wealth and started an organization to help people around the world. Personally I admire and respect this man, itís a shame more of the wealthy top 1%er donít step up to helping others like Warren & Bill.

However! How about cutting the CEO salary which is on an average 300 ~ 450 times the hourly rate of the average employee working on the line in his corporation or business. What's that disparity about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: So. of Rosarito, Baja, Mexico
6,571 posts, read 17,979,836 times
Reputation: 5929
My usage of the $20-$10 hr was just numbers. Main issue was that people are getting some kind of FREE assistance that could be broken down to a 3 day or maybe a 20 hr work week still leaving a couple free days to seek some kind of full time employment......better that then watching the BOOB tube or drinking a cold one all day long by some people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,401 posts, read 6,813,802 times
Reputation: 14464
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
The extreme $10 ~ $37 million an hour differences!

Of course this is a ridiculous post. Few people earning $20 a hour would want to give half of his earnings to another worker, and those earning $10 an hour are not making enough money to exist and function as a middle class citizen in the U.S. itís an earning that is below poverty for most all of the country.

Next, showing the GREAT disproportion of earnings from one of the top five income earning people in this country, Warren Buffett made the news with his $37Million a day. Itís an extreme example of the high wealthy and the low poor incomes in America. Even when cutting half of the hourly wage of Mr. Buffett it would put those 312 employees at $10 an hour. Simply unbelievable!

As for Warren Buffett he is one of the VERY few wealthy Americans who actually contributes most of his wealth and earnings to those in need and different causes. He and Bill Gates used their personal wealth and started an organization to help people around the world. Personally I admire and respect this man, itís a shame more of the wealthy top 1%er donít step up to helping others like Warren & Bill.

However! How about cutting the CEO salary which is on an average 300 ~ 450 times the hourly rate of the average employee working on the line in his corporation or business. What's that disparity about?
You still don't seem to get the point.

According to the linked article

Billionaire Warren Buffett's salary remains unchanged - Omaha.com

Mr. Buffett's salary remains at $100,000; all the rest of his income represents gains in the amount of wealth he manages, and the stockholders in Berkshire Hathaway gain or lose value in the same proportion. None of them pay any tax until they actually sell their shares and realize the gain in the form of income.

Your proposal can be likened to what happens when you own a house. If you bought it many years ago, and it's in a stable neighborhood, it's likely worth several times what you paid, but most of that is due to inflation. Still, if you sell it, the gain is recognized as income, and the tax bite can be pretty stiff, even for a person of modest means.

That's why lower taxes on capital gains have always been a feature of tax law no matter which party controls Congress or occupies the White House. But to the point-and-grunts at the bottom of the heap,
the people who buy into the drivel spewed by ACORN and Occupy Wall Street, somebody else's money is just idle wealth, and they have plans for it.

When Mr. Buffett passes from the scene, the assets he controls will be re-valued; that will avoid taxes on the gains, but any wealth that remains under his control, such as stocks or real estate, will be taxed at its full value, at rates similar to income tax, His lawyers can avoid this only by charitable donations, so I'm sure a foundation or two will be generously endowed, but the alternative is confiscations of the money by people whose only "incentive" is to build a bigger bureaucracy

You obviously can write and punctuate a literate sentence, so why you would pander to those who simply want to point, grunt, and confiscate is beyond my understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 06:50 PM
 
577 posts, read 355,968 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Do you think our government should provide handouts to those who cannot work, do not make enough to support themselves and their families, or simply choose not to work? What about to those who have been laid off?

Should the government reward women for repeatedly having children as a means of getting more benefits...or do we have an obligation to provide the benefits for the sake of the kids?

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Under what circumstances do you think handouts are acceptable, if any? And what type of assistance should be provided?
Okay.. here goes.

For those that do not have a job because of being laid off : Yes, unemployment should be given as long as that person is actively seeking employment and can prove they are seeking employment (applications sent out, resumes sent out, interviews, etc). In this day and age, proving that you have applied to jobs is pretty easy.

To those that work but do not earn enough to support themselves and/or their families - yes, they shoudl receive assistance in the forms we have been giving them. This will continue to be the case unless and until we raise the minimum wage. The REAL sin is that companies don't pay enough for their employees to support themselves and their families on the salaries they earn.

As for women and multiple children: I feel it ironic that the same party that advocates against welfare and multiple babies, is the same party that has attacked, quite strongly, planned parenthood and is against women having the right to choose to have or abort their pregnancies. Maybe counseling women that have multiple children from multiple partners is a good start. The root of these babies being born may not simply be that they are looking for free stuff, but that they have low self esteem and therefor capitulate to their "man" in the relationship (ie: bending to their insistence on not using condoms, etc).. that's just an example. Empowering women goes a long way to helping them curb their desires to have multiple children Studies have indicated that the more educated the women, the less children they will have, etc. Multiple babies is a symptom to a much deeper problem.

Just my opinions...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 07:10 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,130,238 times
Reputation: 17979
Quote:
Originally Posted by krug View Post
Why welfare and aid to the unfortunate, and almost anyone else who's not responsible or just plain lazy.

Here it is.

The US is one step away from a third world country. The ones that have basically want to keep what they have, therefore, we "buy" off the lower class. By buying them off, they won't rebel, steal/rape/murder/plunder/etc, (more than they do now).

The US is becoming divided into areas of security and safety, at a price; (gated communities, suburbs, rural acreages, rich enclaves, etc), and the places you don't want to walk at night.

Don't believe me, imagine what would happen in the benefits were drastically cut, or removed all together.
Non-sense, we are about at years end. In 2013 the capitalist market system in US created more wealth in 2013 than total wealth of china; the second largest economy. I would say we are definitely not collapsing to third world standards by any means. Just looking at individual giving not only to our people in need but the world's shows it far beyond what you call buying off anyone. Certainly we have never seen buying off people to stay at low level as any aim except for the disabled.I thinkperhaps we realize that disable can mean those with less than survival skills tho in a complex world demand higher skills but even then mostly they have to at least work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 07:23 PM
 
1,705 posts, read 1,525,979 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by krug View Post
Why welfare and aid to the unfortunate, and almost anyone else who's not responsible or just plain lazy.

Here it is.

The US is one step away from a third world country. The ones that have basically want to keep what they have, therefore, we "buy" off the lower class. By buying them off, they won't rebel, steal/rape/murder/plunder/etc, (more than they do now).

The US is becoming divided into areas of security and safety, at a price; (gated communities, suburbs, rural acreages, rich enclaves, etc), and the places you don't want to walk at night.

Don't believe me, imagine what would happen in the benefits were drastically cut, or removed all together.
I keep hearing this argument more often these days. Don't know if I believe it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top