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.
Again you are so wrong. I and other liberals are the ones willing to pay more in taxes to ensure a social safety net. That is the political philosophy, that IS what it is based on. You guys are the ones who make your politicians sign pledges not to raise taxes.
If you don't like liberals, that's fine, but at least learn what political liberalism actually is before you start trying to come up with stupid analogies for it.
Do you tell your employer to transfer part of your salary to those making under $70k a year?
Part of my problem with this CEO's approach is what was said by one of the senior staff there, who quit. She was criticized and labeled "sour grapes" or "your pay wasn't decreased why are you upset over your peers' increase in pay".
People who criticize this fail to notice that this senior person who worked her way up to become a finance manager spoke about HOW MANY HOURS she had put into this company over the years AT THE EXPENSE of her personal life. This is typical of start-ups, but it shouldn't be (for too long, at least).
Thus I'm more sympathetic to this person who quit, because she had invested years of her time above and beyond what was the norm, as part of her paying dues to BUILD a start-up so that she may perhaps one day earn justifiable reward (equity in the company if it were to go public, or higher equitable pay if it stayed private).
However, by raising the salary ceiling so high, this severely reduces the company's ability to REWARD these workers who have been there from the very beginning, who busted their rears to keep this company above water knowing that this is the nature of start-ups, but who expected that their loyalty and invested time over the years would amount to something more significant than a $9000 increase in salary from $41K to $50K while another coworker who arrived 3 months ago who had not yet invested those hundreds of additional (NONPAID OVERTIME) hours get a $25000 raise to the same $50K.
People aren't talking about the intangibles that the senior employees have invested in making this company competitive. They're mostly bashing the employees who left for being spoil sports. Then people bash companies for not rewarding employee loyalty with equitable incentives or compensation; in this case the CEO's actions have indeed eroded the company's loyalty to the workers who have already invested significantly to its growth over the past 5+ years.
so why did only 2 of the longer tenured employees leave? what about all the ones who stayed?
Do you tell your employer to transfer part of your salary to those making under $70k a year?
What does that have to do with my statement and the debate we were having? It wasn't about whether being liberal is a good thing or a bad thing, we were disagreeing with your premise that liberals aren't giving/sharing people.
I am a contractor so technically self-employed, but I do donate as much as I am able to on a regular basis, and I also buy things all the time for the people in the nursing home I work in (very poor area, some of them don't even have socks..if I find that out, I go buy them socks even though I am not a social worker and it's not my responsibility, because to me everyone should have socks). If you're asking if I put my money where my mouth is, the answer is yes.
I am not a taker...I make a great salary and don't need assistance....however I am more than willing to pay more of my money to ensure that no one else goes hungry...that is pretty much liberal in a nutshell (in terms of fiscal policy). How does that equal an entitlement mentality? That makes me a sharer, a giver, not a taker.
Willingness to make a choice to give to others is both admirable and decent. However expecting everyone else to pay for things you believe in is more akin to being liberal as you put it.
I have said many a time over the years, the Buffet's and Gates of the world could write huge checks beyond whatever they own every year to the government, but choose not to. Instead they give their money to charities (most of it to overseas causes) because they know it will be better spent with less waste. That is their choice which we should all be ok with. However when they start preaching that everyone's taxes should be raised to pay for things they believe in, that is typical liberalism(i.e. fund projects with other peoples money.
Remember the same applies to you as an individual. If you support all sorts of Obama & Co initiatives, then feel free to add thousands of extra dollars to your check next year when your taxes are due. Personally I think you would be better off giving it direct to charities who feed the poor or whatever other worthy cause you believe in. Just don't demand others do the same, as our charitable causes might be different than yours.
so why did only 2 of the longer tenured employees leave? what about all the ones who stayed?
Very possible the other (more tenured) employees stayed to see how things played out, and whether they'd get merit-based raises above their $70K.
In general, it also makes more sense to stay at a company you like, than leave for an unknown even if you may get paid even more (inertia as well as smart bargaining behaviors).
I think the 2 employees who left did so out of principle, and they are entitled to their principles.
Just because many people stay at a company, does not mean there are no problems or people aren't feeling similar sentiments. There are many who will stay because they HAVE to: they know that few other if any employers are going to pay them $70K. They may also love their job, of course.
I am not a taker...I make a great salary and don't need assistance....however I am more than willing to pay more of my money to ensure that no one else goes hungry...that is pretty much liberal in a nutshell (in terms of fiscal policy). How does that equal an entitlement mentality? That makes me a sharer, a giver, not a taker.
And Dems vote to force others to become "more than willing" to hand over their money too.
What do you call that ?
It's enough that middle class struggle to put their own kids through college nevermind having to support putting other peoples' kids through college as well (student loans = tax dollars).
And you can say the same regarding utility rates, housing, food, etc. Not only do we have to pay our own way but now must do the same for others.
Basic necessities of life have been thrown on the wayside and now taxpayers are supporting a middle class lifestyle for the poor, both citizens, refugees, immigrants and illegals.
I am more than willing to pay more of my money to ensure that no one else goes hungry.
That doesn't make you a liberal, because you are making a choice of what to do with your own money. A liberal would choose to use everyone else's money to accomplish that same objective.
Willingness to make a choice to give to others is both admirable and decent. However expecting everyone else to pay for things you believe in is more akin to being liberal as you put it.
I have said many a time over the years, the Buffet's and Gates of the world could write huge checks beyond whatever they own every year to the government, but choose not to. Instead they give their money to charities (most of it to overseas causes) because they know it will be better spent with less waste. That is their choice which we should all be ok with. However when they start preaching that everyone's taxes should be raised to pay for things they believe in, that is typical liberalism(i.e. fund projects with other peoples money.
Remember the same applies to you as an individual. If you support all sorts of Obama & Co initiatives, then feel free to add thousands of extra dollars to your check next year when your taxes are due. Personally I think you would be better off giving it direct to charities who feed the poor or whatever other worthy cause you believe in. Just don't demand others do the same, as our charitable causes might be different than yours.
`
I'm not going to debate the merits of liberalism versus conservatism on this board, it's not the place and it's against TOS. My point, for the 4th or 5th time now, was only to point to Pedro that he was incorrect in his assertion that liberals take without giving themselves (the party analogy). Again, it's the opposite IMO and I felt that piece needed defending.
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.
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.
