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.
Considering that the poster thinks that a 1,039 fold increase is 1,039,000% you might as well ask them to flap their arms fast enough to fly as understand the underlying methodology.
Most of the posters around here are too biased or too uneducated to do anything more than regurgitate partisan garbage.
What I find bizarre is the demonization of these CEO's that run major corporations while we idolize singers and athletes and generally pay them a whole lot more than a typical CEO.
Agreed. I can tell you the type of job that is worth a ton of money. Whatever job I'm doing at the time.
Why should anyone decide for others, in the private sector, what the maximum someone can earn should be?
It's good to be King.
Because it leads to wealth inequality which is a problem.
Back in the 70's my parents made a pretty decent living and getting a color TV that was about 27 inches was a pretty big deal. The problem with your comparison is the standard of living has risen across the board.
Back in the 70's my parents made a pretty decent living and getting a color TV that was about 27 inches was a pretty big deal. The problem with your comparison is the standard of living has risen across the board.
Good point. Back in 1977 I paid $500.00 for a new 25" color TV.
Considering that the poster thinks that a 1,039 fold increase is 1,039,000% you might as well ask them to flap their arms fast enough to fly as understand the underlying methodology.
Most of the posters around here are too biased or too uneducated to do anything more than regurgitate partisan garbage.
What I find bizarre is the demonization of these CEO's that run major corporations while we idolize singers and athletes and generally pay them a whole lot more than a typical CEO.
Yes, that was a mistake, added one zero too many. But at least I'm not a condescending goon.
There are far fewer high-paid celebrities than there are high-paid corporate CEOs.
Agreed. I can tell you the type of job that is worth a ton of money. Whatever job I'm doing at the time.
Why should anyone decide for others, in the private sector, what the maximum someone can earn should be?
It's good to be King.
It' a problem because it would be far better to have 100 workers in a corporation each be making $1000 more than to have an additional $100,000 go to a CEO. The 100 workers are likely to spend that extra money on consumer goods like food, housing, automobiles. A wealthy CEO will invest it, which does not add much to economic growth.
I'm half Swiss and I can tell you that the Swiss, including their executives, aren't especially interested in moving to the US. Switzerland has a higher standard of living than the US, its economy is more stable, their health care system is better, and the only homeless are a few druggies that used to hang out in one of Zurich's city parks, and these days I think most of them have moved to the Nederlands. The quality of life alone would top any amount of money a US corporation might offer.
I dont blame them. Didnt Tina Turner recently apply for citizenship. Wish I had her money, Id move in a second.
QOL in Switzerland has got to be significantly better than the US. I have never seen so many homeless since we lived in Ft Lauderdale. US is looking third world lately.
At least theres justice for the citizens in Switzerland.
Last edited by dreamofmonterey; 03-13-2013 at 02:43 PM..
Swiss execs will be fine. They aren't going anywhere.
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.