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.
I didn't even mention CEO's. No idea why you are so focused on them.
But yes, I am in favor of a maximum allowed factor (for instance 5) when dividing the highest income in a given company by the lowest income in the same company.
So if minimum wage is $15.00 per hour, the most a CEO could be paid is $156,000/year (52 weeks/year x 40 hours/week x $15/ hour x 5?
That is the most imbecilic utterance to date, if that is what you are saying.
it is our right to care to the extent that tax and other government policies favor tactics that allow for the CEO's to be paid so much more.
What has changed in our society and our economy that explains the sharp rise in CEO compensation compared to the average employee?
If the CEOs are paid with the taxpayers money, you may have a point.
If you are not a a shareholder, it’s not your damn business.
Why you people only focus on the CEOs is beyond me. CEOs are no different from any employee. They get fired all the time. If you want to covet their money, you really should focus on the shareholders, there rich MFers who pay the CEOs. They are the one taking in most of the profits, not the CEOs.
I appreciate your post, and I assume it's fact-based. I don't know about his background, as it's not something I've studied.
To my original "point", what I was trying to communicate is that opportunity is there. Not every poor child is sentenced to remaining poor and uneducated. It does require the parents to help them, as you say his mother did, understand how important education is.
Obama came from a well-educated family with a caring mother and grandparents. Most kids born into poverty aren't so fortunate. Sure they may have affection lavished on them but it often doesn't translate into the type of focused attention that Obama received.
I have no dog in this fight. We can't begin to close the gap between rich and poor until we look at the root causes. They are pervasive and persistent enough that it's unrealistic to think the average poor boy can pull himself up by his bootstraps. But then they are also pervasive and persistent enough many most social programs may not have a substantial remedial impact. Our political system is too divided to make the kind of committed effort that might make a difference.
There are some who still decry the New Deal pointing out that it was only ww2 that pulled us out of the depression. This forgets that in the interim New Deal programs probably kept folks from starving. The War on Poverty is the poster child of social programs that do not work say some. Granted it did not alleviate poverty but it raised living standards among the poor above a level that would be unsustainable in today's world where an expose is but one YouTube video away.
The many pages of this thread are primarily devoted to defending our system. In the end, what we have may well be the best "fit" for Americans. But it is interesting that so few appear to grasp why many Europeans look at America in askance and thank God they have a European passport. Life in a social democracy may not be the wealthiest way to live but it can make for a better overall lifestyle.
The new crop of young progressive Democrats aside, I don't see that happening here.
Assuming what you say might actually be true, then it is totally 100% your fault for letting them have that power.
You don't have the guts to stand up and do the right thing, so you take the easy way out.
Your proposed solution will not only fail miserably, it will exacerbate the problem and make it worse.
You falsely believe that somehow limiting their Wealth will reduce their power, when in fact it will not.
Worse than that, by attempting to limit their Wealth, you'll only succeed in spreading it to more like-minded people.
So, instead of a tiny egoistical group, you'll have a larger egoistical group, still wielding the same power.
If and when you ever get the courage to stand up and do the right thing, it won't matter how much Wealth someone has or doesn't have, and you'll be in control, not them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Then you'll lose.
You bought into the propaganda and disinformation hook, line and sinker.
Federal law requires the 3% of businesses that are publicly-traded corporations to report the total compensation of CEOs.
The total compensation consists of both cash and non-cash benefits.
Few make any attempt to report cash only benefits, or actually break down the compensation into cash and non-cash benefits.
One instance where it was broken down and reported correctly was the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who received total compensation of $23 Million, but $16 Million was non-cash benefits, mostly stock options which are rigidly controlled by federal law, and $7 Million in cash.
Um, that was the 1960s.
Apparently, you don't understand this is 2019.
And, apparently, you don't understand that in the 1960s, there were few multi-national corporations, and CEOs were recruited regionally.
By the 1970s, CEOs were recruited across the US, instead of regionally.
Then CEOs were recruited in the US and Canada.
And, then, the 5 English-speaking States.
And, finally, CEOs were recruited globally.
Apparently, you're not aware that a number of CEOs are foreign-born, and not US citizens.
You can attempt to restrict CEO compensation, but the only thing that will happen is US corporations will move their headquarters out of the US to States where they can pay CEOs the compensation the demand based on the Law of Supply & Demand.
You act like anyone can be a CEO, so why aren't you?
That's was a choice, not a necessity.
There's plenty of free federal financial aid, free State financial aid, and free university financial, not to mention the several $100 Million in free private financial aid.
There are literally hundreds of free private education grants for which only single mothers are eligible, just as there are hundreds for which only veterans are eligible, or only people of any status in a paralegal program, or legal assistant program, or administrative assistant program, and hundreds more for those seeking education or training in the medical field and other many other fields.
If they're too damn lazy to fill out an application for those free grants, that's not my problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Open-D
So if minimum wage is $15.00 per hour, the most a CEO could be paid is $156,000/year (52 weeks/year x 40 hours/week x $15/ hour x 5?
That is the most imbecilic utterance to date, if that is what you are saying.
Not sure what you were talking about (bold).
I disagree, reducing the elite's wealth will reduce its power and influence.
It doesn't matter that we are in 2019 instead of 1960. There is no justification for such an absurd income inequality. All that the passing of 60 years should mean is an increase in the absolute amount due to inflation etc. But that applies to everyone, not just top earners.
Why minimum wage? I am not a fan of that, it produces working poor. Pay them $25 an hour instead of 15, that would still give CEO's a quarter of a million every year (in the case of a factor of 5). That is a lot of money.
Such a factor makes sense because it not only leads to lower income at the top, but also a higher income at the bottom, as there is only so much money to spend on all employees including management.
And with a factor of 5 CEO egos can still pretend like they are oh so much more important than the people who actually do most of the work, who risk their health, have to put up with obnoxious clients etc. day after day.
We encourage the hoarding of wealth with our tax code. There's little incentive to invest in one's own workforce, when it's so easy to just keep it all.
But you cannot legislate temperament.
You can't legislate how people parent.
You can't legislate desire, will, or grit.
You can't legislate aptitude or work ethic.
You can only take other people's work and redistribute it.
While some of this is required to have a functioning society, at some point, there will be a huge negative impact on our progression as a species/civilization.
You can't lift people up while simultaneously dragging people down.
We encourage the hoarding of wealth with our tax code. There's little incentive to invest in one's own workforce, when it's so easy to just keep it all.
But you cannot legislate temperament.
You can't legislate how people parent.
You can't legislate desire, will, or grit.
You can't legislate aptitude or work ethic.
You can only take other people's work and redistribute it.
While some of this is required to have a functioning society, at some point, there will be a huge negative impact on our progression as a species/civilization. You can't lift people up while simultaneously dragging people down.
Of course one can, as long as it is not the same people.
Your choice of words is also misleading. Nobody says managers should work for free. Class-aware people like to feel superior to others. Why can't they feel superior when they earn 5 times as much?
It's like with a woman that goes to a hairdresser, who cuts her hair from 30 to 15 inches, and then the woman complains that the hairdresser shaved her head
If you are a conservative, you try to make everyone rich
If you a re a liberal, you try to tax the rich until they are poor..so everyone is poor
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.
