Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 02-01-2020, 04:15 PM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,540,819 times
Reputation: 22232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW View Post
Except that, that line no longer works.

I mean "Starting your own company" in America today, since most of the leeches are not run by the owners.
They are not run by sweat of your brow people that work with all classes from the ground up, they are run by MBA's and *******s.

The biggest companies that depend on government welfare and military protection, are run by self entitled MBA's.

In old America, Capitalism worked.

An American, salt of the earth, saved money in a bank, invested that in a business and made it grow. He did not borrow from banks and wall street.

He became one of the cherished mom and pop shops.

Lets compare that model then to what we have today.

Today, an MBA comes in, slashes jobs and gets a pay raise and bonus.
In the old days, the owner took a paycut.

A Capitalist Owner has risk to himself, an MBA taking over a company shifts risk to everyone else and gives himself a pay raise. He had no RISK to himself at all.
How did the richest man in the world become the richest man in the world?

Hint, he wasn't selected because of his MBA to come in and slash jobs.

How about the second richest man in the world?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2020, 04:22 PM
 
8,104 posts, read 3,947,502 times
Reputation: 3070
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
How did the richest man in the world become the richest man in the world?

Hint, he wasn't selected because of his MBA to come in and slash jobs.

How about the second richest man in the world?
How about the majority of other companies where the CEO's pay themselves lavish compensatory income while passing the risks to everyone else.

What I want you to answer is how a person making millions a year as a company owner, and getting a golden parachute has been exposed to any risk at all, when they walk away with millions, while everyone else suffers.

In times of old, it was customary for the captain of the ship to go down with it.
It is speculated that the captain of the Titanic blew his brains out before the ship went down.

Today, we have pampered and spoiled MBA's that sink companies, destroy millions of lives and walk away from it all with golden parachutes.


Some may say, no one would take the job if they were punished.
Then how come captains went down with the ship?


Corporate CEOs are a protected class in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 04:31 PM
 
6,326 posts, read 6,566,374 times
Reputation: 7457
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Of course it's personal to you. You feel you were entitled to a job, and now you're bent out of shape over not getting it. It has you obsessed over things not being "fait".

Let me guess, you feel seniority is more important than ability.

Try counseling.
You do not know what I am getting or not getting but you definitely feel entitled to people working jobs for peanuts corporate owners are willing to throw at them. You feel you somehow "deserve" sufficient compensation you get unlike lesser cogs down there. Nevermind the fact that the way salaries are distributed within an organization has everything to do with "status" hierarchies in employers mind. There is no invisible hand, sorry, just perceptions "I can screw these guys, I can screw these more, I better throw a bone to these guys and so on." If employers perception of "value" is getting progressively third world if not feudal, working cogs better learn, or rather recollect, how to fight because there is nowhere to run under a system of universal wage slavery. Your rightwing kind wants docile work mules, that's all. So far rightwingers enjoy overwhelming success as far as rotting American proles minds and will. It is not a coincidence everything goes to a third world crapper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:04 PM
 
5,527 posts, read 3,226,261 times
Reputation: 7762
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW View Post
Except that, that line no longer works.

I mean "Starting your own company" in America today, since most of the leeches are not run by the owners.
They are not run by sweat of your brow people that work with all classes from the ground up, they are run by MBA's and *******s.

The biggest companies that depend on government welfare and military protection, are run by self entitled MBA's.

In old America, Capitalism worked.
In old America, there was less capital concentration. As a result, capital was husbanded more wisely and capitalism worked more efficiently. It's inevitable in capitalism that some players will win BIG, and concentrate way more capital than other players. There's nothing wrong with that until those big players start to tinker with the rules of the game to tilt it to their favor. That is the origin of corporatism, and it's inevitable given capital concentration.

Never forget that the top 0.01% are perfectly happy to sacrifice economic growth if it shores up their social position. If moving from 4% growth to 2% growth reduces social mobility and increases the power of incumbents, incumbents will take that deal in a heartbeat.

Quote:
An American, salt of the earth, saved money in a bank, invested that in a business and made it grow. He did not borrow from banks and wall street.

He became one of the cherished mom and pop shops.

Lets compare that model then to what we have today.

Today, an MBA comes in, slashes jobs and gets a pay raise and bonus.
In the old days, the owner took a paycut.

A Capitalist Owner has risk to himself, an MBA taking over a company shifts risk to everyone else and gives himself a pay raise. He had no RISK to himself at all.
MBAs serve a role. They are vultures who pick apart the zombie organizations owned by rentiers. This reduces returns to rentiers.

Extreme wealth tends to disperse because it is valued less by those who hold it. Over and above the boom-bust credit cycle, capitalism has a longer cycle of wealth accumulation and dissipation by individual players. The only thing that can slow down wealth dissipation by incumbents is legal intervention. This ranges from the relatively benign (stable careers such as law and medicine have high entry costs best afforded by the wealthy) to the extreme (separate legal systems and rights for aristocrats and commoners during the middle ages).

In the US the most egregious market distortion designed to shore up the elite is the spread between the income and capital gains tax rates. I would also place the difference in organization and coordination efforts within capital and labor camps pretty high up there, which this thread is about, but that's a much tougher nut to crack because labor organization covers many more players than capital organization.

Ultimately if political activity by wealthy elites serves to promote incompetent people and waste money on unproductive activities, those elites are working against capitalism, for their own interest. Why they do this is obvious; they don't want to lose their rank and privileges and are willing to sabotage the game to achieve that.

And it's not a "market distortion" to try to change laws to counteract the efforts of elites. It's turnabout and turnabout is fair play. The elites themselves have been playing the market distortion game for eons. The "free market", as espoused by elites and their lackeys, means unilateral disarmament by non-elites in the political arena. Hell, I would be satisfied with equal tax brackets for income and capital gains. I would prefer to tax capital gains more heavily however, to expedite the return of a more balanced society, with the knowledge that the system would eventually self-correct, and because turnabout is fair play.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:17 PM
 
3,556 posts, read 4,380,197 times
Reputation: 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Public unions should be illegal. It's a conflict of interest.
Based on my experience, I respectfully yet whole heartedly disagree with your opinion.

But, for the sake of understanding and clarity, please explain how this is a conflict of interest? I fail to understand how that could be. As stated in my post, my employer's upper management was in the process of taking actions which would have reduced my pension post retirement on a percentage basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:18 PM
 
Location: SE Asia
16,236 posts, read 5,856,006 times
Reputation: 9117
The German Union / b business relationship is a model that we could reapply. It's more of a partnership and far less adversarial. The German Unions realize that their futures are directly tied to the success of the business.

German businesses typically pay their CEO's far less than US companies as well. There are learnings to be had here.

The Unions here have a well earned reputation of resorting to thug tactics. As a boy in the 70's I was Newspaper boy. The Newspaper Union went on strike. I was poor kid, I didn't know anything. I picked up my papers as usual and started delivering. A car with 2 Union bastids damn near hit me. They knocked me off my bike screamed obscenities at me and took the papers. I wasn't the only one attacked. Cars and houses were vandalized. This is why so many not only don't support the unions but also understand that not all Union people are good people.

I respect Union tradesmen. They are highly skilled and in my opinion among the best in the world. My biggest beef with US Unions is that they defend the slacker as vigorously as they do the performer. That and everything is about seniority . Often times the senior guy is the slacker......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:24 PM
 
6,326 posts, read 6,566,374 times
Reputation: 7457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
In old America, there was less capital concentration. As a result, capital was husbanded more wisely and capitalism worked more efficiently. It's inevitable in capitalism that some players will win BIG, and concentrate way more capital than other players. There's nothing wrong with that until those big players start to tinker with the rules of the game to tilt it to their favor. That is the origin of corporatism, and it's inevitable given capital concentration.

Never forget that the top 0.01% are perfectly happy to sacrifice economic growth if it shores up their social position. If moving from 4% growth to 2% growth reduces social mobility and increases the power of incumbents, incumbents will take that deal in a heartbeat.



MBAs serve a role. They are vultures who pick apart the zombie organizations owned by rentiers. This reduces returns to rentiers.

Extreme wealth tends to disperse because it is valued less by those who hold it. Over and above the boom-bust credit cycle, capitalism has a longer cycle of wealth accumulation and dissipation by individual players. The only thing that can slow down wealth dissipation by incumbents is legal intervention. This ranges from the relatively benign (stable careers such as law and medicine have high entry costs best afforded by the wealthy) to the extreme (separate legal systems and rights for aristocrats and commoners during the middle ages).

In the US the most egregious market distortion designed to shore up the elite is the spread between the income and capital gains tax rates. I would also place the difference in organization and coordination efforts within capital and labor camps pretty high up there, which this thread is about, but that's a much tougher nut to crack because labor organization covers many more players than capital organization.

Ultimately if political activity by wealthy elites serves to promote incompetent people and waste money on unproductive activities, those elites are working against capitalism, for their own interest. Why they do this is obvious; they don't want to lose their rank and privileges and are willing to sabotage the game to achieve that.

And it's not a "market distortion" to try to change laws to counteract the efforts of elites. It's turnabout and turnabout is fair play. The elites themselves have been playing the market distortion game for eons. The "free market", as espoused by elites and their lackeys, means unilateral disarmament by non-elites in the political arena. Hell, I would be satisfied with equal tax brackets for income and capital gains. I would prefer to tax capital gains more heavily however, to expedite the return of a more balanced society, with the knowledge that the system would eventually self-correct, and because turnabout is fair play.
just in my limited work life time MBA beancounters royally screwed up work place as far as enjoyment and vibe (MBA got help from increasingly disintegrating society but they did some very heavy lifting). Now it is just soulless, repressed, stressful semi feudal soul sucking place you go to get some money. There was life and soul in American work place. I remember it and I am gen X not an octagenerian. When I listened stories of the old timers it was like SciFi stories about another world. Corporate culture kills American soul.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:40 PM
 
5,527 posts, read 3,226,261 times
Reputation: 7762
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
just in my limited work life time MBA beancounters royally screwed up work place as far as enjoyment and vibe (MBA got help from increasingly disintegrating society but they did some very heavy lifting). Now it is just soulless, repressed, stressful semi feudal soul sucking place you go to get some money. There was life and soul in American work place. I remember it and I am gen X not an octagenerian. When I listened stories of the old timers it was like SciFi stories about another world. Corporate culture kills American soul.
Most large companies are zombies and their owners know it. The soul sucking workplaces are companies in hospice, even if the workers don't know it yet. MBAs are usually mediocre people who are doing crap work in crap companies that are past their prime. They're milking the old cow trying to get the last drop out, oftentimes oblivious to the futility of their mission ("intrapreneurship" at GE?).

If you want to avoid MBA madness, go work for a small dynamic company. You will probably be payed less, but the wage premium at a large company is for tolerating the BS. Not worth it to me.

There are some people who either want to slack and find large companies tolerate this, or they are too lazy or scared to find a new job. These people deserve MBA managers.

The hard situation is the good worker who either needs the health benefits and security of a large company for whatever reason, or the diligent worker who nonetheless couldn't hack it at a small, dynamic company. These good people are stuck in Corporate America and I feel bad for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,754 posts, read 6,334,569 times
Reputation: 15732
Think Jimmy Hoffa and his buddies, they have a serious trust problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2020, 07:59 PM
 
3,556 posts, read 4,380,197 times
Reputation: 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by chacho_keva View Post
I've worked for my employer (a public organization) for 33 years. When I first hired on, our section opted for an Open Shop Union representation; that is, being a Union member was not mandatory. I was one of few who did not believe in Union Representation. Truth be told, the Union got us a fair and long standing contract which our employer honored. Sadly, after cementing the terms of the contract, the Union rendered little service to its members. After a decade of dismal representation, our section got rid of the Union and opted for a Steering Committee. The Steering Committee functioned ok throughout the duration of our contract. However, the closer we got to the end of our contract, the more conditions unfavorably changed for us. Upper management was in the process of taking actions which would drastically affect our pensions. In addition, over zealous scrutinization of time management became the culture and mantra of our organization. The slightest deviation from new time management norms are now cause for counselling, verbal warnings, written warnings, being placed on report, disciplinary action, and loss of employment.

Guess what? Our section now has 100% Union Representation. Our pensions are back to being secured. And just yesterday, for the first time in 33 years, I filed my very first grievance over a verifiable Holiday season underpayment.

Unions are important. They keep employers honest and in check.
I will quote my own post to add something I forgot to mention regarding the underpayment:

Prior to achieving 100% Union Representation, it was commonplace for upper management to take their sweet time and pick a pay period of their convenience in which to repay their [habitual] underpayments.

One day after filing my very first grievance, I received an email from our HR director informing me that my grievance had been received and reviewed. She offered me two repayment options:

1 - I can wait until the next pay period to be fully compensated for the underpayment

2 - I can opt to receive a full compensation check within four (4) business days in accordance with Article 19 of our MOU

Guess which one I'm picking?

Yes, Unions protect Workers from upper management's habitual nonchalant haphazard decisions which can potentially affect our incomes and benefits.

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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top