LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 02-20-2011, 04:39 PM   #21
Nwxffgke

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
550
Senior Member
Default
where is danny the one that was THANKING Obama last month when they lied about unemployment being 9%?
Nwxffgke is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 04:57 PM   #22
Izzy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
652
Senior Member
Default
where is danny the one that was THANKING Obama last month when they lied about unemployment being 9%?
He's off consulting MSNBC, CNN, and moveon.org to find out how he needs to think about this...
Izzy is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 05:09 PM   #23
mitiaycatq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
367
Senior Member
Default
They asked JC Penny once, "What is more important, customers, employees or shareholders?" He said, take care of the first two, and the third is automatic. We have to make a conscious decision, what is more important, the long term health of the company, or a quick return for the shareholder? Helping Americans keep jobs or making more for the shareholders by moving overseas? Eventually, as is happening now, to many Americans can no longer afford to buy our own products, let alone China's. So, to me, the question is, if you are really an American company, why are you hurting Americans by moving overseas? Perhaps this in an insular view, but I'm an American, and I'm tired if individual greed ruining this nation.
mitiaycatq is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 05:13 PM   #24
SawbasyWrab

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default
They asked JC Penny once, "What is more important, customers, employees or shareholders?" He said, take care of the first two, and the third is automatic. We have to make a conscious decision, what is more important, the long term health of the company, or a quick return for the shareholder? Helping Americans keep jobs or making more for the shareholders by moving overseas? Eventually, as is happening now, to many Americans can no longer afford to buy our own products, let alone China's. So, to me, the question is, if you are really an American company, why are you hurting Americans by moving overseas? Perhaps this in an insular view, but I'm an American, and I'm tired if individual greed ruining this nation.
Bravo! I like your attitude.

Sadly, too many American companies don't think of themselves as American companies.

They think of themselves as just a business in the world market.
SawbasyWrab is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 05:25 PM   #25
SawbasyWrab

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default


Well, yes, I do really like women. I'm a heterosexual male. It goes with the territory.

Actually come to think of it that's not true; there are plenty of straight guys out there who despise women except as fuck toys. So perhaps you have a point, that being a socialist and being a feminist (i.e., liking and respecting women) go hand in hand. Although that wasn't always true of the New Left back in the 60s-70s, come to think of it; may of those radicals were notoriously sexist.
Makes sense, I suppose .. though I would tend to change "many" to "a few" regarding the 60s-70s new left.


Anyway, be that as it may -- respect and liking for women, although I will certainly own it, isn't the reason I'm a socialist. And the problem isn't that our system rewards those who start businesses and exercise initiative. It's that it doesn't reward or empower those who do the work to make their visions a reality. What's more, it doesn't even reward those who start businesses or exercise initiative. It rewards those who have money. Everyone else has to struggle, including entrepreneurs, most of whom fail.

The problem in our thinking is not that the person who funds the operation deserves a reward. It's that the working class doesn't, and that employees are an expense in our accounting rather than partners in the operation. This has a tendency to cause employees to be exploited and wages to be kept low, which is not only unfair but also harmful to the economy. The system is set up as one of privilege, a way to make the rich richer in perpetuity and consign the rest of us to the leftover scraps. It didn't have to be that way. And in the future, it still doesn't.
Much of the reason we're in the present mess is due to capitalists behaving badly .. or normally .. no, badly -- not every capitalist sacs their integrity for money.

Granted, aligning with women is much like aligning with underdogs, the operative word being "under", as in underlings in the money system heirarchy against which socialists rail.

That women have yet to rise to power not only accounts for why their likely more preferred method of economic management is not in vogue, but may illustrate that women, by nature, prefer not to rise to power.

I am no champion of capitalism .. but neither do I champion socialism, communism or any other form of money system management.

I recognize that it is only fair that men and women live together and find a way to carve out a good economic relationship that works for both.

Historically, capitalism as a money management tool, has not done well for women.

Though men have all the power, hopefully some at least have enough heart to find a better way to progress with women more as equals, if that's truly possible.

I believe it is important for men and women not to lose who they are in that process.

Thus the challenge remains: find an economic system that works for both without taking the male out of men or the female out of women.
SawbasyWrab is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 06:20 PM   #26
EsAllCams

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
Wow.

That's a whole lot just to ignore the subject of the thread...
Did you really expect anything more? I'm not surprised at the answers of most on this thread. Not surprised but very disappointed. Saddened really. With this type of mindset this country is cooked.
EsAllCams is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 10:02 PM   #27
bactrimtab

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
557
Senior Member
Default
Dragontalk
Actually, Marcus, it doesn't make much difference whether the CEO is paid in salary or in stock options. He's still being overpaid, while the workers are being underpaid, harming not only the workers themselves but the entire economy, and the difference you're talking about is an unimportant one. If the other workers are being underpaid, why don't the leave and get jobs that pay them what they are supposedly worth? Hell, for much of the period we are discussing, there was a very tight labor market, and skilled labor was in incredibly high demand.

Just because one group is "overpaid" does not in any way, shapre, or form mean anyone else is being underpaid. If someone is being overpaid, then it is the shareholders who are not getting their due, not some other worker.

And yes, it does make a HUGE difference what form the compensation takes. If someone is paid strictly in guaranteed salaray, their incentives vis-a-vis short-term profit and stock price manipulation is very different from those whose compensation is directly tied to those things. Incentives matter.


Dragontalk
As for the compensation properly belonging to the shareholders rather than the workers, that's the essential flaw at the heart of the capitalist system: that ownership of wealth goes to the owners of capital, not to those who do the work to produce it. It's a form of theft, essentially: a way to steal from a person the fruits of his labor. What you say is legally true. Morally, however, it's a travesty. It's the workers who produce all of the wealth going to anyone, CEO, shareholders, or themselves, and if the law doesn't entitle them to that wealth, which I agree it does not, then the law as it stands is the problem. WHy is it a travesty? Investors are the ones more often than not actually taking a RISK. Does the average workers pay week to week depend on the company's performance? If a business loses money is it morally repugnant to you that the workers still get paid, while investors lose out?

If capital is utterly unimportant, then why don't all those workers just go start up their own business that they own? Suppose there is a very succesful restaurant, with an empty lot across the street. The owner makes HUGE profits. Why don't the workers all just walk across the street to the empty lot and compete? Because businesses rely on investment and capital LONG before they need workers.

Furthermore it is just stupid to suggest that the employeer/employee relationship is "stealing". Both enter into the relationship freely. If ANYTHING in our society is the moral equivalent of theft, it is the income tax (or any tax) to the extent it extracts from someone what they have earned (which according to you is less than what they are entitled to to begin with) and have it given away to someone else who did not earn it.
bactrimtab is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 10:22 PM   #28
Ivanaishere

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
If the other workers are being underpaid, why don't the leave and get jobs that pay them what they are supposedly worth?
Because there are no such jobs. I'm referring to an effect that's economy-wide, brought on by a change in government policy that occurred in the 1980s. What you suggest makes no more sense than saying to someone who is sheltering in a rainstorm under a tree, and the tree has become soaked and is leaking rain all over him, that he should find another tree. The same rain is everywhere, and all the trees are in the same condition.

WHy is it a travesty? For two reasons. One, as I said, the workers are the ones actually producing the wealth. And two, because the economy depends on having the wealth be widely shared; otherwise, consumer demand slumps and we get an underperforming economy such as we've had for the past thirty years. For working people to receive a decent share of the wealth that THEY produce is fair. For MANY people to receive a decent share of the wealth that we all produce is necessary. And for both those reasons and by both those measures, wages in this country are too low.

If capital is utterly unimportant I did not say that. If you wish to slay straw men, that's your privilege, and it's mine to ignore it, which I will.

Furthermore it is just stupid to suggest that the employeer/employee relationship is "stealing". Both enter into the relationship freely. "Work for me, work for my competitors, or starve" is not a free choice.
Ivanaishere is offline


Old 02-20-2011, 10:40 PM   #29
SawbasyWrab

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default
Jobs are created by investors & entrepreneurs taking risks.

If the risks fail, investors & entrepreneurs lose the most money by volume.

But investors & entrepreneurs rarely risk everything, so by percentage they are not risking so much.

Employees, on the other hand, gain 100% by getting a job and they lose 100% by losing a job.

As long as everything that happens here is based on money holdings, who holds the money, I don't see how this could go any differently.

Investors & entrepreneurs expect the same or a little profitably greater percentage in return for their investment.

Employees just want to keep earning a paycheck.

The two live in different worlds.

Until we find another way to create jobs, a way that allows both to live in the same world and the jobs still get created and kept, I don't see how this could be any different.
SawbasyWrab is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 12:17 AM   #30
Avgustslim

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
446
Senior Member
Default
"Work for me, work for my competitors, or starve" is not a free choice.
Add "or work for yourself" to the other 3, and it is a free choice.
Avgustslim is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 12:43 AM   #31
Loonerisav

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
568
Senior Member
Default
Didn't the republicans take control of the house at the beginning of the year?

Where are all of those jobs-bills that they promised to pass?

I wasn't aware that tax cuts for billionaires do anything more than send jobs to china.
Loonerisav is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 12:43 AM   #32
Sheestgag

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
511
Senior Member
Default
Didn't the republicans take control of the house at the beginning of the year?

Where are all of those jobs-bills that they promised to pass?
I believe they are still up their ass
Sheestgag is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 12:56 AM   #33
Retapleapse

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
480
Senior Member
Default
Didn't the republicans take control of the house at the beginning of the year?

Where are all of those jobs-bills that they promised to pass?

I wasn't aware that tax cuts for billionaires do anything more than send jobs to china.
Yeah, I know, I remember when the Dem's took control of Congress (both house and Senate) at the start of 2007 and that was when the down fall of the economy started and extended through 4 yrs of a Dem controlled House and Senate. Funny how things work out.
Retapleapse is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 01:19 AM   #34
Qdcqxffs

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
472
Senior Member
Default
Seems like unemployment is pretty bad. Seems like cutting up to a million jobs like the Repubs want to do with their budget is a bad idea . Does a high deficit prevent people from putting food on their table (assuming they even have a table)? No. Deficits can wait, jobs cannot. When will the Dems hit the Repubs hard on this?
Qdcqxffs is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 01:25 AM   #35
Retapleapse

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
480
Senior Member
Default
Seems like unemployment is pretty bad. Seems like cutting up to a million jobs like the Repubs want to do with their budget is a bad idea . Does a high deficit prevent people from putting food on their table (assuming they even have a table)? No. Deficits can wait, jobs cannot. When will the Dems hit the Repubs hard on this?
Yeah, all Obama has to do is hire more people and borrow and spend to pay them. Problem solved.

Although I think he tried that by hiring over 200,000 but heck he needs to step up and get on with hiring and expand government by a million or more people. Heck with that deficit stuff.
Retapleapse is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 01:31 AM   #36
Ivanaishere

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
To hear some people talk, the Republicans don't care about creating jobs. I think that's understating the case. I think they do care, and that creating jobs is the last thing they want to do.

Partly that's in service to the corporate interests that pull their strings, partly it's for political reasons. Regarding the first, high unemployment means a buyer's labor market, which employers like. Regarding the second, anything that makes Obama look bad is, in their view, good.
Ivanaishere is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 02:00 AM   #37
NETvoyne

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
535
Senior Member
Default
Wait on minute, I don't believe that chart, Obama told us unemployment would not go above 8% if we hurried and approved his trillion dollar stimulus bill. So that chart is dead wrong.
According to White House Press Secretary, the "goals" of the stimulus package "have been met."

A reporter asked Carney why unemployment is at 9% and not 7%, the percentage projected if the stimulus worked. Carney dismissed the question. "We've said repeatedly that we don't want to relitigate the battles of the past," Carney told the reporter.

RealClearPolitics - Video - WH's Jay Carney: Stimulus "Goals Have Been Met"

Obama never really thought the stimulus package would work. The "shovel ready jobs" were fictional. He even told that to some reporters. "There's no such thing as shovel-ready projects," B. Hussein Obama told the NY Times.

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
NETvoyne is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 02:22 AM   #38
loolitoertego

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
373
Senior Member
Default
It's clear that EVERY OBAMA POLICY HAS FAILED. Anyone arguing the other side needs to sit in their stew while big boys gets the shit right.
loolitoertego is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 05:17 AM   #39
Retapleapse

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
480
Senior Member
Default
To hear some people talk, the Republicans don't care about creating jobs. I think that's understating the case. I think they do care, and that creating jobs is the last thing they want to do.
Partly that's in service to the corporate interests that pull their strings, partly it's for political reasons. Regarding the first, high unemployment means a buyer's labor market, which employers like. Regarding the second, anything that makes Obama look bad is, in their view, good.
Hey Drag, think again, how about closing the border that the Dem's could care less about closing and their OK with outsources 20 million jobs right here at home. One other little tid bit. Do you know we send 500 billion to foreign countries a yr to buy their oil, how about bringing that money back home and the jobs that go with it and this country would boom.

Nice try on your spin but reality is the Dem's could care less about jobs, take the gulf that Obama has shut down, his stimulus was not about jobs it was about payback. So try as you might Dem's have never cared about jobs. They only care about entitlements.
Retapleapse is offline


Old 02-21-2011, 12:28 PM   #40
EsAllCams

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
420
Senior Member
Default
That's just nonsense.

Are the workers the ones who start up the businesses? Take the risks? Are the workers the ones making sound business decisions? Are the workers the ones who decide on the course for a company? Are the workers the ones held to account when a business decision goes south?

Taking your view, the person who makes the coffee and cleans the floors should make as much as me, seeing as she keeps me happy by making sure I always have coffee. Now
, let's not take into account the fact that spend 50% of the year on the road, away from my family, earning a living. Let's not take into account the fact that she has nothing to do with any of the business decisions made for our company.

Yeah, let's pay her six figures a year for making sure the coffee pot is full and the floors are clean...
Though a bit extreme, your point is based in reality. I guess going by liberal logic that cleaning personnel or a worker in Dunkin Donuts should be worth the same as Nancy Pelosi. If not then where do they draw the lline? I hate to tell you libs out there but someone who has no college education or TRADE SKILLS is NOT worth the same rate of pay as those who do. And of course a CEO is not worth 400 times what his employees are; time for the people of this country to get back to reality and common sense. Unions had a place once upon a time and they did their job. They protected those who were abused and taken advantage of; now we have laws on the books thanks to them, and they are not needed anymore. Their only purpose now is to inflate wages, take longer on jobs than bid, and make our own "Made in AMERICA" products too expensive for many. THAT'S why Walmart thrives. Time and time again union jobs go over on the time bid for the job, costing far more than originally agreed upon. Non-union companies are much more likely to finish their work on time and without so many cost overruns. I have experience with both and this is what I have seen for the past forty years.
EsAllCams is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity