BA, ahh to live in a Democracy.

[finman]

Do you really beleive that this accurately describes someone like Doug Steenland.?

Absolutely.

Oh thats a good one. Thanks for the laugh. 🙄
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Petras13.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/dems-j25.shtml
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...INION/701280323
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...ddle_class.html



http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200...nders_oped.html

That's pretty telling. I get my reference points from reading reputable economists and journalists, while you obviously get your information from openly communist sources (Mother Jones?, give me a break). Communism is for losers that don't want to openly compete in the market place and who are afraid of market forces that they can't control. Are you in that camp?

 

[finman]

George Bush sound bite: "Some may call you the Elite, but I call you my base....he then snorts and snickers"

Fineman: "Second, the employees have just as much chance to prove their merit as the CEO, it's just through different channels. The employee needs to impress their manager, who is responsible for maintaining a quality product by the VP, who reports to the CEO, who ultimately is judged by the board."

And the incentive to reward the employees lies where? Do a good job and you can KEEP your job? Do a good job and it will enrich me, therefore I have no incentive to increase your pay, you can't strike collectively(according to Fineman) if you do you will destroy the company and it will be YOUR fault.(EXTORTION according to Fineman)

Charley, you are talking to the wrong one about economics. Your infantile analogy is so ridiculously simplistic it is beneath a 4th grader. I just hope to Jesus that you are not in charge of some part of someone's company.

By your logic, the lower and middle level salaried employees all over the country must all be living in poverty and working 70 hour weeks. Since that is obviously not the case, and those salaried employees make a good living on their own merit and get pay raises outpaciing those in unions without the protection of a union, your argument falls flat.

Who's Charley? How is my analogy off base. If your skills were deemed valuable enough to an employer that they were willing to pay you $1M to ensure you worked for them and not a competitior, would you take it? If you did take it, would you consider yourself "greedy". You see, "greed" as you put it, is good for the economy, because it drives people to do great things. If the reward for inventing some revolutionary product is unimaginable wealth, there are more poeple that are going to be risking financial and personal loss in order to invent that product, and thus the the higher likelihood it will be invented. That's what made this country as prosperous as it is.

 

[Redbone]

By your logic, the lower and middle level salaried employees all over the country must all be living in poverty and working 70 hour weeks. Since that is obviously not the case, and those salaried employees make a good living on their own merit and get pay raises outpaciing those in unions without the protection of a union, your argument falls flat.

Who's Charley? How is my analogy off base. If your skills were deemed valuable enough to an employer that they were willing to pay you $1M to ensure you worked for them and not a competitior, would you take it? If you did take it, would you consider yourself "greedy". You see, "greed" as you put it, is good for the economy, because it drives people to do great things. If the reward for inventing some revolutionary product is unimaginable wealth, there are more poeple that are going to be risking financial and personal loss in order to invent that product, and thus the the higher likelihood it will be invented. That's what made this country as prosperous as it is.

Would I take a million dollars just based on your analogy, I would hope not. There used to be a thing in the country called ethics. You know, that feeling of being fair to people. A CEO does NO MORE to ensure the success of a company than the thousands that make that company operate EVERYDAY. With out them he or she is useless.

What the hell does that mumbo jumbo of inventing got to do with treating people who build a company fairly?

We tried it your way...remember Carnegie? The Penn. mines? Turn of the century management pigs that worked children till their fingers almost fell off.

I am waiting for your reply as to why CEO pay shouldn't be tied to performance of the company.

By your formula the nations I named above should be third world failures (having been industrialized by Unions). Your middle and lower managers don't make a company. Airlines are a PRIME example of your failed perspective.

Airlines would cease to exist without it's pilots, flight attendants, agents(res. and station). These companies have demonstrated time and again that they will attempt to get away with paying it's employees as little as possible and reward it's top management as much as possible...if it can. That kind of greed is called oligarchy in your little economic 101 books. A system that failed. A system that dominates third world economies.

If a company, AND it's CEO/BOD don't want to pay it's employees a fair and prevailing wage, based on your CEO's right to take his services elsewhere, the employees have the right (in a Democracy) to take their skills elsewhere (like on vacation [strike].

What happens then? The CEO/BOD realizes that they have failed the shareholder because they have failed to maintain the continuity and growth of their investment. If a CEO/BOD can not demonstrate skills required to pay it's employees a prevailing fair wage, and grow the company with it's product and service, they are unqualified for the position. That is called profit from skilled management. SW,LH, AF/KLM does it while paying the highest wages in the airline business.

The problem here in the United States is that Senior management has been allow to enrich themselves, not from their ability to grow the company, but from the pockets of their employees. If you think people in this Republic will tolerate that for long...you clearly need to brush up on your American history.

As for the success of your middle and lower management:

A Forrester Research study predicts U.S. employers will move some 3.3 million white-collar service jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas in the next 15 years, up from $4 billion in 2000.

In August alone, the nation lost 16,000 information technology (IT) jobs, for a whopping total of 459,000 IT jobs lost since their number peaked in March 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a 12 percent decrease, comparable to the 14 percent decline in factory jobs, according to the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

General Electric will send a total of 20,000 aircraft and medical research and design jobs to India and China by the end of this year, according to BusinessWeek.

Now imagine this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070131/bush.html?.v=3

The finance department is seeking bids for off-shoring.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

That's pretty telling. I get my reference points from reading reputable economists and journalists, while you obviously get your information from openly communist sources (Mother Jones?, give me a break). Communism is for losers that don't want to openly compete in the market place and who are afraid of market forces that they can't control. Are you in that camp?

Oh well lets see.....

The 5 links I posted break down as follows:

2 U.S. Senators(Yes, one wrote the Mother Jones article)

2 College Professors

1 Dr of Economics

I'm sorry you are so afraid of the truth. This isn't about communism, its about the declining middle class in America.

 

[finman]

Would I take a million dollars just based on your analogy, I would hope not. There used to be a thing in the country called ethics. You know, that feeling of being fair to people. A CEO does NO MORE to ensure the success of a company than the thousands that make that company operate EVERYDAY. With out them he or she is useless.

You would not take the million if that was what your services were worth on the fair market? How about $500K? What is the most a person in your mind should be allowed to earn?

What the hell does that mumbo jumbo of inventing got to do with treating people who build a company fairly?

It goes to the "greed" comment. "Greed" in your terms is what has made this such a prosperous country, not unions.

I am waiting for your reply as to why CEO pay shouldn't be tied to performance of the company.

I never said it shouldn't be in some form. Just like any other employee, a CEO has a base package and additional pay based on performance. And, just like a normal employee, that base package isn't reduced if the company's performance is less than stellar.

Airlines would cease to exist without it's pilots, flight attendants, agents(res. and station).

Nor would it exist without analysts, accountants, lawyers, sofware engineers, and all of the other salaried employees. All of those functions (both union and nonunion) are equally important cogs in the wheel.

If a company, AND it's CEO/BOD don't want to pay it's employees a fair and prevailing wage, based on your CEO's right to take his services elsewhere, the employees have the right (in a Democracy) to take their skills elsewhere (like on vacation [strike].

Certainly, and the company has every right to replace them with people willing to work for the wage offered by the company. Just like the company would replace me if I decided to leave and make more money elsewhere.

As for the success of your middle and lower management:

A Forrester Research study predicts U.S. employers will move some 3.3 million white-collar service jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas in the next 15 years, up from $4 billion in 2000.

In August alone, the nation lost 16,000 information technology (IT) jobs, for a whopping total of 459,000 IT jobs lost since their number peaked in March 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s a 12 percent decrease, comparable to the 14 percent decline in factory jobs, according to the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

General Electric will send a total of 20,000 aircraft and medical research and design jobs to India and China by the end of this year, according to BusinessWeek.

That's all very interesting, but it doesn't necessarily mean the US economy is in trouble. Those are jobs from a selected industry where the work can be done more efficiently in other countries due to their highly educated and less costly workforce. What's missing is the other side of the equation, i.e., how much more is being purchased from the US by these developing countries due to their economic growth. Cynics like yourself only look at the negative aspects of a dynamic free market economy, and ignore the general health of the economy as a whole.


The finance department is seeking bids for off-shoring.

If so, then so be it. I'm not afraid of a little competition.

 

[Redbone]

"I never said it shouldn't be in some form. Just like any other employee, a CEO has a base package and additional pay based on performance. And, just like a normal employee, that base package isn't reduced if the company's performance is less than stellar."

What do you call "CONCESSIONS"? Or the BS excuse "We're in Delaware now, so we can't pay you what we owe you". Nice way to demonstrate "competitive performance"

Yeah, they can hire scabs...if there is a company left.(THAT is the beauty of a UNION...poof! Shut down.) Moreover, failed CEOs should be outsourced just as quickly for failure to perform.

So, your idea of middle class jobs in America being outsourced creates a market for American products? Who do you think built this market? The American consumer market is the largest in the world. Why? Because they had good paying jobs that allowed them to purchase the goods made here. What happens to that tax base when they don't have jobs?

The only jobs that have been created under this pathetic administration is low wage service jobs, primarily for the 25-30 million illegal aliens who will work for a quarter on the dollar (further depressing the wages of working Americans).

You belong in Mexico where there is a permanent slave class and the wealth of the nation belongs to less than 1 percent.

P.S. Ford thought they could build on the cheap there, and now suffers from "quality issues" as if they needed to revisit that. Same for VW. Many companies will pay the price for third world outsourcing (but current CEOs don't care, they will have their millions in the bank by the time the company fails)..

 

[jenny@nw]

Communism is for losers that don't want to openly compete in the market place and who are afraid of market forces that they can't control. Are you in that camp?

psssst. Don't tell the Chinese that. LOVE IT. These days, many journalists don't use credible sources either. Quite a few got in trouble making up stuff.....
So go on, spew some more hyper inflated "Nortbest is the best" rhetoric. I'm bored.

I'm sorry you are so afraid of the truth. This isn't about communism, its about the declining middle class in America.

So how is my Thirdseathero these days? Ah, as usual- my hero.

What do you call "CONCESSIONS"? Or the BS excuse "We're in Delaware now, so we can't pay you what we owe you". Nice way to demonstrate "competitive performance"

See this is the fantastic benefits (sarcasm) of incorporating your company in the glorious state of Delaware. They have very "pro business" laws and businesses incorporated there are pretty well protected.

Delaware makes $$$ by protecting businesses and encouraging them to incorporate there.

http://www.state.de.us/corp/default.shtml

Why Choose Delaware as Your Corporate Home?

More than half a million business entities have their legal home in Delaware including more than 50% of all U.S. publicly-traded companies and 60% of the Fortune 500. Businesses choose Delaware because we provide a complete package of incorporation services including modern and flexible corporate laws, our highly-respected Court of Chancery, a business-friendly State Government, and the customer service oriented Staff of the Delaware Division of Corporations.

They have always been a "Delaware" corporation. Check past yearly/ quarterly reports.

 

[marco90821]

Wow, that's a lot of socialist mumbo jumbo lumped into one post. You might want to pick up an ecomonics book at some point in your life. A great one is 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell.

First, the BOD represents the interest of the shareholders, so they speak and act on their behalf. As far as boards being stacked by flunkies, you'll have to elaborate. Give me some examples of boards made up of flunkies, and explain why the individuals on those boards are flunkies in your eyes. In almost all circumstances, they are very successful and ethical people.

Second, the employees have just as much chance to prove their merit as the CEO, it's just through different channels. The employee needs to impress their manager, who is responsible for maintaining a quality product by the VP, who reports to the CEO, who ultimately is judged by the board.

Third, greed is a meaningless word when used in terms of economics. Is it "greedy" that you require $30/hr to compensate for your skills even though you don't have any children, while a less skilled person with 5 kids can only get paid $20/hr for his skills? If you had the skills to be able to make $1M per year, would you choose not to so as to not seem "greedy". Believe it or not, there's not some lottery where CEO's get drawn out of a hat and get paid millions to just look pretty. Those that achieve that level of success have worked hard and are extremely smart and talented people that rose to the top. I guess it's easy to assume they don't earn their salary, but the free market (the combined opinion of millions of competing interests) knows a lot more than one person's opinion.

Fourth, prior to unions, there were factories in America. Enough said.

Lastly, the middle class is stronger now than it has ever been, and unions have been declining for years, so the current strength of the middle class has little to do with unions. The unbridled independent spirit to create and prosper by the individual is what made America the strongest nation on earth, not unions. Unions sucked from the teet of that prosperity for the previous couple generations, and continue to do so today in the governement sector.

I agree 100%. I am so sick of socialists and liberals. They have literally nothing to offer.

 

[Redbone]

I agree 100%. I am so sick of socialists and liberals. They have literally nothing to offer.

Take a pill and move. Join your friend in Mexico where you can enslave people and collect the wealth of the nation just for your greedy little pockets.

We are socialists because we demand a fair part of the company WE help create?

Thank you for the compliment as I MOST definitely am a liberal when it comes to corporate greed, misuse of bankruptcy laws, Union busting, and just plain ol'slimy corrupt greed.

What is it you think you offer a Democratic society? Is liberal a disturbing word to you because you can't treat people any way you want with out repercussions?

Our disgusting, dark days of enslaving humans in this country have been over for awhile, although corporate America is trying awfully hard to reinstate a "legal" slave system.

 

[finman]

We are socialists because we demand a fair part of the company WE help create?

Thank you for the compliment as I MOST definitely am a liberal when it comes to corporate greed, misuse of bankruptcy laws, Union busting, and just plain ol'slimy corrupt greed.

What is it you think you offer a Democratic society? Is liberal a disturbing word to you because you can't treat people any way you want with out repercussions?

Your a socialist because your a loser. Plain and simple. Those that can't compete in the free market confuse equal opportunity with equal results. You are free to work for whomever you want, and unions are free to strike. But, companies are free to replace workers that don't show up for work. How much more fair can it be? I hope you're not feeding your children this senseless junk, otherwise they'll end up losers like you. Actually, maybe I don't care; it will just be more people that my kids will surpass, since they'll be taught the wonderful opportunity that exists out there and not defeatist socialist garbage that you and your America hating friends live by.

 

[jenny@nw]

it will just be more people that my kids will surpass,

What's this? Eugenics? Darwinistic view?

Opportunities for what? If it's taken from you later they'll just turn into a bunch of socialists and hate their parents for brainwashing them.

 

[finman]

What's this? Eugenics? Darwinistic view?

Opportunities for what? If it's taken from you later they'll just turn into a bunch of socialists and hate their parents for brainwashing them.

It's called competition. If there are more weak competitors out there it's easier to stand out as a high performer, and thus become more successful. Do you think it is genetic, because I don't? I think it's largely determined by how you're raised and the values that you derive from your surroundings.

Why do you think that black America has largely underperformed over the last 30 years? Take a look at the messages spewing from the supposed black leadership (victimization, defeatism, anger, resentment). Those messages don't promote the concept of succuss and happiness through hard work, discipline and morality. Contrast that with the influences prevalant in asian or jewish culture, and then take a look at the relative success those communities enjoy compared to blacks. All of these communities have had the similar hardships and hurdles to overcome through the centuries, and they now all have the same opportunity for success in this country.

Now, which message do liberals more align with? You got it, the defeatist, "don't bother trying because the evil corporations will not let you succeed", "please big government take care of me and protect me from those evil capitalists" junk.

Lastly, free thinking and creativity is the foundation of capitalism, so not sure how "brainwashing" one to think this way is possible.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Your a socialist because your a loser. Plain and simple.

I see your grammar is as flawed as your thinking.

You are a loser. Plain and simple.

 

[jenny@nw]

It's called competition. If there are more weak competitors out there it's easier to stand out as a high performer, and thus become more successful. Do you think it is genetic, because I don't? I think it's largely determined by how you're raised and the values that you derive from your surroundings.

What is this? You definately failed in sociology didn't you?
Probably busy doing your accounting homework on the table.

You still have a Darwinistic view on this.

Why do you think that black America has largely underperformed over the last 30 years? Take a look at the messages spewing from the supposed black leadership (victimization, defeatism, anger, resentment). Those messages don't promote the concept of succuss and happiness through hard work, discipline and morality. Contrast that with the influences prevalant in asian or jewish culture, and then take a look at the relative success those communities enjoy compared to blacks. All of these communities have had the similar hardships and hurdles to overcome through the centuries, and they now all have the same opportunity for success in this country.

And why are you picking on my people? We don't run around wearing black gloves anymore (I'll bet you were the ones running scared around the corner, shaking :cold: )

I thought this wasn't about GENETICS and ETHNICITY.

I'm assuming you failed in Human Resources 101, right?

 

[finman]

What is this? You definately failed in sociology didn't you?
Probably busy doing your accounting homework on the table.

You still have a Darwinistic view on this.
And why are you picking on my people? We don't run around wearing black gloves anymore (I'll bet you were the ones running scared around the corner, shaking :cold: )

I thought this wasn't about GENETICS and ETHNICITY.

I'm assuming you failed in Human Resources 101, right?

You sure have a knack for always missing the point.

First, how is my view darwinistic? And also, please explain your definition of darwinism and how it relates to what we're talking about here. Since you don't need to be successful or wealthy to survive in this country, darwinism is not a relavant discussion topic. Please explain how sociology classes in college would arrive at a different conclusion. Do you have anything to offer to this conversation, or do you only go as deep as to make incoherent references to what somebody else apparently knows?

Second, my point was nothing about genetics or ethnicity as a stand-alone quality. I basically made reference that all ethnicities have equal opportunity in this glorious country, but due to the message the differing groups receive from their leaders and role models, vastly different outcomes have resulted. The same can be applied to any group of people that get it beat into their head from early in life that they have no chance of prosperity, and get fed lies abd demagogery that place blame on outside forces rather than looking within.