Here comes the war on income inequality!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But here is what most liberals cannot seem to grasp...one person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us to scrounge for.

Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic.

If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent. If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for.

This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top.

Our country declared 'war on poverty' 50 years ago. Since then, we have spent trillions fighting poverty, and the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't changed much. Why? Because for most poor people, their poverty isn't caused by a lack of money (the lack of money is the outcome, not the cause). Their poverty is caused by their own behavior, abilities, and priorities. You do not solve that by taking from those who have wealth.

Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's. That's a big drop. Since Reagan the amount government spends on welfare continued to drop as well.

I think if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones.

i really don't like the way this argument is framed by the left...namely, that conservatives care less about the poor than liberals. There are studies that show that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals do, and when you consider how each side views religion, that makes intuitive sense.

Republicans do seem to have a credibility gap. Reagan didn't help with this perception...

Finally, when the left talks about how unfair income inequality is, the boogeyman is ALWAYS a corporate CEO. The left never seems to care about actors or singers who are jillionaires. That tells me that wealth is OK, as long as it comes from a source that is left-leaning?

Big difference. Celebrities are a source of individual wealth, the CEO is usually on top of an organization. Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic.

If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent. If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for.

This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top.


Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's. That's a big drop. Since Reagan the amount government spends on welfare continued to drop as well.

I think if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones.


Republicans do seem to have a credibility gap. Reagan didn't help with this perception...



Big difference. Celebrities are a source of individual wealth, the CEO is usually on top of an organization. Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

"Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic."

Not suprising. My logic is that wealth is not finite. So one oerson's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. The solution to poverty does not involve the confiscation of exorbitant assets from th wealthy. The solution to poverty is to help poor people acquire more wealth for themselves.

"If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent"

You're talking about tax revenues collected, which is not what I was referring to (which was wealth). But OK. What if she makes more money NOT because of a tax cut, but because she launches another successful business, like a TV show. In that case, has she 'stolen' that additional wealth from anyone? If anything, the tax revenue is maximized if she makes another million, compared to a million poor people each making an additional $1, because her tax rate is so high. SO if you want to maximize tax revenue, which is what you are saying, you should be happy when the uber rich get richer, as their tax rates are higher than ours. Try making that wrong!

"Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's"

Can you provide that data please? From what I am seeing, since 1970, the poverty rate has been between 10% and 15%.

"If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for."

You make it sound like only wealthy plutocrats own stock. Everyone who has a 401(k) or a pension, benefits when the market does well. How do you not know this?

"This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top."

That's only true if the stock market runup since 2008 is caused by, and only by, the wage decreases taht have occurred under Obama. I thought the bull market was caused, in part, by all the free money floating around. If you force wages higher, corporations have less profit, and thus pay less in corporate taxes, correct? You don't create wealth by confiscating it from one person (or business) and giving it to someone else.

The rich will almost always get richer at a faster pace than the rest of us. Why? Because it takes money to make money. They have more investable assets. Its simple math. It's not unfair, nor is it harmful. If the rich get richer, not only does that NOT hurt poor people, you could argue it helps everyone else. The rich poay higher tax rates, so the more wealth that gets taxed at their higher rates, the lower the tax burden on the rest of us. Furthermore, unless the rich put their money in their mattress, they either spend it, invest it, or put it in the bank. All of those things are good for the rest of us. How can you work in business and not know this?

"if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones

I would put it this way...your party has done a good job convincing a large segment of the population that accepting government freebies, does no harm to anyone else. Unfortunately, as you and I will see firsthand within 20 years, nothing is free.

"Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years"

Sorry, celebrities didn't make $20 million a movie, 30 years ago. Until you show me that data, it's speculation on your part. Furthermore, the CEO of a publicly traded corporation does infinitely more good for the population than a celebrity. Large companies provide good jobs, and they provide wealth to shareholders. Celebrities, for the most part, do nothing of the sort.

Very weak, even for you.

CEO compensation, as you know, is tied to stock options. When stocks appreciate, that helps the CEO fatten his bottom line. It also helps everyone who owns a share of that stock, meaning it's good for an awful lot of people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

Spence, that's true, that gap between CEO and average worker is increasing. Here is my follow-up question.

So what?

If you cap CEO pay at some arbitrary number, and redistribute that money to the rest of the employees, what does that amount to?

Here, your fellow world travelers at the Huffington Post looked at Walmart, where the ratio of CEO to average pay was the highest of any company they could find...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2978180.html

The CEO made $23 million in 2012. Walmart has 1.5 million employees worldwide, according to this link...,

http://www.ask.com/question/How-Many...-Wal-mart-Have

So if your fellow Bolsheviks require the CEO to work for free, and we give every cent of his $23 million to the worker bees, each would see an increase of $15.33. How much help does that provide? How many people does that lift out of poverty? Is my math right here? I knew it would be insignificant, but not that insignificant. My point being, executive compensation isn't causing large numbers of people to live in poverty.

CEO salary makes for a great liberal talking point, and it does a good job at making the rich seem evil, which is the whole point. In reality however, it's not a significant line item on the balance sheet, in most cases.

You need another soapbox to holler from. The math doesn't support your cause here, not by a long shot. Somehow, that the math shows you how demonstrably wrong your point is, won't stop you from believing that point. And that's what I don't understand.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, that's true, that gap between CEO and average worker is increasing. Here is my follow-up question.

So what?

If you cap CEO pay at some arbitrary number, and redistribute that money to the rest of the employees, what does that amount to?

Here, your fellow world travelers at the Huffington Post looked at Walmart, where the ratio of CEO to average pay was the highest of any company they could find...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2978180.html

The CEO made $23 million in 2012. Walmart has 1.5 million employees worldwide, according to this link...,

http://www.ask.com/question/How-Many...-Wal-mart-Have

So if your fellow Bolsheviks require the CEO to work for free, and we give every cent of his $23 million to the worker bees, each would see an increase of $15.33. How much help does that provide? How many people does that lift out of poverty? Is my math right here? I knew it would be insignificant, but not that insignificant. My point being, executive compensation isn't causing large numbers of people to live in poverty.

CEO salary makes for a great liberal talking point, and it does a good job at making the rich seem evil, which is the whole point. In reality however, it's not a significant line item on the balance sheet, in most cases.

You need another soapbox to holler from. The math doesn't support your cause here, not by a long shot. Somehow, that the math shows you how demonstrably wrong your point is, won't stop you from believing that point. And that's what I don't understand.

You're completely missing the point. The question was why CEO's may get demonized...your response would be analysis a board of directors would make...not someone representing the workers.

-spence

[FishermanTim]

Here's something to consider:

A CEO's image is driven by how the company does and is perceived by the public, specifically when the company has to do something unpleasant like layoff or salary reductions.

Funny how a celebrity (Sports, music or movies) never get that same response. They still make their multi-millions a year regardless of how well they do when they work.

Where do their salaries come from?
Corporations are derived (usually) from stockholders and investors, who are expecting a return on their investment.
Celebrities get theirs from the public, although they are paid by the team, movie company or the tour venue. Who has a more direct affect on the poverty of America?
The clelebrities, because the public will spend money foolishly to see these people perform like circus animals instead of saving for their future betterment.
The CEO and their company actually employ people which gives them a push in the right direction.

People's poor choices should be addressed as major role in poverty, as should the lack of career advancement opportunities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're completely missing the point. The question was why CEO's may get demonized...your response would be analysis a board of directors would make...not someone representing the workers.

-spence

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Good luck making that wrong!

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

If you were representing the employees, what possible response could you have?

There are thousands of jobs at Wal-Mart that pay a comfortable wage. Instead of being so goddamn jealous of those people, how about learning from their example and doing what they did?

Easy? Hell, no. Within reach for most of us? Hell, yes.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Sure it is. The CEOs appear to see increasing compensation regardless of performance. Blow out the numbers = $$$ lay off thousands = $$$ resign in shame = $$$. It doesn't matter, they're playing by a different set of rules. Wages for the majority have been flat the past 50 years...but the top keeps making more and more regardless of their performance...

The elite play by a different set of rules, that why they are demonized.

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

Sigh...

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

You completely misunderstand their motivation.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure it is. The CEOs appear to see increasing compensation regardless of performance. Blow out the numbers = $$$ lay off thousands = $$$ resign in shame = $$$. It doesn't matter, they're playing by a different set of rules. Wages for the majority have been flat the past 50 years...but the top keeps making more and more regardless of their performance...

The elite play by a different set of rules, that why they are demonized.



Sigh...


You completely misunderstand their motivation.

-spence

"Sure it is."

The Walmart CEO makes $15 per year for each employee. Whoop-dee-doo. Maybe they have different rules than the rest of us. That doesn't change this fact...if you work hard and work smartly, you will likely succeed. The existence of CEO's doesn't change that.

"You completely misunderstand their motivation."

They felt justified in occupying that which was not theirs. their motivation, like that of most of your ilk, is gimme gimme gimme.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Good luck making that wrong!

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

If you were representing the employees, what possible response could you have?

There are thousands of jobs at Wal-Mart that pay a comfortable wage. Instead of being so goddamn jealous of those people, how about learning from their example and doing what they did?

Easy? Hell, no. Within reach for most of us? Hell, yes.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

Just give the Walmart workers their .007514705882353 / hr raise and end it......

[Raider Ronnie]

The Obozo plan

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Just give the Walmart workers their .007514705882353 / hr raise and end it......

Yes, that will allow all the Walmart stockboys to buy a summer home on Nantucket.

This is the liberal agenda - give poor people enough to survive, but not what they need to get ahead and be self sufficient. Because once people become self sufficient...they are less likely to vote 'Democrat'.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, that will allow all the Walmart stockboys to buy a summer home on Nantucket.

This is the liberal agenda - give poor people enough to survive, but not what they need to get ahead and be self sufficient. Because once people become self sufficient...they are less likely to vote 'Democrat'.

Yup, the Democrats are worried more that female CEO's are not paid as much as their male counterparts than whether or not poor people make move up the ladder. Without poor people Dems have no base. Obama's Executive order to raise the minimum wage on government jobs isn't helping people that work at the Walmarts, McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts in this country. He doesn't give a rats ass about them.

All he cares about is hooking up illegals anyway he can, and playing golf. He is an idiot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device