Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Talking to myself...well then, I suspect you'll also be notifying us when you stop talking to yourself...BSmack wrote:Detard, please let us know when you are finished talking to yourself. Ever heard of the EDIT button?
You responded 5 consecutive times. Either you are trying to hijack this thread or you are too fucking stupid to combine replies. Take your fucking pick.DrDetroit wrote:Talking to myself...well then, I suspect you'll also be notifying us when you stop talking to yourself...BSmack wrote:Detard, please let us know when you are finished talking to yourself. Ever heard of the EDIT button?
Edit button...yes. Point it out and I'll fix it, otherwise, stop avoiding that ass raping you're taking here and step up, Marx.
You obviously are an uninformed clod.Hapday wrote:Diego in Seattle wrote:Right off the bat one can point to the example of Wal-Fart. Included in that group of the top .1% is the Walton siblings who own Wal-Fart. Their income wealth has greatly increased while their store slaves errrrrr "associates" can't make ends meet or afford to get sick or injured.Hapday wrote: These ultra-rich people controlling so much wealth didn't stop Variable and his wife from making a comfortable living and they are 'working people'. So what the fuck are you bitching about?
Try reading news material other than National Review or American Spectator and you might learn about things like this.
I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
RACK.I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
You've confirmed it...you're unable to read and comprehend...BSmack wrote:You responded 5 consecutive times. Either you are trying to hijack this thread or you are too fucking stupid to combine replies. Take your fucking pick.DrDetroit wrote:Talking to myself...well then, I suspect you'll also be notifying us when you stop talking to yourself...BSmack wrote:Detard, please let us know when you are finished talking to yourself. Ever heard of the EDIT button?
Edit button...yes. Point it out and I'll fix it, otherwise, stop avoiding that ass raping you're taking here and step up, Marx.
I believe the comments, Greenspan is as big an idiot as the three leftist zillionaires the author cherrypicked to make his "case" for him.DrDetroit wrote:Hey, Dio...notice that the author fails to provide his source citation for Greenspan's comments that are supposedly about wealth accumulation...
I wonder why the ommission...
I remember Diego crying about some grocery chain in Cali where its workers were striking because the employers was asking the employees to share health insurance costs. When I pointed out that cashiers were making $19/hr, Diego freaked and denied it. When shown facts, he still denied it. Then he went on with his typical profit=exploitation rant...Variable wrote:RACK.I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
I love the socialists who think profit=evil and profit=required to pay your employee $20 for chimp jobs.
It sucks that they ended up being a tampon scanner at Wal-Mart because they chose to hang out with the Megadeth t-shirt wearing skaters at the smokers' tree, sported a nice, shiny 1.8 GPA, got pregnant at 15 and/or shacked up with and had kids with some dude that shoved them down a flight of stairs. It sucks.
We are a product of our choices in life; good, bad or otherwise. I don't ask that my company subsidize my income because of my bad choices. Why are these folks any different?
That might be the case...yet the author was irresponsible in not telling us when Greenspan made the comment so that we could verify them...Diogenes wrote:I believe the comments, Greenspan is as big an idiot as the three leftist zillionaires the author cherrypicked to make his "case" for him.DrDetroit wrote:Hey, Dio...notice that the author fails to provide his source citation for Greenspan's comments that are supposedly about wealth accumulation...
I wonder why the ommission...
Well aren't you just fuckin special. Of course nobody is saying that lifestyle choices should be subsidized, only that full time work should be rewarded with a wage that is livable.Variable wrote:RACK.I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
I love the socialists who think profit=evil and profit=required to pay your employee $20 for chimp jobs.
It sucks that they ended up being a tampon scanner at Wal-Mart because they chose to hang out with the Megadeth t-shirt wearing skaters at the smokers' tree, sported a nice, shiny 1.8 GPA, got pregnant at 15 and/or shacked up with and had kids with some dude that shoved them down a flight of stairs. It sucks.
We are a product of our choices in life; good, bad or otherwise. I don't ask that my company subsidize my income because of my bad choices. Why are these folks any different?
1) Until you have a substantive argument explaining why wealth accumulation and concentration is dangerous, shut your mouth about it. Your suppositions are meaningless.BSmack wrote:Well aren't you just fuckin special. Of course nobody is saying that lifestyle choices should be subsidized, only that full time work should be rewarded with a wage that is livable.Variable wrote:RACK.I think the government should pass legislation that forces Walmart to remove the gun they have at their employees head that forces them to work there then. Seems only fair.
I love the socialists who think profit=evil and profit=required to pay your employee $20 for chimp jobs.
It sucks that they ended up being a tampon scanner at Wal-Mart because they chose to hang out with the Megadeth t-shirt wearing skaters at the smokers' tree, sported a nice, shiny 1.8 GPA, got pregnant at 15 and/or shacked up with and had kids with some dude that shoved them down a flight of stairs. It sucks.
We are a product of our choices in life; good, bad or otherwise. I don't ask that my company subsidize my income because of my bad choices. Why are these folks any different?
Oh, and that it would be a good idea if 1000 or so people didn't controll the entire fucking economy.
He should stick to STFU and retiring already.DrDetroit wrote:That might be the case...yet the author was irresponsible in not telling us when Greenspan made the comment so that we could verify them...Diogenes wrote:I believe the comments, Greenspan is as big an idiot as the three leftist zillionaires the author cherrypicked to make his "case" for him.DrDetroit wrote:Hey, Dio...notice that the author fails to provide his source citation for Greenspan's comments that are supposedly about wealth accumulation...
I wonder why the ommission...
Though, isn't high-larious listening to Greenspan drone on re: fiscal policy. Provides great material for the Dems, but other than that, Greenspan should stick to monetary policy.
It also increases the company's overhead, which means that they can't afford to hire as many employees. So instead of ten people making $10, you have five people making $20 and 5 people on the unemployment line, who are now supported solely by the taxpayers. Nice plan.Living wages will have the same effect as increasing the minimum wage. As the several National Bureau of Economic Research sources I provided you guys weeks ago demonstrated, increasing the minimum wage results in the disemployment of the unskilled, the very people it is supposedly intended to assist. Living wages do the same...it increases labor costs to the point where the marginal cost of employing a skilled worker declines relative to the cost of employing an unskilled worker.
That's exactly what you're saying. These people (most) are only working there because of poor lifestyle choices that resulted in them still being unskilled labor in their 30's or 40's.Well aren't you just fuckin special. Of course nobody is saying that lifestyle choices should be subsidized,
Why?...only that full time work should be rewarded with a wage that is livable.
But those 5 people have more money to put back into the economy, therefore spurring growth and creating jobs for the other 5.Variable wrote:It also increases the company's overhead, which means that they can't afford to hire as many employees. So instead of ten people making $10, you have five people making $20 and 5 people on the unemployment line, who are now supported solely by the taxpayers. Nice plan.
Nope, I'm just saying that the so called "bottom rung" of our economic ladder ought to be livable. I'm hardly suggesting that some stoner be given a job beyond his skills.That's exactly what you're saying. These people (most) are only working there because of poor lifestyle choices that resulted in them still being unskilled labor in their 30's or 40's.
Because it is the right thing to do.Why?...only that full time work should be rewarded with a wage that is livable.
In a vacuum, sure. But you want to raise wages to a "livable" level across the board, meaning that other companies would have fewer jobs available because they'd have to cut staff also.But those 5 people have more money to put back into the economy, therefore spurring growth and creating jobs for the other 5.
No, but you're arguing that some stoner should be paid more than he's worth.Nope, I'm just saying that the so called "bottom rung" of our economic ladder ought to be livable. I'm hardly suggesting that some stoner be given a job beyond his skills.
No, it's the "wouldn't it be nice if...?" thing to do that isn't based in reality.Because it is the right thing to do.
Like who? Law firms? Accountants? Engineering firms? GM? Ford?Variable wrote:In a vacuum, sure. But you want to raise wages to a "livable" level across the board, meaning that other companies would have fewer jobs available because they'd have to cut staff also.
No, I'm arguing that the bottom of the food chain has a right to work a single job at a living wage. Apparently you think there are those not worthy of that.No, but you're arguing that some stoner should be paid more than he's worth.
Awwwwww, the Horatio Alger of T1B has spoken. It is so good that you had the time to work 2 jobs, had transportation, didn't have any child care expenses and were able to land in the job market during the biggest pro employee job market since the 1950s. You're just like George Bush. You were born on 3rd base and think you hit a triple.No, it's the "wouldn't it be nice if...?" thing to do that isn't based in reality.
When I was discharged from the service in 1997, I moved to a new city, so I just took the first job I could find to have some cash to pay bills. I delivered auto parts for $6/hour. No one offered to pay me a living wage for this job, so I quickly found another job working as a marketing temp for $9. I wanted more money, so I applied for a job within the same company making $12/hour. While at that job, I picked up as many new skills as I could so that a year later when I moved to SoCal, I got a job making $16/hour and have moved up from there. I didn't just grow roots in the $6/hour auto parts delivery job and whine that someone should pay me a "living wage" to do a monkey's job, I went out and found another job that paid more. What the hell is so hard about that?
Yep, they're called "union shops" and a lot of 'em are having a bitch of time competing with companies that pay a realistic wage for a realistic service.There are plenty of companies that pay living wages.
A really big country called the USSR tried a decades long experiment with that business model. As I recall, it didn't end rather well.No, I'm arguing that the bottom of the food chain has a right to work a single job at a living wage.
Apparently you think people should get paid $25/hour just for showing up from 8AM-5PM. Why don't you start your own Wal-Mart-type chain, pay everyone a "living wage" and we'll see how long you stay in business.Apparently you think there are those not worthy of that.
Facts & mattering and all, but I only worked one job at a time, drove a car that I paid $1000 for, and another that I paid $500 for after the other one died, and another that I paid $400 for after that one died. Like cheap cars are hard to come by.Awwwwww, the Horatio Alger of T1B has spoken. It is so good that you had the time to work 2 jobs, had transportation, didn't have any child care expenses and were able to land in the job market during the biggest pro employee job market since the 1950s.
Bro, in 1997 I was an auto parts driver and in 2005 I'm a Visual Basic and C# programmer for a major medical group in SoCal, all with no college degree and no formal computer training. I'm on third base because I knocked the fucking cover off the ball.You're just like George Bush. You were born on 3rd base and think you hit a triple.
And this is the thinking that permeates the Left. Dumbass, you believe there is a one-to-one tradeoff. That the increased consumption of those still employed will result in the 5 laid off being re-employed. Just think national and global economy, idiot. As though the increased consumption stays local... :roll:But those 5 people have more money to put back into the economy, therefore spurring growth and creating jobs for the other 5.
Minimum wage earners are not typically heads of household, idiot, as I just demonstrated a few weeks ago.Nope, I'm just saying that the so called "bottom rung" of our economic ladder ought to be livable. I'm hardly suggesting that some stoner be given a job beyond his skills.
No, it's not right. Compelling employers to pay more work just because is not the right thing to do.Because it is the right thing to do.
There are plenty of companies that pay living wages.
Here we go again...Ergo, not everybody would be cutting staff. Sure, WalMart might have to give in and treat their employees like humans. But that's a small price to pay.
Where does that right come from besides the empty head of a lefty?No, I'm arguing that the bottom of the food chain has a right to work a single job at a living wage.
Emotional appeals always lose, loser.Apparently you think there are those not worthy of that.
What a POS you are.Awwwwww, the Horatio Alger of T1B has spoken. It is so good that you had the time to work 2 jobs, had transportation, didn't have any child care expenses and were able to land in the job market during the biggest pro employee job market since the 1950s. You're just like George Bush. You were born on 3rd base and think you hit a triple.
Bingo!Variable wrote:It also increases the company's overhead, which means that they can't afford to hire as many employees. So instead of ten people making $10, you have five people making $20 and 5 people on the unemployment line, who are now supported solely by the taxpayers. Nice plan.Living wages will have the same effect as increasing the minimum wage. As the several National Bureau of Economic Research sources I provided you guys weeks ago demonstrated, increasing the minimum wage results in the disemployment of the unskilled, the very people it is supposedly intended to assist. Living wages do the same...it increases labor costs to the point where the marginal cost of employing a skilled worker declines relative to the cost of employing an unskilled worker.
General Motors to cut 25,000 U.S. jobs by 2008
Associated Press
WILMINGTON, Del. — General Motors Corp. plans to eliminate 25,000 jobs in the United States by 2008 by closing additional assembly and components plants, part of a plan to revive its struggling North American operations.
Speaking to shareholders at GM's 96th annual shareholder meeting in Delaware Tuesday morning, chairman and chief executive Rick Wagoner said the capacity and employment reductions will generate annual savings of roughly $2.5 billion US.
Wagoner revealed the cutbacks as he laid out a four-step strategy to revive GM's North American business, the biggest and most troubling part of the world's largest automaker.
Wagoner focused on priorities for clarifying the role of each of GM's eight brands, intensifying efforts to reduce cost and improve quality and continuing to search for ways to reduce skyrocketing health-care costs.
He noted that the company's current $1,500 US per unit health-care expense puts GM at a "significant disadvantage versus foreign-based competitors,'' and said GM has conducted "intense discussions'' with the unions about how to reduce health-care costs.
General Motors shares rose 52 cents, or 1.7 per cent, to $30.94 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian's offer to purchase 28 million GM shares at $31 US apiece, boosting his stake to about nine per cent from four per cent, expires later Tuesday.
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
Yet GM's CEO will still rake in a cool 10 million for the year 2004, one of the WORST YEARS IN GM HISTORY. And other top execs are nearly as well paid.Hapday wrote:Bingo!
General Motors to cut 25,000 U.S. jobs by 2008
Associated Press
WILMINGTON, Del. — General Motors Corp. plans to eliminate 25,000 jobs in the United States by 2008 by closing additional assembly and components plants, part of a plan to revive its struggling North American operations.
Speaking to shareholders at GM's 96th annual shareholder meeting in Delaware Tuesday morning, chairman and chief executive Rick Wagoner said the capacity and employment reductions will generate annual savings of roughly $2.5 billion US.
Wagoner revealed the cutbacks as he laid out a four-step strategy to revive GM's North American business, the biggest and most troubling part of the world's largest automaker.
Wagoner focused on priorities for clarifying the role of each of GM's eight brands, intensifying efforts to reduce cost and improve quality and continuing to search for ways to reduce skyrocketing health-care costs.
He noted that the company's current $1,500 US per unit health-care expense puts GM at a "significant disadvantage versus foreign-based competitors,'' and said GM has conducted "intense discussions'' with the unions about how to reduce health-care costs.
General Motors shares rose 52 cents, or 1.7 per cent, to $30.94 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian's offer to purchase 28 million GM shares at $31 US apiece, boosting his stake to about nine per cent from four per cent, expires later Tuesday.
WTFWT??????DrDetroit wrote:Stop your crying about executive salaries. Your appeals to emotion don't work. You have no place criticizing executive salaries anyway. Until you actually buy stock, shut your mouth. And, when are you going to ever explain the impact of executive salaries on the salaries of line workers?? You won't because you can't. There is no relationship. The worker's salaries are determined by negotiations, dumbshit. Apparently, union leaders really don't care about executive salaries because they aren't basing their pay increase demands on that factor. You're in no position to whine, piss and moan, and generally carry on weeping about it. You don't work for them. You don't own their stock. STFU, loser.
The above article was more about healthcare costs than salaries. At $1500/year/employee, those 25,000 employees cost GM $37.5 million per year in healthcare costs alone. Why aren't you bitching about that as unfair compensation above and beyond their "living wage?" If GM didn't pick up the healthcare costs of all their employees, they could afford to keep the 25,000 and probably hire another 25,000.But no, let's worry about the impact of the line workers salaries.
You have no business questioning it. Do you buy GM vehicles? Do you own GM stock? Do you work for GM?Does GM realy need to pay Tiger Woods 5 million a year to play in a couple of tournaments and film a few commercials?
Shut your filthy cock holster, B.When it comes to cost cutting, its always about cutting WORKERS, never about cutting the executive perk of hanging out with the best golfer in the world.
Whether or not a celebrity agrees to do promote the product and for what price when they do, will not affect the price the consumer pays for the car. The same goes for CEO's salaries. While I agree some of them are overpaid, their salary won't affect the price of the product. A union demanding more and more wage hikes for its entire workforce definately will.BSmack wrote:
Oh, and while we're talking about wastes of freakin money, lets talk about the never ending trend to shell out megamillions of coin to celebrity endorsers. Does GM realy need to pay Tiger Woods 5 million a year to play in a couple of tournaments and film a few commercials? When it comes to cost cutting, its always about cutting WORKERS, never about cutting the executive perk of hanging out with the best golfer in the world.
Otis wrote: RACK Harper.
37.5 million a year eh? I bet you could find 37.5 million a year in savings REAL quick if you pared back executive compensation to a max of 500k a year.Variable wrote:The above article was more about healthcare costs than salaries. At $1500/year/employee, those 25,000 employees cost GM $37.5 million per year in healthcare costs alone. Why aren't you bitching about that as unfair compensation above and beyond their "living wage?" If GM didn't pick up the healthcare costs of all their employees, they could afford to keep the 25,000 and probably hire another 25,000.But no, let's worry about the impact of the line workers salaries.
Hey, shouldn't GM be required to give each of their employees a vehicle? After all, they all have to drive to get to work, therefore the employer should be forced to provide all employees with a Geo Metro. After all, it's the right thing to do.
Would anyone even think twice about a Buick if Eldrick wasn't giving them so much exposure? He has lifted that brand back into the public spotlight and made it more attractive to other demographics than the "to old to drive" crowd.BSmack wrote:Does GM realy need to pay Tiger Woods 5 million a year to play in a couple of tournaments and film a few commercials?
Bueller? Class? Anyone?Variable wrote:The above article was more about healthcare costs than salaries. At $1500/year/employee, those 25,000 employees cost GM $37.5 million per year in healthcare costs alone. If GM didn't pick up the healthcare costs of all their employees, they could afford to keep the 25,000 and probably hire another 25,000.
That's 5 million for ONE YEAR.Variable wrote:Would anyone even think twice about a Buick if Eldrick wasn't giving them so much exposure? He has lifted that brand back into the public spotlight and made it more attractive to other demographics than the "to old to drive" crowd.BSmack wrote:Does GM realy need to pay Tiger Woods 5 million a year to play in a couple of tournaments and film a few commercials?
They've MORE than gotten their money's worth out of five million.
There's someone who doesn't understand, but it's not the car manufacturers, it's you.BSmack wrote:They also don't understand that when the price of gas went skyrocketing in 2001, they should have been changing their strategy to account for the changes in the car buying marketplace.
Yeah, and for that paltry sum all you could get is some idiot who graduate Yale with a "C" average who can run the company right into the ground. I wonder if John Kerry is interested...BSmack wrote:37.5 million a year eh? I bet you could find 37.5 million a year in savings REAL quick if you pared back executive compensation to a max of 500k a year.
Okay... And the point is... This just in: Advertising costs money.BSmack wrote:That's 5 million for ONE YEAR.
25,000 employeesDinsdale wrote:Bueller? Class? Anyone?
Math isn't your strong subject, is it?
Businesses are not compelled by law not to keep their money at home. It's good business to invest your $$ where you get the highest rate of return.Dinsdale wrote:Since the big business leaders won't(and by law, essentially can't) do the "right" thing, and keep their money at home, maybe the fed needs to do their job(for once), and control commerce to favor ALL Americans, rather than majority shareholders.
By allowing large corporations to send so many of our jobs to Asia, it hurts Americans....but it sure helps to line the pockets of the already-wealthy.
Dumbass says what? You don't know what a "tariff" is, do you?How about tariffs and laws keeping jobs/money at home?
BUT....this is America. We can make it happen. Corporate heads are making China and Taiwan a better place, at the expense of Americans.
It's not right. But the board of a public company is bound to maximize profit.
The only way to fix this is by making it illegal for them to bolster corporate profits by selling out the US.
There's a way to do it, it will just take good planning.
It's a lot easier for everyone to get a piece of the pie when you have a bigger pie to start with.
It's not always profitable to do so. That's why it's not being done. And it's also why many firms are returning their capital investment to the US.As long as it's profitable to send all of your work to China, we'll never realize our potential.
Idiot, do you realize that the US would stand to lose more than to gain if were apply your logic to the global economy? Are you aware that the US receives the most direct foreign investment of any other country. That investmenr represents jobs that would otherwise be employed in that home country. The US would stand to lose billions every year in foreign investment following your logic, dumbass.It doesn't have to be this way. You get the tard mentality that somehow there were people put on earth to wallow in poverty, while the rich get richer. If our policies didn't cater to the few already-wealthy, and rather to keeping our "pie" at home, there would be a lot more to go around.
WTF is this??BSmack wrote: Oh, and when is Detroit going to add anything more than "shut your cock holster" to this thread?
So what?Dinsdale wrote:Variable wrote:The above article was more about healthcare costs than salaries. At $1500/year/employee, those 25,000 employees cost GM $37.5 million per year in healthcare costs alone. If GM didn't pick up the healthcare costs of all their employees, they could afford to keep the 25,000 and probably hire another 25,000.
And btw-they get a tax break for providing the heath care.
How is a tax break considered stealing??Dinsdale wrote:There's someone who doesn't understand, but it's not the car manufacturers, it's you.BSmack wrote:They also don't understand that when the price of gas went skyrocketing in 2001, they should have been changing their strategy to account for the changes in the car buying marketplace.
An SUV is more profitable to sell than an econobox. An SUV is more profitable to the oil industry. Yet, the price of gas is skyrocketing. So, how do we resolve this? Why, we call up our buddy in the White House, and have him give everyone who buys a SUV a tax break. Easy solution. Steal from the poor, give to the rich....because goodness knows, the oil companies need those indirect tax dollars to turn a profit.
It's the American Way.
This is the kind of crap that you guys do all the time that drives people away from threads. Useless bickering about who is correct.DrDetroit wrote:WTF is this??BSmack wrote: Oh, and when is Detroit going to add anything more than "shut your cock holster" to this thread?
Why are you such a friggin liar, B?
The first page is chock full of substantive criticism of the article that you failed to even address.
As well, I provided a reaosnable rationale why your opinion on executive salaries just doesn't matter.
That you are compelled to reduce my blathering in this thread to telling you to shut up reveals about you than I.
So I'll take that as a sign that you've been buried in this thread.
You know what, ass...perhaps you want to consult B first as he's the one who ducks these issues with responses such as the one I quoted.Mister Bushice wrote:This is the kind of crap that you guys do all the time that drives people away from threads. Useless bickering about who is correct.DrDetroit wrote:WTF is this??BSmack wrote: Oh, and when is Detroit going to add anything more than "shut your cock holster" to this thread?
Why are you such a friggin liar, B?
The first page is chock full of substantive criticism of the article that you failed to even address.
As well, I provided a reaosnable rationale why your opinion on executive salaries just doesn't matter.
That you are compelled to reduce my blathering in this thread to telling you to shut up reveals about you than I.
So I'll take that as a sign that you've been buried in this thread.
