(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Are you changing the subject and running from your other "point", yet again? Whatever that may have been?

The problem: Obscenely paid CEO's, underpaid labor. Wal Mart may or not be a good example, it's just a business that I picked.

Oh. I thought they were being treated poorly. Or is that the same thing now? Generally happy, content workers that may enjoy their jobs just fine, yet Dmac has determined they are underpaid.

got it. So, again why not go find another job? Hell, why not become one of them "obscene" CEO's?

Who's stopping you?

This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm already on a solid career path. I'm talking about low level employees that don't making a living wage. These people aren't all going to become CEO's (or even managers).

You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

(10-28-2013 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

interesting. Sounds to me like your problem is with the State. As I said earlier.

Governments are quite often immoral. Socialist ones in particular. Criminal even.

It's similar in other states as well.

Alabama is about as red as it gets.

Well, then, it sounds like either a lot of people are all doing something wrong, or all agree it's quite right.

Wal Marts a big company and there are a lot of States and legislatures. Again, your problem isn't with Wal Mart...

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

You never showed it to be a problem.

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The problem: Obscenely paid CEO's, underpaid labor. Wal Mart may or not be a good example, it's just a business that I picked.

Oh. I thought they were being treated poorly. Or is that the same thing now? Generally happy, content workers that may enjoy their jobs just fine, yet Dmac has determined they are underpaid.

got it. So, again why not go find another job? Hell, why not become one of them "obscene" CEO's?

Who's stopping you?

This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm already on a solid career path. I'm talking about low level employees that don't making a living wage. These people aren't all going to become CEO's (or even managers).

You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

(10-28-2013 02:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Oh. I thought they were being treated poorly. Or is that the same thing now? Generally happy, content workers that may enjoy their jobs just fine, yet Dmac has determined they are underpaid.

got it. So, again why not go find another job? Hell, why not become one of them "obscene" CEO's?

Who's stopping you?

This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm already on a solid career path. I'm talking about low level employees that don't making a living wage. These people aren't all going to become CEO's (or even managers).

You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ineq...es#Effects

Food for thought. CEO pay is just an example of income inequality.

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

(10-28-2013 02:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm already on a solid career path. I'm talking about low level employees that don't making a living wage. These people aren't all going to become CEO's (or even managers).

You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ineq...es#Effects

Food for thought. CEO pay is just an example of income inequality.

Really? A wiki page? No doubt written by some petrulli smelling occupy idiot.

However, let's go with your "article". Did you even read this thing? Lol. A veritable love fest of labor unions and occupy stupid street protests.

Scholarly work there, they even throw in a Krugman reference for good measure. hahaha


So CEO pay isn't the problem, huh?
Oh, and if you're moving the target once again, might I suggest you either change your thread title? Or perhaps you need to start another one to highlight the next straw man.

(10-28-2013 02:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:58 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This has nothing to do with me personally. I'm already on a solid career path. I'm talking about low level employees that don't making a living wage. These people aren't all going to become CEO's (or even managers).

You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ineq...es#Effects

Food for thought. CEO pay is just an example of income inequality.

While I might agree with you that the "CEO pay structure" might be somewhat out of kilter, this "income inequality" stuff is just hogwash.

Pretty much people earn what their worth to a company is. Those making minimum wage do so because the job they do is only worth minimum wage money. Worker supply and demand for jobs with NO skills required is tilted to oversupply and hence the business holds the upper hand concerning pay.

Want to earn more........go aquire a skill that is worth high pay. Want to make minimum wage - don't do anything to make yourself marketable.

There will always be income inequality because there will always be smart people that aquire skills that make them in demand and people that do nothing and therefore get paid crappy wages.

Life is like that....................

(10-28-2013 02:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  You wasn't meant as "You" personally. Meant in the generic.

Granted, they probably all won't become CEO's or maybe even managers, is this now Wal Marts problem or fault?

Is somehow capping a GE CEO's pay by force of government going to make these peoples lives more fulfilling? keep them from being treated "poorly" by Wal Mart?

you really haven't thought this through much, have you?

I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ineq...es#Effects

Food for thought. CEO pay is just an example of income inequality.

Really? A wiki page? No doubt written by some petrulli smelling occupy idiot.

However, let's go with your "article". Did you even read this thing? Lol. A veritable love fest of labor unions and occupy stupid street protests.

Scholarly work there, they even throw in a Krugman reference for good measure. hahaha


So CEO pay isn't the problem, huh?
Oh, and if you're moving the target once again, might I suggest you either change your thread title? Or perhaps you need to start another one to highlight the next straw man.

Wikipedia serves as a good summary, and everything is referenced. You're basically just brushing off that income inequality could be an issue, just because occupy is mentioned in the page. Of course it's going to be mentioned.

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

Karl Marx would be proud.

What if value that the individuals produce is not sufficient to justify paying them more. Isn't it then likewise stealing to force the employer to pay them more? Is it wrong for the employer to decide in that case that he/she does not want or need to employ that employee? Does it not burden the state more if they are unemployed?

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

This.

The same people who criticize people on welfare seem to have no problem with a corporation paying their workers less than a livable salary and suggesting the workers sign up for handouts to make up the difference.

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

NFL owners getting subsidies for their stadiums? I agree that's theft.

WalMart paying the prevailing wage? It's immoral to criticize that. But I am easily convinced that WalMart should stop giving money to charity and pay their own employees first.

(10-28-2013 03:01 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

This.

The same people who criticize people on welfare seem to have no problem with a corporation paying their workers less than a livable salary and suggesting the workers sign up for handouts to make up the difference.

stocking shelves and operating a cash register don't deserve a livable wage. Sorry. Life is hard. Those people are paid what they're worth. So are you, me and everyone else.

(10-28-2013 02:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:13 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

We are having a discussion aren't we?

I think what we've observed here is that there is really no problem at all. Hence, no need for a "solution".

Cool. We done here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ineq...es#Effects

Food for thought. CEO pay is just an example of income inequality.

Really? A wiki page? No doubt written by some petrulli smelling occupy idiot.

However, let's go with your "article". Did you even read this thing? Lol. A veritable love fest of labor unions and occupy stupid street protests.

Scholarly work there, they even throw in a Krugman reference for good measure. hahaha


So CEO pay isn't the problem, huh?
Oh, and if you're moving the target once again, might I suggest you either change your thread title? Or perhaps you need to start another one to highlight the next straw man.

Wikipedia serves as a good summary, and everything is referenced. You're basically just brushing off that income inequality could be an issue, just because occupy is mentioned in the page. Of course it's going to be mentioned.

Could be an issue of what? You started a thread about some CEO's pay being obscene in comparison to "worker", whoever that is.

I've made a pretty cogent argument that what a CEO makes has little to no effect on what "worker" can make. No impact whatsoever, in fact.

Now you move to create another subject. Fine. Like I said, perhaps a thread title change is in order, or maybe another thread entirely...

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

Wait. What?

Aren't you a lawyer? Thought you were, maybe not. Even if not, who's allowing for this theft from the State? The State, right? So how on earth is that theft?

Again, your problem is with the State legislatures, not Wal Mart.

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

So you're saying that they offer the lowest cost products?? Because otherwise, those people would take their subsidies and shop somewhere else. It seems that they ALSO offer better/more jobs than these people could get elsewhere... otherwise they would work somewhere else for the same or better pay.

What exactly is your complaint here? I know what you THINK your complaint is, but your own comments more clearly state the facts.

(10-28-2013 02:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I haven't suggested capping CEO pay... I don't support that. I didn't come here to present a solution, I came here to highlight a problem and start a discussion.

CEOs get paid what they get paid because the tax system encourages them to be paid this way... and by creating larger and larger companies (also encouraged by the system once you pass about 50 employees) you are concentrating power and wealth. A small bakery might pay their CEO 5 cents from every pastry... and a large one only a fraction of a cent... but the CEO of the large one will make far more than that of the small one.

SOme just want to argue that "enough is enough" and that someone should decide when that is, but not call it a cap because that SOUNDS bad.

Discussion over.

(10-28-2013 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

Karl Marx would be proud.

What if value that the individuals produce is not sufficient to justify paying them more. Isn't it then likewise stealing to force the employer to pay them more? Is it wrong for the employer to decide in that case that he/she does not want or need to employ that employee? Does it not burden the state more if they are unemployed?

In Wal Mart's case it merely cuts down on their overhead.

We'd be better off having fewer Wal Mart employees who are underpaid and thus more well paid employees who could further the economy by having money in their pocket.

This has nothing to do with political ideology.

(10-28-2013 03:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 02:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd say Wal Mart is a great example. Here in Alabama they use subsidies for the poor as a great way to support their pay structure. They pay them just enough to continue to buy everything they need at Wal-Mart while letting the state chip in.

It's theft and nothing short of immoral.

Why is it theft and nothing short of immoral?

Allowing the state to essentially pay your workers is stealing from the state. Paying people who work for you so little that they must 'beg' for money from the state to survive is immoral.

Wait. What?

Aren't you a lawyer? Thought you were, maybe not. Even if not, who's allowing for this theft from the State? The State, right? So how on earth is that theft?

Again, your problem is with the State legislatures, not Wal Mart.

What legal mechanism do you have to combat the issue?

I'm of the belief that any person that works 40+ hours per week deserves to be afforded a salary that is nothing short of gainful employment. I find employers who hire multiple people as part-time employees to do the same work in order to avoid payment for another individual immoral. The end result is a race to the bottom, market or not.

The result is what we have now. We have hordes of working poor that do not have options and who are desperate. Cold shouldered rebuffs and ideological fantasies don't put food on the table for millions of Americans, or provide health insurance. The result is the desperate working poor, the 49% Romney talked about.

How can anybody be shocked to see these people vote in droves for the other guy? It's only going to get worse as long as we have a c'est la vie attitude.

It starts with the things we buy and the companies we do business with. Rewarding theft of a grand scale from the country as a whole, depression of wages to artificially low levels, and out right greed needs to stop.