Maga crowd

[vuduchile 1,940]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

Where conversations like this break down is that the “free market” allows businesses to employ foreign workers with no labor protections who earn pennies on the dollar vs US workers, park their $ or set up shell operations in places with a low corporate tax rate (Ireland), and declare bankruptcy, laying off an entire workforce while management sails off with multimillion dollar golden parachutes.

That is your “free market.” So if tinkering with the free market is a non starter for you, get used to the US looking less like the robust middle class of the US postwar period and more like the caste system of India, cause that’s where we are headed.

Agreed.  It's basically the equivalent of hiring cheap, illegal immigrants here in our own country. 

Hey boss, we can't hire Julio cuz he doesn't have the docs he needs to fill out an I-9.  

Ok lets just set up a shop in Chalupaville and we can hire all the of Julio's brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends.  

 

[RLLD 3,455]

16 minutes ago, MDC said:

Where conversations like this break down is that the “free market” allows businesses to employ foreign workers with no labor protections who earn pennies on the dollar vs US workers, park their $ or set up shell operations in places with a low corporate tax rate (Ireland), and declare bankruptcy, laying off an entire workforce while management sails off with multimillion dollar golden parachutes.

That is your “free market.” So if tinkering with the free market is a non starter for you, get used to the US looking less like the robust middle class of the US postwar period and more like the caste system of India, cause that’s where we are headed.

WTF....that was a coherent and rational set of thoughts.....who took over MDC's account....  

[Strike 3,947]

19 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Just spitballing....but if the CEO wants to earn more, then the company needs to be successful enough for the employees to earn more. No? There is no cap. Make the company more valuable and let everyone benefit.

 

No.  Every business is different and you shouldn't force one model on EVERY business.  Tieing the compensation for the CEO of McDonalds to how much cashier's make is ludicrous.  Forgetting the fact that most McDonalds are franchises and therefore essentially their own small business, you're talking about a job any idiot could do.  On the other hand, the company I work for most people make pretty good coin. 

I'm good with trying to find a way to limit CEO pay, although it's quite honestly not that big a concern of mine. As someone already mentioned, CEO pay is determined by a BOD who obviously think the person is worth that amount of money.  And most CEO's get a good chunk of their pay via stock options so if the company doesn't do well they don't get those huge salaries you take issue with.

I'm also good with trying to find a way to make companies employ more in the U.S.  In my industry (tech) there is a huge problem with H1-B visas.  I think most of those Visa programs that take jobs away from Americans should be abolished or modified to meet the intent of them when they were created.  Most of those programs are being abused by businesses.

[cbfalcon 824]

5 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Good thoughts.  I'm just not in favor of legislating compensation of any type. Whether it be minimum wage, union scale or CEO salary, let the free market decide and allow people to be paid as much as they can negotiate.  

The problem for me (and I assume a lot of people agree).........I 100% support any individual being able to negotiate for as much pay as they can....and I also believe that CEO's making 300x the average employee is a giant problem and we would be better off if we did something about it.

[vuduchile 1,940]

Just now, cbfalcon said:

The problem for me (and I assume a lot of people agree).........I 100% support any individual being able to negotiate for as much pay as they can....and I also believe that CEO's making 300x the average employee is a giant problem and we would be better off if we did something about it.

I'm just not overly bothered by CEO compensation I guess.  

[cbfalcon 824]

Just now, vuduchile said:

I'm just not overly bothered by CEO compensation I guess.  

Oh, it's not an issue I am emotional about by any means. But in the context of the MAGA spirit, or at least the spirit I believe MAGA is trying to invoke, it's a relevant discussion.

[Strike 3,947]

4 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

Oh, it's not an issue I am emotional about by any means. But in the context of the MAGA spirit, or at least the spirit I believe MAGA is trying to invoke, it's a relevant discussion.

It would be extremely low on the list.  Middle class pay may be relevant but I don't believe most MAGA people think that much about CEO pay.

[vuduchile 1,940]

7 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

Oh, it's not an issue I am emotional about by any means. But in the context of the MAGA spirit, or at least the spirit I believe MAGA is trying to invoke, it's a relevant discussion.

Maybe so.  But moving jobs off shore, committing fraud, tax evasion, misusing consumer info and skirting environmental and safety regulations are more serious concerns.  

[MDC 5,876]

Just now, vuduchile said:

Maybe so.  But moving jobs off shore, committing fraud, tax evasion, misusing consumer info and skirting environmental and safety regulations are more serious concerns.  

Our laws mostly enable all of the above.

[edjr 5,547]

I am by no means a socialist, but when is enough enough? how much does one need to make/own?

[vuduchile 1,940]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Our laws mostly enable all of the above.

How so?  There are laws against fraud, tax evasion.  There are also tons of EPA and OSHA regs.   Do you mean corps just get a fine or a slap on the wrist when they get caught?  

[vuduchile 1,940]

2 minutes ago, edjr said:

I am by no means a socialist, but when is enough enough? how much does one need to make/own?

 

[RLLD 3,455]

4 minutes ago, edjr said:

I am by no means a socialist, but when is enough enough? how much does one need to make/own?

It's a valid question.   I think, by way of example, that for YOUR job you should never make more than.......$30k a year, i think that should be just fine for you. Now lets elects some folks to keep your earnings in check.

[MDC 5,876]

10 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Maybe so.  But moving jobs off shore, committing fraud, tax evasion, misusing consumer info and skirting environmental and safety regulations are more serious concerns.  

There’s no law against offshoring jobs. I don’t think there’s even a disincentive. 

Businesses routinely set up “headquarters” that amount to little more than a vacant storefront in places like Ireland to leverage their low tax rates. Investment income is taxed at a far lower rate than actual work.

Social media sites maintain and track consumer income without permission all the time. Half your smart TVs are equipped to record your conversations. This gets little attention and nobody cares.

US businesses routinely offshore manufacturing to other countries in part to take advantage of their lower labor and environmental regs.

No need for businesses to break the law when the law is written by and for business.

[jerryskids 5,169]

33 minutes ago, Strike said:

No.  Every business is different and you shouldn't force one model on EVERY business.  Tieing the compensation for the CEO of McDonalds to how much cashier's make is ludicrous.  Forgetting the fact that most McDonalds are franchises and therefore essentially their own small business, you're talking about a job any idiot could do.  On the other hand, the company I work for most people make pretty good coin. 

I'm good with trying to find a way to limit CEO pay, although it's quite honestly not that big a concern of mine. As someone already mentioned, CEO pay is determined by a BOD who obviously think the person is worth that amount of money.  And most CEO's get a good chunk of their pay via stock options so if the company doesn't do well they don't get those huge salaries you take issue with.

I'm also good with trying to find a way to make companies employ more in the U.S.  In my industry (tech) there is a huge problem with H1-B visas.  I think most of those Visa programs that take jobs away from Americans should be abolished or modified to meet the intent of them when they were created.  Most of those programs are being abused by businesses.

 

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

It would be extremely low on the list.  Middle class pay may be relevant but I don't believe most MAGA people think that much about CEO pay.

You saved me a lot of typing with these posts.    I know the H1B Visa thing is big in IT, but like you said with CEO pay, I don't know if we can have a one size fits all rule.  Basically I think we need to isolate the problem first.  Are middle class wages a concern?  Maybe. But keep in mind that most of us carry more computing power in our pockets than the Apollo spaceships.  And it can access all of the knowledge ever collected with a few clicks.  Life is better now in general than it has been ever in history.

Is a CEO pay cap the answer?  I doubt it.  I mean this in the spirit of discussion:  it seems like you could put "It's not fair that" in front of a lot of liberal positions.  It's not fair that the CEO makes so much.  But CEO pay is not the problem.

To the OP:  Life isn't better for everyone.  MAGA appeals to the rust belt blue collar democrats who primarily worked in manufacturing and just want to do an honest day's work for a livable salary.  But beyond that, it really is the perfect slogan.  Most of us were more carefree in our youth.  MAGA evokes a time when we perceive life was better. 

[edjr 5,547]

20 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

It's a valid question.   I think, by way of example, that for YOUR job you should never make more than.......$30k a year, i think that should be just fine for you. Now lets elects some folks to keep your earnings in check.

[RLLD 3,455]

2 minutes ago, edjr said:

Don't worry, maybe you get married and we allow you to have $50k or something   

[edjr 5,547]

4 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Don't worry, maybe you get married and we allow you to have $50k or something   

That's mighty white of you.

 

Has that saying been confirmed raciss yet?

[RLLD 3,455]

5 hours ago, bandrus1 said:

Besides the social issues, what gender blah blah blah

When exactly are we talking about trying to get back to when you use make America great again.

Like what is the model time?

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

4 hours ago, trumpurethra said:

It's to stop the spread of the brown people lol. If it were truly what drodumbazz said the oompa Loompa would be pushing to bring unions back. Only thing the trumptards care about is b!tching about how the brown man takes their jobs and money.

MDC is 100% on point. All about the shareholders and capital now. People will see the light, the younger generation sees it, it is coming, workers are growing tired of corporate BS. But it probably won't happen in our lifetime. 

Probably once the crusty old fockers die off is when it will happen. A shift in importance from capital back to labor.

Do you have a 401k? Then you're one of the shareholders. One of the stupid ones. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

It's so funny that under Bush and Trump we hear so much about CEO pay. But during Obama that kind of talk went on hiatus. Yeah, CEO's and the investor class get way too much. But I don't want to hear it from liberals anymore. When the ball was in their court they did nothing about it. Sheeeeeet, they cut them a check. 

[shorepatrol 1,735]

11 hours ago, MDC said:

Our laws mostly enable all of the above.

Who made those laws? 

[MDC 5,876]

49 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Who made those laws? 

No one person, both parties in Congress and presidents from both sides for decades.

[shorepatrol 1,735]

 

 

[wiffleball 4,631]

9 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It's so funny that under Bush and Trump we hear so much about CEO pay. But during Obama that kind of talk went on hiatus. Yeah, CEO's and the investor class get way too much. But I don't want to hear it from liberals anymore. When the ball was in their court they did nothing about it. Sheeeeeet, they cut them a check. 

Obama imposes limits on executive pay

 

msnbc.com news services

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout money and promised new steps to end a system of “executives being rewarded for failure.”

Obama announced the unusual government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step...

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

19 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Obama imposes limits on executive pay

 

msnbc.com news services

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout money and promised new steps to end a system of “executives being rewarded for failure.”

Obama announced the unusual government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step...

Lol. So I guess as soon as Obama was out the door the CEO's gave themselves a big pay bump. It's gotten out of control in the last two years, but not from 2009-2016. Barry kept them in check. What a maroon 

[wiffleball 4,631]

But during Obama that kind of talk went on hiatus.

But I don't want to hear it from liberals anymore. When the ball was in their court they did nothing about it. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

5 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

But during Obama that kind of talk went on hiatus.

But I don't want to hear it from liberals anymore. When the ball was in their court they did nothing about it. 

 

Such a great quote. Really encapsulates the sell out Obama is. The.banks and brokers best lap dog ever. 

[wiffleball 4,631]

https://goo.gl/images/igRKkr

 

 

All evidence to the contrary...

[wiffleball 4,631]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Lol. So I guess as soon as Obama was out the door the CEO's gave themselves a big pay bump. It's gotten out of control in the last two years, but not from 2009-2016. Barry kept them in check. What a maroon 

https://goo.gl/images/igRKkr

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

The rich got richer, like never before, under Obama. Fact.  

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

56 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The rich got richer, like never before, under Obama. Fact.  

Of course they did. Like never before, I don't know. But they got richer under every president of my lifetime, including the current one.

It's almost like all the money they give to politicians produces results or something. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,588]

19 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Of course they did. Like never before, I don't know. But they got richer under every president of my lifetime, including the current one.

It's almost like all the money they give to politicians produces results or something. 

It's amazing how it works. We were better off when politicians were bribed with a bunch of cash in a briefcase. They just went ahead and made it legal. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

18 hours ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Just spitballing....but if the CEO wants to earn more, then the company needs to be successful enough for the employees to earn more. No? There is no cap. Make the company more valuable and let everyone benefit.

But maybe if we didn't want to tie the CEO salary to the salary of others, we could create a scale based on number of employees and percentage of profits, and that was a CEO's cap in pay? In theory, earn more profits and make more money...but that may just be a round about way of getting us back to CEOs earning 300x as much as the average employee. Unsure.

There's no way to enforce any of this. 

In theory, the State of California could be put in charge of managing the water supply in the state to prevent drought conditions.  But in reality, it just gets corrupted.  California suffered a drought a couple years ago.  So what did they do?  They started putting pressure on citizens to reduce water usage, but big corporations like Nestle were allowed to continue taking California water and sell it worldwide under its various labels.  And then because the state is run by democrats, and the media is run by democrats, the media won't do its job to protect the environment and stop any of it because it is party first. So everyone allows Nestle to do what it wants.

You are trying to me that we could have government control CEO salaries and do it effectively.  I know they can't.  It will just get corrupted.  What will happen is CEOs will all start becoming huge democrats, get paid up with the right people, and in turn the democrat run press will ignore them as they siphon off huge money from the new system you put in.

 

The problem is people like you who don't understand how awful something like that will get corrupted and you will make the problem 1000x worse.

[cbfalcon 824]

26 minutes ago, riversco said:

There's no way to enforce any of this. 

In theory, the State of California could be put in charge of managing the water supply in the state to prevent drought conditions.  But in reality, it just gets corrupted.  California suffered a drought a couple years ago.  So what did they do?  They started putting pressure on citizens to reduce water usage, but big corporations like Nestle were allowed to continue taking California water and sell it worldwide under its various labels.  And then because the state is run by democrats, and the media is run by democrats, the media won't do its job to protect the environment and stop any of it because it is party first. So everyone allows Nestle to do what it wants.

You are trying to me that we could have government control CEO salaries and do it effectively.  I know they can't.  It will just get corrupted.  What will happen is CEOs will all start becoming huge democrats, get paid up with the right people, and in turn the democrat run press will ignore them as they siphon off huge money from the new system you put in.

 

The problem is people like you who don't understand how awful something like that will get corrupted and you will make the problem 1000x worse.

 

Yoy should look into what it means when someone says they are spitballing. It’s a saying that’s been around for several years. 

[drobeski 3,061]

If we are going to limit CEO pay, surely we should be limiting pro athlete pay and Hollywood and all kinds of other places.

Right ?

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

15 minutes ago, drobeski said:

If we are going to limit CEO pay, surely we should be limiting pro athlete pay and Hollywood and all kinds of other places.

Right ?

Most importantly, it should all start with journalists and for people working in the media. That way there’s no misrepresentation being spread to the public. 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

Patriotism 

 

end thread

[Alias Detective 1,179]

22 hours ago, MDC said:

Okay well then how about legally compelling US businesses to have X percentage of their workforce actually he American citizens to prevent offshoring of manufacturing and customer service? 

 

22 hours ago, cbfalcon said:

 

Just spitballing....but if the CEO wants to earn more, then the company needs to be successful enough for the employees to earn more. No? There is no cap. Make the company more valuable and let everyone benefit.

But maybe if we didn't want to tie the CEO salary to the salary of others, we could create a scale based on number of employees and percentage of profits, and that was a CEO's cap in pay? In theory, earn more profits and make more money...but that may just be a round about way of getting us back to CEOs earning 300x as much as the average employee. Unsure.

Salary caps.  Bwahahahahaha.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

The crowd also deems it necessary to place one's political affiliation first before explaining what they did. It reeks of inferiority complex.