U.S. Politics - Page 545 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5441  
Old 12-05-12, 22:27
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
Sure, and if you are a CEO making 30 million a year and you pay your employees on the average 40 K then I bet you get the effort and loyalty that you are paying for. I can tell me guys that I can't afford to give them all raises right now and they still work hard, if I pulled up in the shop parking lot in a new 911 tomorrow then I think that trust would be broken. My employees know that I have their best interests at heart and so they look after my best interests.
This is the way Japanese corporations work, US ones, not so much.
Quote:
if I pulled up in the shop parking lot in a new 911 tomorrow then I think that trust would be broken.
Maybe. But if a Journeyman mechanic (or whatever the bicycle eqiv is) makes $20 an hour on average and you are paying your guy $22 an hour... he goes off and has twins, comes back to you and says, "hey Hugh, I need a raise....", what's your obligation?

You can give him a raise if you feel his value justifies it or you can say "no."

And drive away in your Porsche.

People know what others doing their work make. They know if they have a good deal or not. Maybe the dude will work for you because you offer him a flexible schedule... or you're just a cool guy. Lots of reasons but if the job pays $40k and the company can fill those positions then it really doesn't matter if the CEO make 30 million so long as his shareholders and board members are on ok with it. Maybe the 30 million dollar man has grown the company exponentially... adding thousands of new jobs. What's that worth? Look at GM... one of their problems is they can't get talent to come work for them because Obama has a cap on what the white collar guys can make. So they go to work at Ford cause they got a better deal.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-05-12 at 22:30.
Reply With Quote
  #5442  
Old 12-05-12, 22:28
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
Well it is not my fault that is for sure. I am always looking to make more than 40k no doubt.

There is undoubtedly a large percentage of tax on fuel already. But in my opinion Fed Infrastructure tax could be added without much of a problem. Seriously you could share the 5cents a gallon with Infrastructure and Emissions.

What the hell do I NO, except AINT KNOW Obomer gona take my weapons. So keep your sorry socialist Dekk Skinners off my weapons and ammunition.

How about 5 cents a mile for you Dodge pick up and 10 cents when you mount your 50 cal?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5443  
Old 12-05-12, 22:42
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,745
Default

Quote:
Lots of reasons but if the job pays $40k and the company can fill those positions then it really doesn't matter if the CEO make 30 million so long as his shareholders and board members are on ok with it. Maybe the 30 million dollar man has grown the company exponentially... adding thousands of new jobs. What's that worth?
I'd bet in a large percentage of companies and their relevance to the world, it's not work f*** all. As hostess demonstrates in good times and bad.

The above is, if not entirely backwards, only one extremely narrow version of how things might work.

One of the reasons why those companies can fill the 40 k positions is because of the complete wage freeze that's taken place in the US over the past several decades. People taking those jobs don't even have memories of other possibilities. Or, if they do, they're passed down to them by people who "made it" anyway and so accept your version of things as natural. Or worse hear negative versions of it from the media. That's not to say labor should be inviolate or everyone should get $100 an hour--let alone decide arbitrarily to have two kids--but there are alternative scenarios.

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-05-12 at 22:49.
Reply With Quote
  #5444  
Old 12-05-12, 22:58
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
I'd bet in a large percentage of companies and their relevance to the world, it's not work f*** all. As hostess demonstrates in good times and bad.

The above is, if not entirely backwards, only one extremely narrow version of how things might work.

One of the reasons why those companies can fill the 40 k positions is because of the complete wage freeze that's taken place in the US over the past several decades. People taking those jobs don't even have memories of other possibilities. Or, if they do, they're passed down to them by people who "made it" anyway and so accept your version of things as natural. Or worse hear negative versions of it from the media. That's not to say labor should be inviolate or everyone should get $100 an hour--let alone decide arbitrarily to have two kids--but there are alternative scenarios.
Quote:
The above is, if not entirely backwards, only one extremely narrow version of how things might work.
It's not backwards, but it is narrow. There's over 5 million business's in the US. Most of them are not corporations, most of the corporations are not publicly traded and most of the publicly traded companies don't have CEO's making $30 million a year. So yeah, we talking about fringe large to very large corporations.

Quote:
One of the reasons why those companies can fill the 40 k positions is because of the complete wage freeze that's taken place in the US over the past several decades.
Wages have actually gone down. Automation, shift from manufacturing, emerging markets/cheap labor... consumers drive most of this. People generally don't shop for the most expensive **** they can buy. Just ask Hugh what the internet has done to the local bike shop.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5445  
Old 12-05-12, 23:10
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
It's not backwards, but it is narrow. There's over 5 million business's in the US. Most of them are not corporations, most of the corporations are not publicly traded and most of the publicly traded companies don't have CEO's making $30 million a year. So yeah, we talking about fringe large to very large corporations.



Wages have actually gone down. Automation, shift from manufacturing, emerging markets/cheap labor... consumers drive most of this. People generally don't shop for the most expensive **** they can buy. Just ask Hugh what the internet has done to the local bike shop.
I meant reverse rather than backwards in a regressive sense--although that argument could be made.

With regard to wages, I was being mild. They have definitely been driven down, but this is not just something that happened accidentally. When growth ceased during the 1970s, steps were taken to start bringing down wages and costs and thereby reallocate wealth to the top percentiles. It was also the moment of financialization and credit extensions in order to maintain the lower classes that were being newly disenfranchised.

Therefore, consumers don't drive anything. That's a myth, largely the same one that had people buying homes they were nowhere near being able to afford in their lifetimes.

I could ask Hugh for sure, but the disappearance of all but hipster and/or activist refunctioned used bookshops would be the same basic principle re. the internet.

Last edited by aphronesis; 12-05-12 at 23:28.
Reply With Quote
  #5446  
Old 12-05-12, 23:18
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Maybe. But if a Journeyman mechanic (or whatever the bicycle eqiv is) makes $20 an hour on average and you are paying your guy $22 an hour... he goes off and has twins, comes back to you and says, "hey Hugh, I need a raise....", what's your obligation?

You can give him a raise if you feel his value justifies it or you can say "no."

And drive away in your Porsche.

People know what others doing their work make. They know if they have a good deal or not. Maybe the dude will work for you because you offer him a flexible schedule... or you're just a cool guy. Lots of reasons but if the job pays $40k and the company can fill those positions then it really doesn't matter if the CEO make 30 million so long as his shareholders and board members are on ok with it. Maybe the 30 million dollar man has grown the company exponentially... adding thousands of new jobs. What's that worth? Look at GM... one of their problems is they can't get talent to come work for them because Obama has a cap on what the white collar guys can make. So they go to work at Ford cause they got a better deal.
The idea that the exponential increase in CEO pay in the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of this one is part of the same market as the pay of the $40K worker is a false narrative. CEO's don't risk nearly as much as a $40K worker in terms of real life sacrifice, nor is their pay part of the same market. Their pay is part of the market to produce a greater return of investment to shareholders. Shareholders have become the ones to whom companies owe their loyalty. The workers are simply another element in the cost of doing business. Their lives and their concerns are their's. They are not valued; they are only a number on a ledger. Their market is the market of employers seeking to pay them as little as they can get by with so that they can pay more to the investor class. Period. That's how it works.

If that's the world you want, fine. History has not proven kind to such things, but as long as it doesn't happen during our lives, who cares right?

It is also a false narrative to suggest that a business like Hugh's and a business like Walmart benefit from the same policies. They don't. It is simply a Republican talking point to suggest that they do. Don't believe me, look at bills passed by Congress and see time after time who the entities are who are offered exemption, and who aren't. CEO/investment driven loyalty/protectionist policy of such things have killed off small businesses. To pretend that the options for the $40K guy are the same in today's economy are the same as 40 or 50 years ago is laughable. Sure there are small business options, but there aren't enough. Not even close. And the platform of the Republican party diminishes and derides the worker. Keep it up.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight

Last edited by ChewbaccaD; 12-05-12 at 23:35.
Reply With Quote
  #5447  
Old 12-06-12, 00:37
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChewbaccaD View Post
The idea that the exponential increase in CEO pay in the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of this one is part of the same market as the pay of the $40K worker is a false narrative. CEO's don't risk nearly as much as a $40K worker in terms of real life sacrifice, nor is their pay part of the same market. Their pay is part of the market to produce a greater return of investment to shareholders. Shareholders have become the ones to whom companies owe their loyalty. The workers are simply another element in the cost of doing business. Their lives and their concerns are their's. They are not valued; they are only a number on a ledger. Their market is the market of employers seeking to pay them as little as they can get by with so that they can pay more to the investor class. Period. That's how it works.

If that's the world you want, fine. History has not proven kind to such things, but as long as it doesn't happen during our lives, who cares right?

It is also a false narrative to suggest that a business like Hugh's and a business like Walmart benefit from the same policies. They don't. It is simply a Republican talking point to suggest that they do. Don't believe me, look at bills passed by Congress and see time after time who the entities are who are offered exemption, and who aren't. CEO/investment driven loyalty/protectionist policy of such things have killed off small businesses. To pretend that the options for the $40K guy are the same in today's economy are the same as 40 or 50 years ago is laughable. Sure there are small business options, but there aren't enough. Not even close. And the platform of the Republican party diminishes and derides the worker. Keep it up.
Quote:
CEO's don't risk nearly as much as a $40K worker in terms of real life sacrifice, nor is their pay part of the same market. Their pay is part of the market to produce a greater return of investment to shareholders. Shareholders have become the ones to whom companies owe their loyalty. The workers are simply another element in the cost of doing business.
This, too, is a false narrative. Of the total of US business, this only represents a tiny fraction. A slightly larger percentage of the work force, but only slightly.

What you say is true, but only in very small numbers.

Quote:
To pretend that the options for the $40K guy are the same in today's economy are the same as 40 or 50 years ago is laughable.
Jesus, they aren't the same as they were 4 or 5 years ago. However, there are still great ideas emerging and always will be. You changed careers mid-stream. You did it for your own reasons. So did I. So do many other people.

I think the most any of us can hope for is opportunity. Opportunity is in greater supply with a thriving economy.

Quote:
And the platform of the Republican party diminishes and derides the worker.
I would say there are uninteded consequences of some R policies. Same is true for the D's. To some extent, both sides fail to take into account human behavior. That will ensure nothing is perfect... but you are attacking the smallest part of the problem. The real problem is diminishing opportunity, both with those that provide it and those that seek it. Wealth will never be created by hooking more and more people on (fill in the blank) government programs.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5448  
Old 12-06-12, 00:58
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
This, too, is a false narrative. Of the total of US business, this only represents a tiny fraction. A slightly larger percentage of the work force, but only slightly.

What you say is true, but only in very small numbers.

I disagree on how small a percentage that is, and what part of the work force they represent, I think it is substantial.

Jesus, they aren't the same as they were 4 or 5 years ago. However, there are still great ideas emerging and always will be. You changed careers mid-stream. You did it for your own reasons. So did I. So do many other people.

I think the most any of us can hope for is opportunity. Opportunity is in greater supply with a thriving economy.

The policies of the Republican party have been shrinking opportunities for the middle class for quite some time now.

I would say there are uninteded consequences of some R policies. Same is true for the D's. To some extent, both sides fail to take into account human behavior. That will ensure nothing is perfect... but you are attacking the smallest part of the problem. The real problem is diminishing opportunity, both with those that provide it and those that seek it. Wealth will never be created by hooking more and more people on (fill in the blank) government programs.
More and more people are going on those government programs that you are so worried about as a direct consequence of the actions of the US corporate structure enabled by the support of the right wing (not that the left has been able to stand up to them lately).
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #5449  
Old 12-06-12, 01:23
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 4,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
This, too, is a false narrative. Of the total of US business, this only represents a tiny fraction. A slightly larger percentage of the work force, but only slightly.

What you say is true, but only in very small numbers.
It is very true in relation to the overall percentage of GDP those few corporations control. So in a way, you are right, it is a tiny fraction of companies. However, their piece of the pie is the very problem to wit I refer.

Past that, I do agree that neither party really does enough to empower and promote respect for the worker, but Democrats certainly do more than R's. Right now, the new dog whistle is "drug them from their apartments to vote fore Obama." Not only is that a racist dog whistle, but it derides people of modest means. Most of those people are trying to better their lives and the lives of their families. Many of them have marginal opportunity to do that. Many more people than spots.

As for me, I am a white, educated male. I have a competitive advantage. It didn't do the work for me, but it surely helped some.

The reality is that the Democratic party are at least trying to represent regular workers to some extent. The problem with Republican rhetoric is that they rely on much of that vote, but sooner or later, those people they deride and still convince to vote in their favor will catch on.

When you couple that with their arcane social policy, and you have continued recipe for defeat nationally.

However, the real battle is in the states. People like Ralph Reed think they are just so smart taking it to the micro level. Republican legislatures, when in power, gerrymander like it's the 50's now, and ensure their continued power. This sets up a conflict with the states and federal government, but I fear the Republicans believe that that means they have the support of the majority in that battle. They don't. Sooner or later, history has shown that it is not the rich that creates revolution, it is the downtrodden. That has never really turned out well for anyone.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq., Attorney for the HaterEight

Last edited by ChewbaccaD; 12-06-12 at 01:25.
Reply With Quote
  #5450  
Old 12-06-12, 01:35
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
I disagree on how small a percentage that is, and what part of the work force they represent, I think it is substantial. [/COLOR]
There's about 5.7 million business' in the US. About 17,000 have more than 500 employees. There are less than 5,000 US companies that have public exchange traded stock.

Corporate CEO's beholden to shareholders represent less than 0.087 of the total CEO's in the USA.

The stats on numbers of employees working at publicly traded companies is hard to pin down. It looks like, in 2006, it was about 20% of the workforce, but indications are it's lower than that now. In 2010, there were a little over 111,000,000 working... so the number would still be much higher than I thought on the employee side.

I was correct about the CEO's but wrong about the size of the workforce public companies employ.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.