Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can’t answer my question eh? The answer to IP is to stop sending it to them. But our corps find it’s more profitable to send it to them. Or they would stop dealing with China.f stealing intellectual property is such a big deal, what company stopped doing business with China after it was stolen? We keep sending it to them and companies accept it.
I posed a question to you which, typical of far-left Progressives, you dodged by trying to ask a question instead of answer one.
So I'll pose it to you again. Before making a stupid response, kindly do some research into the issue of intellectual property theft by China.
Specifically what tactic would you use to stop foreign countries from subsidizing the merchandise they sell to our country. Just as important, or more important, what tactic would you use to halt China from stealing our intellectual property and making it their own?
Reagan had nothing to do with it
Unions lost support of the people when they seen their jobs move overseas partly due to union greed.
I don't disagree, but I don't see any economic or social negative in taxing progressively to pay for what unions once bargained for. Profits are up, and wages are down.Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.Payroll is limitless? Really?American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.
Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better
So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
Where did I even imply that?
I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.
So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.
If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.
So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.
United States Wages and Salaries Growth | 2019 | Data | Chart | CalendarWell, by any measure, Trump's not improved their wages, and less is spent on HC and education. If that's success, you should crow
Well we don't have the greatest generation CEOs or unions anymore, so we have to depend on the government to regulate a living wage and benefits like every other modern country, super duper. Cuz it's damn obvious the GOP will never do anything along those lines....Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.Payroll is limitless? Really?American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.
Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better
So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
Where did I even imply that?
I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.
So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.
If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.
So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.
You just speak nonsense.Not according to the studies I have seen. Your claim is baseless.Not reallyAmerican CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.
Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better
So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased
After enough time, corporations realized it was not a successful plan. Paying workers more money does not equal greater profit. Paying a CEO more money does.
If that were true, competing corporations would do things differently. But obviously, since most of them do the same things, it must be the best plan.
I don't disagree, but I don't see any economic or social negative in taxing progressively to pay for what unions once bargained for. Profits are up, and wages are down.Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.Payroll is limitless? Really?So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
Where did I even imply that?
I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.
So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.
If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.
So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.
Shows how hollow the Trump economy is
Almost half of Americans work in low-wage jobs
America's unemployment rate is at a half-century low, but it also has a job-quality problem that affects nearly half the population, with a study finding 44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000.
Contrary to popular opinion, these workers aren't teenagers or young adults just starting their careers,
Perhaps these not teenagers or young adults should aspire to do more with their lives than work an $18,000 a year job. Maybe they should learn a skill that’s worth more than that
Well we don't have the greatest generation CEOs or unions anymore, so we have to depend on the government to regulate a living wage and benefits like every other modern country, super duper. Cuz it's damn obvious the GOP will never do anything along those lines....Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.Payroll is limitless? Really?So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
Where did I even imply that?
I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.
So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.
If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.
So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.
Who paid for your training dingbat? Those were the good old days. DumbassWho paid for your training? Those were the good old days.Multiple waysHe will make more if he can force you and your coworkers to accept less
How does that work?
Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees
Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.
Nobody paid for my training.
I worked my way up from sweeping floors and showed initiative and was rewarded for my efforts.
Something you whiny leftist cant seem to grasp.
You just speak nonsense.Not according to the studies I have seen. Your claim is baseless.Not reallySo what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased
After enough time, corporations realized it was not a successful plan. Paying workers more money does not equal greater profit. Paying a CEO more money does.
If that were true, competing corporations would do things differently. But obviously, since most of them do the same things, it must be the best plan.
You have no proof that a pay cut for a ceo will result in higher wages for other people in the companyIf the ceo takes a huge cut that must increase prices. That effects a lot of people. Less payroll for everyone else.I never said they did.Why do you think they have unlimited payroll? Prices are not effected? The ceo pay grows on trees?So now they do have unlimited payroll?You assume that if he makes less that you will make more
The pay that some CEO gets has absolutely no effect on my earning power or anyone else's for that matter
Why do you assume that if a CEO has his pay cut that other people will get a pay raise?
There is absolutely no evidence of cause and effect in this matter whatsoever
How does the pay the CEO of Amazon gets affect your pay?
And if the CEO of a company did have his pay cut how do you know that it would result in all the employees getting paid more?
United States Wages and Salaries Growth | 2019 | Data | Chart | CalendarWell, by any measure, Trump's not improved their wages, and less is spent on HC and education. If that's success, you should crow
Thank you for posting another link that supports my point!
People's labor has valueThat is the hope.....Ah those greedy unions and our strong economic growth. That was so horrible. But ceos should make insane amounts shipping off jobs right? You are a funny one.You have a great imagination, You live in the past. We have an economy filled with near monopolies . The winners get corporate welfare. Your widgets moved to China. You always crack me up.
Now you are starting to understand. Yes, my widgets could move to China if I can't afford American wages and taxation. That's what's been happening since the 70's. As unions got more greedy, businesses moved away from them, even to the point out of the country.
So I have no idea where you dream up that the solution is to go back in time, and replicate what caused this problem in the first place.
I love how you on the left always excoriate businesses. Back to the widget factory analogy: You and I own widget factories. We both need a highly talented and rare person to operate our finances, manage operations, oversee sales, and get new business.
So one comes along and applies to your company. He or she has a long history of success; taking companies that were just about to close, and making them profitable again, drawing new investors that allowed for expansion, reducing waste and adding productivity. This CEO wants 5 million a year. You refuse to pay that amount.
So now that CEO comes to my company, and I agree to pay him the 5 mil a year. Now he gets to work, and eventually takes your customers and brings them to my company. That's the reason I pay him 5 million a year, because he can make my company 10 million dollars more profitable a year.
The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.
Neither do workers, probably even less so.
People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.
In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.
That decision is up to the board members of the company not youLots of bad ceos get paid like stars. Helps having the board loaded with other ceos who want raises.That is the hope.....Ah those greedy unions and our strong economic growth. That was so horrible. But ceos should make insane amounts shipping off jobs right? You are a funny one.Now you are starting to understand. Yes, my widgets could move to China if I can't afford American wages and taxation. That's what's been happening since the 70's. As unions got more greedy, businesses moved away from them, even to the point out of the country.
So I have no idea where you dream up that the solution is to go back in time, and replicate what caused this problem in the first place.
I love how you on the left always excoriate businesses. Back to the widget factory analogy: You and I own widget factories. We both need a highly talented and rare person to operate our finances, manage operations, oversee sales, and get new business.
So one comes along and applies to your company. He or she has a long history of success; taking companies that were just about to close, and making them profitable again, drawing new investors that allowed for expansion, reducing waste and adding productivity. This CEO wants 5 million a year. You refuse to pay that amount.
So now that CEO comes to my company, and I agree to pay him the 5 mil a year. Now he gets to work, and eventually takes your customers and brings them to my company. That's the reason I pay him 5 million a year, because he can make my company 10 million dollars more profitable a year.
The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.
Neither do workers, probably even less so.
People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.
In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.
Step into the real world.Oh but they are. We also have lots of collusion. Companies won’t hire you if they know your current company has a non compete.Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.Multiple ways
Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees
Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.
They're not worth the paper they're written on.
LOL....you're a moron.
Is a non-compete agreement worth the paper it's written on? | Weisberg Law
Non-Compete Agreements? Are They Worth the Paper They are Written On? - Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns, LLP.
Reagan had nothing to do with it
ah, Ray....>>>
Reagan fires 11,000 striking air traffic controllers Aug. 5, 1981
Unions lost support of the people when they seen their jobs move overseas partly due to union greed.
More globalization , in/out sourcing made them uncompetetive
~S~
How do we depend on the government for a living wage? What the hell do you mean LOL?Well we don't have the greatest generation CEOs or unions anymore, so we have to depend on the government to regulate a living wage and benefits like every other modern country, super duper. Cuz it's damn obvious the GOP will never do anything along those lines....Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.Payroll is limitless? Really?
Where did I even imply that?
I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.
So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.
If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.
So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.
How do we depend on the gov for a living wage?
How about you work harder than your coworkers?
