Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

/——/ Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

 

[Oldstyle]

She would do well in Venezuela.

Ah...nobody does well in Venezuela these days...just saying...

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Perhap$ the corporation$' lobbyist$ are writing the law$?
Has that thought crossed your "mind"?

Anyone seriously recommending Lenin has never had a thought cross their mind.

Anyone seriously recommending Lenin has never had a thought cross their mind.

Noam Chomsky Quote

 

[Cellblock2429]

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

/——/ Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

/----/ What part of my post, Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business, confuses you? The only say you have in any public corporation is if you want to work there, own their stock (excluding private companies of course) and purchase their products or services. Nothing more, and no one cares about your stupid, fake polls of 350 random people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

/——/ Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lazonick…..Marxist.

Shameless poser and liar.

Over the past several years, with funding from the Ford Foundation (www.fiid.org) and the Institute for New Economic Thinking (Institute for New Economic Thinking), Lazonick has elaborated his thesis that the financialized U.S. corporation is substantially responsible for employment instability and income inequity in the U.S. economy. He shows that since the 1980s, three structural changes in employment—one related to plant closings, the second to the end of the norm of a career with one company, and the last to offshoring of employment to low-wage nations—have eroded the availability of middle-class jobs in the U.S. economy. Initially these changes in employment were corporate reactions to changes in externally imposed industrial conditions. Subsequently, however, many major U.S. corporations have implemented these employment practices purely for financial gain. The increased profits have been distributed to shareholders as huge stock repurchases on top of generous dividend payments. Lazonick argues that U.S.-style stock-based compensation gives top corporate executives a vested interest in this financialized mode of corporate resource allocation. A full articulation of the thesis that pins poor economic performance on the financialized business enterprise can be found in three of Lazonick's recent papers:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lazonick…..Marxist.

Shameless poser and liar.

Over the past several years, with funding from the Ford Foundation (www.fiid.org) and the Institute for New Economic Thinking (Institute for New Economic Thinking), Lazonick has elaborated his thesis that the financialized U.S. corporation is substantially responsible for employment instability and income inequity in the U.S. economy. He shows that since the 1980s, three structural changes in employment—one related to plant closings, the second to the end of the norm of a career with one company, and the last to offshoring of employment to low-wage nations—have eroded the availability of middle-class jobs in the U.S. economy. Initially these changes in employment were corporate reactions to changes in externally imposed industrial conditions. Subsequently, however, many major U.S. corporations have implemented these employment practices purely for financial gain. The increased profits have been distributed to shareholders as huge stock repurchases on top of generous dividend payments. Lazonick argues that U.S.-style stock-based compensation gives top corporate executives a vested interest in this financialized mode of corporate resource allocation. A full articulation of the thesis that pins poor economic performance on the financialized business enterprise can be found in three of Lazonick's recent papers:

Shameless poser and liar.

I agree, all Marxists are posers and liars......

Lazonick's work on the theory of innovative enterprise builds on the intellectual legacies of Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Edith T. Penrose, and Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. In 2012, with David J. Teece, Lazonick edited the volume Management Innovation: Essays in the Spirit of Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. (Oxford University Press). Lazonick is co-organizer of the Edith Penrose Centenary Conference to be held at SOAS, University of London, on November 14–15, 2014.[8] Currently Lazonick is completing a book, The Theory of Innovative Enterprise, to be published by Oxford University Press, in which he lays out his theoretical framework and explains how, making use of it, business decision-makers can build innovative companies and government policy-makers can support prosperous economies.

William Lazonick - Wikipedia

 

[Grumblenuts]

So to your mind "the intellectual legacies of Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Edith T. Penrose, and Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. In 2012, with David J. Teece" equals "Marxist." Sure, go fish, pretender. All modern economists are Marxists to you because they studied and may credit Marx here and there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So to your mind "the intellectual legacies of Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Edith T. Penrose, and Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. In 2012, with David J. Teece" equals "Marxist." Sure, go fish, pretender. All modern economists are Marxists to you because they studied and may credit Marx here and there.

For his doctoral thesis, he studied the applicability of Karl Marx's theory of capitalist development to the British Industrial Revolution, the experience that formed the empirical basis for Marx's arguments.[1]

Yeah, sounds like an anti-Marxist......durr

 

[Grumblenuts]

So
Studied = Marxist
Didn't study = Anti-Marxist
Durr!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So
Studied = Marxist
Didn't study = Anti-Marxist
Durr!

George only posts Marxist economists.
Try to keep up.

DURR

 

[Grumblenuts]

So
George mentions = Marxist
George doesn't mention = Anti-Marxist
Durr!

Detecting a clear pattern of forced non-sequitur false dichotomy..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So
George mentions = Marxist
George doesn't mention = Anti-Marxist
Durr!

Detecting a clear pattern of forced non-sequitur false dichotomy..

If you find anything he wrote where he admits that Marxist economics sucks, you be sure to post it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Marxist economics sucks

You could've just expressed that belief directly to begin with and been done with it. George or no.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Marxist economics sucks

You could've just expressed that belief directly to begin with and been done with it. George or no.

Sounds like you disagree.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Marxist economics sucks

You could've just expressed that belief directly to begin with and been done with it. George or no.

Sounds like you disagree.

No, I believe you feel "Marxist economics sucks".

 

[georgephillip]

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

 

[georgephillip]

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Viral Facebook post on CEO-worker pay ratio has obscure past

"But on the specific comparison of CEO pay and average-worker pay, we found two liberal groups -- the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies -- that have produced long-running studies of this question.

"The most recent chart from the Economic Policy Institute shows a ratio of 185 to 1 for 2009. According to the group’s calculations, the peak since the mid 1960s was almost 299 to 1. But it was never as high as high as 475 to 1."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Marxist economics sucks

You could've just expressed that belief directly to begin with and been done with it. George or no.

Sounds like you disagree.

No, I believe you feel "Marxist economics sucks".

Are you hoping for some Marxist economics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

How much went to accidents of birth?

Not your money, none of your business.