Why is union greed bad, but CEO greed is OK?

[Mac1958]

so ... You're saying that people who work for a living are all Russians?

Or, just what is it you're trying to say?

You really, truly don't understand?

Or are you just being obtuse?

And I'm fascinated by this "people who work for a living" thing. Part of the ignorance and/or naivete of people who think this way, I guess, is that people who have worked hard and sacrificed to become "successful" (whatever that may be) don't actually "work for a living". Whatever makes you folks "feel" better, I guess.



.

.

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

"They have no idea" is right. And it's okay to have no idea, but to make assumptions and attacks based on pure ignorance is ridiculous.

Hard work, discipline, sacrifice, learning from failure. That's what it takes, and they will not admit it because it wrecks their whole schtick.

.

 

[MarcATL]

Very good thread OP.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well Obama's economy sucks. If you studied the FDR Depression, you'd see that Obama is following the exact script that FDR did to prolong his Depression

Don't know about that, I don't see any bridges or dams being built, only bridges and dams falling apart.

That's because only 6% of scientists were Republicans. Naturally, you expect problems when you have people working on Engineering projects who are more concerned with how does the steel feel about supporting this span

 

[Brain357]

so ... You're saying that people who work for a living are all Russians?

Or, just what is it you're trying to say?

You really, truly don't understand?

Or are you just being obtuse?

And I'm fascinated by this "people who work for a living" thing. Part of the ignorance and/or naivete of people who think this way, I guess, is that people who have worked hard and sacrificed to become "successful" (whatever that may be) don't actually "work for a living". Whatever makes you folks "feel" better, I guess.



.

.

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

Is it more often than not? Let's look at the Waltons. They are bringing in 3 billion a year and have never done much. Meanwhile they pay many workers so little they are on welfare. So our government grows while the Walton's get richer. I don't see how our country can afford all this corporate welfare.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You really, truly don't understand?

Or are you just being obtuse?

And I'm fascinated by this "people who work for a living" thing. Part of the ignorance and/or naivete of people who think this way, I guess, is that people who have worked hard and sacrificed to become "successful" (whatever that may be) don't actually "work for a living". Whatever makes you folks "feel" better, I guess.



.

.

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

"They have no idea" is right. And it's okay to have no idea, but to make assumptions and attacks based on pure ignorance is ridiculous.

Hard work, discipline, sacrifice, learning from failure. That's what it takes, and they will not admit it because it wrecks their whole schtick.

.

/thread

 

[boilermaker55]

While Dimon still has not been investigated to whether what he did was criminal or not.
This should give you pause to think.

.

A CEO's compensation package is determined by the Board of Directors, and is based on their perceived value to the company.

If they don't like it, they can explore other options.

That goes for pretty much anyone else.

.

More often than not, that "board of directors" was placed there by the CEO.

Additionally?

In the companies I have worked for, most CEOs don't add much value.

I will say that possibly Dick Grasso was an exception to that rule, in retrospect.

I agree for the most part. The problem with the highest-profile CEO's is that they can do great good for the company or great harm. And yeah, I'm thinking of Dimon. The decision is the board's, and I'd like to see that culture change. But I'd rather see it change culturally than via government mandate.

.

 

[bripat9643]

You really, truly don't understand?

Or are you just being obtuse?

And I'm fascinated by this "people who work for a living" thing. Part of the ignorance and/or naivete of people who think this way, I guess, is that people who have worked hard and sacrificed to become "successful" (whatever that may be) don't actually "work for a living". Whatever makes you folks "feel" better, I guess.



.

.

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

Is it more often than not? Let's look at the Waltons. They are bringing in 3 billion a year and have never done much. Meanwhile they pay many workers so little they are on welfare. So our government grows while the Walton's get richer. I don't see how our country can afford all this corporate welfare.

Our government grows only because liberal turds make it grow. It has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.

 

[Brain357]

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

Is it more often than not? Let's look at the Waltons. They are bringing in 3 billion a year and have never done much. Meanwhile they pay many workers so little they are on welfare. So our government grows while the Walton's get richer. I don't see how our country can afford all this corporate welfare.

Our government grows only because liberal turds make it grow. It has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.

Has much to do with walmart as I just explained. Walmart pays so little that many employees collect welfare, so the government gets bigger while the Walton's get richer. Not just walmart of course, lots of corporations. How conservatives support this I don't know, but I guess they aren't real conservatives.

 

[The Rabbi]

What some just don't get is those that become successful, mord often than not, have risked everything and lost more than once before the winning formula was found. Henry Ford lost everything 5 times. Dyson Vacuum? Ittook hi m 4000 tries bfore he succeeded. Honda? Turned down for a job with Toyota. Started working out of his family's garage, spurred on by friends and neighbors. Michael Jordan? Cut from his high school basketball team. They all have something in common: they never gave up. They allowed themselves to come back stronger after their failures and learned from them. To say that those that make it to the top didn't work to get ther or that it doesn't take skill a d bard work to stay there? They have no idea. They also will never succeeded above what someone else allows them, such as a union, because they won't stand on their own two feet and take the risks it demands to do it on their own. KFC, Sanders? His recipe was rejected 1009 times!

Is it more often than not? Let's look at the Waltons. They are bringing in 3 billion a year and have never done much. Meanwhile they pay many workers so little they are on welfare. So our government grows while the Walton's get richer. I don't see how our country can afford all this corporate welfare.

Our government grows only because liberal turds make it grow. It has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.

Who says they never did much? More lib stupidity because they have no understanding.

 

[Againsheila]

Don't know about that, I don't see any bridges or dams being built, only bridges and dams falling apart.

That's because only 6% of scientists were Republicans. Naturally, you expect problems when you have people working on Engineering projects who are more concerned with how does the steel feel about supporting this span

The bridges and dams that are falling apart were built during the last great depression.

 

[JoeNormal]

Don't know about that, I don't see any bridges or dams being built, only bridges and dams falling apart.

That's because only 6% of scientists were Republicans. Naturally, you expect problems when you have people working on Engineering projects who are more concerned with how does the steel feel about supporting this span

Bwa ha ha ha! Did you really just write that? Most scientists are too smart to become republicans. That's why republicans account for only 6% of them. Now sociopaths and bean counters? Yeah, they've found their party.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So you are naive.

So what is it you're getting at? Are these companies intentionally paying CEO's more than they're worth just as an excuse to give less money to the middle class?

Seems to me that most businesses are in business to profit. If the owner(s) of a business felt they could get the same quality of performance out of someone who demands less compensation, wouldn't those greedy profiteering business owner fat-cat robber barons (if I missed any fuck-the-rich adjectives, feel free to insert them for yourselves) LEAP at the opportunity to underpay yet another of their underlings?

Or is giving extra money to incompetent managers some new religious movement among billionaires?

I don't mind you believing someone to be evil, but holy shit at least try to assume they've got realistic motives.

It's not evil at all, only naturalistic. Your admission of class warfare (rich v poor, management v labor, etc) is a fact of life.

My admission of class warfare? The willingness to leave someone to their beliefs isn't the same as agreement, sir.

And if you honestly believe that "the rich" are specifically paying CEO's shitloads more than they're worth so that there's less money to give to the little guy, you're being willfully ignorant to justify either class envy or class guilt, I won't presume to know your financial standing.

Why wouldn't those rich pricks just keep the money for themselves? Or is there something I'm missing about CEO's that makes billionaires wanna spend money on 'em like rappers with strippers?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cant help but ask. We are seeing a LOT of companies moving to the South, due to our vast right to work labor practices. So, yes, we see those jobs coming, and they are paying a fair bit less than they would if located in union states. And that's fine.

What I don't get is how those same companies make the move to a right to work state, and they do better financially- that's true. BUT, does that result in lower prices for the consumer? Nope. It results in higher pay for the CEO and board member types.

So, its bad for union members to be greedy and want more pay. And the right demonizes them. Fair enough. Greed is a deadly sin.

Then why doesn't the right also crucify all the greedy CEO's of the world who shrewdly try to drain every dollar they can out of their employer, just like unions?

Seems greed is greed....regardless of one's place on the totem pole.

Neither one of them are okay. But hey, if those aren't okay, why is entitlement okay? Care to explain that?

 

[JoeNormal]

American free enterprise made us the world's number one economy. You got something that's better than Number One we'd love to hear it.

If you're offering Failed Redistribution and collective economics, know that it comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail

Moreover, why should anyone listen to the mindless econiomic rantings from people who don't even know what a CEO does?

Hey Frank, what does what you wrote have to do with CEO's making less and the worker making more? You know, like it used to be when we REALLY were the number one economy in the world both in production and consumption.

We don't need a "new" system. But we do need to realign the current system more to the side of the worker. What would be wrong with that?

The CEO/worker concept is Failed Marxist thought. CEOs make what the Board thinks they should make and unlike in your Marxist Nations "Workers" are not trapped and helpless little drones who HAVE to do whatever the State Demands

I feel sorry for you. You're going to have a crappy, little life if you keep listening to the Progs

So this is how you're spending your fabulous retirement? Chiding other people about their 'little lives'?