• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Middle Class Share of Income

imagep said:
When you purchase a share of stock, unless it is an IPO, not a penny goes to the company. Even with IPO's, it's frequent that the money doesn't go to the company, it goes to the current stock holders.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thats what I said. Buying stock from the company directly sends them money.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course the money goes to a company. Thats the very definition of how stocks work.
Click to expand...

imagep allready responded this for me, its only in IPOs, other than that the only thing would be if the value goes up the company might get more access to credit ...

jonny5 said:
Just saying the same thing over and over again with no explaination or rationel will not make it true. You sound a lot like some cult member just chanting a mantra over and over again with no understanding of what it means. Or maybe your a parrot, I'm not sure, although I have never known a parrot that can type, so you must be a cult member.
Click to expand...

It IS rational ... no **** the CEO will pay himself as much as possible and the workers as little as possible, dispite what his performance is or that of his workers.

jonny5 said:
Yet none of those employees could have been CEO. Had they been, the company might have lost hundreds of billions instead of 10s. And it was the govt that cost stock holders their stock.
Click to expand...

Your just pulling that out of your ass, there is no evidence for that.
 
RGacky3 said:
imagep allready responded this for me, its only in IPOs, other than that the only thing would be if the value goes up the company might get more access to credit ...



It IS rational ... no **** the CEO will pay himself as much as possible and the workers as little as possible, dispite what his performance is or that of his workers.



Your just pulling that out of your ass, there is no evidence for that.
Click to expand...

The CEO does not pay himself, unless he is also the owner. The board of directors typically sets salaries. And they will also pay the CEO as little as possible because paying a CEO too much, just like paying low wage employees too much, affects shareholder value. CEOs are labor costs just like anyone else. But its less costly to pay one CEO 100 million, than to pay 10,000 employees 40,000.

As for the hypothetical, duh.
 
jonny5 said:
The CEO does not pay himself, unless he is also the owner. The board of directors typically sets salaries. And they will also pay the CEO as little as possible because paying a CEO too much, just like paying low wage employees too much, affects shareholder value. CEOs are labor costs just like anyone else. But its less costly to pay one CEO 100 million, than to pay 10,000 employees 40,000.
Click to expand...

The board is appointed by the executive .... most of the board also work in the mangement. Infact this is a huge problem in Capitalism that Joseph Stiglitz talked about called agency, and the stockholders don't care that much because they have a very liquid and limited stake.

I mean do you HONESTLY think that CEO's have gotten 300% better over the last couple of decades?
 
jonny5 said:
Just saying the same thing over and over again with no explaination or rationel will not make it true. You sound a lot like some cult member just chanting a mantra over and over again with no understanding of what it means. Or maybe your a parrot, I'm not sure, although I have never known a parrot that can type, so you must be a cult member.
Click to expand...

Well if nothing else, you have a good sense of humour! :lol::lol:
 
jonny5 said:
The CEO does not pay himself, unless he is also the owner. The board of directors typically sets salaries. And they will also pay the CEO as little as possible because paying a CEO too much, just like paying low wage employees too much, affects shareholder value. CEOs are labor costs just like anyone else. But its less costly to pay one CEO 100 million, than to pay 10,000 employees 40,000.

As for the hypothetical, duh.
Click to expand...

It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back" type of deal. The board pays the CEO more and more money so that they can pay themselves more and more money. Usually the CEO is a long time buddy of one or more of the board members.

If it wasn't a corrupt system, the board would advertise CEO and top executive positions, take applications, and pick from the best applicants. If a company that pays $30 million bucks a year to their retiring CEO advertised the job at just a million dollars a year, they would get thousands of applicants just as qualified (or even better qualified) as the buddy that they ultimately choose. But that's not how top executives are picked. It's a fairly corrupt system.

CEO's in American make about 10 times as much as their counterparts in any other country. I always think it to be odd that many people claim that if we raise taxes on the rich that they will flee the country. Sure, every once in a while that does happen, but there are few places in the world that a high payed American employee can make as much money as they do, even after taxes, as in the US of A. Generally, people are busting our doors down to get into America. Taking home 60% of a huge salary is a lot better deal than taking home 70% of hardly nothing.
 
jonny5 said:
The CEO does not pay himself, unless he is also the owner. The board of directors typically sets salaries. And they will also pay the CEO as little as possible because paying a CEO too much, just like paying low wage employees too much, affects shareholder value. CEOs are labor costs just like anyone else. But its less costly to pay one CEO 100 million, than to pay 10,000 employees 40,000.

As for the hypothetical, duh.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that 10,000 employees would be more productive than one CEO. 10,000 employees can build a heck of a lot of anything, one CEO can't build squat.
 
jonny5 said:
Why is it enough? Do you beleive that govt has the power or duty to limit the amount of property someone can own? How much is enough then? 20 trillion?
Click to expand...
The more they own, the more they own us. The more property the predatory plutocrats grab, the more the rest of us become their property too.
 
iguanaman said:
The top 5% have quintupled their net worth's since 1985. That incredible growth is unsustainable and will lead to financial collapse if not corrected.
Click to expand...
Also, the necessity to be better than the competition decreases as their hoard increases. It's as if the NBA champions got the #1 draft pick. Pretty soon one team could win without putting much effort out, and the rest of the teams would be so far behind in natural power that they'd give up trying to give a better performance than the monopolistic team. Some overlooked player might develop into a star on the excluded teams, but all his efforts wouldn't get his team (company) anywhere.
 
Xerographica said:
Why doesn't the master widget maker just start his own factory?
Because he's only good at his job, not good at transforming himself into an evil greedhead zombie whose hollow soul continually chants "More, more, more! For me, me, me!"

All doomed societies become gripped by the suffocating stranglehold of mentally inferior power-obsessed predators who take over and eventually destroy the wealth created by people with superior talent. These demons also seize opportunities for mind control and able to establish such slavish attitudes as, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" In the real status quo that they have created, that should be, "If you're so smart, why haven't you made the rich richer?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
RGacky3 said:
No it doesn't, buying stocks DOESN'T create jobs, that money never goes to the company.

Also its not creating jobs, its just controling capital ... if they all die
Click to expand...
As the guillotine rusts, so does freedom.
 
RGacky3 said:
The board is appointed by the executive .... most of the board also work in the mangement. Infact this is a huge problem in Capitalism that Joseph Stiglitz talked about called agency, and the stockholders don't care that much because they have a very liquid and limited stake.

I mean do you HONESTLY think that CEO's have gotten 300% better over the last couple of decades?
Click to expand...

Thats a very subjective question which is best answered by the free market which sets their salaries. The only relevent question is whether I think the police powers of the govt should be used to decide CEO salaries. Which I dont.
 
jonny5 said:
Yet none of those employees could have been CEO. Had they been, the company might have lost hundreds of billions instead of 10s. And it was the govt that cost stock holders their stock.
Click to expand...
That's the insulting myth you are trying to brainwash people with. From what I've seen in real jobs, at least a third of the employees could do a better job than the self-important clowns in the front office. Business majors have far lower IQs than STEM majors, yet the Diplomaed Dumboes get the big bucks. And it is significant that some "impractical nerd" like Bill Gates was the most successful of all when he put his mind to business rather than to becoming a High-IQ Cash Cow for these low-IQ aggressive parasites.

If you can, do. If you can't, boss. Of course, with your silly free-market fantasy, this can't happen because there is some magical Invisble Hand waving the Wonderful Wand of Wall Street and putting everybody in their proper places in society. That propaganda is only the Wizard of Oz using bells and whistles. Where is Toto when we need to expose these no-talent predators for the empty suits they really are?
 
imagep said:
The question isn't why do they exist, it is why does the public tollerate such a corrupt system.
Click to expand...
The answer is that the ownership class owns our minds too. Typical of their thought control is this copycat Internet, where nobody is listened to if he thinks for himself; he has to reference some media guru. Text is the burping of talking points from some talk-show nanny. The real reason the regime allowed this fake independent medium, this world-wide spider web for trapping insects and sucking their brains out, is that it knew that it had already created passive and dependent minds to transfer the propaganda transmitted from above to more of us down below, silently suffering under the suffocating dominance of Ask an Expert frauds.

All choices are pre-owned. Just the very fact that Netties only make choices granted from above shows that they own no personal mental property. Our minds are homeless, wandering from one shelter to another looking for other people's answers. Only sheep look for Good Shepherds. Only little boys want Big Brothers.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats a very subjective question which is best answered by the free market which sets their salaries. The only relevent question is whether I think the police powers of the govt should be used to decide CEO salaries. Which I dont.
Click to expand...

Except there IS no free market, and when you say that its the "free market" what that boils down to is simply plutcrats and capitalists, I don't think the goernment should decide CEO's pay, I think the workers in the company should.

Also I explained how the pay actually works, how corporate capitalism works, thats what we should talk about not some mythical "free market" which is a meaningless term.
 
RGacky3 said:
Except there IS no free market, and when you say that its the "free market" what that boils down to is simply plutcrats and capitalists, I don't think the goernment should decide CEO's pay, I think the workers in the company should.

Also I explained how the pay actually works, how corporate capitalism works, thats what we should talk about not some mythical "free market" which is a meaningless term.
Click to expand...

What about the people who actually own the company?
 
the video makes my point better than I could, its 5 minutes.
 
PrometheusBound said:
That's the insulting myth you are trying to brainwash people with. From what I've seen in real jobs, at least a third of the employees could do a better job than the self-important clowns in the front office. Business majors have far lower IQs than STEM majors, yet the Diplomaed Dumboes get the big bucks. And it is significant that some "impractical nerd" like Bill Gates was the most successful of all when he put his mind to business rather than to becoming a High-IQ Cash Cow for these low-IQ aggressive parasites.

If you can, do. If you can't, boss. Of course, with your silly free-market fantasy, this can't happen because there is some magical Invisble Hand waving the Wonderful Wand of Wall Street and putting everybody in their proper places in society. That propaganda is only the Wizard of Oz using bells and whistles. Where is Toto when we need to expose these no-talent predators for the empty suits they really are?
Click to expand...

Thank you, I enjoyed this: "From what I've seen in real jobs". Isn't work great, you could probably watch for hours.
 
jonny5 said:
What about the people who actually own the company?
Click to expand...
All an owner does is hike the ball. The employees make the play; they create the total value of the investment. If something is necessary, that doesn't mean it is important. For example, an ignition key is necessary for the driver (the workers), but it only worth about $5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom