- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Libs: why do corporate profits anger you?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:11 am to KG6
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:11 am to KG6
quote:
So why would Walmart pay someone more, when they can get any idiot off the street willing to do that same job for minimum wage.
yea why should a multi-billion dollar corporation keep their employees on a livable wage when us taxpayers will foot the bill for their welfare
strong logic, lol
4
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:12 am to Pettifogger
quote:
How frequently do you go to other countries
I was in the Army for 30 years, I've traveled all over this world.
But, why are you comparing us to the rest of world? I mean sure, our roads are great compared to Afghanistan's. So what? Yep, we have better schools than Zimbabwe, awesome.
We are first among first world nations, at least we used to be, but we aren't any more.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:12 am to The Spleen
quote:
But let's look at Carly Fiorina. By some accounts, she was a bad CEO while at HP. They decided to fire her, but gave her a severance check of a few million when they did. How many low level employees lost their jobs because of bad decisions she may have made? I don't know if any did. But what about Blue Bell? Their management knew of the listeria problems in some of their creameries, yet did nothing to correct the problem. When it came out to the public, who lost their jobs? The line level employees that had nothing to do with the problem. All of management kept their jobs. situations like these are what piss me off about corporations.
Because, generally, firms have found that tournament theory and allocating equity that vests in stages is the best incentive for executives considering the long-term health of the firm. They tend to eschew rabble-rousing and symbolic shite for good reasons.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 11:13 am
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:12 am to BigJim
quote:
If you mean company X produces something I don't like (alcohol, guns, violent video games, etc) then I think that is dangerous territory.
So just because YOU don't like it means that it's dangerous territory and this needs to be shut down?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:14 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:But not quite as ridiculous as your Constitutional interpretations.
but to deny that our country is crumbling apart is ridiculous
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:14 am to rocket31
quote:
yea why should a multi-billion dollar corporation keep their employees on a livable wage when us taxpayers will foot the bill for their welfare
If there wasn't welfare, more people would make a "livable" wage.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:16 am to DelU249
quote:
I don't hate that they make a profit, but I think there is such a thing as too big. the influence they have is unfair and they limit our choices as consumers.
yep. see cable television and the phone companies.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:16 am to The Spleen
quote:
The environment: We're probably in agreement here
Yay! Let's celebrate bi-partisanship!
quote:
I just think an adult working a full time job should be able to function in society without relying on government assistance. That is not happening, for various reasons. It's not all on corporations, but there has been a growing disparity in executive pay and working class pay.
I am OK with the concept of a minimum wage and even raising it when the inflation resulting from a growing economy has not resulting in wage inflation for lower earners (and that does happen). But the idea that increasing the minimum wage in a slow economy will do anything but reduce employment (and the growth of the economy overall) is just political talk.
Other than that, I think the goal should be to grow the economy so that there are better opportunities for people and education/training so that they can earn a better living.
quote:
What is that corporation doing to ensure the stability of the community they are located in? What are they doing to help the schools, the infrastructure, are they committed long-term to remaining in that community and seeing it prosper?
"I think the best possible social program is a job"
Though most larger companies (the ones with the big CEO salaries) often do a LOT to help their community out. Nonprofits get a LOT of money either directly from companies or from individuals that got wealthy because of those companies. That is in addition to any taxes they pay.
For the record, I am quite OK with taxing business. The problem is that individuals don't want to tax themselves to pay for programs in their communities so the turn to business as a kind of piggy bank. In other words, my idea of the fair share business should be paying in taxes is probably a long way off from your idea.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:17 am to NIH
quote:
yep. see cable television and the phone companies.
indeed, matey
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:18 am to rocket31
quote:
yea why should a multi-billion dollar corporation keep their employees on a livable wage
Where does this end? Should the local grocery store barely turning a profit have to pay a "livable wage"?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
If there wasn't welfare, more people would make a "livable" wage.
Yep, but neither the employees nor the employers really want that, so welfare will never go away.
There are a lot of people in this country who as long as they can make $9-10 an hour and collect food stamps and such simply will not put any effort into making themselves more valuable to their employers.
On the other hand, there are many employers out there who simply need someone who will do the bare minimum for the bare minimum, they actively do not want go getters that it would require a higher wage to keep around.
Those two groups make up a lot of voters in both parties, and so no elected official is going to even broach the subject of welfare.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:20 am to The Spleen
quote:
It's legal exploitation.
The workers get paid for how much they are worth. They want more money? They can ask for a raise, or find a new job. No one is forcing the workers to work for Walmart.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:22 am to rocket31
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:24 am to TigerFanatic99
quote:
So just because YOU don't like it means that it's dangerous territory and this needs to be shut down?
No. If you read it in context I was discussing forms of regulation.
So the opposite.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:25 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Libs: why do corporate profits anger you?
because they are jealous
quote:
Why are y'all so mad at corporations?
Their emails told them to be
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:28 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Yep, but neither the employees nor the employers really want that, so welfare will never go away.
There are a lot of people in this country who as long as they can make $9-10 an hour and collect food stamps and such simply will not put any effort into making themselves more valuable to their employers.
On the other hand, there are many employers out there who simply need someone who will do the bare minimum for the bare minimum, they actively do not want go getters that it would require a higher wage to keep around.
Those two groups make up a lot of voters in both parties, and so no elected official is going to even broach the subject of welfare.
They're indirect wage floors brought about by subsidies. Don't blame corporations for that, homie.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:29 am to BigJim
quote:
I am OK with the concept of a minimum wage and even raising it when the inflation resulting from a growing economy has not resulting in wage inflation for lower earners (and that does happen). But the idea that increasing the minimum wage in a slow economy will do anything but reduce employment (and the growth of the economy overall) is just political talk.
I realize my scenario is idealistic while not being completely realistic. I also do think it takes some effort from the worker as well. Can you make a living wage to survive, but do so without blowing your paycheck on a fancy new TV?
And I certainly don't support a government mandated minimum wage. I think it's ridiculous government has to even implement one, and it shows how greedy and scrupulous some corporations can be. In an ideal world, corporations would care enough for their employees they'd want to see them live comfortable lives. Again though, that takes effort from the worker to want to live that comfortable life. For various reasons, that mutual expectation has failed over the years.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:30 am to rocket31
quote:
yea why should a multi-billion dollar corporation keep their employees on a livable wage when us taxpayers will foot the bill for their welfare
We shouldn't be footing the bill for their welfare. You can make it on 20k a year. Just don't have an iphone, tv, cable, nice car. If want a job that pays more then learn a trade or skill that will get you a better job. It's not my problem you have no skills.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:30 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Because, generally, firms have found that tournament theory and allocating equity that vests in stages is the best incentive for executives considering the long-term health of the firm. They tend to eschew rabble-rousing and symbolic shite for good reasons.
So let me be clear- I am opposed to government mandated restructuring of executive pay.
That said, I don't completely buy some of justification of C-level play. I think there is too cozy a relationship between the CEO and the board. It's not ubiquitous, but its too common for me to be comfortable with.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 11:32 am to redfishfan
quote:
You can make it on 20k a year.
that will not even cover food and rent bro.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News