Poll

13 votes (41.93%)
18 votes (58.06%)

31 members have voted

NicksGamingStuff
NicksGamingStuff
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 858
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 9:10:34 AM permalink
The occupy people in the San Francisco bay area have been terrorizing everyone. They try to take over public space and live in it like it is some kind of camp ground. I have talked to some people who are really into the movement and it is kind of scary how brain washed they are. They talk about how 1% controls 99% and corporations are doing this and that. I always felt things have always been that way, it is just a new group of people gathering together to cause trouble. At least here in Las Vegas the occupy people got a protest permit. In Sacramento the occupy people were not allowed to camp in the park so they sued in court. Of course in the San Francisco Bay area the people do what ever they want saying they have a "right" to assemble or what ever. I never understood how gathering together changes anything, I always thought change is created through government and what one choses to do with their money (in terms of who they support and where they give their business). However the protestors are usually stereotyped as hippies who do not have jobs (and usually do not want them) and just like to sit around do drugs and complain how things are wrong in the world. I am often curious how much truth is to that stereotype with the occupy people in the SF bay area.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 26th, 2011 at 9:18:43 AM permalink
Public protest has affected change throughout the world throughout history. If it hasn't created change, at least it provokes discussion, which is what is happening right here, right now.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 26th, 2011 at 2:32:52 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Should we do anything about business situations where the person or the people at the top get larger increases in salary in profitable times than the people at the bottom? I'm talking matching percent increases, not matching dollars.



Nope. What does one have to do with another? The only people it should matter to are the stockholders and the employees themselves. If the stockholders want some version of "fairness" they can affect change or redirect investment. If an employee is not making enough they can find another job, and find a way to improve their skills to increase the value of their output.

Quote:

In ideal cases, the people at the bottom will share proportionally in success of the company. But that's by no means guaranteed.



Uh, no. Suppose I manage a unit and find a way to make it 10% more profitable. Suppose a salesperson has a 20% better year because s/he improved their closing ratios. Why should the guy mopping the floor and has given more value get the same % increase?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 26th, 2011 at 2:40:36 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I would rather have taxes from the rich come from those who aren't creating jobs



Why? Why are the rich supposed to "create jobs?" This is a law in liberal thought. "The rich," and "corporations," are not here to "create jobs." They are here to maximize the wealth of themselves and their owners. Just like YOU go to work to maximized your wealth. Doing so will create jobs in most cases.

Right now no person in their right mind would open a business and hire people. We have the most anti-business administration since FDR. Suing companies for OPENING plants, health insurance mandates, and a religous-zeal to raise taxes. Who wants all that? Better to keep in cash equivalents and wait 2012 out.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 2:59:15 PM permalink
I keep hearing about the trickle down effect of tax cuts "creating jobs" from the Conservatives... I didn't think that was a Liberal idea at all.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 3:26:43 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Nope. What does one have to do with another? The only people it should matter to are the stockholders and the employees themselves. If the stockholders want some version of "fairness" they can affect change or redirect investment. If an employee is not making enough they can find another job, and find a way to improve their skills to increase the value of their output.



No, the solution is employers to deliver fair wages in the first place if they are not doing so. Noting that fair wages in a particular place still may not be very high depending on the business.. As I said in an above post, we're not ignoring rewarding individual achievement or punishing slackers just because we do this.

But if Company A management decides they will pay their lower tier people a bare minimum while profits soar and bonuses go to top manangement until however much time passed, why I suppose that's no fairer than taxing people more at higher incomes.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 26th, 2011 at 3:36:19 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

No, the solution is employers to deliver fair wages in the first place if they are not doing so.



What on earth is "fair" supposed to mean? The market determines what the wage for a job should be. Your wage is determined based on first how much output you deliver over a period of time, then how many other people have your skill level. Mandating a higher wage will only result in job destruction.


Quote:

But if Company A management decides they will pay their lower tier people a bare minimum while profits soar and bonuses go to top manangement until however much time passed, why I suppose that's no fairer than taxing people more at higher incomes.



I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Besides the greed on the part of some people who hate successful people maybe.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 26th, 2011 at 5:20:40 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Besides the greed on the part of some people who hate successful people maybe.



There's no greed here. People worked, not given handouts.

Besides, I consider this more a justification for taxing the rich at higher rates, than a plan to tackle the whole situation on every business nationwide at the ground level.

.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 27th, 2011 at 11:02:24 AM permalink
Yep. The market does indeed determine what the wage for a job should be. Unfortunately, that pressure has been downward for the past number of years, which is why real wages for the bottom 80% of American earners has not increased in 40 years. But that pressure does not apply to the top 5% of wage earners, whose income in real dollars has gone up by 50+ percent over the last 30 years.

You see, corporate America used to care about its workers, and gave them a living wage so that they could afford a house, a car, and TVs. Hopefully one parent could stay at home a raise their children. Call it corporate socialism, as that was what it was. Unions thrived. Government workers got paid well. Benefits and pensions was great. Corporations could have hoarded their money and dumped money on its executives, but that didn't happen. And the richest Americans were fine with a marginal tax rate of 70+%.

The difference today is clear. Corporations only care about the bottom line and paying its employees the minimum amount possible without losing them. Rather than paying people more, they funnel profits to its executives, which is why executive pay has soared against real wages over the last 30 years while everyone else has remained stagnant. And because tax rates have gone down, they're keeping more of it too. And new jobs aren't being created (at least not hear). So corporations are making more money, the executives are getting paid more, the middle class is being squeezed. It's capitalism gone amok.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
October 29th, 2011 at 3:34:37 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Yep. The market does indeed determine what the wage for a job should be. Unfortunately, that pressure has been downward for the past number of years, which is why real wages for the bottom 80% of American earners has not increased in 40 years. But that pressure does not apply to the top 5% of wage earners, whose income in real dollars has gone up by 50+ percent over the last 30 years.



Well, then you should pick a more in-demand career path. But here is a news flash for you: pressure on many prices has been downward for years also. There is usually downward pressure on the price of ANYTHING. Someone does a job or makes something and then another person says, "hey, here is the same thing for less money!"

But "the bottom wage earners" are not a stagnant group. A person may be in the bottom 20% now, with few job skills. But over time they get more skills. They climb the income ladder. A person may start as a dishwasher, move to prep, move to sous chef, then run the kitchen. But if you are a lump waiting for someone to give you a raise for doing the same, low-value job because you do not improve yourself, well you deserve your fate.

Quote:

You see, corporate America used to care about its workers, and gave them a living wage so that they could afford a house, a car, and TVs. Hopefully one parent could stay at home a raise their children. Call it corporate socialism, as that was what it was. Unions thrived. Government workers got paid well. Benefits and pensions was great. Corporations could have hoarded their money and dumped money on its executives, but that didn't happen. And the richest Americans were fine with a marginal tax rate of 70+%.



Uh, no. One parent could stay home because the house was smaller, they owned one car, had very modest vactations, one TV, kids shared bedrooms, etc. As living standards and expectations went up more than one parent needed to work. "Coprporate America" got held hostage by unions. Unions killed the productivity of the comnpanys and destroyed industries. Pensions were unsustainable because payouts were small when they started relative to contributions. Government workers still get paid very well, however. More than the same worker in the private sector. And taking 70% of someone's wages is simply wrong. To think it is good is greedy.


Quote:

The difference today is clear. Corporations only care about the bottom line and paying its employees the minimum amount possible without losing them.



This is simply common sense business. Or do you regularly pay more than you need to for anything?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10942
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
October 29th, 2011 at 3:41:39 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Why are the rich supposed to "create jobs?" This is a law in liberal thought. "The rich," and "corporations," are not here to "create jobs." They are here to maximize the wealth of themselves and their owners.



Great point. If I am giant corporation XYZ, employing 100,000 people, making 10,000,000 widgets a year, and I announce that we have a new widgetizer that allows us to make the same 10,000,000 widgets but only need 90,000 people to do so, is that good or bad? It is good for everyone except the 10,000 people no longer employed. The 'occupy wall street' people would aver that the company is 'bad' because it lost 10,000 'good jobs'. The owner of the company (the stockholders) would hail the move as a great way to make widgets cheaper. It is definitely NOT the companies responsibility to provide jobs.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 29th, 2011 at 6:09:01 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Great point. If I am giant corporation XYZ, employing 100,000 people, making 10,000,000 widgets a year, and I announce that we have a new widgetizer that allows us to make the same 10,000,000 widgets but only need 90,000 people to do so, is that good or bad? It is good for everyone except the 10,000 people no longer employed. The 'occupy wall street' people would aver that the company is 'bad' because it lost 10,000 'good jobs'. The owner of the company (the stockholders) would hail the move as a great way to make widgets cheaper. It is definitely NOT the companies responsibility to provide jobs.



Well, it’s all about profits sounds like a great idea. What if I favored medical corporate entities that wanted to move more anesthesiologists out of their jobs and use many more nurse anesthetists instead to pad the bottom line better because they will be paid less? If the data supports that they can do more of the same work as safely.

Maybe you would be for that. But I can't see why you would if it would take away profitable work for you.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
kenarman
kenarman
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 966
Joined: Nov 22, 2009
October 29th, 2011 at 9:05:50 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


You see, corporate America used to care about its workers, and gave them a living wage so that they could afford a house, a car, and TVs. Hopefully one parent could stay at home a raise their children. Call it corporate socialism, as that was what it was. Unions thrived. Government workers got paid well. Benefits and pensions was great. Corporations could have hoarded their money and dumped money on its executives, but that didn't happen. And the richest Americans were fine with a marginal tax rate of 70+%.



That is an interesting theory but what really happened is the Wal-Marts and Coscos of the world started up. They didn't pay their employees the same wages and benefits and they sourced their merchandise in asia where it was cheaper. The well paid union workers said why should I pay more at this business that treated their employees better and bought in America when I can get it cheaper from the start ups. This price pressure forced the companies to follow suit or go broke. The past is littered with failed retailers that couldn't adjust fast enough. It then went from there to the manufacturers either cutting costs or sending the manufacturing to asia. Then modern electronics allowed almost any job to be outsourced to Asia. The last to respond to this pressure is government workers who now are totally out of step with what labour is currently worth.

We could all stop this anytime we wanted by purchasing only from companies that manufacture at home and pay decent wages. It would cost us more for our goods though.

For a site with lots of math guys I laugh at the assumption that the CEO's wages make any significant difference to what the employees might receive. If a large corporation with 50,000 employees pays their CEO $50 a year if he worked for nothing that would give them each a 50 cent an hour raise. Life changing money :)
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
October 29th, 2011 at 10:17:12 PM permalink
Corporations are entitled to overcompensate their executives. The Occupy Wall Street protests, among other things, are protesting this.

Of course, by paying Americans "what they are worth", you might as well bring down the standards of most Americans to China, or India. It's heading there anyway.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
October 29th, 2011 at 10:18:34 PM permalink
Either way, someone here was making lots of money from outsourcing materials and labor.

The blame ends up in the same place,
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
November 19th, 2011 at 5:33:38 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Of course, by paying Americans "what they are worth", you might as well bring down the standards of most Americans to China, or India. It's heading there anyway.



Did you catch that recent video of an apartment building in China that is giving away a BMW with it's first 150 purchases. There is fear of a real estate bubble in that country, and like the USA it is noted that a big part of the economy revolves around real estate.

It should be noted that a large percentage of Chinese do not have access to clean water and good sanitation, something which is nearly 100% in the USA.

Worldwide , nearly one billion people lack access to clean water. More than twice that many, 2.5 billion people, don’t have access to a toilet.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
November 19th, 2011 at 6:36:51 AM permalink
I have found it really sad to see how the protests have been shaping up. While I fully support the right to protest and free speech, I don't support law free zones where people can smoke up, have public sex, and ignore the laws of the country in the name of "protest". If you want to bring your signs and protest every day, I think you can be free to do that. Camping overnight was fun at first, but when you bring in the homeless, real logistical and sanitary consequences occur which require municipal support, including a substantial police presence, public toilets, and cleanup. Because there's no "organizer" to the occupy protests (I'll jump ahead and state that you can't blame the 'mainstream media'), you really can't bill anyone.

State and federal governments are ignoring the protest (what message are they really giving -- what are the action items?) so I really think the protests while getting alot of media attention really aren't having any effect.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Scotty71
Scotty71
  • Threads: 19
  • Posts: 289
Joined: Mar 5, 2011
November 19th, 2011 at 10:28:02 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

Did you catch that recent video of an apartment building in China that is giving away a BMW with it's first 150 purchases. There is fear of a real estate bubble in that country, and like the USA it is noted that a big part of the economy revolves around real estate.



The good news is the end consumer of the RE isn't putting 5% down and financing the rest with a pic-a-pay mortgage. The Chinese are savers and unlike US & Japanese RE bubble theirs isn't fueled by massive over-leveraging. China has effectively raised rates and tightened lending restrictions 6x I know of n the last 18 months. They may have a bubble but it isn't a credit bubble which seem to be the most devastating. A number of developers might go down and put some pressure on banks and ultimately Provincial governments but they are growing too fast to explode right now.

I appreciate your comments regarding clean water and sanitation. Its almost disgusting how well we have it here and that people are protesting the fact that others have it much better. Same with Greece protesting the fact that they don't want to wait 2 more years to go on the dole... when just a few thousand miles away you literally have people starving and living in conditions we would consider inhumane for animals.
when man determined to destroy himself he picked the was of shall and finding only why smashed it into because." — E.E. Cummings
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 19th, 2011 at 1:53:46 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

I have found it really sad to see how the protests have been shaping up. While I fully support the right to protest and free speech, I don't support law free zones where people can smoke up, have public sex, and ignore the laws of the country in the name of "protest". If you want to bring your signs and protest every day, I think you can be free to do that. Camping overnight was fun at first, but when you bring in the homeless, real logistical and sanitary consequences occur which require municipal support, including a substantial police presence, public toilets, and cleanup. Because there's no "organizer" to the occupy protests (I'll jump ahead and state that you can't blame the 'mainstream media'), you really can't bill anyone.



It should not suprise anybody how this has ended up. This mob more or less started in 1998 at the Seattle G-20 and has popped up here and there worldwide ever since. It is a group based on greed and laziness and it has become a toxic combinbation. We have a POTUS who when he gives a speech uses 90%+ of the very same talking points as these people do, is it any wonder they finally took it to the next level?

Rudy was on the radio and made the correct point that a mayor needs to stop such nonsense fast, not let it go on for months then decide to do somehting. With many of them figuratively dug-in plenty of cities it is going to keep getting worse.

As to "blame" I blame any mayor that let this happen for so long. I blame Obama for encouraging their greed by repeating that "the rich" are somehow not paying their fair share. I blame every individal camping out instead of "occupying" a desk at some sort of job somewhere.

Let them keep all of this up, the longer they go and worse they get the more and more people realize how well-behaved the Tea Party Rallies really are!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
dm
dm
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
November 20th, 2011 at 7:09:04 AM permalink
Didn't read a single post but Wall Street Mob-whatever they are doing I admire them if they can tolerate all the litter, offensive smells, filth, giant rats scurrying around, plus all the beggars asking for handouts. That street never even gets swept up, does it?
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 12:33:24 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Corporations are entitled to overcompensate their executives. The Occupy Wall Street protests, among other things, are protesting this.



The Corporate Library reports that CEO pay at the nation’s 500 largest firms averaged about $10.9 million a year – plus another $364,000 in perks.
The gap be­tween the boss and workers has stretched to levels that many find difficult to comprehend.
The Institute for Policy Studies estimated that the average CEO earned about 319 times more than the average worker in 2008, compared to a multiple of 42 in 1980.

The U.S. Congress should mandate shareholder approval of executive pay packages at publicly traded U.S. companies.

I don't think that this issue should be above the law.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 1:18:12 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

The Corporate Library reports that CEO pay at the nation’s 500 largest firms averaged about $10.9 million a year – plus another $364,000 in perks.
The gap be­tween the boss and workers has stretched to levels that many find difficult to comprehend.
The Institute for Policy Studies estimated that the average CEO earned about 319 times more than the average worker in 2008, compared to a multiple of 42 in 1980.

The U.S. Congress should mandate shareholder approval of executive pay packages at publicly traded U.S. companies.

I don't think that this issue should be above the law.



Because the major shareholders are either big corporations, or people as part of big corporations, then share holder approval of pay won't do much to change things.

I agree the problem is that base pay in real terms over the last 4 decades has not advanced as quickly as executive pay (by a huge factor). The more fiscally supply-side people will say that's not a problem, and it's none of your concern what people are paid in a company. That's probably true, but it would appear to me if a corporation is designed to deliver share holder value, and some of that value is being gobbled up by executive pay which could easily done for a lower amount to the same quality (which I suspect is true (*)), then there is a problem in how share holder value itself is being regulated and fed back.

(*) It's a common argument that you have to pay well to get the best people. An argument made often in the public sector for the top civil servants and political types. One I think is baloney, as there's hardly a shortage of people for these positions. I think the argument is also not true in the private sector. In both cases the market is not completely transparent or frictionless, so arguments based on the complete exercise of the market are rather fruitless.

I have no solution to this.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Garnabby
Garnabby
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 1:29:41 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I have no solution to this.


Isn't that the point of such demonstrations, doesn't matter what others "think"?
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 3:03:23 PM permalink
Quote: Garnabby

Isn't that the point of such demonstrations, doesn't matter what others "think"?



I don't understand your question.

Some of the point has been to try and build a more participatory democracy and system. In BC, the Occupy... crowd has been a rather mixed group of social campaigners, homeless activists and street folks. It's been a mismash of campaigns and nonsensical BS conspiracy (not least demo-ing against a credit union for taking bail out money... which it didn't, and there wasn't any major bank bailouts up here either). The best of the chemtrails campaigner who says Canadian Meteorologists are controlling the world.

Shame really, as underneath there are things worth campaigning against, that could be seen as a counter balance to corporatism. Even if you don't agree with the campaign itself. I can't speak for Wall Street though, but missed oppurtunity in these parts.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 4:56:51 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

(*) It's a common argument that you have to pay well to get the best people. An argument made often in the public sector for the top civil servants and political types. One I think is baloney, as there's hardly a shortage of people for these positions. I think the argument is also not true in the private sector. In both cases the market is not completely transparent or frictionless, so arguments based on the complete exercise of the market are rather fruitless.



I think you still see a lot of executives that ride the wave of the economy, and take credit for it. Then when things get bad, they don't give up the salaries. If you read enough casino SEC reports you see that very few people start comparing the performance of their casino to the general market. A lot of times they are handing out big bonuses, and the casino was just following the general trend.

As a culture we don't throw everything to the free market. We have graduated income taxes, estate taxes, and tax deductions for giving money to charity. In other words we have a social conscience about letting a handful get everything.

We need to encourage that thinking (sometimes called the benevolent distribution of wealth). While it is true that Bill Gates will still live in one of the most expensive houses in America, and he will never want for any personal material need, he sees the value in making his mark on society. The more that corporations are concerned with not creating a handful of ultra wealthy ogliarchs, the better off the country will become.
Garnabby
Garnabby
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 197
Joined: Aug 14, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 6:50:46 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Shame really, as underneath there are things worth campaigning against, that could be seen as a counter balance to corporatism.

Yes, there are on the surface. But when accepted doctrines and morals actually do begin to decay, into concerted-but-vague public demonstrations, it's the "thinking", itself, which has run its course. Repairing that, or inventing newer models of, are subconscious processes of "working itself out". Much like it's the body which is somewhat active while the brain rests for repairs, in the first stages of sleep; and versa, in the latter stages when the body is shut down for repairs while the brain is still somewhat active. (The reason that the soundest sleep seems to be earlier-on, if you're not a sleep-walker; and the mental dreaming occurs before waking up.)
Quote: thecesspit

Even if you don't agree with the campaign itself.

That's the thing, how to consciously know what to agree with. I certainly wouldn't try to put that onus on myself, one spec in the crowd. None the less, i'm "moved" by it all as much as the next guy. Another analogy, this one from Doyle Brunson, goes something like, "Mostly, i don't know what i'm going to do until the cards are in my hand, and someone makes a bet."
Why bet at all, if you can be sure? Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts? (P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 7:09:58 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

(*) It's a common argument that you have to pay well to get the best people. An argument made often in the public sector for the top civil servants and political types. One I think is baloney, as there's hardly a shortage of people for these positions. I think the argument is also not true in the private sector. In both cases the market is not completely transparent or frictionless, so arguments based on the complete exercise of the market are rather fruitless.

I have no solution to this.



Profit is sometimes seen to be a moral guidance, but profit absent ethics rivals gangster ethics. (Gangsters want to be rich too.)

So, given that corporate success is based on profitability, ethics is only of sideline relevance. Fortunately, most people have better ethics than mobsters, but still, what else do we expect out of the expectation that we have for corporations if profit is their guiding force?

If you don't require anything else, you shouldn't be surprised, by what you end up with.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 7:12:28 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Shame really, as underneath there are things worth campaigning against, that could be seen as a counter balance to corporatism. Even if you don't agree with the campaign itself. I can't speak for Wall Street though, but missed oppurtunity in these parts.



This. You kind of put words to the way I felt. When this first started, I felt...I dunno, pride? I've long felt there was a sort of complacency in people, wished someone, anyone, would stand for something. This, at least at first, seemed like something. It very quickly seemed to degenerate into nonsense, though. A thin, pure message, but twisted and drowned for the sake of acting out.

A missed opportunity. Wondefully put.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
November 21st, 2011 at 7:25:44 PM permalink
I'm also reminded of college sports when you emphasize "winning" over all else. Then at the end of the day, that will be all that mattered, and if you get programs that don't educate students, bribe them, that's what you should expect.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
  • Jump to: