“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#304 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit more to it than that.
I'm sure.... I only mentioned it as a contributing factor.
We certainly suffer from a mismatch between the education/skills of the workforce and openings.
Indeed! but it goes the other direction... Most college graduates have a problem finding available work in their chosen area of training, so end up working jobs they are WAY overqualified for. Plus, a glut in graduates in certain fields puts a lowering pressure on wages for that field. You could, of course, institute quotas to prevent this from happening, but that's anti-liberty.
This is one reason that I keep harping on education reform.
But, there are other factors as well. The rapid escalation in the pay scale of CEOs is not primarily market-driven.
Of course it is. If CEOs were a dime a dozen, nobody would pay eleven cents a dozen for them. And if the company didn't think the CEO would more than pay for himself in increased profitability, they wouldn't offer those high salaries.
Workers have lost a variety of protections, including a lack of union representation, but also protections that used to guarantee that wages would increase proportionally to increases in productivity.
There has never really been such a protection. Some would say longevity would be such an indicator, but I've had and seen too much to believe that for a second. Nowadays, especially in unions, such employees tend to be less productive compared to their increased compensation. Besides, the desire for increased productivity is to REDUCE costs. That couldn't very well happen if wages were exactly proportional to productivity.
Most people don't realize that a purely capitalistic system is prone to the abuse and misuse of labor.
Only the inept ones. If you are good (better, best) at what you do, employers will make more profit off of your labor, and will offer enough compensation to draw these employees away from competitors.
The age of the robber barons brought this realization to the American public--previously reluctant to engage in any government interference.

I'm not suggesting NO regulation, but many think we currently have too much.

[QUOTE]Eisenhower realized the importance of unions to support a strong middle class.
When workers at the bottom lose protections (and in fact, real wages have declined), there is more to go to shareholders in profits and high level CEOs in salary.
One hedge has always been progressive tax systems that guarantee certain minimums (public education, public health, public housing, libraries and the like) are available across the board to to all regardless of salary level.
I'm glad to see you admit that the public should pay for a minimum education.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#305 Nov 22, 2012
Karl wrote:
<quoted text>
Real wages have decline due to foreign competition and women entering the workforce. Supply and demand, unions are a cartel that benefits a few at the expense of the whole.
Those things are factors--but they don't explain the increasing gap between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Karl

Litchfield, OH

#306 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Those things are factors--but they don't explain the increasing gap between those at the top and those at the bottom.
They are the two most important reasons.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/growing-...

There is no entitlement to middle class living standards in the US in the net cost of three times what middle class is in East Asia.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#307 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Those things are factors--but they don't explain the increasing gap between those at the top and those at the bottom.
Those at the top are increasingly nervous about how much they're going to be punished for investing, so they're being more careful.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#308 Nov 22, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those at the top are increasingly nervous about how much they're going to be punished for investing, so they're being more careful.
We are looking at trends that cross administrations and have long roots. Working class wages have stagnated while production has increased. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top.
Karl

Litchfield, OH

#309 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
We are looking at trends that cross administrations and have long roots. Working class wages have stagnated while production has increased. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top.
The bottom half has taken out large amounts of debt. They were not forced to do this.

When talking worldwide, the average person is much better off than they were in 1991.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#310 Nov 22, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it. It's just human nature that the unusual stands out, so if you're treated in an unusual fashion (good or bad), it will stand out in your mind.
Besides which, I never said 'everyone'. I admitted that I don't often go into Walmart; however, the few times I do go in there it's always a non-impressive experience.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#311 Nov 22, 2012
In fact, the customer experience offered by the associates is THE #1 reason I avoid Walmart. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for people who "can't move up". They can. I know this for a fact, and if you get high enough the perks are generous.
Karl

Litchfield, OH

#312 Nov 22, 2012
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides which, I never said 'everyone'. I admitted that I don't often go into Walmart; however, the few times I do go in there it's always a non-impressive experience.
When Target starts selling firearms, then my opinions may shift
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#313 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
We are looking at trends that cross administrations and have long roots. Working class wages have stagnated while production has increased. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top.
Yet, many of those working class folks with stagnated incomes are able to afford smartphones, the contract, and the monthly payments to operate said phone. Does not compute.
Wait what

Dublin, OH

#314 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
WW--I don't understand the compassion of someone who, by refusing to offer alternatives, supports the status quo. I have often followed your links. I believe that you mistake the efforts of those committed to seeing that needed services are covered for advocating against the current reform.
When I ask what you advocate I never get an answer.
As someone who has been following or involved in this issue for a very long time, I have seen a number of "half loaves" offered. Most recent was S-CHIP. It was a disappointing replacement for a more comprehensive plan that would have reached far more--choosing instead to provide for only the more politically palatable children and families. Yes, it foretalled needed services for some. But it provided for some.
I believe, and have for some time believed, that a single payer health care system is needed. However, I do believe that Obamacare moves us closer to the goal of universal coverage. No magic wands, no way to avoid setting priorities or making choices.
Have a happy day.
Given your distaste for those in nice suburbs, it is ironic that you promote such a fiasco which cannot be implemented by any business, provider or practitioner without excessive legal bills - thereby allowing the rich to get richer.

Did you know that the insurance company stakeholders are allowed to have a say to the HHS about exactly what devices, meds and procedures should be covered? The STAKEHOLDERS. Again, you are promoting making the rich richer while mumbling something about half a loaf and chiding me for whining and not being on board.

I used to be a Democrat and in my day, we didn't advocate that which made insurance companies richer. You seem to be fine with that and I guess that's your choice; however, I am saddened that the Democrats have sold out to the highest bidder just like the Republicans did.
Karl

Litchfield, OH

#315 Nov 22, 2012
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, many of those working class folks with stagnated incomes are able to afford smartphones, the contract, and the monthly payments to operate said phone. Does not compute.
The stagnating incomes mostly relates to the illusion that one parent could stay home with the kids, hunting cabins in the Upper Peninsula and college tuition not in five digits.

It takes the most prosperous period of US history and thinks that this is the minimum standard.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#316 Nov 22, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
We are looking at trends that cross administrations and have long roots. Working class wages have stagnated while production has increased. Wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top.
The more government tries to interfere, the worse it gets and the faster it gets even worse. And it's not just here either... all over the planet. Eventually government will simply confiscate the wealth and distribute it as it sees fit, which will please some people... for awhile... until they realize that they're simply repeating history.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#317 Nov 22, 2012
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Given your distaste for those in nice suburbs, it is ironic that you promote such a fiasco which cannot be implemented by any business, provider or practitioner without excessive legal bills - thereby allowing the rich to get richer.
Did you know that the insurance company stakeholders are allowed to have a say to the HHS about exactly what devices, meds and procedures should be covered? The STAKEHOLDERS. Again, you are promoting making the rich richer while mumbling something about half a loaf and chiding me for whining and not being on board.
I used to be a Democrat and in my day, we didn't advocate that which made insurance companies richer. You seem to be fine with that and I guess that's your choice; however, I am saddened that the Democrats have sold out to the highest bidder just like the Republicans did.
It is my observation that you are not in the business of advocating anything--just tearing down other people's accomplishments.
Against the Rich

AOL

#318 Nov 23, 2012
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The more government tries to interfere, the worse it gets and the faster it gets even worse. And it's not just here either... all over the planet. Eventually government will simply confiscate the wealth and distribute it as it sees fit, which will please some people... for awhile... until they realize that they're simply repeating history.
TonyD2

The more government tries to interfere, the worse it gets and the faster it gets even worse.

I bet if you were in a disaster area, you could not wait for the government yo get there fast enough. Hasn't the rich pilfered from the government the most, wasted the most, filled their stinking pockets full.
Against the Rich

AOL

#319 Nov 23, 2012
Who is supporting John Schnatter? It looks like the PR against Papa John's backfired. I am not running in there today supporting Papa John's. John Schnatter sounded to much like the Mitt Romney, we will be just fine without Obamacare. Wait until customers go somewhere there there is a better Pizza at a better price.

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#320 Nov 23, 2012
Karl wrote:
<quoted text>
They are the two most important reasons.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/growing-...
There is no entitlement to middle class living standards in the US in the net cost of three times what middle class is in East Asia.
Historically, it has undoubtedly been the effort of the mainstream of both major parties to achieve this aim. Yet the actions of the current party in power, despite all their puffery and pontification, inevitably lead us to a country where the rich are simply poorer, and the poor remain downtrodden.

What "RICH" people have become "poorer" in America, the Walton's? Papa John? Mitt's sons? Post any wealthy poor!
R Paul

Port Charlotte, FL

#321 Nov 23, 2012
I have eat my last Papa John's.

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#322 Nov 23, 2012
WHO IS REALLY KILLING AMERICAS JOBS?

Hostess announced Friday that the company planned to liquidate and lay off all of its 18,500 workers, citing an ongoing strike that the company claimed was crippling its operations. On Monday, a bankruptcy judge ordered that Hostess enter into mediation with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, the group representing the striking workers, saying that he had “serious questions as to the logic behind this strike.”

The Teamsters, the other union representing Hostess workers, agreed to major pay and pension cuts in September in an aim to save the company and their jobs, even though they had already taken a hit during the company's first bankruptcy.

Taibbi argued that Hostess’ workers are being forced to take the blame for the poor decisions of the private equity firm that bought the company after its first bankruptcy. The firm, Ripplewood, loaded Hostess with debt, according to The New York Times.

A "private equity firm" seems to be at the heart of many companies going under in the last ten years more frequently now than was the case when Reagan deregulated every industry in the 1980's.

Since: Jan 12

Columbus, OH

#323 Nov 23, 2012
Timothy C. Collins, born 1956, is the founder, senior managing director, and chief executive officer of Ripplewood Holdings LLC. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Citigroup.[1]

Collins was born in Frankfort, Kentucky, and raised in Fostoria, Ohio. He has a B.A. degree in Philosophy from DePauw University (1978),[2] where he was a member of Phi Delta Theta Indiana Zeta chapter, and an MBA from Yale School of Management. He was also a delegate at the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Bilderberg Group Conference held in Spain, Switzerland, and Chantilly, Virginia. This group consists of an assembly of notable politicians, industrialists and financiers who meet annually to discuss issues on a non-disclosure basis.

He began his career in finance, marketing, and manufacturing at Cummins Engine Company. From 1981 to 1984, he worked with the management consulting firm of Booz & Company, specializing in strategic and operational assignments with major industrial and financial firms. He became a vice president at Lazard Frères in New York, then managed Onex Corporation’s New York office.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
AN ODE TO billary! 19 min Seriouslady 15
Man shot near Ferguson protest….. 2 hr El Chapo 217
Obama names Mt McKinley, Denali 2 hr Jose 5
They're Shooting News Reporters On Live TV 2 hr El Chapo 52
News Group raising funds to set up kosher pantry at ... 2 hr d pants 43
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 2 hr d pants 6,438
News Woman caught with 47 heroin balloons in her bod... (May '11) 12 hr Haha 30
Deal with the Devil 16 hr Seriouslady 39
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages