Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 13:28:13 GMT -5
IMO CEOs don't necessarily create wealth especially if they are not the creators and founders of the company. I have mixed feelings about Larry Ellison CEO and creator of Oracle, but he did create an entire industry or business. Some CEOs may or may not create value as employees of the company they are the head of. It is because of accounting rules, the CEO is often going to get a bigger bonus than perhaps a scientist that created the silicon based transistor. A creation that revolutionized transistors and paved the way for computers as we know them now. Yet the money goes to those who are in position to get it. It really isn't IMHO about deservability. Just like location, location, location, Its about position, position position and perception, perception, perception. I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I would encourage you to form your opinions based on facts. First off, essentially everyone creates value. Can you perhaps explain what a CEO does, and why you think those things do not create value? You act like a CEO is someone who sits at the top and does nothing. This would be like saying that the captain of a ship does nothing. The belief has absolutely no basis in reality!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 16:13:18 GMT -5
DJ, that's when you layoff some people, perhaps sell off a business entity or two, and get the board to reward you with a bonus for all your tough decisions. IMO CEOs don't necessarily create wealth especially if they are not the creators and founders of the company. I have mixed feelings about Larry Ellison CEO and creator of Oracle, but he did create an entire industry or business. Some CEOs may or may not create value as employees of the company they are the head of. It is because of accounting rules, the CEO is often going to get a bigger bonus than perhaps a scientist that created the silicon based transistor. A creation that revolutionized transistors and paved the way for computers as we know them now. Yet the money goes to those who are in position to get it. It really isn't IMHO about deservability. Just like location, location, location, Its about position, position position and perception, perception, perception. The rewards go to those in the postion to receive them and often those perceived to deserve them. You can find many examples in history of people who were under-paid for the contributions because a person or company had the money and power to exploit them. Great movie on the guy who created the intermittent windshield wiper is just one example of the thousands littering human history. No one is underpaid. They are paid precisely what they're worth- which is the place where what they're offered, and what they will accept meet. so, a union worker at apprentice level is worth $25/hr?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 16:16:22 GMT -5
first it is necessary for me to define "corruption". i would define "corruption" as acquiescing to bad fiscal policy out of historical practice and nepotism. second- we have to define the scope of the argument, which is the F500. i don't want to engage in an argument about how the bottom 99% of CEO's get paid, because i think it is totally reasonable. what the top 500 pay is, however, totally outrageous. next, we would have to define "excessive". i would guess this will be the greatest source of conflict between us on this issue. i would define it as "outside of global standards of compensation for the position". in other words, if we compare CEO pay in the US to those of other 1st world nations like Germany, we should see parity. what we see is nothing of the kind. the average CEO pay in Europe for top level executives. is about $7m/year. this compares to $14.3M in the US. shareholders are being taken for $7M/year. if you want me to give some specific examples of FAIR compensation, i would point to CostCo. but i have a meeting in 1 minute, so i have to go. You are making way too many assumptions. i am not making any assumptions. i am just reading the data.For example, you assumed that the supply/demand dynamics for a European executive are identical as for a US executive of course. with multinationals, there are no borders, and most, if not all, of these companies are multimationals., you assumed a European executive is fairly paid, i assumed nothing of the sort. in fact, i find average Europay to be outrageous. that they have equal responsibilities, etc. they do, bro. i can guarantee that. they have identical responsibilities.Heck, US wages overall are higher than in Europe, so you simply cannot equate one to the other. equate and compare are not the same thing.I couldn't even begin to define "fair". fine. i don't like that word anyway. let's say reasonable.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 16:16:29 GMT -5
Ibob you've chosen to see my point of view per these recent posts as the CEO does nothing. That's not my viewpoint. I do think the top CEOs do get rewarded too much in general for their successes and for the failures that cost other people in the company their livelihoods.
There have been CEOs in recent memory where their brief tenure at a company was considered a net loss of value to the company. So much so that some companies paid them off with their negotiated golden parchutes even though the company may have lost significant market share, unwisely spent on product lines that needed to be killed, and/or share price dropped in a measurably bad way.
And I didn't say a CEO can not no way no how ever create value. What I did say is just because they are a CEO does not guarantee they create value. That just because they are a CEO they necessarily create more value than any other employee of the company. That was my point. You may disagree. I know I disagree with Paul's point about pay. I think pay is not just about what something is worth including the value of anyone's labor. People overpay, underpay, and suck up to paying the going rate in many areas of their life. I believe labor falls under these same influences. Some people get paid more than market rate not because they deserve it but simply because someone wants to pay them that. (As an example, look at a politician of your choice who hired someone he wanted to because he could. The governor McGreevy scandal with employing his alleged lover is an example.) Likewise, people sometimes pay less than market rate because they know they can take advantage of someone whether it is someone who doesn't speak english well or perhaps returning to the workforce or naive of the going rate of pay in the area of the country they moved to. I don't believe pay always equals value. I don't believe the market is generally right. I believe systems are composed of people and therefore possess all their frailities thereof so it is possible to have a CEO destroy a companies value as much as it is to have a worker sabotage his company or do little value compared to his co-workers with the same job.
I'm not sure if that clears anything up, but it is my opinion. Most of us agree that Steve Jobs created great value for Apple. There are probably varying opinions however on the CEO of Ambercrombie & Fitch. He did resurrect the brand, but now it appears his actions are slowly destroying it.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 16:23:55 GMT -5
And I disagree with this statement. Worth IMHO has nothing to do with what you are paid. Worth and pay IMHO is subjective because it is parceled out by and negotiated by humans which have biases and preferences.
I believe if worker X gets paid $8/hr. for doing job Y even though prevailing wage is $11/hr., worker X might be underpaid. If worker X goes to company A and gets hired at $12/hr. he isn't worth intrinsically more or less than when he worked at company F. What changed was his pay, not him, not his worth.
My opinion. HTH explain many of my quibbles on pay and worth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 16:28:18 GMT -5
there are two problems with this statement. the first is that there are rarely any real alternatives to admin for shareholders. candidates are balloted by a pool from the board, typically, so careful screening ensures that only candidates that run with the pack are allowed to contest. the second is that shareholders have really low participation in elections- even lower than in public elections- so very few people end up contributing to these decisions (as meaningless as they are). Share price is the most important vote. If the 'insiders' could will the value of the shares to $100,000 they would. They can't. Because the market does actually play a role. share price is the most imperfect vote. even when shares get hammered, it is not at all uncommon for execs to be retained.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 12, 2013 16:31:30 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 16:31:59 GMT -5
And I disagree with this statement. Worth IMHO has nothing to do with what you are paid. Worth and pay IMHO is subjective because it is parceled out by and negotiated by humans which have biases and preferences. I believe if worker X gets paid $8/hr. for doing job Y even though prevailing wage is $11/hr., worker X might be underpaid. If worker X goes to company A and gets hired at $12/hr. he isn't worth intrinsically more or less than when he worked at company F. What changed was his pay, not him, not his worth. My opinion. HTH explain many of my quibbles on pay and worth. totally true, imo. we have an office in NYC and one in San Diego for one company i CFO for. the NY employees make 20% more. why? does it have anything to do with what they are WORTH? absolutely not. it has to do with the cost of living. it is ENTIRELY possible that someone making MORE in NY is worth LESS to the company than someone in SD. worth and pay have either little or nothing to do with one another. i am not sure which. we are way off the Obama/Bush trajectory folks. can we please get back to bashing one or the other?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 17:30:19 GMT -5
Obama, Bush #3, and W, Bush #2 suck. Better?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 18:02:17 GMT -5
Ibob you've chosen to see my point of view per these recent posts as the CEO does nothing. That's not my viewpoint. I do think the top CEOs do get rewarded too much in general for their successes and for the failures that cost other people in the company their livelihoods.
There have been CEOs in recent memory where their brief tenure at a company was considered a net loss of value to the company. So much so that some companies paid them off with their negotiated golden parchutes even though the company may have lost significant market share, unwisely spent on product lines that needed to be killed, and/or share price dropped in a measurably bad way.
And I didn't say a CEO can not no way no how ever create value. What I did say is just because they are a CEO does not guarantee they create value. That just because they are a CEO they necessarily create more value than any other employee of the company. That was my point. You may disagree. I know I disagree with Paul's point about pay. I think pay is not just about what something is worth including the value of anyone's labor. People overpay, underpay, and suck up to paying the going rate in many areas of their life. I believe labor falls under these same influences. Some people get paid more than market rate not because they deserve it but simply because someone wants to pay them that. (As an example, look at a politician of your choice who hired someone he wanted to because he could. The governor McGreevy scandal with employing his alleged lover is an example.) Likewise, people sometimes pay less than market rate because they know they can take advantage of someone whether it is someone who doesn't speak english well or perhaps returning to the workforce or naive of the going rate of pay in the area of the country they moved to. I don't believe pay always equals value. I don't believe the market is generally right. I believe systems are composed of people and therefore possess all their frailities thereof so it is possible to have a CEO destroy a companies value as much as it is to have a worker sabotage his company or do little value compared to his co-workers with the same job.
I'm not sure if that clears anything up, but it is my opinion. Most of us agree that Steve Jobs created great value for Apple. There are probably varying opinions however on the CEO of Ambercrombie & Fitch. He did resurrect the brand, but now it appears his actions are slowly destroying it. Studies have shown that humans are inherently bad at selecting good leaders. I think this may be what you're upset about, not so much what they are paid. Studies have been done that show that people tend to select leaders who act like leaders, even when they are completely unqualified.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 12, 2013 18:39:53 GMT -5
No, I'm actually upset about how some of them are paid. Most of us have no influence on who runs any company even if we have stock in it. And as an employee I have found it disheartening to see a government benefit for jobs or taxes, don't remember which, be voted to be fully paid to the CEO. It wasn't millions, but a good three to four hundred thousand I think. It didn't seem right to me that a benefit paid to a company from the government should go totally into the CEO's pocket. Yep, still upset about the pay. Still upset about the increasing pay gap. Now I'll admit to not being particularly happy about their decisions since it seems the CEO or people not to far south of him/her find a way to cost me my job within two to three years of being hired into a company. Might have made me a tad bitter I suppose. Bad management on their part does sadly mean a loss of money and a job on my part.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 12, 2013 19:20:36 GMT -5
djAdvocate, you're likely to know: what is the rock bottom non-criminal Presidential approval rating? As in: if a US President came into a press conference, dropped trou, and farted the US national anthem on live TV, what percentage of Americans would still respond "yes" in a survey on whether or not they approve of the President overall? Or put slightly more seriously: What percentage of Americans would "approve" of the sitting President in a survey in the hypothetical event that his policies were undeniably terrible? Have either Pres. Bush 43 or Pres. Obama come anywhere near it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 12, 2013 19:35:43 GMT -5
djAdvocate, you're likely to know: what is the rock bottom non-criminal Presidential approval rating? let's just say that Obama is very close to it.As in: if a US President came into a press conference, dropped trou, and farted the US national anthem on live TV, what percentage of Americans would still respond "yes" in a survey on whether or not they approve of the President overall? Or put slightly more seriously: What percentage of Americans would "approve" of the sitting President in a survey in the hypothetical event that his policies were undeniably terrible? Have either Pres. Bush 43 or Pres. Obama come anywhere near it? sure. i think Bush got there by end of term. it is "around 30%". it would seem that, no matter how bad things are, some people either don't care enough to change their minds, or are so deluded with love for a candidate that they will NEVER stop supporting him/her.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 7:28:27 GMT -5
No, I'm actually upset about how some of them are paid. Most of us have no influence on who runs any company even if we have stock in it. And as an employee I have found it disheartening to see a government benefit for jobs or taxes, don't remember which, be voted to be fully paid to the CEO. It wasn't millions, but a good three to four hundred thousand I think. It didn't seem right to me that a benefit paid to a company from the government should go totally into the CEO's pocket. Yep, still upset about the pay. Still upset about the increasing pay gap. Now I'll admit to not being particularly happy about their decisions since it seems the CEO or people not to far south of him/her find a way to cost me my job within two to three years of being hired into a company. Might have made me a tad bitter I suppose. Bad management on their part does sadly mean a loss of money and a job on my part. It sounds like you're upset about a specific situation that affected you. I certainly cannot blame you for that. So out of curiosity, what was the gov't benefit you mentioned that went all to the CEO? (I understand if you'd rather not say....)
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 13, 2013 11:23:41 GMT -5
Chutzpah. A word with which I'm intimately familiar. Interesting discussion of worth in amongst the weeds here. In a sense, the apparent tangent about fair compensation for work done is only another frame of the question of a fair approval rating for political performance. I think most of us would find uncontroversial the assertion that a pay raise is a direct measure of esteem - gdgyva, I know, has made this point repeatedly: people view their pay as a measure of their self-worth, even if it's also accurate to say it's a measure of their marginal utility to the employer paying them. Intrinsic and instrumental value, in other words. The question of a 'floor' to popularity in a political figure goes, I suspect, to questions of intrinsic value. There is a floor of voters for whom the existence of a President, any President, has sufficient intrinsic value that they support whoever happens to be one. There is overlaid upon that floor a veneer of voters for whom the specific person of the current President embodies something they hold to be so intrinsically valuable - Bush's overt faith, Obama's symbolic significance - that they support that President no matter what. Upon that you have a further veneer, currently being sorely tested in Obama's case, whose support is conditional on their perception of some trait in the President that has intrinsic value for them: thus, there has been a drop in Obama's support from some people who thought he was a straight-shooter and now see him dissembling over healthcare, because for those people his honest talk to the American people was the virtue they supported. Upon that you have the crowd who judge him based on their perceptions of his performance, his instrumental value. "What has he done for me lately?" is their refrain, and they too have been unimpressed lately by Obama. I don't think we'll see Obama plumb the depths, but a lot of that depends on how he handles the mess he's in at the moment. Healthcare reform is going to have to be reformed again, incorporating GOP input in the way it needed to do in 2010 to be politically viable (because then both parties have a vested interest in making it work; anything that has bipartisan consensus is poor fodder for the Perpetual Campaign, a fundamental truism of politics that mystifyingly eluded the entire Democratic Party for several years, admittedly on the defensible basis that they believed the bill of goods they were selling about the hyperpartisan benefits of Obamacare), but that's just the beginning: after all, Obama has three years left at the helm, and he's surely hoping people have stopped forcing him to squirm out a "sorry" in every presser by then. The question is how much damage the Obamacare debacle has done to the President's credibility, and how much worse that makes the other back-burner criticisms of his administration - Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS abuse, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, the NSA spying scandal, extrajudicial drone killings, etc, etc. - as well as, more immediately, how much it damages by halo effect the brand of the Democratic Party in the runup to an election in 2014.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 13, 2013 11:37:04 GMT -5
djAdvocate, you're likely to know: what is the rock bottom non-criminal Presidential approval rating? let's just say that Obama is very close to it.As in: if a US President came into a press conference, dropped trou, and farted the US national anthem on live TV, what percentage of Americans would still respond "yes" in a survey on whether or not they approve of the President overall? Or put slightly more seriously: What percentage of Americans would "approve" of the sitting President in a survey in the hypothetical event that his policies were undeniably terrible? Have either Pres. Bush 43 or Pres. Obama come anywhere near it? sure. i think Bush got there by end of term. it is "around 30%". it would seem that, no matter how bad things are, some people either don't care enough to change their minds, or are so deluded with love for a candidate that they will NEVER stop supporting him/her. "Around 30%" seems about right. I happened on the following editorial cartoon last night. It seems pertinent.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 13, 2013 12:39:13 GMT -5
sure. i think Bush got there by end of term. it is "around 30%". it would seem that, no matter how bad things are, some people either don't care enough to change their minds, or are so deluded with love for a candidate that they will NEVER stop supporting him/her. "Around 30%" seems about right. I happened on the following editorial cartoon last night. It seems pertinent. spot on.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 13, 2013 15:46:43 GMT -5
In that analogy, who are the people echoing the President's stance, and saying "he lied, get over it?"
How are they different from Obama partisans?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 13, 2013 19:13:27 GMT -5
In that analogy, who are the people echoing the President's stance, and saying "he lied, get over it?" How are they different from Obama partisans? I don't know how other Democrats backing Pres. Obama are dealing with it. I know that Pres. Obama himself is trying to claim that the claim was conditional. That clearly isn't the case, but about the only thing he can do short of admitting he lied. It's unfortunate, but it's politics as usual. The party line will wind up being something to the effect of cancellations being an unfortunate, unforeseeable side effect of the ACA rollout--"growing pains"--that legislators will tackle with exemptions, grandfather clauses, etc. If you asked me whether the cancellations are a "big deal", I would say "no", speaking from a strictly statistical perspective. The sticker shock is a bigger deal. The two "big deals" are going to be doctors who refuse to accept patients insured out of exchange pools, how the government will ultimately deal with that; and the cost of the program to the federal government. That is, assuming people can actually sign on to the exchanges at some point in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 19:54:36 GMT -5
The main problem is that there really is no way to fix his lie. Obamacare only works if people, especially younger and healthier people, have to pay more. Anything they do to move away from that, the whole idea falls apart. This wasn't a small lie. It was a complete misrepresentation of how the law works.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 13, 2013 21:23:48 GMT -5
I was looking somewhat closer to home, at people who strenuously deny Democratic affiliation while echoing the President's talking points (which itself is increasingly a good sign that they aren't affiliated with the Democratic Party).
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 13, 2013 22:03:07 GMT -5
The main problem is that there really is no way to fix his lie. Obamacare only works if people, especially younger and healthier people, have to pay more. Anything they do to move away from that, the whole idea falls apart. This wasn't a small lie. It was a complete misrepresentation of how the law works. I'm still not accepting it as a lie- just another symptom of the failed attempt or lack of trying to properly inform people of what the law is about- and of course on top of that having to overcome the pile of misinformation and downright lies coming from the other side. But that is the past- now what? A move to change the law on grandfathered plans? Would the GOP support that? For how long? As far as insurance companies go no one is entitled to keep their plans EVER- only until the policy end date. And if they pass this modification allowing more of these plans to be grandfathered for longer- so what? Is it going to force the insurers to keep providing that option? Why would they otherwise? So we are back to square one. So that's just a dumb idea. I really don't care what happens- all roads lead to single payer anyway- this is just a ridiculous detour onto a somewhat better road than the one we were on. The insurance companies better get what they can while they can. If the GOP succeeds/the democrats fail- it just moves up the date. I would think the GOP would get wise and find a way to modify this law to keep their pals in business.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 13, 2013 22:09:27 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree - but do they end there?
I can't help thinking of the Mensheviks in 1916, whispering excitedly to one another about the coming revolution...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 22:51:55 GMT -5
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 13, 2013 23:03:50 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 14, 2013 3:09:58 GMT -5
What else is there? (assuming we want to fix the problem)? There are a few out there that use private insurance- look into it GOP. If this fails that is all that is left- the next push will not be for reform, it will be for a complete overhaul. The writing is on the wall.
But since we have our fellow anti-government Canadians around here- What do you plan on replacing your affordable system with? Exactly- NOTHING! Even your most right wing people realize how stupid it would be- and in fact your hard right people are hardcore liberals in this country. Just jabbing at Virgil who complains 24/7 about our system that has birth to death health care paid by taxes. Nothing like it- he pays $10 for what you pay $100 for drugs- (and actually doesn't have to pay that- drugs are covered). We can argue all day- but if it comes to cancer Virgil will be treated free of charge. America will let your ass die. FACT.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 7:35:50 GMT -5
The main problem is that there really is no way to fix his lie. Obamacare only works if people, especially younger and healthier people, have to pay more. Anything they do to move away from that, the whole idea falls apart. This wasn't a small lie. It was a complete misrepresentation of how the law works. I'm still not accepting it as a lie- just another symptom of the failed attempt or lack of trying to properly inform people of what the law is about.... I really don't care what happens- all roads lead to single payer anyway.... Bull. The law contains a purposely narrow gradfather clause, and the administration was estimating that something like 60% of individual plans would have to be cancelled or changed. It was narrow on purpose, because that was the only way to force people to pay more in order to make this whole scheme even close to financially sound. The reality is the exact opposite of what was repeatedly promised. As for single-payer, the roads may lead there, but so far there has been no attempt to simply make the current system work better. A properly regulated free-market is ALWAYS better than a gov't run market except in the case where a free market is simply not possible.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 14, 2013 8:14:14 GMT -5
IMO CEOs don't necessarily create wealth especially if they are not the creators and founders of the company. I have mixed feelings about Larry Ellison CEO and creator of Oracle, but he did create an entire industry or business. Some CEOs may or may not create value as employees of the company they are the head of. It is because of accounting rules, the CEO is often going to get a bigger bonus than perhaps a scientist that created the silicon based transistor. A creation that revolutionized transistors and paved the way for computers as we know them now. Yet the money goes to those who are in position to get it. It really isn't IMHO about deservability. Just like location, location, location, Its about position, position position and perception, perception, perception. I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I would encourage you to form your opinions based on facts. First off, essentially everyone creates value. Can you perhaps explain what a CEO does, and why you think those things do not create value? You act like a CEO is someone who sits at the top and does nothing. This would be like saying that the captain of a ship does nothing. The belief has absolutely no basis in reality! I sincerely don't mean to split hairs here, but to add to what IB is saying here- I think it's easy for 'workers' who are paid hourly (and yes, this includes salary)- who have a "work day" where they get paid to "show up and DO things" very often mis-perceive people who aren't present aren't working (out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?). "Workers" especially do not understand the difference between work or "doing" things, and responsibility. IB's captain of the ship analogy is perfect. I at least *think* (though I could be wrong) that we still live in a society that understands that if something goes wrong, the captain doesn't have the luxury of blaming the crew. I make this clarification because- and this is an absolute universal truth: money follows responsibility. The more responsibility a person is willing to accept / take on, the more money they're going to make. It's the person that's most responsible, not the person that 'works the hardest' or 'works the longest' that gets paid the most. In fact, people that work hard, and work long are often the most inefficient and least valuable to a company. The owners will tolerate the necessary evil of paying employees to work hard and work long for a time, but sooner or later- they're going to look to find a better, more efficient way of getting things done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 14, 2013 13:24:26 GMT -5
I don't mean any offense when I say this, but I would encourage you to form your opinions based on facts. First off, essentially everyone creates value. Can you perhaps explain what a CEO does, and why you think those things do not create value? You act like a CEO is someone who sits at the top and does nothing. This would be like saying that the captain of a ship does nothing. The belief has absolutely no basis in reality! I sincerely don't mean to split hairs here, but to add to what IB is saying here- I think it's easy for 'workers' who are paid hourly (and yes, this includes salary)- who have a "work day" where they get paid to "show up and DO things" very often mis-perceive people who aren't present aren't working (out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?). "Workers" especially do not understand the difference between work or "doing" things, and responsibility. IB's captain of the ship analogy is perfect. I at least *think* (though I could be wrong) that we still live in a society that understands that if something goes wrong, the captain doesn't have the luxury of blaming the crew. I make this clarification because- and this is an absolute universal truth: money follows responsibility. The more responsibility a person is willing to accept / take on, the more money they're going to make. It's the person that's most responsible, not the person that 'works the hardest' or 'works the longest' that gets paid the most. In fact, people that work hard, and work long are often the most inefficient and least valuable to a company. The owners will tolerate the necessary evil of paying employees to work hard and work long for a time, but sooner or later- they're going to look to find a better, more efficient way of getting things done. i have a really hard working employee that went insubordinate on me yesterday. first warning for him. it is not just hard work that makes a person valuable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 19:54:21 GMT -5
The main problem is that there really is no way to fix his lie. Obamacare only works if people, especially younger and healthier people, have to pay more. Anything they do to move away from that, the whole idea falls apart. This wasn't a small lie. It was a complete misrepresentation of how the law works. I'm still not accepting it as a lie- just another symptom of the failed attempt or lack of trying to properly inform people of what the law is about- and of course on top of that having to overcome the pile of misinformation and downright lies coming from the other side. But that is the past- now what? Rand Paul was on Hannity today. He claims that the grandfather clause was explicitly voted on by the Senate, and every Democrat senator voted for it. Assuming he is telling the truth, that's quite damning to these futile efforts to claim that Obama didn't lie. He lied. (I'm listening to more talk radio now that I'm driving instead of taking a bus for a couple of months. I promise to try to start spending more of that time listening to music....)
|
|