Printable View
hmmm. how then is private enterprise so different from our gov't? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Shane, most CEOs (and politicians) of a certain level don't really take risks with their own lives - they take risks exclusively with others' lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
So you are saying networking is a valuable skill. I have no disagreement. In your evaluation it appears networking is a highly valuable skill that a person would be wise to develop and improve.... again, I have no problem with that. Networking is certainly very valuable, but I don't place the priority on it you do. My number one priority has always been to be the best, and after that things have a habit of working out. But I have always run a private company and not a public one, so that is all I really know. My only experience with public companies is sitting on the other side of the negotiating table numerous times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
I guess I never looked at it that way... In every job I have ever taken my first goal was to surpass everyone in front of me, including the guy that hired me.
Good luck is when opportunity meets preparation. :cool2:
My point is none of these guys were just handed these positions.... they all had to work to get there. I consider networking part of the job... bottomline... you get paid for what you know... I fail to see a problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
CEO's earn the right to take the risks you mention, and if they screw up they will not last long.
Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer.
Well, George W Bush was. :lol8: But more to the point, sadly, private companies priorities are customer and product oriented, public companies answer to shareholders. That makes a real difference on how products are developed and maintained - I've been there. Having a boss who is the owner means they have skin in the game, CEOs have contracts that protect them no matter what. Sure, CEOs own stock in their companies, but they buy the stock with interest free loans from the company and the loans are almost always forgiven if the stock goes down, so they really have no skin in the game. The first thing a public company does when times get tough is get rid of people, and/or send jobs offshore. That has contributed to the lack of loyalty among workers, particularly in high tech fields. And it's in those fields where companies have to go outside the US to hire since there aren't enough qualified workers born and educated here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I'm not a socialist, though, so I don't expect a solution from our elected officials. Our companies need to wise up and realize that paying a decent wage is good for everyone. Look at the difference between the productivity of Costco workers vs Wal-Mart workers. Only if that happens will we see our middle class come back strong.
A few CEOs achieve mostly through merit*, but many, probably most, coast to fatland on their network of friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
*see especially tech and startup CEOs who start with little more than brains, guts, and the American system and exploit it fully. e.g. Jobs, Gates, etc. These guys are the exception, though.
True that. Look no further than the Ford model. He knew that to succeed (i.e. sell his cars), others had to have the money to buy them (and perhaps the leisure to enjoy them). Win-winQuote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
Guts, brains, foresight are all talents to me that should be paid for.
We are obviously so far apart on our views it's pointless to continue... you are welcome to stand and wait for your ship to come in, I'll continue to bust my ass... maybe both methods will work, who knows...
:cool2:
You must have missed this!Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
"Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer..."
And both Bush and Obama were elected to a second term, that tells me all I need to know about the average American's intellegence. :roll:
So Costco pays more and gets the best workers, and Wal-Mart pays crap and gets the bottom of the barrel... I see nothing wrong with that. Employee's reap what they sow.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
For the record, I have never met a Wal-Mart employee I would hire. And I have hired a lot of guys right off the street form completely different fields. It's not unusual for me to met a complete stranger and hire them, even if they know nothing about what I do. If I meet someone that is extremely intellegent, street smart, a hard charger, and good personality I will often offer them a job. Because a guy like that I can make a lot of money with.
Bottomline... if you are talented you can bank major coin (if that is your ambition).... and if you are not banking coin you might need to head in a new direction, or perhaps you are not nearly as talented as you think you are and need to do a little self evaluation.
:cool2:
Yes, I agree - hence the word "merit". I think you might have misjudged me...or perhaps I have mis-communicated. Anyway, yeah. REAL hard work and REAL risk should be rewarded. No contention there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Re: elected presidents and intelligence of american people
Nothing significant would have changed if Romney had been elected last year (or Gore in 2000). The president is little more than a smokescreen for corporate/moneyed interests. As you said before, nothing will change until the people themselves take action.
Coming in on this lively discussion late - but here's a few additional thoughts.
In watching the video, the same 'a priori" assumptions undergird it that undergird "progressive" thinking. " Wealth redistributiuon" is assumed as "fair." But as others have pointed out, what is " FAIR?" If all cash,assets, holdings, etc were distributed with absolute equality, (which seems to be an underlying premise) then everything would be FAIR? What then of those who really do work harder or who obtained a costlier education so they could excel and succeed, or who sacrificed family or leisure so they could get ahead. Is it FAIR that someone or govt. should step in and say that any extra you obtained should be redistributed so that everyone still has the same in wealth? You get the picture.
Second point: One way to begin to break up the power monopoly of govt. & big business is to implement what the founders of our constitution largely envisioned, which was a house and senate comprised of people who were not professional politicians but citizens and businessmen/women from all walks of life who would serve in the public interest and return to civilian work. In other words, TERM LIMITS would help greatly in reducing the power of government and influence that "big business" has over govt.
Third point: So many seem to assume that if someone in this country is classified as "below the poverty level," then they are destitue and hopeless and have virtually no possessions. Before discussing the issue of poverty in this country, everyone should take a hard look at this study: http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty
When I consider what this study says, I see that there are any number of people classified under the level of poverty that in terms of possessions, have more than I and my family! And if you compare that average poverty level person in this country to others around the world, most would be considered by the others as "wealthy!"
You do know that Ford drove his employee's so hard that most didn't last at Ford Motor Company more then a couple of years didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
A great book by the way....
FORD The Men and the Machine
http://www.amazon.com/FORD-The-Machi.../dp/0316511668
I wasn't talking about Dubya getting elected, but the jobs he had before. The hardest he ever worked was when he said "thanks Dad" for each of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
And I think you said it backwards, employers reap what they sew. If they pay low and offer no advancement path they will not get talented motivated workers.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hol...dist=afterbell
Here's an timely article related to the discussion.
:popcorn:
I agree with that... you get what you pay for in life... which is why the shitty employees usually end up at the shitty companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Excerpt:
Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?
---
An Unrepresentative Democracy
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...racy_20130308/
Posted on Mar 8, 2013
By David Sirota
Why are ideas widely supported in most of the country so often portrayed as controversial, polarizing and divisive once they are taken up by legislatures? Why does the professional political class seem like a wholly separate society that does not understand the constituents it is supposed to be representing? These are the existential questions at the root of America’s political dysfunction—and a new study marshaling reams of data finally provides some concrete answers.
Conducted by the University of California’s David Broockman and University of Michigan’s Christopher Skovron, the survey of nearly 2,000 legislators from across America documents politicians’ perceptions of their constituents’ views on hot-button issues like universal health care and same-sex marriage. It then compares those perceptions with constituents’ actual views.
The juxtaposition reveals a jarring truth: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers hugely overestimate the conservatism of the very people they are supposed to represent. In all, the report finds that “conservative politicians systematically believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are by over 20 percentage points, while liberal politicians also typically overestimate their constituents’ conservatism by several percentage points.” Ultimately, that has resulted in a political system inherently hostile to mainstream proposals and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion.
The first obvious question is why: Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?
Broockman and Skovron argue that one answer has to do with the prevalence of right-leaning mythology. Citing “Richard Nixon’s pronouncement that a ‘silent majority’ of Americans backed his policies” and “Sarah Palin’s suggestion that a latent ‘real America’ supported her,” the researchers correctly note that there remains “a folk theory among conservative politicians that the American public is considerably more conservative than it seems at face value.” This theory is undoubtedly fueled by a Fox News-ified media that pushes such inaccurate fables.
That said, the persistence of fairy tales cannot explain the entire phenomenon. There is also the fact that in the age of money-dominated politics, many professional lawmakers do not come from the ranks of the commoner—instead, more and more are wealthy upper-crusters whose cloistered upbringing inside gated communities leaves them wholly unfamiliar with their constituencies.
Such isolation is then exacerbated during their time in office. Ensconced in a bubble of conservative-minded corporate lobbyists and mega-donors, they come to wrongly assume that what passes for a mainstream position in that bubble somehow represents a consensus position in the larger world.
The electoral process, of course, is supposed to be the panacea—it is supposed to pop that bubble and force a connection between the representative and the represented. However, because getting elected to office is now less about town meetings than about buying expensive television ads, even the campaign process fails to familiarize politicians with rank-and-file voters. As the study data confirm, “politicians’ perceptions of public opinion after the campaign and the election itself look identical to their perceptions prior to these events, with little evidence that their misperceptions had been corrected.”
The result is an unrepresentative democracy, which raises the second question—the one about republican democracy itself. Can it truly exist under these conditions?
In name, it most certainly can. As evidenced by the constant references to the concept in political speeches, the venerable brand is indeed alive and well.
The trouble is that a brand alone is limited. It cannot on its own sustain such a radical notion as self-governance, especially at a moment when our representatives are so increasingly ignorant of—and hostile to—public will. If such ignorance and hostility continues, republican democracy will almost certainly become just a meaningless slogan—and America will likely become far less exceptional than we should ever allow it to be.
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at [email]ds@david sirota.com, follow him on Twitter @david sirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
:lol-lol:
If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ions_20130312/
Posted on Mar 12, 2013
By Robert Scheer
Go offshore young man and avoid paying taxes. Plunder at will in those foreign lands, and if you get in trouble, Uncle Sam will come rushing to your assistance, diplomatically, financially and militarily, even if you have managed to avoid paying for those government services. Just pretend you’re a multinational corporation.
That’s the honest instruction for business success provided by 60 of the largest U.S. corporations that, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, “parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year” shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from U.S. taxes. They all do it, including Microsoft, GE and pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Many, like GE, are so good at it that they have avoided taxes altogether in some recent years.
But they all still expect Uncle Sam to come to their aid with military firepower in case the natives abroad get restless and nationalize their company’s assets. We still have a blockade against Cuba because Fidel Castro more than a half century ago dared seize an American-owned telephone company. During that same period, we have consistently intervened to maintain the lock of U.S. corporations on the world’s resources, continuing to the present task of making Iraq and Libya safe for our oil companies.
America’s multinational corporations still need the Navy to protect shipping lanes and the Commerce Department to safeguard U.S. copyrights. They also expect the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to intervene to provide bailouts and cheap money when the corporate financial swindlers get into trouble, like GE, which almost went aground when its GE Capital financial wing got caught in the great banking meltdown.
They want a huge U.S. government to finance scientific breakthroughs, educate the future workforce, sustain the infrastructure and provide for law and order on the home front, but they just don’t feel they should have to pay for a system of governance, even though it primarily serves their corporate interests. The U.S. government exists primarily to make the world safe for multinational corporations, but those firms feel no obligation to pay for that protection in return.
Think of that perfectly legal and widespread racket when you go to pay your taxes in the next weeks, and consider that you have to make up the gap left by the big boys’ antics. Also, when you contemplate the painful cuts coming because of the sequester that undoubtedly will further destabilize the economy, remember that, as the Wall Street Journal estimated, the tax savings of just 19 of those companies would more than cover the $85 billion in spending reductions triggered by the congressional budget impasse.
The most skilled at this con game are the health care and technology companies, which, as a Senate investigation last year revealed, have become quite expert at shifting marketing rights and patents offshore to low-tax countries. Microsoft boosted its foreign holdings by $16 billion last year, and by the end of the company’s fiscal year on June 30, 2012, had $60.8 billion stashed internationally. Through creative accounting, Microsoft was able to claim that only 7 percent of its pretax profit last year was domestically generated.
Oracle increased its foreign holdings by one-third, including new subsidiaries in low-tax Ireland, and thereby was able to add a cool $272 million to the company’s bottom line by avoiding U.S. taxes. Abbott estimates that it saved $1.6 billion in U.S. taxes through its operations in more than a dozen countries. By moving $8.1 billion of its profits overseas, Abbott was able to claim a pretax loss on its U.S. operations. Johnson & Johnson, another health industry giant, has almost all of its cash—$14.8 billion out of $14.9 billion—abroad, yet still claims to be a U.S. company.
One of the longtime leaders in offshore tax avoidance has been that once-American-as-apple-pie company GE, which in a more innocent time hired Ronald Reagan to advertise its wares. Now GE has nearly two-thirds of its jobs abroad, avoided U.S. taxes in the previous two years and has $108 billion stashed overseas.
Two years ago, President Obama appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Jobs Council, despite the fact that Immelt had cut his company’s U.S. workforce by a fifth. GE’s expertise is no longer in appliance manufacturing, a division Immelt has tried to shed, but rather in financial manipulation.
GE Capital was a leader in the financial scams that still haunt the U.S. economy, and Immelt has been most effective in lobbying Washington politicians to rig the tax laws to benefit his and other multinational corporations. He has created some jobs, but unfortunately, they are abroad, along with his company’s untaxed profits.
For all these multinational corporations, the love of profit trumps loyalty to country.
http://www.truthdig.com/images/earto...059385-300.jpgAP/Mark Lennihan
Dancers stage the Microsoft logo against the side of a building in New York.
[TABLE="class: footer"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Democrats = Blaming the rich for all of society's problems.
Republicans = Blaming the poor for all society's problems.
True Middle Class = income of ~$27,000 to $70,000. If you are outside this bracket, you are not really Middle Class. Weird how most people (poor and rich) consider themselves Middle Class.
Just curious... where did that definition of middle class come from? And what are you called if you make more then 70k? While 70k is a comfortable income I would not call anyone making 70k rich.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
It is exactly what it says. Middle Class = Middle of the Class.Quote:
Just curious... where did that definition of middle class come from?
I calculated it out using income percentiles.
~$27,000 = 33 1/3 percentile. ~$70,000 = 66 2/3 percentile.
This really should be the true definition, despite the fact that most people on either side still consider themselves Middle Class.
In reality (without any PR, PC, or BS):
0-33 1/3 percentile = less than ~$27,000 = Lower Class
33 1/3 percentile to 66 2/3 percetile = ~$27,000 to ~$70,000 = Middle Class
66 2/3 percentile to 100 percentile = more than ~$70,000 = Upper Class
Just because you are outside the Middle Class bracket doesn't always mean that you are rich or poor. As you know, there are people who make less than 27K per year that aren't poor and manage money wisely, while others making 70K a year are broke.Quote:
While 70k is a comfortable income I would not call anyone making 70k rich.
Normally the Republicans do not blame the poor, they blame the Government. The Government is responsible for mismanaging funds, and freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
Wrong. DiscGo is right...that statement is a myth if there ever was one. I will, however, agree that the Dems blame the rich. So what you're saying is half true, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
I was born dirt poor. I'm talking hardcore, welfare case, trailer trash, uneducated...I never went back to school after the 8th grade, parents that were mentally ill, alcoholics, dysfunctional, abusive step father...a great big bowl of the worst.
Despite all that, I'm worth more than a million. I guess I'm rich too, because my annual income exceeds 100K. No one, and I mean no one, ever did anything to help me along the way. I don't know what an unemployment check looks like, no one has ever bailed me out...because I never let myself get into such a position.
I vote Republican, straight down the line. It seems like I'm supposed to be this horrible, selfish person? I laugh at that, because when I see someone who has come up to success after having to scrape the bowl for so long, I think it's the greatest thing ever. That impresses me far more than some idiot coming to me with his hand out.
And ya want to know something? It's really not that hard to pull it off.
Gotcha :2thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
For what it's worth... some Economist's consider the 50% in the middle to be "middle class", with the 25% above and below considered outside.
Sounds like defining middle class is more difficult than defining assault rifles. :lol8:
I bet Thanksgiving with your family is a fun time. :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
For what it's worth, my wife comes from a similar background. I always ask her how she managed to dig herself out of such a hole and she just tells me "I knew there had to be a better life and I was determined to live it". I'm always very impressed when people from a dirt poor background are able to elevate themselves through determination and hard work.
:2thumbs:
If republicans blame the government, why keep reelecting the same knuckleheads that make up the government? :mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscGo
I live in a yellow dog republican district and there is rarely even a democrat on the ballot - even for congress. There are other districts that are just the reverse. It's this kind of district gerrymandering by whatever party controls the state legislature that deprives us of good choices and keeps sending the same losers (with good connections) to Washington. :angryfire: I have never been able to embrace the total platform of any party and would prefer to choose between good candidates, not just vote a straight party ticket, but that just isn't possible.
Interesting numbers..... I have always had numbers closer to $75K-125K in my head. No real basis for that, just my myopic world, thinking that is a solid living, you're not rich....you're not poor....you're just comfortable, assuming you live within your means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
27K middle class......where, Nicaragua...... :haha:
I am registered as a Republican because here in Utah the Republicans have all the clout. So I am technically a Republican, but I don't consider myself to be Republican. I agree with a lot of the Republican's platform, but I disagree with giving up my individual belief and handing the right to form my opinion over to a political group.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
That said, I have never once voted for anyone who has been elected President, and seldom if ever do any of my preferred candidates get elected.
In GA we have open primaries, but I vote in the republican one since whoever wins in the republican primary will get elected automatically in the general. The bad news is that usually the primary winner is the one anointed by the party hacks, so we rarely get anyone who can or will think for themselves. My pont being that our federal government problems are just an extension of who the state party wonks are sending there. The exception being grass roots groups like the tea baggers who get out the vote in the primary and knock off the party favorites, but they are getting push back from republican party. As long as we allow our country to be run by professional politicians we continue to get the government we deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscGo
We have the same problem here in Utah, but our primaries are not open.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Somewhat similar backgrounds, but in very different ways.Quote:
Despite all that, I'm worth more than a million.
My dad was unemployed much of the time growing up, I joined the military on my 17th birthday, and I was married as a teenager (to the same beautiful woman than I am now). When I was married I started out making $4.85 an hour ($7.73 in 2013 dollars). We are however different in that I do have a college education (which we did pay for ourselves, no student loans, grants; I worked full time, Kim worked two jobs, so it took 10+ years). No real abuse from parents, only others (lots of sexual abuse and physical abuse from certain individuals, but that’s not appropriate to discuss here). Got to still do hiking and stuff as a kid too.
Doing fine now, despite much of the rest of the family is not. I’d probably be worth over a million if I didn’t have kids (though it was my choice to have them-no complaints). So, yes, I know what you are saying.
I have no problem with the rich as long as the money was earned honestly. (I do have a big problem with the CEO’s that were bailed out getting a big bonus right after the bailout though).
I still believe in the “myth” I posted above though. I should also say that both parties will always blame each other and hardly ever take responsibilities for their own mistakes.
I am neither democrat nor republican and won’t be until they both change their tunes.
I agree that the opportunities are out there for those that want to work. I also believe that most (not all) people who are poor put themselves in that position. On the other hand, I don’t think you can punish a child for being born. Regardless of the parent’s social status, income, etc., I still believe a child has a right to an education. It’s not their fault they were born into a certain family and at a young age the child can’t do anything about it. I guess you can call me a socialist for that belief if you must. I will go as far (despite it not being PC) that people who can’t support a child probably shouldn’t have them (and this happens a lot even among people calling themselves Republicans). Call me a socialist in this regard, but I also believe in school uniforms and that the parent's social status has no place in our schools. If what you say about your background is true, then I'm sure you too were severely teased and harassed because of the clothes you wore to school.
I also believe that there are people out there who really do need help at times (which is why we try to help others when needed).
People still need to respect each other whether rich or poor. One of my first negative experiences with marriage was when one of my mother in laws (I've only had one wife; it wasn't from me getting married twice) told my wife that I could never support her because of the neighborhood my parents lived in (she came from a well off family). It's absolute BS to judge someone that way.
I also don’t believe that most corporations will do the right thing if there were no laws or regulations. For example, I see the clean air act as a good thing. For those that don’t believe in things like environmental regulations, I invite you to visit places that have lax environmental regulations. Try cities like Nairobi, Delhi, Jakarta, Moscow, etc. Go breath their air a while and come back and say that we don’t need any environmental regulations.
I will never be a Republican (unless the party changes). The same holds true about being a Democrat.
PS, laziness and entitlements are actually prominent in both parties.
The county I live in is as about republican as it gets and we are in Colorado. Still, I’ve worked in many cities/places in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, etc. and this republican county is by far the laziest place I have ever lived. We were recently named the second least healthy county in Colorado.
There are hardly any sidewalks and almost no one walks. The city actually went out last year and grinded off all the crosswalks. There is only one tiny bike path and people are always complaining if anyone does ride a bike. Hardly anyone hikes or does any kind of exercise. I’ve ran into only a few people in nine years hiking in the local area. If anyone will get outdoors, they do it in a pickup or ATV and seldom get out and walk. Most in this county think that they should be entitled to ride their ATV anywhere they want. Even for Church activities (I am LDS) most people just want to sit around and break the word or wisdom by eating too much and doing nothing.
Most people don’t want any public land. They want it to be given to them for free. They hate sidewalks, pedestrians, bikers, etc. Not only do they be lazy themselves here, but they try to prevent others from having any possible place to exersize (other than their own home). How does driving up the medical cost for everyone else fit into socialism?
You still have to love and respect them, but it's not always easy. Perhaps the above is quite disrespectful as well. It's not exactly all hugs and kisses and there is much frustration with the situation from my point of view.
Still, this is by far the laziest place I have ever lived. I used to like it here, but I no longer do. Of course, I have a good paying job and my family comes before any of my needs and wants.
Oh, and I really don’t get why Republicans claim to want small local control of government and yet take the opposite stance when it comes to foreign invasions, war and trying to control other countries that have nothing to do with our self defense. Don’t get me started how misguided it was to support the Iraq War (and most people that supported it seemed to be Republican). [PS, I support the troops, not the War itself. Also, I support helping countries that really need it, especially if they share our values.].
Neither party has any real accountability. Both have their own entitlements and both promote irresponsibility in different ways.
Of course all of that are completely different topics.
Both parties know that human memory is selective, short, and very comfortable with contradiction. Pols can and do say just about anything that resonates with their target audience. Mostly they stick to framing idealistic "problems" that produce strong, divisive, emotional reactions. Folks are much easier to control when they're not thinking clearly, and there's an obvious "enemy" that needs to be defeated. Hence our society remains in perpetual war mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
Until folks start realizing that our interests are pretty much the same, and that we need to work together to change the status quo in DC, then yeah,
what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc