GOP Convention

Quote: rxwine

I already stated my case why income inequality is bad for the bottom percentage of people. Go up and read it again. It has to do with the distribution of income, not losing a million dollars.

Your case seems to revolve around "lower income people have a harder time affording things." However, if you make $10/hr mopping the floor what difference does it make if the CEO or owner makes $100K, $1MM, or $10MM? Your life is still the same, and what they make is unrelated to you.

The "disparity" argument is like the a guy finding a genie in a bottle who tells him he can get one wish but no matter what he wishes for the owner of his company gets twice what he gets. So the guy thinks a moment and says, "blind me in one eye!"

Quote:

Wage earners at the bottom should make more proportionally, before it goes to top wage earners for one thing. I'd rather see it corrected voluntarily that way than using other methods to fix it.

Again, WHY? You assume wealth is a zero sum game, EB and I keep proving that it is not. Fifteen years ago, Facebook was not there, nor was any of its wealth. Now it is there and a few people who made it happen made billions. Thousands of people working there have good jobs at good pay, they would for sure be called an "employer of choice" to use the term companies like to use. But you somehow are assuming Zukenberg stole all of this from someone?

Quote: AZDuffman

Again, WHY? You assume wealth is a zero sum game, EB and I keep proving that it is not. Fifteen years ago, Facebook was not there, nor was any of its wealth. Now it is there and a few people who made it happen made billions. Thousands of people working there have good jobs at good pay, they would for sure be called an "employer of choice" to use the term companies like to use. But you somehow are assuming Zukenberg stole all of this from someone?

I appreciate this post. I think it's a good example of exactly what you mean and why you support what you do.

But I also think it's a case of "sweeping generalizations" that aren't a one-size-fits-all. For sure the Zuck argument holds water, as could a great, great many of other companies that come up. But what of the other side? When I see banks "fail", get bailed out, and then the leaders not get jail time or even fired, but seven if not eight f$%^ing figure bonuses, I feel the game is f#$%ed up. What about WMT? Is fiddling with things to ensure money does not go out to the proletariat in the form of bennies so it can go to the already fabulously wealthy bourgeoisie, do you not feel things are at least a bit f#$%ed up?

I ain't no "from each according to their means", certainly. Nor do I hate the rich, or feel "I deserve". I don't think they owe me one red cent. But I would like opportunity. I want others to have same. I do not want some d-bag screwing my local workforce to get fabulously rich, and rewarding us all by sending all the opportunity overseas because it fills his pockets even faster.

Money is power. Bill Walton may not use a gun, but he nonetheless "takes" from me when he sends opportunity away. If I'm not to feel like I have a right to "take" from him, I expect the same in return. But if he instead wants to play dog eat dog, then let's f#$%ing have it, then.

My feelings, anyway. Please do set it straight, if you can.

Quote: AZDuffman

However, if you make $10/hr mopping the floor what difference does it mak if the CEO or owner makes $100K, $1MM, or $10MM? Your life is still the same, and what they make is unrelated to you.

Not true at all. If the lowest wage employees at a company all receive 2 dollars an hour wage increase, and there are a couple hundred of them, the company will redistribute the share of income.

I have no idea how you figure lower wage employees can earn more from a company without redistributing.

Quote:

But you somehow are assuming Zukenberg stole all of this from someone?

Nope, am not. Some companies may be models for others to follow. Never said there weren't some already doing more for their lowest wage earners.

Quote: Face

I appreciate this post. I think it's a good example of exactly what you mean and why you support what you do.

But I also think it's a case of "sweeping generalizations" that aren't a one-size-fits-all. For sure the Zuck argument holds water, as could a great, great many of other companies that come up. But what of the other side? When I see banks "fail", get bailed out, and then the leaders not get jail time or even fired, but seven if not eight f$%^ing figure bonuses, I feel the game is f#$%ed up. What about WMT? Is fiddling with things to ensure money does not go out to the proletariat in the form of bennies so it can go to the already fabulously wealthy bourgeoisie, do you not feel things are at least a bit f#$%ed up?

Alright, lets keep it to WMT because if you want to learn about banking I will be happy to tell you more than you want to know over beer, coffee, or your other choice beverage. You also might get an critical-mass chain reaction you cannot stop. Next time I am in WNY I'll be happy to ruin your faith in humanity there, just let me know your availability.

Anyways, I genuinely fail to see the problem with WMT. I always hear the jeers that they have low pay and low benefits. However, the same low pay was had at K-Mart, Murphy Mart, Gold Circle, Zayre, Grant's, and dozens of others and Target, THD, and others today. Retail pays low. Always has, always will. It is a rough business. It is not a career at the low levels. Move to management, drive their trucks, yeah, you can make a living. At the store level it is hard, although WMT made a few millionaire employees at the store level via stock purchases and matches.

Did the aforementioned chains die because of WMT. Sure. But if not for WMT it would be from someone else. Many of these chains needed to be mercy-killed. If WMT killed so many other stores their strip-mall locations would not be filled.

WMT has done nothing new, they just did it better. Sooner or later someone will knock them off same as there is no more A&P today.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sooner or later someone will knock them off same as there is no more A&P today.

Business plan - open box retail store bare structure, cut expenses including salaries to bare bones. Run competitors out of business.

Repeat x 500 across nation.

Yes, that is completely legal. Whether it's good or not I question. It's certainly good for a few people.

Quote: AZDuffman

Again, WHY? You assume wealth is a zero sum game, EB and I keep proving that it is not.

Wealth on a global or national scale is not a zero sum game, but I think on the corporate or divisional level a zero sum game is more appropriate modelling.

Quote: rxwine

Business plan - open box retail store bare structure, cut expenses including salaries to bare bones. Run competitors out of business.

Repeat x 500 across nation.

Yes, that is completely legal. Whether it's good or not I question. It's certainly good for a few people.

You act like this model did not exist before Sam Walton came along. You act like businesses used to intentionally waste money before WMT. You act like retail used to be some place to get paid well.

None of this is the case. WMT just did it better than the guys who came before. The next guy will have to do it better. The one after that even better.

Quote: Pacomartin

Wealth on a global or national scale is not a zero sum game, but I think on the corporate or divisional level a zero sum game is more appropriate modelling.

If your job does not pay enough then quit and do something else.

This is a Hillary rally in Johnstown PA the
day after the convention. Less that 60
people showed up. If this had been a
Trump rally where this many showed up,
the MSM and cable news would have led
with it every hour. Did anybody hear about
this Hillary embarrassment on the news?
Hell no. This kind of thing happens to her
all the time. Yet every single Trump rally
has a thousand people who can't even get
in.

Quote: AZDuffman

You act like this model did not exist before Sam Walton came along.

Welfare system is a model that's been around for awhile. Pretty sure you would agree that doesn't make it good.

Like I've explained to FrGamble, just because something like bloodletting was used for over a thousand years, it still didn't work.

Quote:

WMT just did it better than the guys who came before. The next guy will have to do it better. The one after that even better.

Be careful what you wish for.

AS I've heard said about computers, "now people will get things done faster". As it turns out, they can just load more work per workday.

Making your cogs in the machine always work better, faster, harder, is what brought about terms like "rat race."