~ CEO Salaries As the Divide Grows ~

[spoon]

Well it looks like we effectively allowed the repubs to turn back the clock to the robber baron days of old. But hey, let's forget about the war and the economic divide/destruction in our nation and focus on the important issues of censoring on the radio, abortion and a big wall one tenth the length of Mexico.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/IsACEOWorth364TimesAnAverageJoe.aspx?page=2

"Next, CEO pay in the U.S. has grown to become 364 times the average worker's pay. It was just 40 times the average pay in 1980."

:thumbdown::wallbash:

[JPMNICK]

40 times the average pay is an acceptable number to me, anything over 150 is disgusting. that just means that they employees are not being paid enough. i do not care if they CEO makes 75 million a year, just put it in line with what everyone else is making

[Recyclerz]

Surprisingly, I don't blame the Repubs for causing this canyon, only for aiding and abetting it with their ridiculous tax cuts. (Think of W as the anti-Teddy Roosevelt.)

There are a number of different economic factors contributing to this phenomenon (globalization, the oceans of $ sloshing around on Wall St. ,etc.) but my Cliff Notes take on this is that the Ruling Class understands that America's economic dominance has peaked and they're stuffing their pockets and trust funds with everything of value they can get their paws on before we lumpenproletariat wake up and realize what's going on.

But I'm sure that Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz have equally pithy explanations for this social Darwinism that our right-wing friends will share with us. I expect the L-word to get tossed around a bit. :wink:

[Furtherman]

<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dooc30dhI9c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dooc30dhI9c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>

[PhishHead]

I didnt read the entire article to be honest but I wonder if the survey takes into all perks the CEOs get, company car, jets, different insurance plans the regular workers, executive team retreats to tropical destinations, etc. etc.

I am sure the company car allowance CEO's get is more then the average worker. I know my CEO has a new top of the line Benz every 2 years.

[zentraed]

http://www.rhodesschool.com/blog/img/f19351/Pigs_Trough.jpg

[Bob Impact]

My CEO makes a LOT more than me, and I make more than a fair wage for what I do.

[BMoses]

I understand 364x the average salary is high, but at what point do you turn down money? If a company came along and said they were going to give me 20 million to run their company I wouldn't turn it down or only ask for 5 million. It is the same thing with ARod, why should he stay with the Yankees under the same deal when he can get out and get more money.

I personally feel that CEOs perform a valuable role in some cases. Look at Jack Welch at GE. He changed the way the world does business and made GE a global leader of the business change. He was worth every penny he was paid and he even took shit for for his compensation package he took from GE.

[underdog]

I'm just curious as to what everyone's solution for this is?

Whenever I hear people complain about CEO's salary, they usually say that the government should put some sort of cap on their salaries, which is just retarded. How about people stop purchasing products from the companies that they are morally opposed to, instead of needing Mommy Government to fix all the problems for them?

[zentraed]

I'm just curious as to what everyone's solution for this is?

Whenever I hear people complain about CEO's salary, they usually say that the government should put some sort of cap on their salaries, which is just retarded. How about people stop purchasing products from the companies that they are morally opposed to, instead of needing Mommy Government to fix all the problems for them?

The solution is the shareholders decide they want a bigger profit that year, and the board decides not to pay the CEO outlandishly. The President makes about $200k/yr. How outrageous would it be if we paid him $14.4 mil/yr (that's 360x the median household income of ~$40k/yr)?

[DarkHippie]

unionize!!!!

[LiddyRules]

The Republicans help the working man.

This is a toughy. I can see both sids of the issue and offer no solution. Which makes me perfect to discuss it!

The thing is, there are a lot fewer CEOs now of a lot bigger corporations. Since the 1980s, so many things have become integrated and faster and computerized that it has allowed these mega corporations to grow and thrive and easily cut the legs off the little guy. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it's just how the global economy has changed over the past quarter century. Their uniqueness has made them a much bigger commodity and thus they get paid for that.

And I don't think the government should be allowed to intervene in capping the salaries. The only thing we can hope for, and this is such a fantasy, is a form of benevolence. Instead of making $300 million a year, make $200 million or $150 million and send the difference down the levels in the forms of bonuses or raises or insurance. (I'm not saying it will happen, but it's just an idea, I'm not an economist.) But I would be firmly against forcing them to give up the money.

[Thrice]

I'm just curious as to what everyone's solution for this is?

Whenever I hear people complain about CEO's salary, they usually say that the government should put some sort of cap on their salaries, which is just retarded. How about people stop purchasing products from the companies that they are morally opposed to, instead of needing Mommy Government to fix all the problems for them?

Fuck CEO paychecks. They are a symptom of the disease. The sickness is corporate greed. That's what this country needs the government to protect us from. How about we tax the fuck out of the multi-billion dollar companies and CHARGE them for doing business in the richest country in the world instead of rewarding them with tax breaks? How about we set new all-time highs on tariffs and we punish companies punitively for outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries. Do you want your personal taxes to go down? Go after the real fucking money, corporations.

It's the government's job to work FOR the people. This idea that less protection by the one entity that can control pure capitalism is a good thing is fucking ludicrous. The government has every right and obligation to step in when the well being of the people is being trampled upon in the pursuit of a dollar. So go take your "Mommy Government" bullshit to the Ron Paul message boards.

[cupcakelove]

I understand 364x the average salary is high, but at what point do you turn down money? If a company came along and said they were going to give me 20 million to run their company I wouldn't turn it down or only ask for 5 million. It is the same thing with ARod, why should he stay with the Yankees under the same deal when he can get out and get more money.

I personally feel that CEOs perform a valuable role in some cases. Look at Jack Welch at GE. He changed the way the world does business and made GE a global leader of the business change. He was worth every penny he was paid and he even took shit for for his compensation package he took from GE.

It doesn't have to do with turning down money. Its the fact that all the tax cuts that have come in recent years have been to help these people with the idea it will in turn help the people below. Of course, once again it has been proven that if you give a rich person more money, they just make themselves richer. Yes, there are a few exceptions to this, but overall the average American is getting screwed. While you're thinking about how this divide isn't a problem, read about what's going to happen to social security before most of us here retire.

[Recyclerz]

I understand 364x the average salary is high, but at what point do you turn down money? If a company came along and said they were going to give me 20 million to run their company I wouldn't turn it down or only ask for 5 million. It is the same thing with ARod, why should he stay with the Yankees under the same deal when he can get out and get more money.

I personally feel that CEOs perform a valuable role in some cases. Look at Jack Welch at GE. He changed the way the world does business and made GE a global leader of the business change. He was worth every penny he was paid and he even took shit for for his compensation package he took from GE.

Funny thing about Jack Welch. Turns out he was cooking the books during his tenure (but in a legal way, by under-accruing for things like environmental liabilities, insurance, etc.) which made his earnings growth look better than it actually was.

And it's not as if the CEOS (and hedge fund managers, et al.) are having this money forced on them like your grandma does with the extra helping of lasagna. They are hiring experts who tell the BoDs how valuable they are after having packed the Boards with their country-club pals. I stand by my earlier characterization.

[Recyclerz]

The solution is the shareholders decide they want a bigger profit that year, and the board decides not to pay the CEO outlandishly.

Exactly. And the government should get involved to the extent (SEC) that the insiders can't rig the rules for their exclusive benefit by requiring more shareholder input into corporate decisions.

[weekapaugjz]

Fuck CEO paychecks. They are a symptom of the disease. The sickness is corporate greed. That's what this country needs the government to protect us from. How about we tax the fuck out of the multi-billion dollar companies and CHARGE them for doing business in the richest country in the world instead of rewarding them with tax breaks? How about we set new all-time highs on tariffs and we punish companies punitively for outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries. Do you want your personal taxes to go down? Go after the real fucking money, corporations.

do you know anything about economics? do you want to pay more for products? because companies would surely pass the buck to the consumer in having to pay higher taxes.

[Recyclerz]

The Republicans help the working man.


LR, I'm not sure if you're joking with that or if you're posting from Earth 2 but, either way,

Line Of The Day!

[spoon]

I understand 364x the average salary is high, but at what point do you turn down money? If a company came along and said they were going to give me 20 million to run their company I wouldn't turn it down or only ask for 5 million. It is the same thing with ARod, why should he stay with the Yankees under the same deal when he can get out and get more money.

I personally feel that CEOs perform a valuable role in some cases. Look at Jack Welch at GE. He changed the way the world does business and made GE a global leader of the business change. He was worth every penny he was paid and he even took shit for for his compensation package he took from GE.

Read the article bc they're getting this money for doing a bad job, while the common worker is more productive then ever. Also, it seems they stack the boards that set their salaries and give kickbacks left and right bc all the rules and safeguards have been torn down. In fact, the common worker pays more taxes on their income then those who make a ton more. Seriously, read the article and look into it more. It's the money brings about money argument. Or the good ole boys club system. And yes Phish, it's listed as a compliment to the 364 X.

[underdog]

The solution is the shareholders decide they want a bigger profit that year, and the board decides not to pay the CEO outlandishly. The President makes about $200k/yr. How outrageous would it be if we paid him $14.4 mil/yr (that's 360x the median household income of ~$40k/yr)?

I agree with your thought, but why don't the shareholders decide to change the pay? Nothing is stopping them. Its not like these CEOs have them by the balls or anything. Just pay them less, yet they don't.

Fuck CEO paychecks. They are a symptom of the disease. The sickness is corporate greed. That's what this country needs the government to protect us from. How about we tax the fuck out of the multi-billion dollar companies and CHARGE them for doing business in the richest country in the world instead of rewarding them with tax breaks? How about we set new all-time highs on tariffs and we punish companies punitively for outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries. Do you want your personal taxes to go down? Go after the real fucking money, corporations.

See, I actually agree with most of what you say there. The idea of large corporations not paying their fair share in taxes is terrible. And giving them tax-breaks is just fucking idiotic. But that isn't a problem with the CEOs. That's a problem with how our government is setup and the people we've elected. So I guess you're right, they are a symptom of the disease.

It's the government's job to work FOR the people. This idea that less protection by the one entity that can control pure capitalism is a good thing is fucking ludicrous. The government has every right and obligation to step in when the well being of the people is being trampled upon in the pursuit of a dollar.

You're right, they should be able to step in. But I have a better idea, CONTROL YOUR FUCKING SPENDING HABITS. Stop waiting for the government to do something. Stop paying money into companies that you are morally against. Is it really that fucking hard? You really need someone to do everything for you because you have no self control?

So go take your "Mommy Government" bullshit to the Ron Paul message boards.

Hey! Go fuck yourself.

do you know anything about economics? do you want to pay more for products? because companies would surely pass the buck to the consumer in having to pay higher taxes.

Take that bullshit to the Ron Paul message boards, buddy!

[DarkHippie]

Fuck CEO paychecks. They are a symptom of the disease. The sickness is corporate greed. That's what this country needs the government to protect us from. How about we tax the fuck out of the multi-billion dollar companies and CHARGE them for doing business in the richest country in the world instead of rewarding them with tax breaks? How about we set new all-time highs on tariffs and we punish companies punitively for outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries. Do you want your personal taxes to go down? Go after the real fucking money, corporations.

It's the government's job to work FOR the people. This idea that less protection by the one entity that can control pure capitalism is a good thing is fucking ludicrous. The government has every right and obligation to step in when the well being of the people is being trampled upon in the pursuit of a dollar. So go take your "Mommy Government" bullshit to the Ron Paul message boards.

I love this guy!!!

[weekapaugjz]

Take that bullshit to the Ron Paul message boards, buddy!

please explain to me why a corporation would not raise its prices with increased taxes? unless its a corporation that enjoys losing money...

[oh_kee_pa]

ceo's can dictate whatever they want to make... thats the beauty of the country...
I work in a company that has 5 people in it. The person that started it is a friend of mine from high school, we're both 24. With all the stress he goes through everyday I hope one day he is making much more then 40 times the average employee.

[spoon]

The solution is the shareholders decide they want a bigger profit that year, and the board decides not to pay the CEO outlandishly. The President makes about $200k/yr. How outrageous would it be if we paid him $14.4 mil/yr (that's 360x the median household income of ~$40k/yr)?

Here's a clue, let's stop allowing corporations to screw the little man at every turn. Ever try to get through to customer service with any company of late? Let alone getting something done. Monopoly/anti-trust laws have been simply destroyed of late. Let's just make it one media outlet, one car company, one pharmaceutical company and so on.

[DarkHippie]

ceo's can dictate whatever they want to make... thats the beauty of the country...
I work in a company that has 5 people in it. The person that started it is a friend of mine from high school, we're both 24. With all the stress he goes through everyday I hope one day he is making much more then 40 times the average employee.

We can't expect the corporations to lower their salaries. They're people too and like most people, want as much as possible, be it money, love, happiness, etc.

What we can and should expect is the wage slave workers stuck in cubicles everywhere to finally say "fuck this" and unionize the way that so many tradesmen did one hundred years ago. Its a hard fight, but its worth it.

Remember, if it weren't for the unions we would all be working 18 hour days, seven days a week, in horrible conditions, and for little pay.

Some of us still are.

[spoon]

do you know anything about economics? do you want to pay more for products? because companies would surely pass the buck to the consumer in having to pay higher taxes.

I'll take my chances with the free market there as opposed to "trickle down economics" that you seem to employ. Basically there is a lot of money out there in these companies as they stand, only recently the percentage taken from at the top is even more out of whack. I'll take my chances on products going up on the market. Come fucking on!

[weekapaugjz]

I'll take my chances with the free market there as opposed to "trickle down economics" that you seem to employ. Basically there is a lot of money out there in these companies as they stand, only recently the percentage taken from at the top is even more out of whack. I'll take my chances on products going up on the market. Come fucking on!

ummm....am i missing something here? aren't you the one complaining over salary prices that are the outcome of a free market?

[underdog]

please explain to me why a corporation would not raise its prices with increased taxes? unless its a corporation that enjoys losing money...

Ron Paul. Message Board.

[weekapaugjz]

what, you can't explain it yourself?

[spoon]

ummm....am i missing something here? aren't you the one complaining over salary prices that are the outcome of a free market?

Yep, and there is a HUGE difference in the two positions. One involves closed meetings and board room buddies giving each other cushy jobs and salaries in an ever present cascade of cronisim. The other involves a product which will never go beyond certain margins based on its availability and value without a supply and demand issue (oil/which is doctored as well), and competition will be there to jump on that open market if they push the price too far. However, if one company had a strangle hold on a market, it's safe to say they could do what ever they fucking want. We continue to head in real bad directions on all topics. But hey, as the Onion Report stated, we need to protect the rich/richer before this gets out of hand.

[spoon]

what, you can't explain it yourself?

He's joking with you tart.

[underdog]

He's joking with you tart.

Thaaaaaaank you.

[spoon]

Funny enough, Ron Paul is the best option I see on the repub side of things. Is there something I don't know about him.

And Thrice makes great points (as Ronnie did the other day on the show) that corporations are in the business to make money and that's it. If they ever give something back or make donations it's usually to offset other issues they have in mind. See the pharmaceutical industry and patient assistance programs for free meds and cross it with price controls. If we expect them to police themselves we're in major trouble. Hell, the way corp America has infiltrated the government, it's tough to rely on the gov in it's present state. Nader was right about corporations being the true risk on the common man's personal freedoms in the future (said over a decade ago), not the government. I guess he was actually off, bc it's both via corporation influence/money/donations/back room meetings.

[FUNKMAN]

i've been singing this song for a long time. there is nothing that will turn it around other than a country wide labor movement or revolution. this is one area where i feel terrorism can be useful. just give the terrorists the home addresses of these ceo's.

they are raping the people for greed and have no conscience...

[weekapaugjz]

He's joking with you tart.

yes, i understand that sweetie, but what's the point of making a joke if you don't back up your position with something legitimate?

[underdog]

yes, i understand that sweetie, but what's the point of making a joke if you don't back up your position with something legitimate?

I was just pretending I am that other guy who told me to go back to my Ron Paul message boards.

[spoon]

yes, i understand that sweetie, but what's the point of making a joke if you don't back up your position with something legitimate?

No, you didn't.

[Bob Impact]

i've been singing this song for a long time. there is nothing that will turn it around other than a country wide labor movement or revolution. this is one area where i feel terrorism can be useful. just give the terrorists the home addresses of these ceo's.

they are raping the people for greed and have no conscience...

no conscience?

It's almost like they advocate murder.

I sincerely hope each and every person who has posted something similar to this about their wish to live in a society without these dirty, filthy corporations gets a chance to live without them at some point.

[weekapaugjz]

No, you didn't.

god, you're lame.

[spoon]

god, you're lame.

you still didn't get the joke, tart.

[RoseBlood]

I tried to post in here earlier but the system failed, so my post is now lost in cyber space and I am to lazy to re-type, so all I'll say is weeka makes some good points.

[JPMNICK]

I tried to post in here earlier but the system failed, so my post is now lost in cyber space and I am to lazy to re-type, so all I'll say is weeka makes some good points.

i blame it on the CEO of rf.net

[BMoses]

i blame it on the CEO of rf.net

Well then I blame the blacks.

[Bulldogcakes]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/IsACEOWorth364TimesAnAverageJoe.aspx?page=2

"Next, CEO pay in the U.S. has grown to become 364 times the average worker's pay. It was just 40 times the average pay in 1980."

I guess they can slip that by most people who don't remember 1980. The economy was in a deep recession in 1980, and the stock market was in awful shape for most of the late 70s through the early 80's (My Dad spent 40 years on Wall St). So the pay scale for CEO's was down because nobody was making any money and that ratio always goes down during recessions (since CEO's own stock in the firm and many employees don't). Does anyone here want another recession to "fix" this "problem"?

This issue is more political than economic. Its just class warfare dressed up in a CEO's suit. When you're dealing with companies that pull in billions each quarter, a CEO that pulls in a few million annually is a drop in the bucket. Lets try this. If you were to pay the CEO nothing and redistribute all of it to the employees (in which case you wouldn't be able to hire a competent one, they all went to the highest bidders) Lets say you have a Fortune 500 company with 10,000 employees and the CEO takes a 3 million salary. That's $300 a head. Sorry, but thats not going to raise anyone's standard of living. But if the company grows under his/her leadership, the pie gets bigger for everyone to split up and that will.

If anyone has a gripe about this, its the shareholders. If they sign off on this, which means they made money too, then the rest of us have really no business telling them how to run their company/portfolio. The rest of us really don't have a dog in this fight (and I really have to try to stop using that expression after Michael Vick). I really don't see how this affects anyone in their daily lives. Unless they use it as an excuse of some sort.

[spoon]

I tried to post in here earlier but the system failed, so my post is now lost in cyber space and I am to lazy to re-type, so all I'll say is weeka makes some good points.

Booooooo.

Boooo!:nono:

[weekapaugjz]

I tried to post in here earlier but the system failed, so my post is now lost in cyber space and I am to lazy to re-type, so all I'll say is weeka makes some good points.

Booooooo.

Boooo!:nono:

eat a big, fat dick.

[spoon]

I guess they can slip that by most people who don't remember 1980. The economy was in a deep recession in 1980, and the stock market was in awful shape for most of the late 70s through the early 80's (My Dad spent 40 years on Wall St). So the pay scale for CEO's was down because nobody was making any money.

This issue is more political than economic. When you're dealing with companies that pull in billions each quarter, a CEO that pulls in a few million annually is a drop in the bucket. Lets try this. If you were to pay the CEO nothing and redistribute all of it to the employees (in which case you wouldn't be able to hire a competent one, they all went to the highest bidders) Lets say you have a Fortune 500 company with 10,000 employees and the CEO takes a 3 million salary. That's $300 a head. Sorry, but thats not going to raise anyone's standard of living. But if the company grows under his/her leadership, the pie gets bigger for everyone to split up and that will.

If anyone has a gripe about this, its the shareholders. If they sign off on this, which means they made money too, then the rest of us have really no business telling them how to run their company/portfolio. The rest of us really don't have a dog in this fight (and I really have to try to stop using that expression after Michael Vick). I really don't see how this affects anyone in their daily lives. Unless they use it as an excuse of some sort.

Trickle down again huh, no way. I love when middle class peeps support the ultra rich and stick it to themselves.

[spoon]

eat a big, fat dick.

"Ahhh, you don't have to get mad."


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[RoseBlood]

i blame it on the CEO of rf.net

:laugh:

I guess they can slip that by most people who don't remember 1980.

Including the 88yr old woman you tried to seduce? :tongue:


Booooooo.

Boooo!:nono:

:surrender:

[spoon]

eat a big, fat dick.

Oh and creative I might add. Any other great rips there Triumph / Rickles?

[RoseBlood]

eat moe's big, fat spotted dick.

:huh:
http://a189.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/105/l_5907976beb60304e5be7867144a16d7c.jpg

[spoon]

You meant vagina and floppy.

[sailor]

Trickle down again huh, no way. I love when middle class peeps support the ultra rich and stick it to themselves.

wasn't really trickle down he was explaining. it was more "if you are going to hire someone to run your company, you'll pay well to get someone to do it right." if you disagree with that, fine, but it's not trickle down. he was saying the company and employees would fare better, nothing about the ceo's money returning into the system thru their spending habits.

[badmonkey]

Your main point seems to be that corporations are evil and greedy.

Your solution is tax the shit out of them to punish them for being greedy and making so much money. Do you not think that those corporations will make up the money that they are being taxed through
a) passing those taxes on to the consumer through higher prices or
b) moving the company and jobs to a country with more friendly corporate taxes?
c) both

If they're all that evil and greedy, they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that whatever new taxes are thrown at them don't affect their individual bank accounts.

Where do you think the jobs in this country come from anyway?

Badmonkey

[PhishHead]

Your main point seems to be that corporations are evil and greedy.

Your solution is tax the shit out of them to punish them for being greedy and making so much money. Do you not think that those corporations will make up the money that they are being taxed through
a) passing those taxes on to the consumer through higher prices or
b) moving the company and jobs to a country with more friendly corporate taxes?
c) both

If they're all that evil and greedy, they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that whatever new taxes are thrown at them don't affect their individual bank accounts.

Where do you think the jobs in this country come from anyway?

Badmonkey

DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!!!
Badmonkey is part of the problem he pays none of his DJ's and keeps all the money to himself!!

[sailor]

DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!!!
Badmonkey is part of the problem he pays none of his DJ's and keeps all the money to himself!!

you should unionize.

[Bulldogcakes]

Including the 88yr old woman you tried to seduce? :tongue:


I'm like the male version of Anna Nicole Smith!

[Bulldogcakes]

wasn't really trickle down he was explaining. it was more "if you are going to hire someone to run your company, you'll pay well to get someone to do it right." if you disagree with that, fine, but it's not trickle down. he was saying the company and employees would fare better, nothing about the ceo's money returning into the system thru their spending habits.

Actually it is "trickle down". Thats just a pejorative way of saying something that happens every day in a free market economy. If the CEO runs the company well, then everyone in the company benefits somehow. If they are a company doing 50 billion dollars in annual sales and through his/her leadership they increase their sales 10% that year, they now have an extra 5 BILLION dollars to spread around to their employees, shareholders and (yes, God forbid) the CEO. When you look at CEO pay packages against company performance, it is generally a tiny fraction of the overall business they've gained that year. Think of it as his "commission". And if companies don't offer attractive packages, they won't be able to hire top talent, and that goes for the top CEO's and the top secretaries or sales people.

I know everyone doesn't always benefit from a growing company. It usually goes to upper management types. But as a company grows they'll need more upper management types and those will likely be hired from within. Worst case scenario for a guy sweeping the floors he likely won't get any big pay raise but at least won't have to worry about losing his job.

[spoon]

Actually it is "trickle down". Thats just a pejorative way of saying something that happens every day in a free market economy. If the CEO runs the company well, then everyone in the company benefits somehow. If they are a company doing 50 billion dollars in annual sales and through his/her leadership they increase their sales 10% that year, they now have an extra 5 BILLION dollars to spread around to their employees, shareholders and (yes, God forbid) the CEO. When you look at CEO pay packages against company performance, it is generally a tiny fraction of the overall business they've gained that year. Think of it as his "commission". And if companies don't offer attractive packages, they won't be able to hire top talent, and that goes for the top CEO's and the top secretaries or sales people.

I know everyone doesn't always benefit from a growing company. It usually goes to upper management types. But as a company grows they'll need more upper management types and those will likely be hired from within. Worst case scenario for a guy sweeping the floors he likely won't get any big pay raise but at least won't have to worry about losing his job.


Well too bad most of the CEOs in question are getting huge raises and losing money for companies and growing at levels slower than there market and the overall stock market. Seriously, read the article and more.....please. And I love the rundown on CEOs pay here vs other areas like Europe.

And badmonkey, the jobs are leaving anyway so what does that matter? The way to protect us is to protect our market and make it worth the effort and money to get here. See Thrice's post.

[sailor]

Actually it is "trickle down". Thats just a pejorative way of saying something that happens every day in a free market economy. If the CEO runs the company well, then everyone in the company benefits somehow. If they are a company doing 50 billion dollars in annual sales and through his/her leadership they increase their sales 10% that year, they now have an extra 5 BILLION dollars to spread around to their employees, shareholders and (yes, God forbid) the CEO. When you look at CEO pay packages against company performance, it is generally a tiny fraction of the overall business they've gained that year. Think of it as his "commission". And if companies don't offer attractive packages, they won't be able to hire top talent, and that goes for the top CEO's and the top secretaries or sales people.

I know everyone doesn't always benefit from a growing company. It usually goes to upper management types. But as a company grows they'll need more upper management types and those will likely be hired from within. Worst case scenario for a guy sweeping the floors he likely won't get any big pay raise but at least won't have to worry about losing his job.

i'm just saying the pejorative "trickle down" is specifically related to tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Thrice]

Your main point seems to be that corporations are evil and greedy.

Your solution is tax the shit out of them to punish them for being greedy and making so much money. Do you not think that those corporations will make up the money that they are being taxed through
a) passing those taxes on to the consumer through higher prices or
b) moving the company and jobs to a country with more friendly corporate taxes?
c) both

If they're all that evil and greedy, they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that whatever new taxes are thrown at them don't affect their individual bank accounts.

Where do you think the jobs in this country come from anyway?

Badmonkey

a)There is a finite cap on the price any consumer is willing to pay for an item or service. So when you're saying they are going to pass the buck, so to speak, they can only pass it so far before people will stop buying said product. You fuck up demand and supply shits the bed. It's a symbiotic relationship so there's no gain by out pricing your consumer.

b)Tariffs are taxes levied on foreign goods. Fine, you want to make your company HQ outside of America, fantastic, now they're hit with a massive tariff should they want to import their product into the country.

c)The US is the richest country in the world. Corporations care about one thing only, the bottom line. To improve that bottom line they will be forced to offer their goods to American people. We are too wealthy to be ignored. It's a fact. It's also a very simple concept. Use the corporation's self-interest to our advantage. If they want to sell to us they are forced to abide by our tax system.

Where do jobs come from you ask? Check out this 2002 USA Today article and tell me this country isn't in serious danger.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-12-12-manufacture_x.htm

Fifty years ago, a third of U.S. employees worked in factories, making everything from clothing to lipstick to cars. Today, a little more than one-tenth of the nation's 131 million workers are employed by manufacturing firms. Four-fifths are in services.

The decline in manufacturing jobs has swiftly accelerated since the beginning of 2000. Since then, more than 1.9 million factory jobs have been cut — about 10% of the sector's workforce. During the same period, the number of jobs outside manufacturing has risen close to 2%.

It's been said before but it is so true, we've become a nation of consumers. We don't produce anything because it's cheaper to import. That is absolutely terrifying to me. Capitalism is running amok and without government stepping in to put these fuckers in their place the divide between the rich and the poor will grow even further.

[Bulldogcakes]

Well too bad most of the CEOs in question are getting huge raises and losing money for companies and growing at levels slower than there market and the overall stock market. Seriously, read the article and more.....please. And I love the rundown on CEOs pay here vs other areas like Europe

I know that happens but those packages are usually accrued over years and years and are cashed out because the guy is leaving soon. They're not just salary, they're stock packages also. The CEO spends many years at the firm, gets stock options year after year. Then he cashes out because he's leaving and it happens to be a bad year so it looks bad. Often times that's the case, it was with the Exxon exec a few months back.

As far as Europe goes, I really don't know why they're different and the author doesn't get into any reasons why. But I do know they trail us in every way imaginable in terms of innovations and market and labor flexibility, and a big reason we lead there is we leave firms freedom to run themselves. For better or worse. The computer you're posting on right now wasn't invented in or (most likely) made in Europe. If a firm is run badly, Wall Street will punish it instantly. We don't need Washington to get involved, they'll just pick winners and losers based on who helped them get elected and that helps no one but themselves and their cronies.

[Bulldogcakes]

i'm just saying the pejorative "trickle down" is specifically related to tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yeah, you're right. That is the original meaning. But now it gets used everywhere to refer to what is basically just Capitalism.

[badmonkey]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-12-12-manufacture_x.htm


Many local manufacturers, including Kodak and Xerox, offer employees large severance packages, including money for retraining and job-search help, assisting workers as they make the transition into new careers.

Those evil corporate mother fuckers!

[Thrice]

Those evil corporate mother fuckers!

No, you're right, they actually care about their employees.

from the same article...

The movement of jobs to other countries angers Seitz the most.

"The United States got to where it is today by making things," he says. "People are suffering, and communities are suffering."

Four years ago, the materials engineer was laid off after 26 years at Kodak. It was right before Christmas, and he was two months away from being eligible for full retirement benefits

[Gvac]

In a free market, capitalist society I don't believe there's any way to legislate "fair" wages for bosses and employees, nor do I think there should be.

That doesn't meant that corporate greed doesn't sicken me.

If those cocksuckers can sleep at night, God bless 'em. Heartless fuckers.

[weekapaugjz]

Your solution is tax the shit out of them to punish them for being greedy and making so much money. Do you not think that those corporations will make up the money that they are being taxed through
a) passing those taxes on to the consumer through higher prices or
b) moving the company and jobs to a country with more friendly corporate taxes?
c) both

someone who understands!

a)There is a finite cap on the price any consumer is willing to pay for an item or service. So when you're saying they are going to pass the buck, so to speak, they can only pass it so far before people will stop buying said product. You fuck up demand and supply shits the bed. It's a symbiotic relationship so there's no gain by out pricing your consumer.

if you are going to tax every corporation, then all goods and services for the consumer will go up across the board. also, taxing every corporation will make it more expensive for the corporations to operate. the large corporations are the ones that are going to be able to survive because they have large profits to tap into. smaller corporations might not be able to afford higher taxes if they do not have a large net profit to begin with. these companies would either fold or get bought out by larger corporations, thus making the few large corporations even larger, most likely causing the salaries increase for those ceo's.

b)Tariffs are taxes levied on foreign goods. Fine, you want to make your company HQ outside of America, fantastic, now they're hit with a massive tariff should they want to import their product into the country.

tariffs work both ways. if the u.s. starts imposing heavy tariffs on imports, other countries would increase their tariffs on u.s. exports coming into their country, thus lowering the demand in those countries. like you have stated in your post, you say how the u.s. is a nation of consumers based on imports. with the tariffs, it would increase the price of those imports, thus harming the consumer in the end.

c)The US is the richest country in the world. Corporations care about one thing only, the bottom line. To improve that bottom line they will be forced to offer their goods to American people. We are too wealthy to be ignored. It's a fact. It's also a very simple concept. Use the corporation's self-interest to our advantage. If they want to sell to us they are forced to abide by our tax system.

i agree with this until the last line. forcing gov't into a heavy tax system could cause weaker corporations to fail, and put more people out of a job.

[spoon]

From the same article.

Cab driver Joe Territo, 64, says in those days, "The company was dedicated to the employee, the employee was dedicated to the company."


You just simply don't see that any longer. Any system out of control isn't the answer. And right now I think capitalism is looking to be all over the fucking road. If we were to protect our market, for our workers, the companies in question could simply make their products for overseas, well, overseas. But for products that they don't want to be hit hard with tariffs and more, make them here. It's that simple. I know for a fact I happily will pay a little more for products at stores that treat their workers better. Case and point is Starbucks. I really don't love their coffee and it's somewhat costly, but they care for their workers. They even provide health benefits for part-time workers. I have never set foot in a walmart to this day, but soon I won't have a fucking choice. If it isn't the only choice, I'm sure they'll own most of it's competitors. And just look at how safe those products have been coming from the low wage markets of late. All the while our government has lowered the number of people in charge of our safety with these imports, as the number of imports have risen exponentially. Good work again brownie.

[Thrice]

someone who understands!



if you are going to tax every corporation, then all goods and services for the consumer will go up across the board. also, taxing every corporation will make it more expensive for the corporations to operate. the large corporations are the ones that are going to be able to survive because they have large profits to tap into. smaller corporations might not be able to afford higher taxes if they do not have a large net profit to begin with. these companies would either fold or get bought out by larger corporations, thus making the few large corporations even larger, most likely causing the salaries increase for those ceo's.



tariffs work both ways. if the u.s. starts imposing heavy tariffs on imports, other countries would increase their tariffs on u.s. exports coming into their country, thus lowering the demand in those countries. like you have stated in your post, you say how the u.s. is a nation of consumers based on imports. with the tariffs, it would increase the price of those imports, thus harming the consumer in the end.



i agree with this until the last line. forcing gov't into a heavy tax system could cause weaker corporations to fail, and put more people out of a job.

There's no way anyone can justify taxing all corporations the same. It would be a graduating scale based upon a corporation's Net worth. If these companies want the protection of limited liability they should be forced to accept a larger tax burden than a sole proprietor or a general partnership.

Increasing the price of imports is the ideal situation for motivating this country to rely upon it's own workforce. Last year the United States imported about 1.9 trillion dollars worth of goods. While it exported just over 1 trillion dollars worth of goods. This left the country with an 800 billion dollar trade deficit. A trade deficit for the 5th year in a row. How much longer can we continue to consume more than we sell on a global level?

[FUNKMAN]

put a cap on ceo salaries or bust a cap in their ass...

it's not only CEO's it's Fund Managers, and Brokers, and Analysts

in 2006 there were two Hedge Fund managers who earned for 1 year a 1.6 billion dollar salary and the remainder of the managers averaged approx 400million. Also take into account the salaries and bonuses for people working at Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc

now how the FUCK are they earning these salaries as most people's 401k's and retirement plans are barely increasing. where does the money come from? where does the interest to be paid on this money come from? the poor shmuck with a mark on his credit paying 20% interest on his car loan and getting fucked over with high interest on his mortgage if he could obtain one to begin with.


blow the fucking stock market off the face of the earth(not the people of course) and come up with a fairer system. greedy people are the cause and the market is the tool they use...

[JPMNICK]

stock prices are the worst thing to ever happen to corporate america because bonuses at the higher levels are tied into the stock going up, which of course has to mean cost cutting somewhere. it makes no sense when you think that they lay off people to get a bonus.

[spoon]

Your main point seems to be that corporations are evil and greedy.

Your solution is tax the shit out of them to punish them for being greedy and making so much money. Do you not think that those corporations will make up the money that they are being taxed through
a) passing those taxes on to the consumer through higher prices or
b) moving the company and jobs to a country with more friendly corporate taxes?
c) both

If they're all that evil and greedy, they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that whatever new taxes are thrown at them don't affect their individual bank accounts.

Where do you think the jobs in this country come from anyway?

Badmonkey

someone who understands!







Understands is much different from agreeing with you. Don't be so crass and tactless.

[spoon]

put a cap on ceo salaries or bust a cap in their ass...

it's not only CEO's it's Fund Managers, and Brokers, and Analysts

in 2006 there were two Hedge Fund managers who earned for 1 year a 1.6 billion dollar salary and the remainder of the managers averaged approx 400million. Also take into account the salaries and bonuses for people working at Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc

now how the FUCK are they earning these salaries as most people's 401k's and retirement plans are barely increasing. where does the money come from? where does the interest to be paid on this money come from? the poor shmuck with a mark on his credit paying 20% interest on his car loan and getting fucked over with high interest on his mortgage if he could obtain one to begin with.


blow the fucking stock market off the face of the earth(not the people of course) and come up with a fairer system. greedy people are the cause and the market is the tool they use...


I'm gonna just come out and say it, Funkman for president. And add the newbie Thrice to the ticket as VP and my vote is cast. :thumbup:

[Yerdaddy]

Actually it is "trickle down". Thats just a pejorative way of saying something that happens every day in a free market economy. If the CEO runs the company well, then everyone in the company benefits somehow. If they are a company doing 50 billion dollars in annual sales and through his/her leadership they increase their sales 10% that year, they now have an extra 5 BILLION dollars to spread around to their employees, shareholders and (yes, God forbid) the CEO. When you look at CEO pay packages against company performance, it is generally a tiny fraction of the overall business they've gained that year. Think of it as his "commission". And if companies don't offer attractive packages, they won't be able to hire top talent, and that goes for the top CEO's and the top secretaries or sales people.

I know everyone doesn't always benefit from a growing company. It usually goes to upper management types. But as a company grows they'll need more upper management types and those will likely be hired from within. Worst case scenario for a guy sweeping the floors he likely won't get any big pay raise but at least won't have to worry about losing his job.


You're right that this is the way CEO salaries are supposed to work - in theory. But, as the original article, and others, show there is little correlation between the performance of companies and CEO salaries. Enron was a great example of that.

You and some others are also right that the drastic government interventions that have been proposed on here, like tarriffs and punative taxes for high salaries will only drive companies overseas.

But nothing you've stated, including the economic differences between 1980 and today, explain the 8+ -fold increase in the gap between CEO and worker salaries. In bad economic times worker wages go down too. But, it seems, in good economic times executive salaries skyrocket while worker salaries haven't even kept up with cost of living since the 1980s, (I got that from Treasury Dpt data that I'm too lazy to look up now).

The thing that's pissing everyone off isn't the size of CEO salaries. It's that CEO salaries are taking bigger and bigger portions of companies' earnings and worker salaries are not. I don't think there's any way of justifying that. Can some financially brilliant CEO grow a company's profits singlehandedly? No. This is a point constantly missed by economic conservatives, (technically "economic liberals") - that labor is equally as important to a company as executives. The rich create jobs? Well the middle class do jobs. One without the other is useless. So why is "trickle down" still a valid theory? Why is it that executives reap such disproportionately large slices of the profit pie when without labor they're nothing but really well-educated bums?

I know there are companies that have successful models of profit-sharing. Southwest Airlines is one, and it's a hugely successful company. Hell, they're doing so well they can afford to throw Hooters sluts off their planes for not following Shari'a dress codes. I've heard of other models that link executive pay to worker pay - like a 35 to 1 deal. These ideas have been around for a while but as far as I know they had these systems in place from start-up. There is no mechanism in the capitalist model to encourage an overpayed executive team to impliment a system that throws them off a gravy train and pours the gravy on the employees, (sorry about the metaphor - I'm still thinking about Hooters). So as far as I can see, if nothing is done then executives will continue to reward themselves, regardless of company performance, and not employees.

And I think think the target of the intervention should be in the structural rules that allowed Enron execs to raid that company's wealth while driving the company into the ground in a way that hadn't been seen since the Depression. Each company is structured differently, but like somebody said, often Boards of Directors can set salaries for their cronies. If that's legal then what's the point of having a board of directors? If they're structured in a way that the board doesn't have to act independently of the execs then you've got the same kind of conflict of interest as insiders trading information to stock-purchasers.

I know in some cases where stockholders have a say in salaries there are also limits on which stockholders are allowed to vote - say, you have to own a certain amount of stock, which weighs the voting heavily in favor of fund managers and even stockholding executives themselves.

In both of these examples regulations can be implimented that make the businesses function more democratically, and thus enhances the freedom of the marketplace and not less. The trick is to 1. empower the stakeholders, including employees, setting CEO salaries to performance, 2. detatch executives and their associates from influencing their own pay packages, and 3. linking executive salaries to employee salaries so that the only benefit an employee gets for a successfully performing company is less fear of being fired.

[Snacks]

I guess they can slip that by most people who don't remember 1980. The economy was in a deep recession in 1980, and the stock market was in awful shape for most of the late 70s through the early 80's (My Dad spent 40 years on Wall St). So the pay scale for CEO's was down because nobody was making any money and that ratio always goes down during recessions (since CEO's own stock in the firm and many employees don't). Does anyone here want another recession to "fix" this "problem"?

This issue is more political than economic. Its just class warfare dressed up in a CEO's suit. When you're dealing with companies that pull in billions each quarter, a CEO that pulls in a few million annually is a drop in the bucket. Lets try this. If you were to pay the CEO nothing and redistribute all of it to the employees (in which case you wouldn't be able to hire a competent one, they all went to the highest bidders) Lets say you have a Fortune 500 company with 10,000 employees and the CEO takes a 3 million salary. That's $300 a head. Sorry, but thats not going to raise anyone's standard of living. But if the company grows under his/her leadership, the pie gets bigger for everyone to split up and that will.

If anyone has a gripe about this, its the shareholders. If they sign off on this, which means they made money too, then the rest of us have really no business telling them how to run their company/portfolio. The rest of us really don't have a dog in this fight (and I really have to try to stop using that expression after Michael Vick). I really don't see how this affects anyone in their daily lives. Unless they use it as an excuse of some sort.

that example is exactly what "liberals" and dems said when your boy Bush did the tax cuts. The avg family received $400 and everyone said that wouldnt help anyone or the economy. Yet every Republican and zombie Bush follower thought the tax cuts were great. All they did was help the rich get richer and pay less taxes and put a bigger strain on our deficit.

[Snacks]

put a cap on ceo salaries or bust a cap in their ass...

it's not only CEO's it's Fund Managers, and Brokers, and Analysts

in 2006 there were two Hedge Fund managers who earned for 1 year a 1.6 billion dollar salary and the remainder of the managers averaged approx 400million. Also take into account the salaries and bonuses for people working at Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc

now how the FUCK are they earning these salaries as most people's 401k's and retirement plans are barely increasing. where does the money come from? where does the interest to be paid on this money come from? the poor shmuck with a mark on his credit paying 20% interest on his car loan and getting fucked over with high interest on his mortgage if he could obtain one to begin with.


blow the fucking stock market off the face of the earth(not the people of course) and come up with a fairer system. greedy people are the cause and the market is the tool they use...

funk your the best.

I watched a financial show years ago that said the stock market is one big sham. By the time avg everyday people buy a stock based on good news its too late. The rich insiders already know and buy and sell based on information we never do or we find out too late. Companies go public for a certain price and the company can go belly up and all the small investors are the ones that lose out. The funny thing is buying and selling stocks in legal gambling. The difference is rich people have an advantage. When it comes to betting on a game its a 50/50 chance. they should make sports gambling legal since its no worse then the market. People have lost everything in the market so whats the difference.

The market can also be manipulated by people. Rumors go around that raise a stock or lower a price and this is done so fund managers and the rich buy the sock as it fluctuates. One day you hear great news, you buy a stock and then the next days you lost thousands and someone comes out and says something bad. The people with the info buy options calls and puts. Thats betting (really betting) that the market will go up or go down. How is that any different then betting on a game? The differnce, we need to make criminals out of someone, why not conitnue and make it out of the middle class and lower. and dont get me started on online poker.

I side tracked, so what.

[spoon]

So what, so let's dance!!

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photos/uncategorized/caddyshack_1.jpg

[sailor]

put a cap on ceo salaries or bust a cap in their ass...

it's not only CEO's it's Fund Managers, and Brokers, and Analysts

in 2006 there were two Hedge Fund managers who earned for 1 year a 1.6 billion dollar salary and the remainder of the managers averaged approx 400million. Also take into account the salaries and bonuses for people working at Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, etc

now how the FUCK are they earning these salaries as most people's 401k's and retirement plans are barely increasing. where does the money come from? where does the interest to be paid on this money come from? the poor shmuck with a mark on his credit paying 20% interest on his car loan and getting fucked over with high interest on his mortgage if he could obtain one to begin with.


blow the fucking stock market off the face of the earth(not the people of course) and come up with a fairer system. greedy people are the cause and the market is the tool they use...

you're talking about hedge funds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund) which are private (mostly for the wealthy) and not related to your 401(k) or mutual fund (which are fully regulated, unlike the hedge funds). as cunty as these hedge fund managers may be, they make tons of money because they produce (their insane bonuses are directly tied to performance). heck, to make their money they are behind a lot of shareholder activism and booting ceo's (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/finance/features/10426/) that aren't performing up to the level of their salaries, so they're actually what everyone on here should really be clamoring for.

[Crispy123]

If we are really moving from a manufacturing to a service oriented country, why don't more people incorporate and become a CEO themselves??? People need to read the writing on the wall and form their own corporations so they are taxed less & receive more profits rather than work for someone else's corporation.

[FUNKMAN]

you're talking about hedge funds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund) which are private (mostly for the wealthy) and not related to your 401(k) or mutual fund (which are fully regulated, unlike the hedge funds). as cunty as these hedge fund managers may be, they make tons of money because they produce (their insane bonuses are directly tied to performance). heck, to make their money they are behind a lot of shareholder activism and booting ceo's (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/finance/features/10426/) that aren't performing up to the level of their salaries, so they're actually what everyone on here should really be clamoring for.

are you saying that the success or failure of these biilion dollar hedge fund have no affect on the other markets in which people's 401k's and mutual funds are invested in?

these are private funds, mostly made up of millionaire investors. there is enough money being made where the fund manager can earn a 1.6 billion dollar salary or 500 million dollar salary. my question is " where does all this money being earned come from since there is no relation/affect to the regular markets like nasdaq and NYSE?"

what is the benefit of hedge funds for the poor and middle-class?

[zentraed]

funk your the best.

I watched a financial show years ago that said the stock market is one big sham. By the time avg everyday people buy a stock based on good news its too late. The rich insiders already know and buy and sell based on information we never do or we find out too late. Companies go public for a certain price and the company can go belly up and all the small investors are the ones that lose out. The funny thing is buying and selling stocks in legal gambling. The difference is rich people have an advantage. When it comes to betting on a game its a 50/50 chance. they should make sports gambling legal since its no worse then the market. People have lost everything in the market so whats the difference.

The market can also be manipulated by people. Rumors go around that raise a stock or lower a price and this is done so fund managers and the rich buy the sock as it fluctuates. One day you hear great news, you buy a stock and then the next days you lost thousands and someone comes out and says something bad. The people with the info buy options calls and puts. Thats betting (really betting) that the market will go up or go down. How is that any different then betting on a game? The differnce, we need to make criminals out of someone, why not conitnue and make it out of the middle class and lower. and dont get me started on online poker.

I side tracked, so what.

The stock market is simply a market. A share is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. Shareholders are looking for the best return on their investment at an acceptable level of risk. The difference between gambling and the stock market is that you're buying a piece of a company, and you're expecting them to produce a product that gives a return on that investment. If they fail, you lose money. If they succeed, everyone wins. The shareholders, the employees, and the consumers now have a product that serves their needs/desires.

Good management can result in increased profits. Sometimes good management may result in lowered losses, so you'd have a CEO that actually accomplished something even though a lot of people lost money under his stewardship (the boat is sinking, but he's slowing down its descent).

Like Yerdaddy was saying, if we want the situation to improve, we have to change who makes the decisions at the top. Unions are great, but they need to have representation in the board room. But so does management, and so do the shareholders. It's more socialist, which is what you see in parts of Europe.

[weekapaugjz]

someone who understands!

Understands is much different from agreeing with you. Don't be so crass and tactless.

where exactly in my post does it say he agrees with me? i posted that he understands because i agree with him, no where in my post does it imply that he agrees with me. your reading comprehension skills astound me.

[spoon]

Enough you fucking retard. It's simple, you wrote something and he posted similar shit and you write, "someone who understands!"

Who's reading comprehension/reality needs help!? Yet I guess it also explains your idiotic views as well. Yes, idiotic.

[weekapaugjz]

Enough you fucking retard. It's simple, you wrote something and he posted similar shit and you write, "someone who understands!"

Who's reading comprehension/reality needs help!? Yet I guess it also explains your idiotic views as well. Yes, idiotic.

wow, is it possible for you to make a post without attacking someone? so if you don't agree with someone else's views, it makes them idiotic? if so, you have a great perspective on the world.

[spoon]

No fuckwad, it was your idiotic rundown of those posts that was the final nail in your coffin. I've argued with a ton of people here, just like in the NHL thread. You just stand out as an uber douche. How's hockey in Buffalo by the way!? Ahahahahahahaha!

[weekapaugjz]

No fuckwad, it was your idiotic rundown of those posts that was the final nail in your coffin. I've argued with a ton of people here, just like in the NHL thread. You just stand out as an uber douche. How's hockey in Buffalo by the way!? Ahahahahahahaha!

flex those cyber-muscles strong.

how was missing the playoffs last year?

and how are those blue jays doing?

[spoon]

I'm not flexing shit, it's called calling an ass out. You made a stupid post so deal with it. And the Avs missed for the first time in over a decade so I'll live. Plus they played above their level and made a great run. I'm so used to the Jays being around .500, it's no big deal at all. Thanks for asking. Now which way is the gym!! :lol:

[high fly]

Well it looks like we effectively allowed the repubs to turn back the clock to the robber baron days of old. But hey, let's forget about the war and the economic divide/destruction in our nation and focus on the important issues of censoring on the radio, abortion and a big wall one tenth the length of Mexico.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/IsACEOWorth364TimesAnAverageJoe.aspx?page=2

"Next, CEO pay in the U.S. has grown to become 364 times the average worker's pay. It was just 40 times the average pay in 1980."

:thumbdown::wallbash:



It's all a part of the right-wing's wealth redistribution plan.
It also involves having the middle class shoulder more of the wealthy class' tax burden, irresponsibly borrowing from future generations, and blowing tax cuts on 400-foot yachts and castles in the South of France....