Should people be able to make an infinite amount of profit?

[Beeewbs]

Consider the following:





Does this seem right? Why should someone be allowed to make an infinite amount of profit while workers don't increase their wealth based on the increased profit of the company? And how much more work do CEOs and management do? Often, the higher up you are, the less work you actually do. The people working their asses off usually get paid the least. And if the higher ups are worker harder, are they working 100-400 times harder?

I'm not advocating equal pay or even close to equal pay for everyone, but should a company be able to make billions of dollars and not distribute a significant portion to it's workers? Should a CEO make 100 to 400 times what the average worker in the company is making? Why?

And why are you conservative peons sucking the dick of the wealthy when you're never going to profit like they are? I just don't understand. Conservatives have been brainwashed into protecting the elite class while they get f*cked with the rest of us.

[frasersteen]

Does this seem right? Why should someone be allowed to make an infinite amount of profit while workers don't increase their wealth based on the increased profit of the company? And how much more work do CEOs and management do? Often, the higher up you are, the less work you actually do. The people working their asses off usually get paid the least. And if the higher ups are worker harder, are they working 100-400 times harder?

I'm not advocating equal pay or even close to equal pay for everyone, but should a company be able to make billions of dollars and not distribute a significant portion to it's workers? Should a CEO make 100 to 400 times what the average worker in the company is making? Why?

And why are you conservative peons sucking the dick of the wealthy when you're never going to profit like they are? I just don't understand. Conservatives have been brainwashed into protecting the elite class while they get f*cked with the rest of us.

I agree with your summary that all the above is grossly unfair and unjustified. However there is a difference between thinking that people at the top often do not justify their pay packets and saying that they should not be able to earn what they do at all.

If someone is able to structure their wealth in such a way that it keeps growing and growing I congratulate them. I am also glad that the system we live in allows me to aspire to be obscenely wealthy.

It should be harder than it is for the rich to get richer and easier than it is for the poor to get richer but to impose any limit on how high you can soar is wrong.

[Beeewbs]

I agree with your summary that all the above is grossly unfair and unjustified. However there is a difference between thinking that people at the top often do not justify their pay packets and saying that they should not be able to earn what they do at all.

If someone is able to structure their wealth in such a way that it keeps growing and growing I congratulate them. I am also glad that the system we live in allows me to aspire to be obscenely wealthy.

It should be harder than it is for the rich to get richer and easier than it is for the poor to get richer but to impose any limit on how high you can soar is wrong.

Says who? Why is it wrong? Someone "structures" their wealth by using a system that abuses workers. He uses leverage against everyone below him, and I don't see how that's something to congratulate a person on. Consider the fact that the average corporation pays some of its hardest working employees a few pennies per hour, doing a job that has no health benefits, no retirement investment, and is in a horrible, abusive work environment. The CEO makes more in the time it takes for him to take a dump than a sweat shop worker makes in a lifetime at that job. So, THAT'S not wrong, but making sure that person makes a decent wage and the rich piece of sh*t at the top makes an amount of money they can actually use in a life time is wrong? That's a pretty twisted view, if you ask me.

[FLIYD]

yes, people should be allowed to make as much as they want.

the problem arises when they decide to make that money by screwing over society, i.e. the past few decades of corporate owned washington.

[Beeewbs]

yes, people should be allowed to make as much as they want.

the problem arises when they decide to make that money by screwing over society, i.e. the past few decades of corporate owned washington.

When does making obscene amounts of money NOT screw over society? Find me a corporation at the top that doesn't use slave labor, cause excessive amounts of pollution, fight worker rights and benefits, etc. Find me a corporation that is actually taking care of everyone at every level, offering a living wage while not destroying the environment. I don't think it exists and I don't see how a corporation that does not do those things when it can afford to, while still paying the people at the top a significant amount of money, should exist.

[frasersteen]

Says who? Why is it wrong? Someone "structures" their wealth by using a system that abuses workers. He uses leverage against everyone below him, and I don't see how that's something to congratulate a person on. Consider the fact that the average corporation pays some of its hardest working employees a few pennies per hour, doing a job that has no health benefits, no retirement investment, and is in a horrible, abusive work environment. The CEO makes more in the time it takes for him to take a dump than a sweat shop worker makes in a lifetime at that job. So, THAT'S not wrong, but making sure that person makes a decent wage and the rich piece of sh*t at the top makes an amount of money they can actually use in a life time is wrong? That's a pretty twisted view, if you ask me.

It's wrong because you are assuming that the bolded text is necessarily the case. A good business person works to ensure all relationships are mutually beneficial. I've met and worked with a lot of super-rich people, probably more than most and none of them ever struck me as the kind of people who would deliberately exploit anyone. Most of the time I was working in a capacity where I would have been in a position to be exploited too.

Should people be able to climb by treading on those beneath them? No of course not. Should people be able to climb by benefiting from a series of mutually beneficial relationships? Yes and those people are some of the most valuable people in our society.

[DocHol1day]

Keep trollin trollin trollin trollin what! Keep trollin trollin trollin trollin trollin come on!

[TaeBoNinja]

YES, people should be able to make an infinite amount of profit. It's called capitalism.

And the wage divide you speak of is based more on a skills gap. People with marketable skills like Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, make great wages. A premiere lawyer with elite skills can become a partner at a big firm and make big money. An innovative engineer who invents a great new product is sure to rise to a prominent position in a corporation.

What you need to realize Beewebs, is that people get paid what they are worth to a company. If they want a higher wage & piece of the pie, then they need to make their skillset more valuable. A low-skilled worker isn't worth very much.

Oh, and of course people can just CREATE their own businesses, as opposed to demanding that others create jobs for them.

[frankenstein]

When does making obscene amounts of money NOT screw over society? Find me a corporation at the top that doesn't use slave labor, cause excessive amounts of pollution, fight worker rights and benefits, etc. Find me a corporation that is actually taking care of everyone at every level, offering a living wage while not destroying the environment. I don't think it exists and I don't see how a corporation that does not do those things when it can afford to, while still paying the people at the top a significant amount of money, should exist.

Slave labor? If you want more than a fly's ass worth of credibility, stop that talk. First off, you're thinking of just enormous corporations, who actually employ a relatively small number of total people. Most people work for small to medium sized companies. Many of the people at the top of those make a lot of money as well. Example: regional manager of sales for XYZ insurance company. Pick any number of hundreds of them. Office people, who make the least probably make $28,000 plus benefits to start. They won't be rollin' into work in a brand new car any time soon, but that's a living wage. That regional manager, who overseas dozens of people, probably makes $600K-800K a year. Same situation for thousands upon thousands of companies. Go to a small practice legal office. Office person makes $25-30K, lawyer probably makes $90-300K. I don't see any slave labor. Lots of candy on a desk though. And lots of old books on shelves for show only.

As for the large companies that fit the bill, how about the US car manufacturers. A good example is Ford. Ford is now using a soy based material for much of their car seats. That saves a lot of oil usage. For operations in Europe, they're trying to cut down water usage per car manufactured by I think like 70%. Lots of recycling and cutting down on waste too. No slave labor going on in Ford. Operations for them in developing nations, where they could be douchebags labor wise, are similar to the way they are here.

Retail: how about Target or Costco? No slave labor going on by any means. Costco is a shining example actually.

[flairon]

One of the founding concepts of this country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Its not life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only if the other guy who is lazier, less educated, or had a crappy hand dealt to him by life can get a slice of your action.

[frankenstein]

OP, how about non-business people? Should actors be only legally allowed to make $5 Million per film? After all, if we did that, a movie ticket may cost $1 less. How about athletes? Should Lebron only be allowed to make $2 million per year? After all, that would allow more families to see games live. How about authors? I can't even fathom how much money James Patterson has raked in by now. Just think of all the paper and ink that goes toward those damn books. Should be limit James Patterson or that Harry Potter author to ______ amount of money they make too? What about ex Presidents who charge $400,000 in speaking fees. $400K to give a hour long speech. Dayum!! Should we limit them to say 5 or 10 speeches per year?


One person making a lot of money COULD screw over people. I.E. bankers, especially 1998-present. Last I checked, they were getting BJ's from the federal government you hold up in such high regard. Most of the time, extremely high pay is from scratching and crawling your way to the top. In the business world, the higher ups make decisions that affect so many people, so what they do is simply valued higher.

[frasersteen]

One of the founding concepts of this country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Its not life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only if the other guy who is lazier, less educated, or had a crappy hand dealt to him by life can get a slice of your action.

Jesus titty f*cking christ. Materialist much?

I agree with your point but that is a pretty unhealthy attitude if you think that happiness = property.

[JUSA]

I don't care how much money people make.

I care how they make it.

If someone is so good at something that they demand a huge salary, so be it. On the other hand, if a corporation or individual hires scored of lobbyists to manipulate markets so that they keep competition down and create Monopolies? Never.

[Apeus]

Jesus titty f*cking christ. Materialist much?

I agree with your point but that is a pretty unhealthy attitude if you think that happiness = property.

I believe he was referencing the John Locke quote which Jefferson paraphrased, which is ""life, liberty, and property."

[Beeewbs]

Slave labor? If you want more than a fly's ass worth of credibility, stop that talk.

Oh, yes sir!

First off, you're thinking of just enormous corporations, who actually employ a relatively small number of total people. Most people work for small to medium sized companies. Many of the people at the top of those make a lot of money as well. Example: regional manager of sales for XYZ insurance company. Pick any number of hundreds of them. Office people, who make the least probably make $28,000 plus benefits to start. They won't be rollin' into work in a brand new car any time soon, but that's a living wage. That regional manager, who overseas dozens of people, probably makes $600K-800K a year. Same situation for thousands upon thousands of companies. Go to a small practice legal office. Office person makes $25-30K, lawyer probably makes $90-300K. I don't see any slave labor. Lots of candy on a desk though. And lots of old books on shelves for show only.

Hmmm, so let's do the math here. Let's say about $40k counting benefits divided by 700k. What's that come out to? Less than 20. That's not the "100 to 400 times" I mentioned, is it? No one in the group you're talking about is the 1% that it's showing in those graphs, is it? No.

As for the large companies that fit the bill, how about the US car manufacturers. A good example is Ford. Ford is now using a soy based material for much of their car seats. That saves a lot of oil usage. For operations in Europe, they're trying to cut down water usage per car manufactured by I think like 70%. Lots of recycling and cutting down on waste too.

But they certainly polluted their way to the top, didn't they? And it's still there.

http://www.torquenews.com/1063/ford-...llution-claims

Ford Motor Co. and the Environmental Protection Agency will meet with community leaders in New Jersey today to review the 70,000 signatures on petitions that demand Ford and the EPA do something to remediate the toxic mess dumped by Ford into New Jersey’s Ringwood State Park from the 1960s to the 1970s.

And they didn't bother to tell people, "hey, maybe you should not live around here. We sorta cancered the place up."

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...sey&id=8183220

UPPER RINGWOOD (WABC) -- The signs are very clear. There is danger here.

The problem is for decades people living right near dumping sites in Upper Ringwood had no idea chemicals were seeping into the water and food supply.

"Benzine, cadmium, lead and all these different things like that, and they bring problems," resident Roger Degroat said.

Problems like cancer.

They took no blame.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Uppe...ettlement.html

The amount of the agreement is legally confidential. But sources close to the case said it’s $10 million, to be split among the 600-plus plaintiffs and their attorneys. What residents pointed to, however, was Ford’s continued denial of liability in the settlement.

brb, dumping tons of toxic waste out of dump trucks. I'm sure this is harmless.

And then, a current pollution problem of theirs:

http://www.industryweek.com/articles...ant_17001.aspx

The Ohio EPA announced on August 5 that the Ford Motor Co. has agreed to pay a $1.4 million penalty for failing to upgrade pollution control equipment at its Cleveland Casting Plant.

And what's your point? So they don't pollute as much now? Good. And? That's not how they got to where they are, and obviously, they still have pollution problems. And if they didn't, great, but the would be a huge minority.

No slave labor going on in Ford. Operations for them in developing nations, where they could be douchebags labor wise, are similar to the way they are here.

Correction: Currently, no slave labor. There was that whole Nazi slave labor thing.

Retail: how about Target or Costco? No slave labor going on by any means. Costco is a shining example actually.

Really? You're telling me that not a single product of theirs comes from slave labor? They're providing a living wage for each and every employee? What do the CEO's of those company make compared to the lowest paid worker?

[Beeewbs]

YES, people should be able to make an infinite amount of profit. It's called capitalism.

Oh, giving it a name makes it justified!

And the wage divide you speak of is based more on a skills gap. People with marketable skills like Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, make great wages. A premiere lawyer with elite skills can become a partner at a big firm and make big money. An innovative engineer who invents a great new product is sure to rise to a prominent position in a corporation.

What you need to realize Beewebs, is that people get paid what they are worth to a company. If they want a higher wage & piece of the pie, then they need to make their skillset more valuable. A low-skilled worker isn't worth very much.

Oh, and of course people can just CREATE their own businesses, as opposed to demanding that others create jobs for them.

Right, I'm sure the 12 year old girl in China is going to go start a business. You're so realistic. Almost all businesses fail, but I'm sure the sweatshop children in Indonesia can all run successful business juuuuust fine. Tell me, how many successful businesses do you own?

It doesn't matter if they aren't very skilled. They're still working their assess off. They still need to afford health care, food, and clothing and other basic needs. Just because you can pay them a few pennies an hour doesn't mean you should.

It's wrong because you are assuming that the bolded text is necessarily the case. A good business person works to ensure all relationships are mutually beneficial. I've met and worked with a lot of super-rich people, probably more than most and none of them ever struck me as the kind of people who would deliberately exploit anyone. Most of the time I was working in a capacity where I would have been in a position to be exploited too.

Should people be able to climb by treading on those beneath them? No of course not. Should people be able to climb by benefiting from a series of mutually beneficial relationships? Yes and those people are some of the most valuable people in our society.

No, I don't assume it's necessarily the case, but with most major corporations it is. If you're not a major corporation, just how much is that company actually making?

One of the founding concepts of this country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).

Its not life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only if the other guy who is lazier, less educated, or had a crappy hand dealt to him by life can get a slice of your action.

I'm not sure why you guys think you can make rational, intelligent arguments based on sayings and terms. It doesn't work that way. This is like the mind numbing "it's Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve" mantra. It's not really an argument. You're just taking a phrase and then saying that because something isn't that phrase (or is) that it's ok.

[A-GAME]

I started a similar thread to this OP. I got slaughtered. No one cares about inequality as long as they are comfortable.

[frasersteen]

I believe he was referencing the John Locke quote which Jefferson paraphrased, which is ""life, liberty, and property."

Fair play then.

[Beeewbs]

I don't care how much money people make.

I care how they make it.

If someone is so good at something that they demand a huge salary, so be it. On the other hand, if a corporation or individual hires scored of lobbyists to manipulate markets so that they keep competition down and create Monopolies? Never.

What if they make it as the cost of keeping their workers poor and uninsured?

I started a similar thread to this OP. I got slaughtered. No one cares about inequality as long as they are comfortable.

Did you get slaughtered, or did they just THINK they slaughtered you because they said stuff? So far, I'm not seeing any strong arguments.

[Carpig]

Equivalent outcomes are the right of no one.

[BruinBC]

I started a similar thread to this OP. I got slaughtered. No one cares about inequality as long as they are comfortable.

Word, unfortunately the Misc mirrors Middle America's embrace of the race to the bottom mentality. But it's all good, because if you just work hard enough, you'll be able to do the exploiting of the nation's resources while sitting on billions. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

[frasersteen]

I started a similar thread to this OP. I got slaughtered. No one cares about inequality as long as they are comfortable.

Inequality is the biggest issue facing modern society IMO. Could easily precipitate the break-up of the capitalist system as a whole unless it is addressed.

I just don't think vilification of the rich is the right way to go. I think selfishness needs to be addressed, and people need to be paid according to a realistic appraisal of their value.

Some enforcement of dividends for instance, passing a law so that any for any dividend passed to shareholders an equal amount is reserved for employee bonuses. Not really sure about that though, I would prefer government stays out of that kind of thing, it's all I have managed to come up with so far though.

One thing is for sure though, increased transparency of high level remuneration and more shareholder empowerment and involvement are a must.

[frasersteen]

Word, unfortunately the Misc mirrors Middle America's embrace of the race to the bottom mentality. But it's all good, because if you just work hard enough, you'll be able to do the exploiting of the nation's resources while sitting on billions. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

I think that is a very succinct summary of why OP has so much indignation about this.

[Beeewbs]

Equivalent outcomes are the right of no one.

No one said anything about equivalent outcomes.

[A-GAME]

Did you get slaughtered, or did they just THINK they slaughtered you because they said stuff? So far, I'm not seeing any strong arguments.

There were no strong arguments. Just a lot of selfish comments based on ignorance.

[frankenstein]

Oh, yes sir!



Hmmm, so let's do the math here. Let's say about $40k counting benefits divided by 700k. What's that come out to? Less than 20. That's not the "100 to 400 times" I mentioned, is it? No one in the group you're talking about is the 1% that it's showing in those graphs, is it? No.




But they certainly polluted their way to the top, didn't they? And it's still there.

http://www.torquenews.com/1063/ford-...llution-claims


And what's your point? So they don't pollute as much now? Good. And? That's not how they got to where they are, and obviously, they still have pollution problems. And if they didn't, great, but the would be a huge minority.




Correction: Currently, no slave labor. There was that whole Nazi slave labor thing.



Really? You're telling me that not a single product of theirs comes from slave labor? They're providing a living wage for each and every employee? What do the CEO's of those company make compared to the lowest paid worker?

What's it like to be so unhappy? I'm not joking. What's it like? You can PM me on that if you like.

Nazi slave labor - where does that come into our discussion? Seems like an out of left field comment.

So we should only condemn a huge multinational for actions 40-50 years ago and focus on that alone? It's not the exact same, but that's like giving someone crap for the sins of their parents. All of the people who were high level executives for Ford back in those days are retired or dead. It doesn't absolve the company, but you can't seriously take a look at their direction and still be negative.

BTW, the Coscto CEO took a salary of $350,000 in 2011. Bonus of $198,000. He has stock options too. Include that, which is of course dependent on the company's success and his 2011 total compensation was $2.2 million in 2011. The only stats I've seen for employees are 8 years old, when they were making on average $17/hr. That doesn't mean that's the starting wage for a cashier. They probably make about $12-14 to start right now, then make more if they take on more responsibilities, etc.

OK, regarding the CEO pay of smaller companies. I mentioned regional manager of a small insurance company because I know one on a very personal level. Small company, yet I'll bet the CEO makes $3-4 million a year. That's 100-150 times what the low level people make. Puts the guy in that "evil ratio" doesn't it? There's a dentist in my area who has 6 different offices, spread out in different cities and towns. You think that guy is pulling in less than $3 million a year? I very, very highly doubt it. There can't be more than 70-80 employees for him. He must be evil too. I befriended a custom home builder a few months back. He was paying guys $12-18/hr, employing 20 people maximum at a time, and was making over $1 million a year until 2 years ago. That must make him evil too.

[Apeus]

From 4:50 on OP.

[flairon]

I'm not sure why you guys think you can make rational, intelligent arguments based on sayings and terms. It doesn't work that way. This is like the mind numbing "it's Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve" mantra. It's not really an argument. You're just taking a phrase and then saying that because something isn't that phrase (or is) that it's ok.

It's not 'a phrase', its one of the cornerstones of this society.


Let me ask you something, what is it that you think keeps you from being someone that attains that coveted 1% perch that everyone seems to covet so much. Exactly how are the super rich keeping you down and limiting your ability to do just as well if not better?

[NeoginCF]

Impose a soft cap on insanely rich people. If you got 4 billion the next few millions is not going to make ANY difference.

[DocHol1day]

It's not 'a phrase', its one of the cornerstones of this society.


Let me ask you something, what is it that you think keeps you from being someone that attains that coveted 1% perch that everyone seems to covet so much. Exactly how are the super rich keeping you down and limiting your ability to do just as well if not better?

They put stuff in the drinking water that made him retarded, obviously....