U.S. Government Shutdown Threat: Budget Deal Remains Unreached
147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;29073835]Except all the welfare programs would continue while the government was "Shut down" Things like tax refunds and military pay were among the largest programs that would have been closed.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean welfare as in Congress's salaries?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29075110]Do you mean welfare as in Congress's salaries?[/QUOTE]
No, I mean as in HUD, food stamps, unemployment, etc.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29078519]No, I mean as in HUD, food stamps, unemployment, etc.[/QUOTE]
IF that is bad enough as it is, has anyone heard of this new currency that will hit the US soonner than you think called the Bancor?
This Bancor is supossedly is going to replace the U.S. Dollar Currency.
No way, we're going to have the Amero for US, Canada and Mexico
[QUOTE=Ridge;29091812]No way, we're going to have the Amero for US, Canada and Mexico[/QUOTE]
We are... The North American Union was formed in 2005. So the Amero is on the way. Hell the Amero gas station is already here in michigan where I stay at.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29073498]Except if you need food stamps to feed yourself.
Rich people might be able to save a couple of bucks, while millions of poor people starve to death.[/QUOTE]
You know, people spend so much time on these forums talking for the "poor people" who need food stamps to support themselves, or healthcare from the government to get by.
I work a minimum wage job. When possible, I go to the food pantry to get what I can't afford, but if they can't swing helping me out then I get food stamps instead. It's nearly impossible to starve to death in this country, and considering I was unemployed and living out of my car for three weeks, I would know.
In short, shut the fuck up, you've never been there and you don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29092564]You know, people spend so much time on these forums talking for the "poor people" who need food stamps to support themselves, or healthcare from the government to get by.
I work a minimum wage job. When possible, I go to the food pantry to get what I can't afford, but if they can't swing helping me out then I get food stamps instead. It's nearly impossible to starve to death in this country, and considering I was unemployed and living out of my car for three weeks, I would know.
In short, shut the fuck up, you've never been there and you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like the American dream. But yea, the United States is so advanced and has such a big welfare system for the people, that I could imagine it is really hard to legitimately starve to death.
[QUOTE=crackberry;29092673]Sounds like the American dream. But yea, the United States is so advanced and has such a big welfare system for the people, that I could imagine it is really hard to legitimately starve to death.[/QUOTE]
It isn't just the welfare system. There are so many giving people that are willing to help, so long as you're not blowing their charity on drugs or alcohol. What the Church in my region did for me (despite knowing I am an atheist) really softened my opinion on them and religion in general.
so your ability to get by on that means that other americans also don't need social help programs? I'm sorry, I just really don't get what you're trying to stab at here with this anecdote.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29092564]You know, people spend so much time on these forums talking for the "poor people" who need food stamps to support themselves, or healthcare from the government to get by.
I work a minimum wage job. When possible, I go to the food pantry to get what I can't afford, but if they can't swing helping me out then I get food stamps instead. It's nearly impossible to starve to death in this country, and considering I was unemployed and living out of my car for three weeks, I would know.
In short, shut the fuck up, you've never been there and you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. Sure it may be impossible to starve to death, but there are a lot of different things between starving to death and living a decent life. That, and I can barely tell what you're trying to argue for. Is it that we need no more federal welfare? Is it that we need less?
[QUOTE=Pascall;29029364]A lot of teenagers are freaking out about this for some odd reason.
It really only affects federal and government employees and institutions, afaik. Schools won't be closed down or anything and retail jobs will be fine. The kids freaking out all over Twitter and Facebook are getting ridiculous.
Although I've only read a little on this, so I'm not sure on all the details.[/QUOTE]
Or how bout the idea of the federal government shutting down for even a short temporary amount of time is still fucking ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;29093669]Or how bout the idea of the federal government shutting down for even a short temporary amount of time is still fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
They still need to reach a final budget deal by the end of the week. I can only hope we won't be in this same situation in 5 days.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29092564]You know, people spend so much time on these forums talking for the "poor people" who need food stamps to support themselves, or healthcare from the government to get by.
I work a minimum wage job. When possible, I go to the food pantry to get what I can't afford, but if they can't swing helping me out then I get food stamps instead. It's nearly impossible to starve to death in this country, and considering I was unemployed and living out of my car for three weeks, I would know.
In short, shut the fuck up, you've never been there and you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad it's impossible to starve to death in the exact location where you lived
Just need some good old communism
One of the most notable(and nonsensical) parts of the riders that Republicans were trying to get that hasn't gotten much press is the complete suspension of the President's campaign funds. The presiden'ts campaign funds are done entirely through a donation that isn't used for anything else made when you fill out your tax forms. It's entirely separate from the budget.
I figure that we should start talking about how to actually fix the country instead of complaining about Republicans with the same arguments.
[b]Here's ten ways to create prosperity in the US:[/b]
1. Raise taxes for the rich.
2. Ban lobbying groups.
3. Prohibit corporate loaning to the government, and make taking bribes (this includes "charitable giving") punishable to the utmost degree.
4. Reform programs like Medicare, social security, and education to be less wasteful, and more effective.
5. Raise minimum wage.
6. Enforce tighter regulations on businesses (less foreign workers, more employee benefits, etc)
7. Invest funds into infrastructure and research. For example, we can keep both oil and alternative fuel jobs in the future by continuing to drill, but selling the oil to [i]other[/i] countries.
8. Begin to import raw materials and export quality goods.
9. Promote Democracy in both the workplace and the classroom.
10. Remove senseless and unneeded testing from the classroom (i'm looking at you, comprehensive assessment tests).
[i]11. ban republicans lol im so clever[/i]
Your list isn't exactly helpful.
[QUOTE=joes33431;29135698][b]Here's ten ways to create prosperity in the US:[/b]
1. Raise taxes for the rich.[/quote] Define rich. Raise by how much? Does anyone deserve exemption, if, say, their money is being pumped directly back into the economy?
[quote]2. Ban lobbying groups.
3. Prohibit corporate loaning to the government, and make taking bribes (this includes "charitable giving") punishable to the utmost degree.[/quote] No arguments here.
[quote]4. Reform programs like Medicare, social security, and education to be less wasteful, and more effective.[/quote] Wow. Okay, Why didn't anyone ever think of this one? Maybe because it's a hell of a lot easier to say than to do.
[quote]5. Raise minimum wage. [/quote]Arbitrarily raise minimum wage in what, every state? And do what with the small businesses who can not afford it? Any business currently paying minimum wage and operating on a thin margin is now bankrupt. Congratulations! You've now destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and pumped an equal number of unskilled, jobless people into the economy.
[quote]6. Enforce tighter regulations on businesses (less foreign workers, more employee benefits, etc)[/quote] The "foreign workers" that are supposedly draining the economy don't walk around with signs around their necks proclaiming them as illegal immigrants. Most of them have false IDs and Social Security numbers. Arbitrarily increasing employee benefits generates the same problem I posted above.
[quote]7. Invest funds into infrastructure and research. For example, we can keep both oil and alternative fuel jobs in the future by continuing to drill, but selling the oil to [i]other[/i] countries.[/quote] Aside from the selling oil to other countries thing, I agree.
[quote]8. Begin to import raw materials and export quality goods.[/quote] Economies are more complex than that. That's not to mention that your ideas of raising minimum wage and employee benefits while decreasing reliance on foreign workers forces the producers of these quality goods to raise prices. American exports will be priced significantly higher than the ones coming out of markets in Asia, without any increase in quality. Who would buy that?
[quote]9. Promote Democracy in both the workplace and the classroom.[/quote] What does this even mean?
[quote]10. Remove senseless and unneeded testing from the classroom (i'm looking at you, comprehensive assessment tests).[/quote] Sure sounds good on paper, but who will decide what's senseless and unnecessary? That's the funny thing about a public education system. You need standards for millions of children when each has unique educational requirements.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29096141]I'm so glad it's impossible to starve to death in the exact location where you lived[/QUOTE]
I had options like the Food Pantry and the church. Without those, there are dumpsters and trash cans in every city in the country. No, it's not ideal. No, it's not humane and it should be prevented. But the only way to really starve to death is if your dignity is bigger than your stomach.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29131503]One of the most notable(and nonsensical) parts of the riders that Republicans were trying to get that hasn't gotten much press is the complete suspension of the President's campaign funds. The presiden'ts campaign funds are done entirely through a donation that isn't used for anything else made when you fill out your tax forms. It's entirely separate from the budget.[/QUOTE]
Which I and everybody I've ever met have always opted out of.
[editline]12th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=joes33431;29135698]
[b]Here's ten ways to create prosperity in the US:[/b]
1. Raise taxes for the rich.[/quote]
Please define rich
[quote]2. Ban lobbying groups.[/quote]
Damn straight
[quote]3. Prohibit corporate loaning to the government, and make taking bribes (this includes "charitable giving") punishable to the utmost degree.[/quote]
The Federal Reserve is a private company.
[quote]4. Reform programs like Medicare, social security, and education to be less wasteful, and more effective.[/quote]
Tort reform is what is really needed here, so I agree
[quote]5. Raise minimum wage.[/quote]
Will drive up the cost of goods, but okay
[quote]6. Enforce tighter regulations on businesses (less foreign workers, more employee benefits, etc)[/quote]
I've always thought that fining companies employing illegals a massive amount would cut down on it, but higher minimum wages will also counter that
[quote]7. Invest funds into infrastructure and research. For example, we can keep both oil and alternative fuel jobs in the future by continuing to drill, but selling the oil to [i]other[/i] countries.[/quote]
I'd start by removing some restrictions that make clean energy hard to set up (nuclear, natural gas, etc)
[quote]8. Begin to import raw materials and export quality goods.[/quote]
Nice idea, but it needs to be made profitable to do so. Higher tariffs on imported quality goods would help as well
[quote]9. Promote Democracy in both the workplace and the classroom.[/quote]
No idea what this means
[quote]10. Remove senseless and unneeded testing from the classroom (i'm looking at you, comprehensive assessment tests).[/quote]
Making it so the DoE's sole job is to layout text books and lesson plans would work well, and reduce their needs for funding
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]Your list isn't exactly helpful.
Define rich. Raise by how much? Does anyone deserve exemption, if, say, their money is being pumped directly back into the economy?[/QUOTE]
Probably the richest 10 percent that have been fucking the rest of the United States in the ass for 30 years. And that richest ten percent usually either saves the money, or squanders it on material interests which do little to stimulate economic growth.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]Wow. Okay, Why didn't anyone ever think of this one? Maybe because it's a hell of a lot easier to say than to do.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, we should either follow the Republican solution: Privatize or cut the programs entirely. or everyone else's solution: Give it more money it doesn't need.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]Arbitrarily raise minimum wage in what, every state? And do what with the small businesses who can not afford it? Any business currently paying minimum wage and operating on a thin margin is now bankrupt. Congratulations! You've now destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and pumped an equal number of unskilled, jobless people into the economy.[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe we could cut down on the 11 million dollar salaries that corporate executive officers work on. They would be perfectly fine in the financial world with 500,000 dollars per year or less. They ain't gonna die.
Even then, raising wages does better for the economies both on a small and large scale. For example:
When Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to raise the minimum wage to 9.50, republicans screamed the economy would go south. It didn't. According to Monsignor Jerome Martinez and City Councelor David Cross, the number of recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families has fallen 9.7 percent since the wage increase, while in the state as a whole it had gone down only 0.6 percent. Further, they write in ABQjournal.com:
"We have gained jobs. According to a Sept. 22 report from the New Mexico Dept. of Labor, 1,400 jobs have been added to the Santa Fe work force since the living wage came into effect. This 2.3 percent of job growth is a little more than the state's 2.1 percent job growth rage. Santa Fe's 2.3 percent growth rate is very high, as the state's job growth, at 2.1 percent, ranked 12th highest in the country.
The hospitality industry in Santa Fe did even better, adding 300 jobs, a 3.2 percent growth rate. The unemployment rate in Santa Fe in August was 3.8 percent, down from 4.1 percent a year ago. The Santa Fe rate is much better than the state as a whole, which had 5.3 percent unemployment last month."
Businesses have the money, it's a matter of how it's used.
Look at it this way, say that an investor wants to develop buildings on a lot. Would it be better to hire 10 workers and pay them 20 dollars an hour to build one building, or hire 20 workers working 10 dollars an hour to build two buildings? Many would say the 20 workers for 10 dollars solution would work best. However the essential question for the investor is this: Do you want a middle class community to build around your lot? As in, have a community of people who can afford to live in the house, or shop in the store you build. If so, then you better hire pay a living wage and build one building.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]The "foreign workers" that are supposedly draining the economy don't walk around with signs around their necks proclaiming them as illegal immigrants. Most of them have false IDs and Social Security numbers. Arbitrarily increasing employee benefits generates the same problem I posted above.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the slave labor being pumped into impoverished countries. Businesses can easily afford to hire domestic workers, they simply choose not to. Know why? Its cost-effective. However, even if the slave labor that corporations such as Wal-Mart have used to cut costs was not deemed morally wrong, most of the cash benefits don't go into better products, or higher wages. They go into the huge paychecks of lobbyists, CEOs, and government loans that they can't afford to pay back.
Edit: Just to make myself clear, I'm fine with companies employing illegal immigrants. When I meant foreign workers, I meant work oursourced all over the world except the United States.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]Economies are more complex than that. That's not to mention that your ideas of raising minimum wage and employee benefits while decreasing reliance on foreign workers forces the producers of these quality goods to raise prices. American exports will be priced significantly higher than the ones coming out of markets in Asia, without any increase in quality. Who would buy that?[/QUOTE]
It seemed to work perfectly fine before the Reagan administration, and continues to work well in countries like Germany. Why can't we do the same here and now?
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]What does this even mean?[/QUOTE]
Well, when you go to work, and make a criticism about things your company is doing, there's always the chance of being fired. Simply making a comment on a morally wrong decision made by your manager could cost you your job. Allowing workers to vote on company decisions would give a lower-level point of view on how the company should be run. Many good ideas may come from low-level employees, yet are ignored entirely by the fundamentally authoritarian heirarchies that come with working in a larger company.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;29136095]Sure sounds good on paper, but who will decide what's senseless and unnecessary? That's the funny thing about a public education system. You need standards for millions of children when each has unique educational requirements.[/QUOTE]
Placing children under enourmous pressure to exceed on comprehensive assessment testing, as well as several schools pumping only test-related information into students are two volatile problems with standardized tests.
"here you little shit you're going to learn every fucking thing about this test and pass with mother fucking flying cololrs, and you know why? cause if you don't, not only are we going to hold you back and potentially ruin your social life, we're going to cut all the clubs and extra-curricular activities we have here to save the money you squandered for not being able to absorb all this useless infomation. go to hell you undergrown fucktard"
This may be slightly exaggerated, but teaching children to take a test, then threatening them if they don't pass, only makes them resent their teachers. Even worse, plenty of them hate learning all together as soon as they're done with junior high. So then we have a fuckload more high-school dropouts, and even more workers trying to raise a family on minimum wage.
And I have nothing against standards, but forcing a test that shows no real benefit to the students only causes more problems. That time that's taken every school year to prepare for and then take the grades 3-10 FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, in Florida that is) could be used to teach something useful instead of how to circle a letter on a piece of paper.
[QUOTE=joes33431;29141147]Well, when you go to work, and make a criticism about things your company is doing, there's always the chance of being fired. Simply making a comment on a morally wrong decision made by your manager could cost you your job. Allowing workers to vote on company decisions would give a lower-level point of view on how the company should be run. Many good ideas may come from low-level employees, yet are ignored entirely by the fundamentally authoritarian heirarchies that come with working in a larger company.[/QUOTE]
Goddamn capitalist pig dogs.
[QUOTE=joes33431;29141147]Well, when you go to work, and make a criticism about things your company is doing, there's always the chance of being fired. Simply making a comment on a morally wrong decision made by your manager could cost you your job. Allowing workers to vote on company decisions would give a lower-level point of view on how the company should be run. Many good ideas may come from low-level employees, yet are ignored entirely by the fundamentally authoritarian heirarchies that come with working in a larger company.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying this from experience, or is it pure speculation brought on by years of watching legal dramas like Ally McBeal?
[QUOTE=Ridge;29143344]Are you saying this from experience, or is it pure speculation brought on by years of watching legal dramas like Ally McBeal?[/QUOTE]
oddly enough, that doesn't sound too far off how you get your info
[QUOTE=joes33431;29141147]Probably the richest 10 percent that have been fucking the rest of the United States in the ass for 30 years. And that richest ten percent usually either saves the money, or squanders it on material interests which do little to stimulate economic growth.[/quote]
Obvious, not sure it needs to be said.
[quote]
So in other words, we should either follow the Republican solution: Privatize or cut the programs entirely. or everyone else's solution: Give it more money it doesn't need.[/quote]
Considering your solution was literally "MAKE IT BETTER", with no suggestions how, it's not much of a difference.
[quote]
Well, maybe we could cut down on the 11 million dollar salaries that corporate executive officers work on. They would be perfectly fine in the financial world with 500,000 dollars per year or less. They ain't gonna die.
[/quote]
No. We aren't doing that. The government's position is not to regulate maximum wages. If a business thinks its in its best interests to pay these people these wages, so be it. Maybe if they receive considerable gov't money then there could be some provisions about how it's spent. But you can't do things like that.
[quote]
Even then, raising wages does better for the economies both on a small and large scale. For example:
When Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to raise the minimum wage to 9.50, republicans screamed the economy would go south. It didn't. According to Monsignor Jerome Martinez and City Councelor David Cross, the number of recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families has fallen 9.7 percent since the wage increase, while in the state as a whole it had gone down only 0.6 percent. Further, they write in ABQjournal.com:
"We have gained jobs. According to a Sept. 22 report from the New Mexico Dept. of Labor, 1,400 jobs have been added to the Santa Fe work force since the living wage came into effect. This 2.3 percent of job growth is a little more than the state's 2.1 percent job growth rage. Santa Fe's 2.3 percent growth rate is very high, as the state's job growth, at 2.1 percent, ranked 12th highest in the country.
The hospitality industry in Santa Fe did even better, adding 300 jobs, a 3.2 percent growth rate. The unemployment rate in Santa Fe in August was 3.8 percent, down from 4.1 percent a year ago. The Santa Fe rate is much better than the state as a whole, which had 5.3 percent unemployment last month."
Businesses have the money, it's a matter of how it's used.
Look at it this way, say that an investor wants to develop buildings on a lot. Would it be better to hire 10 workers and pay them 20 dollars an hour to build one building, or hire 20 workers working 10 dollars an hour to build two buildings? Many would say the 20 workers for 10 dollars solution would work best. However the essential question for the investor is this: Do you want a middle class community to build around your lot? As in, have a community of people who can afford to live in the house, or shop in the store you build. If so, then you better hire pay a living wage and build one building.
[/quote]
This is valid. There needs to be some work done either way, and it's all a it of a clusterfuck in that regard. Most states have fairly good minimum wages.
[quote]
I'm talking about the slave labor being pumped into impoverished countries. Businesses can easily afford to hire domestic workers, they simply choose not to. Know why? Its cost-effective. However, even if the slave labor that corporations such as Wal-Mart have used to cut costs was not deemed morally wrong, most of the cash benefits don't go into better products, or higher wages. They go into the huge paychecks of lobbyists, CEOs, and government loans that they can't afford to pay back.
Edit: Just to make myself clear, I'm fine with companies employing illegal immigrants. When I meant foreign workers, I meant work oursourced all over the world except the United States.
[/quote]
You shouldn't be fine with them hiring illegal immigrants, in that it's an illegal process they do purely to maximize profit and minimize money they have to spend. And remember, you simply have to incentivize corporations into employing local workers. It's terrible, I agree, but they have to have a reason to.
[quote]
Well, when you go to work, and make a criticism about things your company is doing, there's always the chance of being fired. Simply making a comment on a morally wrong decision made by your manager could cost you your job. Allowing workers to vote on company decisions would give a lower-level point of view on how the company should be run. Many good ideas may come from low-level employees, yet are ignored entirely by the fundamentally authoritarian heirarchies that come with working in a larger company.
[/quote]
Again, not the government's business. If there is a cultural shift towards a business like this, then maybe it could exist. But there's no reason for it to happen.
[quote]
Placing children under enourmous pressure to exceed on comprehensive assessment testing, as well as several schools pumping only test-related information into students are two volatile problems with standardized tests.
"here you little shit you're going to learn every fucking thing about this test and pass with mother fucking flying cololrs, and you know why? cause if you don't, not only are we going to hold you back and potentially ruin your social life, we're going to cut all the clubs and extra-curricular activities we have here to save the money you squandered for not being able to absorb all this useless infomation. go to hell you undergrown fucktard"
This may be slightly exaggerated, but teaching children to take a test, then threatening them if they don't pass, only makes them resent their teachers. Even worse, plenty of them hate learning all together as soon as they're done with junior high. So then we have a fuckload more high-school dropouts, and even more workers trying to raise a family on minimum wage.
And I have nothing against standards, but forcing a test that shows no real benefit to the students only causes more problems. That time that's taken every school year to prepare for and then take the grades 3-10 FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, in Florida that is) could be used to teach something useful instead of how to circle a letter on a piece of paper.[/QUOTE]
Alright. No Child Left Behind is a big part of this, but it's also the style of education we follow. We need reform, but getting it will be tough.
Hurf durf, 'murica lead teh way to a new futur of fatty and debt hooray mickey mouse world
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29146745]Considering your solution was literally "MAKE IT BETTER", with no suggestions how, it's not much of a difference.[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but we could likely learn a thing or two from countries in Western Europe about Medicare reform. For example, how they were able to put a free healthcare system in place.
The only thing holding us back from learning from other countries, are "tru Murrkanz" who will immediately call you a dangerously socialist, anti-american thinker, simply for wanting to gain some knowledge from nations aside from the US.
[QUOTE]No. We aren't doing that. The government's position is not to regulate maximum wages. If a business thinks its in its best interests to pay these people these wages, so be it. Maybe if they receive considerable gov't money then there could be some provisions about how it's spent. But you can't do things like that.[/QUOTE]
Well, who's place [i]is[/i] it to say what the maximum is? All that unnecessary money that's dumped into those salaries does nothing to benefit anyone but the corporate executive himself. It may certainly be best for the business, but the people who work for it are still dirt poor as a result. It's the reason we have such a huge gap in wealth in the US. Why should an exec live in the life of luxury alone with millions more in their pockets every year, when the hard-working middle and lower classes have to raise a family of four on a simple $15k in the same time period? It's morally wrong.
[QUOTE]Again, not the government's business. If there is a cultural shift towards a business like this, then maybe it could exist. But there's no reason for it to happen.[/QUOTE]
So, essentially, incidents like the deaths in the fire of the triangle shirtwaist factory; or thousands dying each year because their employers save a buck by spreading construction sites with poisons like asbestos, or the families who lose their homes because Ma or Pa got injured at work and were fired as a result; are "no reason" to promote micromanagement and things of the sort in the workplace. Many of these incidents could have had less loss, or had been avoided all together, if the higher-level had taken a moment to listen to the entry-level employee.
[QUOTE=joes33431;29160717]I'm not familiar with the specifics, but we could likely learn a thing or two from countries in Western Europe about Medicare reform. For example, how they were able to put a free healthcare system in place.
The only thing holding us back from learning from other countries, are "tru Murrkanz" who will immediately call you a dangerously socialist, anti-american thinker, simply for wanting to gain some knowledge from nations aside from the US.[/quote]
Technically, a nationwide healthcare system would be unworkable, and a statewide system is much more manageable. Much closer in size and scale to those countries.
[quote]
Well, who's place [i]is[/i] it to say what the maximum is? All that unnecessary money that's dumped into those salaries does nothing to benefit anyone but the corporate executive himself. It may certainly be best for the business, but the people who work for it are still dirt poor as a result. It's the reason we have such a huge gap in wealth in the US. Why should an exec live in the life of luxury alone with millions more in their pockets every year, when the hard-working middle and lower classes have to raise a family of four on a simple $15k in the same time period? It's morally wrong.
[/quote]
Okay. Let's go through the basics.
1. Many execs do donate quite a bit of their money. See Bill Gates, for example. Many people make shittons of money and donate, as well as employing shittons of people.
2. What benefit would limiting salaries give, exactly? It would mean that
a. People who make lots of money with no salary, such as lawyers would still be rich.
b. Same with stock guys and what not.
c. there isn't an incentive to become a CEO. You become powerful and do a decent amount of management work with your power and make important decisions. Alright. Whatever. If there's your proposed voting decision, even that doesn't matter.
3. It isn't dumped. It's budgeted. CEOs can be displaced by top shareholders, IE The Board of Directors. If it's ridiculous and the shareholders don't like it, they can affect it. They have tons of money in salaries because they're at the top. It's their company, not the government's, so why exactly does it matter? They also pay more in taxes(Although they could stand to pay more), and limiting their wages would limit the taxes they could pay.
4. The people who work for these corporations aren't dirt poor. Maybe in some cases they don't pull really great wages, but that's on the bottom of the bottom level. Factory workers, unskilled laborers. Unskilled laborers get paid shit because they are what it is previously stated. Unskilled. A job anyone can do, so why pay them higher because of it, or punish those (CEOs) who had the skill and the smarts to get to the top?
5. That's not why we have a huge gap of wealth. That's because we don't tax those people much, and wealth doesn't trickle down effectively. Limiting salaries would hurt everyone, and not benefit the poor. They wouldn't pay anyone more.
[/quote]
[quote]
So, essentially, incidents like the deaths in the fire of the triangle shirtwaist factory; or thousands dying each year because their employers save a buck by spreading construction sites with poisons like asbestos, or the families who lose their homes because Ma or Pa got injured at work and were fired as a result; are "no reason" to promote micromanagement and things of the sort in the workplace. Many of these incidents could have had less loss, or had been avoided all together, if the higher-level had taken a moment to listen to the entry-level employee.[/QUOTE]
Oh wait this system already exists.
It's called unions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.