quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I've just provided you a source to validate my comments. Please provide the same for your "supply side economics has destroyed the US economy" and "no legitimate economist even still consider it worth debating". Or are those, again, just derision used as argument on the left such as you "supply side stupidity" comment. Perhaps, you should, as Lucy says, get real, argue with something to back up what you say other than "all your friends believe the same thing" and don't expect derision to fly as reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/29/071029on_onlineonly_surowiecki?currentPage=1
http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/
http://sharepoint.mvla.net/teachers/RobertF/Micro%20Economics%20AP/Documents/THE%20RISE%20OF%20SUPPLY%20SIDE%20ECONOMICS.pdf

You are also welcome to search academic economics journals where the subject is no longer even written about at all. Supply side economics is thoroughly disproven.

You're giving me the New Yorker magazine to prove a economics theory. Get serious.

quote:

You're giving me the New Yorker magazine to prove a economics theory. Get serious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

You're the reason why you failed.

No one else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may doubt all you want, but if you can't back up that allegation, you'll be even less relevant in your ravings. Any proof of them "routinely" forcing workers to work off the clock?

Yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=0
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wal-mart-loses-unpaid-overtime-case/

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

You're the reason why you failed.

No one else.

Ahhhh, that whole post was great, and I honestly love America and Americans for that kind of attitude but you do realise how few people are actually capable of doing what you suggest?

Yes...most but, capacity/capability isn't the block. A fervent desire to win is.

You and Desi seem to have this beautiful idea that everyone, literally everyone can be brilliant and successful if they just pull their socks up and get on with it. Brushing quickly past the fact that no one has any money to buy all the goods and services that all these amazing entrepreneurs are going to produce, you do realise that only a tiny% of these people are actually going to make a success of their endeavours? And that only a tiny percentage, for many and varied reasons are not in any position to even try in the first place?

Number 1, I was one of those guys who had no money and, you can be certain, I'm not the smartest one at the starting gate....I simply work harder than anyone else.

Everyone can't be at the top of the food chain, that makes no sense at all.

Statistics prove you right, both in the past as well as long in to the future...there will always be a lowest 10% and, there will always be a top 10%.

You can choose.

(Most do).

Everyone can't be a success.

That's simply not factual.

How do you plan on looking after the people who can't be brilliant, or do you not really care about them?

I do....that's why I love being wealthy...it gives me a rare opportunity to help others and....I do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

It's capitalized in business creating jobs for millions of people.

The trouble with the US economy is a lack of demand from consumers, not a lack of capitalization from the wealthy.
Raising the minimum wage could actually help everyone: it could help shrink the size of government benefits needed to support the working poor, it could increase demand in the US economy, and a healthier economy =s better sales for businesses. This is a virtuous cycle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

I have a VERY simple solution...

Salary Ratio Caps...

In 1965 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 20:1
In 2012 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 273:1

Walmart is a favorite of mine to pick on, as I despise their means of practice and the way they can knock out small competition simply by use of their size.

In 2012 the CEO-to-employee salary ratio of Walmart was MORE than 1000:1 (I rounded down to make the math easier, it was actually 1034:1)
In 2012 the mean pay/hour of a Walmart employee was $8.81
That means that every hour the CEO of Walmart is making over $8810!! The vast majority of his employees don't even make that in a MONTH!
That means he makes about $352,400 a WEEK
Which is $1,409,600 a MONTH
And finally $16,915,200 A YEAR!!! Seriously...I can be a very extravagant person when I want to be, but what the hell does he need all that money for EVERY YEAR?!?

If we cap the ratio at 1965 values, that means for every hour the CEO would make $176.20.
Over a 40 hour week that's $7048...a WEEK! (Still more than the vast majority of his employees make in a month)
$28,192 a MONTH (more than his average employee currently makes in a year)
$338,304 a YEAR!!!

Let's assume that's not enough for him (which it obviously isn't).
Lets raise his employee's pay to 20$ and hour.
Working within the 1965 salary cap the CEO would now make $400 an hour.
$16,000 in a 40 hour week.
$64,000 a MONTH!!!
$768,000 a YEAR!!!

His employees make more than enough to have a liveable wage.
He makes more than enough for all of his expensive toys.
There is more than enough money left over in company profit to be able to provide healthcare, dental, and vision coverage (for those who don't know, these are typically separate in the US) and STILL be able to pay the company's fair share in taxes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie



Everyone can't be at the top of the food chain, that makes no sense at all.

Statistics prove you right, both in the past as well as long in to the future...there will always be a lowest 10% and, there will always be a top 10%.

You can choose.

(Most do).

Everyone can't be a success.

That's simply not factual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
You're the reason why you failed.
No one else.

Ahhhh, that whole post was great, and I honestly love America and Americans for that kind of attitude but you do realise how few people are actually capable of doing what you suggest?
You and Desi seem to have this beautiful idea that everyone, literally everyone can be brilliant and successful if they just pull their socks up and get on with it. Brushing quickly past the fact that no one has any money to buy all the goods and services that all these amazing entrepreneurs are going to produce, you do realise that only a tiny% of these people are actually going to make a success of their endeavours? And that only a tiny percentage, for many and varied reasons are not in any position to even try in the first place?
Everyone can't be at the top of the food chain, that makes no sense at all.
Everyone can't be a success.
How do you plan on looking after the people who can't be brilliant, or do you not really care about them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If you really want to be successful, you can be. That's the point of Lookie's post. You might want to look into the wisdom of his posts. In the meantime, you'll also have to forgive some of us that believe anybody can actually be successful with enough hard work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Everyone can't be at the top of the food chain, that makes no sense at all.
Statistics prove you right, both in the past as well as long in to the future...there will always be a lowest 10% and, there will always be a top 10%.
You can choose.
(Most do).
Everyone can't be a success.

That's simply not factual.

I don't want to get into some daft maths argument, but there has to be a problem here re. you saying that "everyone can't be a success" is not factual and that there will always be a lowest 10% unless you are suggesting that even the lowest 10% are going to be successful but just slightly less successful than the top 10%.
Given that seems unlikely it still doesn't answer the question of how to deal with the people at the bottom.
You may care, and give, but America as a whole doesn't seem to care or give

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you really want to be successful, you can be. That's the point of Lookie's post. You might want to look into the wisdom of his posts. In the meantime, you'll also have to forgive some of us that believe anybody can actually be successful with enough hard work.

bed time here, but I do not believe that everyone can be successful, there are many that just don't have that in them. They can work hard and do their best but a lot of people will always be near the bottom of the heap, there is always a bottom of the heap, there has to be.
A spikey comment as I go to bed ( can't write much more) too many like you and lookie seem obsessed with the people who are taking the system for a ride, freeloaders and lazy fuckers taking your hard earned dollars.
Those people will always exist but don't drag the people who do want to try hard down by setting the bar to high. I will happily pay for a free loader if it means that a honest joe gets a chance.
This post could be better, but it's 2am, laters

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie



Everyone can't be at the top of the food chain, that makes no sense at all.

Statistics prove you right, both in the past as well as long in to the future...there will always be a lowest 10% and, there will always be a top 10%.

You can choose.

(Most do).

Everyone can't be a success.

That's simply not factual.

I don't want to get into some daft maths argument, but there has to be a problem here re. you saying that "everyone can't be a success" is not factual and that there will always be a lowest 10% unless you are suggesting that even the lowest 10% are going to be successful but just slightly less successful than the top 10%.

Given that seems unlikely it still doesn't answer the question of how to deal with the people at the bottom.
You may care, and give, but America as a whole doesn't seem to care or give

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

I have a VERY simple solution...

Salary Ratio Caps...

In 1965 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 20:1
In 2012 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 273:1

Walmart is a favorite of mine to pick on, as I despise their means of practice and the way they can knock out small competition simply by use of their size.

In 2012 the CEO-to-employee salary ratio of Walmart was MORE than 1000:1 (I rounded down to make the math easier, it was actually 1034:1)
In 2012 the mean pay/hour of a Walmart employee was $8.81
That means that every hour the CEO of Walmart is making over $8810!! The vast majority of his employees don't even make that in a MONTH!
That means he makes about $352,400 a WEEK
Which is $1,409,600 a MONTH
And finally $16,915,200 A YEAR!!! Seriously...I can be a very extravagant person when I want to be, but what the hell does he need all that money for EVERY YEAR?!?

If we cap the ratio at 1965 values, that means for every hour the CEO would make $176.20.
Over a 40 hour week that's $7048...a WEEK! (Still more than the vast majority of his employees make in a month)
$28,192 a MONTH (more than his average employee currently makes in a year)
$338,304 a YEAR!!!

Let's assume that's not enough for him (which it obviously isn't).
Lets raise his employee's pay to 20$ and hour.
Working within the 1965 salary cap the CEO would now make $400 an hour.
$16,000 in a 40 hour week.
$64,000 a MONTH!!!
$768,000 a YEAR!!!

His employees make more than enough to have a liveable wage.
He makes more than enough for all of his expensive toys.
There is more than enough money left over in company profit to be able to provide healthcare, dental, and vision coverage (for those who don't know, these are typically separate in the US) and STILL be able to pay the company's fair share in taxes!

The most recent CEO of WalMart made 23 million in his last year (there's now a new CEO).

You can be certain he didn't work 40 hours a week....but let's assume he only worked 60 hours (which, by the way....was a slow week for the guy):

60 hours a week, 23 million (not 17 million), 52 weeks....$7,371.00 per hour.

Pretty close to your numbers, except....he didn't work 40 hours (hence....why he {was} the CEO)...and for the record, having been the fulcrum for producing 17 billion in net profit....seems like a relatively decent return on investment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If you really want to be successful, you can be. That's the point of Lookie's post. You might want to look into the wisdom of his posts. In the meantime, you'll also have to forgive some of us that believe anybody can actually be successful with enough hard work.

bed time here, but I do not believe that everyone can be successful, there are many that just don't have that in them. They can work hard and do their best but a lot of people will always be near the bottom of the heap, there is always a bottom of the heap, there has to be.

A spikey comment as I go to bed ( can't write much more) too many like you and lookie seem obsessed with the people who are taking the system for a ride, freeloaders and lazy fuckers taking your hard earned dollars.

Those people will always exist but don't drag the people who do want to try hard down by setting the bar to high. I will happily pay for a free loader if it means that a honest joe gets a chance.

This post could be better, but it's 2am, laters

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

I have a VERY simple solution...

Salary Ratio Caps...

In 1965 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 20:1
In 2012 the average CEO-to-employee salary ratio was 273:1

Walmart is a favorite of mine to pick on, as I despise their means of practice and the way they can knock out small competition simply by use of their size.

In 2012 the CEO-to-employee salary ratio of Walmart was MORE than 1000:1 (I rounded down to make the math easier, it was actually 1034:1)
In 2012 the mean pay/hour of a Walmart employee was $8.81
That means that every hour the CEO of Walmart is making over $8810!! The vast majority of his employees don't even make that in a MONTH!
That means he makes about $352,400 a WEEK
Which is $1,409,600 a MONTH
And finally $16,915,200 A YEAR!!! Seriously...I can be a very extravagant person when I want to be, but what the hell does he need all that money for EVERY YEAR?!?

If we cap the ratio at 1965 values, that means for every hour the CEO would make $176.20.
Over a 40 hour week that's $7048...a WEEK! (Still more than the vast majority of his employees make in a month)
$28,192 a MONTH (more than his average employee currently makes in a year)
$338,304 a YEAR!!!

Let's assume that's not enough for him (which it obviously isn't).
Lets raise his employee's pay to 20$ and hour.
Working within the 1965 salary cap the CEO would now make $400 an hour.
$16,000 in a 40 hour week.
$64,000 a MONTH!!!
$768,000 a YEAR!!!

His employees make more than enough to have a liveable wage.
He makes more than enough for all of his expensive toys.
There is more than enough money left over in company profit to be able to provide healthcare, dental, and vision coverage (for those who don't know, these are typically separate in the US) and STILL be able to pay the company's fair share in taxes!

The most recent CEO of WalMart made 23 million in his last year (there's now a new CEO).

You can be certain he didn't work 40 hours a week....but let's assume he only worked 60 hours (which, by the way....was a slow week for the guy):

60 hours a week, 23 million (not 17 million), 52 weeks....$7,371.00 per hour.

Pretty close to your numbers, except....he didn't work 40 hours (hence....why he {was} the CEO)...and for the record, having been the fulcrum for producing 17 billion in net profit....seems like a relatively decent return on investment.

I know my numbers weren't quite exact. I did a little rounding (down) with a couple of the figures to make the math a little easier to follow...
Granted Walmart made insane profits, can you honestly tell me that he did over 1000x the work of the individuals in the stores? I can't believe that to be true.

Not to mention, the biggest point of what I was trying to say there was simply this:
What in the hell could these CEO's possibly need (Insert ridiculous number of millions here) a year for?!? Does anyone really need 4 houses and 10 jets and 30 cars, especially when there are people around who bust their asses and can barely afford their small apartment and 1 or 2 (if it's a couple) cars and can barely pay their bills or buy food.
If I made 16 million in one year, I could easily retire and live VERY comfortably for the remainder of my days, and I'm sure any of you could as well!
There is this show called "Hoarders" where people fill their homes with things they are never going to do anything with. These people are doing the same thing with money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover
I know my numbers weren't quite exact. I did a little rounding (down) with a couple of the figures to make the math a little easier to follow...
Granted Walmart made insane profits, can you honestly tell me that he did over 1000x the work of the individuals in the stores? I can't believe that to be true.
Not to mention, the biggest point of what I was trying to say there was simply this:
What in the hell could these CEO's possibly need (Insert ridiculous number of millions here) a year for?!? Does anyone really need 4 houses and 10 jets and 30 cars, especially when there are people around who bust their asses and can barely afford their small apartment and 1 or 2 (if it's a couple) cars and can barely pay their bills or buy food.
If I made 16 million in one year, I could easily retire and live VERY comfortably for the remainder of my days, and I'm sure any of you could as well!
There is this show called "Hoarders" where people fill their homes with things they are never going to do anything with. These people are doing the same thing with money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You may doubt all you want, but if you can't back up that allegation, you'll be even less relevant in your ravings. Any proof of them "routinely" forcing workers to work off the clock?

Yes
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=0
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wal-mart-loses-unpaid-overtime-case/

Nothing recent, though?

I know they did that in the past. They lost. They paid. That's how "justice" is done in these here States.

Is WalMart always going to be the target of ire for things that have happened in the past?