Younger People Are Angry

[Ursa Majoris]

and again I ask, the cronyist dirigism favored by the left is a better way of achieving this (the greatest good for the greatest number) than the free market?

You keep on about this as if I'm advocating some form of centralized planned economy. I'm not. I am merely saying these things:

 

Any unregulated economic system will eventually accrue everything to a very few, regardless of it's titular type - capitalism, communism, whatever.

Regulation is the purview of the government and, in a democracy, that regulation must strike a fine balance so that neither untrammeled corporations nor mass organized labor (to name but two elements) have too much of the upper hand.

Why wouldn't anyone want the largest number of people to gain the maximum possible benefits from the success of any system? Again, why do you continue to defend a self-serving plutocratic oligarchy that buys the government? How ironic is it that you accuse me of favoring cronyist dirigisme when you defend the rights of corporations to buy whoever they want? How is that not cronyism of the highest order? How is it not a form of dirigisme?

 

the gaping flaw in your argument is in the words "at the expense of". this is a causality you will never be able to demonstrate, because it doesn't exist.

Of course it exists and it is simply explained in math. Very simply put, if 10 people receive 25% of the overall pie while 50 people receive the other 75%, then that's probably fine. No-one thinks everyone should receive the same, obviously. You can use any proportionality you like as the basis. But if those 10 people later receive 40% of the pie while the other 50 now have only 60% of it, then the few have benefited at the expense of the many regardless of the size of the pie.

[Rovers]

You are bored and broke and some employer is hiring and you are angry at this employer? I guess I don't understand? $8*40 = $320 per week - last I checked $320 is more than $0.

 

Yup, you can live in a dumpster for that kind of money around here. ungrateful turds these people are I tell ya. They should be happy to have a lid to close over their heads when it rains.

 

Point is, on LI, this was a pillar of good paying largely defense oriented contractor businesses. Grumman, gone. Harris, Sperry, Fairchild, all gone or defunct. Engineers are working a supermarkets. This is the HIGHEST taxed county in the ENTIRE country. I didn't say I was pissed knucklehead, I said I didn't have to wonder why PEOPLE were pissed. Read what people post, don't project your own agenda onto their observations. Typical. But, surely this reply is wasted on the likes of you.... you have an opinion and won't even converse on an equal level without your own biased ivory tower standpoint.

[gbpfan1231]

Yup, you can live in a dumpster for that kind of money around here. ungrateful turds these people are I tell ya. They should be happy to have a lid to close over their heads when it rains.

 

Point is, on LI, this was a pillar of good paying largely defense oriented contractor businesses. Grumman, gone. Harris, Sperry, Fairchild, all gone or defunct. Engineers are working a supermarkets. This is the HIGHEST taxed county in the ENTIRE country. I didn't say I was pissed knucklehead, I said I didn't have to wonder why PEOPLE were pissed. Read what people post, don't project your own agenda onto their observations. Typical. But, surely this reply is wasted on the likes of you.... you have an opinion and won't even converse on an equal level without your own biased ivory tower standpoint.

Hey - sure did seem like you were pissed - pretty sure a lot of people would have taken what you wrote that way.

 

So I assume you are pissed and you call me a knucklehead and then you assume I am projecting some agenda - hmm hypocrite maybe???

[Rovers]

Hey - sure did seem like you were pissed - pretty sure a lot of people would have taken what you wrote that way.

 

So I assume you are pissed and you call me a knucklehead and then you assume I am projecting some agenda - hmm hypocrite maybe???

 

Yep, that's it. Happy now?

 

BTW, yes I am pissed that I live in the highest taxed county in the entire country. I suppose that is unreasonable? Anyone making less than 6 figures is pretty pissed around here. Even the Police make 150k a year. Highest paid cops in the country. They sit behind firehouses and eat doughnuts.

 

I plan to move out of NY and this county, and it can't come soon enough.

 

My point however was just this: I can understand why people are pissed off. That was what I said.

 

I saw a bumper sticker today. "An ERROR will end in 2012". Made me laugh. Like the president can stop thios kind of bleeding. The rich (read Wall Street) and big business run everything, and no new or old president can change it. And THAT is why people, hard working people, many without jobs hate the power players and the rich. The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstartions are the sign of the masses finally saying they have had enough of crooked businesses runni9ng the country and I certainly can commiserate with that frustration. I'm not pissed about the job I have or the pay I get.... it's about Wall Street running the governemnt.

[tonorator]

Regulation is the purview of the government and, in a democracy, that regulation must strike a fine balance so that neither untrammeled corporations nor mass organized labor (to name but two elements) have too much of the upper hand.

Why wouldn't anyone want the largest number of people to gain the maximum possible benefits from the success of any system?

 

your first sentence is dead on.

 

your second sentence is dead wrong. this should never be the goal. the bottom line is winners win and they shouldn't be punished. the government does not exist to engineer fairness and equality in wages for all. it exists to keep companies playing fairly and to execute a base level of services.

 

the idea that people would protest success is ludicrous.

 

protest corruption all you want ... fully agree here. this is what we all should be united in taking down, both in corporations and the government.

 

to stand outside the institution that brings capital to all of our businesses and gives profits and wealth to company shareholders is un-american, misdirected, and lazy.

[Rovers]

your first sentence is dead on.

 

your second sentence is dead wrong. this should never be the goal. the bottom line is winners win and they shouldn't be punished. the government does not exist to engineer fairness and equality in wages for all. it exists to keep companies playing fairly and to execute a base level of services.

 

the idea that people would protest success is ludicrous.

 

protest corruption all you want ... fully agree here. this is what we all should be united in taking down, both in corporations and the government.

 

to stand outside the institution that brings capital to all of our businesses and gives profits and wealth to company shareholders is un-american, misdirected, and lazy.

 

Strongly disagree. The premise of democracy is equality. The premise of capitalism is free enterprise. Winners SHOULD win, but not be empowered to keep the masses down in the winning of it. That is the basic sticking point.... the winners now how too much power and the cards are stacked agianst those who aspire to join the winning team. The winners want an exclusive club, no new members. The rich are getting richer, and the "all others" are getting more poor. In my naive opion anyway. I'm sure those in the top 20% income category will disagree.

[tonorator]

Strongly disagree. The premise of democracy is equality. The premise of capitalism is free enterprise. Winners SHOULD win, but not be empowered to keep the masses down in the winning of it. That is the basic sticking point.... the winners now how too much power and the cards are stacked agianst those who aspire to join the winning team. The winners want an exclusive club, no new members. The rich are getting richer, and the "all others" are getting more poor. In my naive opion anyway. I'm sure those in the top 20% income category will disagree.

 

i'm in the top 20% and i certainly don't believe anyone is empowered to keep anyone else down. this is silly. no cards are stacked and there is no institutional unfairness. trying to convince yourself that hard work no longer pays off is just a way to avoid the hard work.

 

again, corruption? bad. i'll protest this night and day. greed? greed, my friend, is good. greed works.

[gbpfan1231]

Strongly disagree. The premise of democracy is equality. The premise of capitalism is free enterprise. Winners SHOULD win, but not be empowered to keep the masses down in the winning of it. That is the basic sticking point.... the winners now how too much power and the cards are stacked agianst those who aspire to join the winning team. The winners want an exclusive club, no new members. The rich are getting richer, and the "all others" are getting more poor. In my naive opion anyway. I'm sure those in the top 20% income category will disagree.

So now the top 20% are bad people - this is pathetic!!

[wiegie]

perhaps relevant research papers:

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~joses/wp/InequalityJME.pdf

 

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/3054.html

[evil_gop_liars]

So now the top 20% are bad people - this is pathetic!!

 

Your reading comprehension stinks. 99% of the tailgate agrees with this.

[Ursa Majoris]

your second sentence is dead wrong. this should never be the goal. the bottom line is winners win and they shouldn't be punished. the government does not exist to engineer fairness and equality in wages for all. it exists to keep companies playing fairly and to execute a base level of services.

It isn't wrong. You miss the point. While winners do - and should - win, it cannot be a decreasing number of ever-bigger winners and an increasing number of people receiving no benefits from an increasing revenue ("pie"). It is unsustainable and self-destructive.

 

What is the point of a system if fewer and fewer people truly benefit from it?

[Ursa Majoris]

to stand outside the institution that brings capital to all of our businesses and gives profits and wealth to company shareholders is un-american, misdirected, and lazy.

Drivel. Show me the profits and wealth the stock market has disbursed over the past ten years. Use a mutual fund following an index.

 

Now compare that profit to the increase in pay for top executives. That is where the real money is going. If you think companies are run for the benefit of shareholders, you are just naive.

[Rovers]

So now the top 20% are bad people - this is pathetic!!

 

LOL. Never said that. What I said was that the top 20% would disagree. My point has already been proven. The top 20% is what most Americans aspire to. Nothing wrong with being a top 20 at all. That is the goal. I'm just saying that there are indeed cards stacked against the lower 80% to become part of the top 20%.

 

With the regulations, fees, licenses etc required to in NYS to even open the doors for a start up of any kind, you need serious cash. Those barriers have been set up by the pols and the top 20% in taxes (more like the top 20% of companies, not individuals to suppress open competition), liicenses, fees, paperwork and Bcrap paperwork. . You need a lawyer, and accountant and other high priced consultants even to get off he ground. That is the glass ceiling. You need to have money to make any. Most folks can't ante up 100k to even take the risk.

 

The average Joe does'nt see the opportunity. The greats like the Vanderbilts and Rockerfellas had open opportunities. The govenrment has made that kind of entreprenuriar opportunity very much more difficult to exploit. That governement is contolled by the entrenched. That is what the Wall Street protests are about, although I think that 75% of those protesters are just out there to cause a ruckus and have no clue about what they are out there for.... for most, it's just a raucus party.

[Ursa Majoris]

And here's another data on CEO pay versus worker pay from 2010.

 

At a time most employees can barely remember their last substantial raise, median CEO pay jumped 27% in 2010 as the executives’ compensation started working its way back to prerecession levels, a USA TODAY analysis of data from GovernanceMetrics International found. Workers in private industry, meanwhile, saw their compensation grow just 2.1% in the 12 months ended December 2010, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Yukon Cornelius]

your first sentence is dead on.

 

your second sentence is dead wrong. this should never be the goal. the bottom line is winners win and they shouldn't be punished. the government does not exist to engineer fairness and equality in wages for all. it exists to keep companies playing fairly and to execute a base level of services.

 

the idea that people would protest success is ludicrous.

 

protest corruption all you want ... fully agree here. this is what we all should be united in taking down, both in corporations and the government.

 

to stand outside the institution that brings capital to all of our businesses and gives profits and wealth to company shareholders is un-american, misdirected, and lazy.

they tried that . did not work . the masses can take the top down with ease if they are pissed off enough.

[Ursa Majoris]

That government is controlled by the entrenched. That is what the Wall Street protests are about

Exactly.

[CowboyGal2011]

Why are some of you so infatuated with what another person makes as income?

 

Why can't you simply work hard for yourself and do the best that YOU can? Whose business is it if you decide to waste your life at an endless IT gig with no opportunity for millions? Who's business is it if the best you can achieve is selling shrubs to wealthy suburbanites?

 

Put down the tissue, put on your boots and be a man. Hard work pays off. Sitting in a city park, eating humus and wasting condoms while you cry about your worthless women's studies degree is no way to go through life.

[evil_gop_liars]

Why are some of you so infatuated with what another person makes as income?

 

Why can't you simply work hard for yourself and do the best that YOU can? Whose business is it if you decide to waste your life at an endless IT gig with no opportunity for millions? Who's business is it if the best you can achieve is selling shrubs to wealthy suburbanites?

 

Put down the tissue, put on your boots and be a man. Hard work pays off. Sitting in a city park, eating humus and wasting condoms while you cry about your worthless women's studies degree is no way to go through life.

 

They don't know why they are protesting

[Lady.hawke]

They don't know why they are protesting

 

A cartoon? Seriously?

 

How about some actual data from a Democratic pollster:

 

TOBER 18, 2011 Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd

[tonorator]

Drivel. Show me the profits and wealth the stock market has disbursed over the past ten years. Use a mutual fund following an index.

 

Now compare that profit to the increase in pay for top executives. That is where the real money is going. If you think companies are run for the benefit of shareholders, you are just naive.

 

well, the company you slam so much, GE, has been nicely profitable for me. i invested when they were down, repeatedly, and the shares have risen since and the company continues to pay a healthy dividend. my own company has increased dividends consistently for over 100 years. my stock in apple has increased 10X!!! examples are everywhere.

 

in my company, our top performance measure is total shareholder return. it is the primary reason to exist ... which is why so many of the employees hold stock and why our retirement program is largely based on our stock. that, my friend, is a win for everybody who owns the stock.

 

you have to release this myopic view that there are only 10 people out there who are well off or rich. you also completely ignore the philanthropic efforts of our corporations and our billionaires. look at how much buffet and gates have given away. my company is the largest contributor to the united way in my city and has a long list of charitable efforts.

 

rovers, i have no problems making it easier for people to start businesses. this is what government should be about. all the red tape and back door deals that protect self interests absolutely have to go, but not at the expense of what makes this country great. my family was lower income to poor. we survived on the army pay of my father who enlisted at 18. he survived 2 tours of vietnam, became a drill sergeant, retired from the army and then sold furniture, cars, anything he could to help me be the first from the family to go to college. i've worked at one of your evil corporations for over 20 years, starting from entry level, to be successful. it's been a helluva lot of hard work and sacrifice, but it does pay off.

 

the blind polarization created by both the OWS gang and the tea party is not what is needed. these are the views that protect self interest and stop us from making true progress. the smart answer is there in the middle and the only way i know to find it is to put term limits in place to remove people from becoming institutions, along with the smart regulations ursa talks about.

Edited October 19, 2011 by tonorator

[gbpfan1231]

well, the company you slam so much, GE, has been nicely profitable for me. i invested when they were down, repeatedly, and the shares have risen since and the company continues to pay a healthy dividend. my own company has increased dividends consistently for over 100 years. my stock in apple has increased 10X!!! examples are everywhere.

 

in my company, our top performance measure is total shareholder return. it is the primary reason to exist ... which is why so many of the employees hold stock and why our retirement program is largely based on our stock. that, my friend, is a win for everybody who owns the stock.

 

you have to release this myopic view that there are only 10 people out there who are well off or rich. you also completely ignore the philanthropic efforts of our corporations and our billionaires. look at how much buffet and gates have given away. my company is the largest contributor to the united way in my city and has a long list of charitable efforts.

 

rovers, i have no problems making it easier for people to start businesses. this is what government should be about. all the red tape and back door deals that protect self interests absolutely have to go, but not at the expense of what makes this country great. my family was lower income to poor. we survived on the army pay of my father who enlisted at 18. he survived 2 tours of vietnam, became a drill sergeant, retired from the army and then sold furniture, cars, anything he could to help me be the first from the family to go to college. i've worked at one of your evil corporations for over 20 years, starting from entry level, to be successful. it's been a helluva lot of hard work and sacrifice, but it does pay off.

 

the blind polarization created by both the OWS gang and the tea party is not what is needed. these are the views that protect self interest and stop us from making true progress. the smart answer is there in the middle and the only way i know to find it is to put term limits in place to remove people from becoming institutions, along with the smart regulations ursa talks about.

It is much easier to blame others.

[gbpfan1231]

Your reading comprehension stinks. 99% of the tailgate agrees with this.

From you this hurts.

[Ursa Majoris]

well, the company you slam so much, GE, has been nicely profitable for me. i invested when they were down, repeatedly, and the shares have risen since and the company continues to pay a healthy dividend. my own company has increased dividends consistently for over 100 years. my stock in apple has increased 10X!!! examples are everywhere.

 

in my company, our top performance measure is total shareholder return. it is the primary reason to exist ... which is why so many of the employees hold stock and why our retirement program is largely based on our stock. that, my friend, is a win for everybody who owns the stock.

 

you have to release this myopic view that there are only 10 people out there who are well off or rich. you also completely ignore the philanthropic efforts of our corporations and our billionaires. look at how much buffet and gates have given away. my company is the largest contributor to the united way in my city and has a long list of charitable efforts.

 

rovers, i have no problems making it easier for people to start businesses. this is what government should be about. all the red tape and back door deals that protect self interests absolutely have to go, but not at the expense of what makes this country great. my family was lower income to poor. we survived on the army pay of my father who enlisted at 18. he survived 2 tours of vietnam, became a drill sergeant, retired from the army and then sold furniture, cars, anything he could to help me be the first from the family to go to college. i've worked at one of your evil corporations for over 20 years, starting from entry level, to be successful. it's been a helluva lot of hard work and sacrifice, but it does pay off.

 

the blind polarization created by both the OWS gang and the tea party is not what is needed. these are the views that protect self interest and stop us from making true progress. the smart answer is there in the middle and the only way i know to find it is to put term limits in place to remove people from becoming institutions, along with the smart regulations ursa talks about.

I have yet to see your data showing how the economic system is benefiting more people than before and denying my contention that it is in fact benefiting less people over time.

 

Do you really think I literally meant there are only ten people who are well off or rich?

Those regulations you go on about are put there at the behest of those already in place, as Rovers said. Do you think the lobbyists paid billions and all those billions donated to candidates are there so that politicians can make it easier for businesses to start up? Really? What red tape and regulation protecting self interest is it that "makes this country great" as you claim?

 

Here is an article written by a CEO on how executive pay has got completely out of hand. Here's a quote:

 

It's also a great exaggeration to argue, as Steve does, that "market forces" are the primary reason CEO pay has increased so much. Many studies (for example, Lawrence Mishel's study "The State of Working America 2005, 2006") show that back in 1965 the ratio between CEO pay and average company pay was 24 to 1. By 1980 the ratio had increased to 40 to 1. The ratio tended to increase every year, and in 2000 it had increased to 300 to 1. Over the past 10 years the ratio has bounced around considerably but is currently close to that peak of 300 to 1.

 

If CEO compensation is primarily driven by competitive markets, then how come the ratio was only 24 to 1 back in 1965 and is about 300 to 1 today? Surely the market demand for good CEOs is no greater today than it was 45 years ago or 25 years ago. Are CEOs today really worth that much more than their comparable peers were worth just a few decades ago?

 

More data showing executive pay is totally unrelated to stock value:

 

S&P over time - note how the value right now is the same as it was 15 years ago.

Ratio of executive pay to average worker - although this only goes to 2005, it is crystal clear that during the same period that the stock market has stood still (401k, anyone?), executive compensation has risen in comparison by leaps and bounds.

 

The point of all this? I contend that the benefits of hard work and productivity are not trickling down as Reagan said they would. Please feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

[SEC=UGA]

I have yet to see your data showing how the economic system is benefiting more people than before and denying my contention that it is in fact benefiting less people over time.

 

Do you really think I literally meant there are only ten people who are well off or rich?

Those regulations you go on about are put there at the behest of those already in place, as Rovers said. Do you think the lobbyists paid billions and all those billions donated to candidates are there so that politicians can make it easier for businesses to start up? Really? What red tape and regulation protecting self interest is it that "makes this country great" as you claim?

 

Here is an article written by a CEO on how executive pay has got completely out of hand. Here's a quote:

 

 

 

More data showing executive pay is totally unrelated to stock value:

 

S&P over time - note how the value right now is the same as it was 15 years ago.

Ratio of executive pay to average worker - although this only goes to 2005, it is crystal clear that during the same period that the stock market has stood still (401k, anyone?), executive compensation has risen in comparison by leaps and bounds.

 

The point of all this? I contend that the benefits of hard work and productivity are not trickling down as Reagan said they would. Please feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- What recession? The millionaire population jumped in the U.S. by 8% last year, fueled by the stock market recovery, according to an industry report on Wednesday.

 

The number of U.S. households worth at least $1 million rose to 8.4 million in 2010, compared to 7.8 million the prior year, according to a report by Spectrem Group.

 

"The affluent market grew in 2010 due primarily to the stock market rebound, but despite their growing portfolios, attitudes remain significantly different than in 2007," the report said.

 

"The size of the affluent market increased in 2010 but did not reach the highs obtained in 2007," the year that the recession began, according to the report.

 

Last year marked the second consecutive year of increases, the group said, following a 16% surge in the millionaire population in 2009.

 

"The millionaire comeback continues," said George H. Walper Jr., president of Spectrem Group.

 

But he added that many millionaires are still operating under a cloud of caution.

 

"While investors are feeling positive about their own portfolios, they are not convinced that the economy has recovered," said Walper. "Our ongoing polling and research indicates that investors remain unconvinced that we are back on solid ground."

 

In the prior year of 2008, the millionaire population plunged 27%.

 

The group said the number of "ultra high net worth" households, with a net worth of at least $5 million, jumped 8% in 2010 to 1.06 million, compared to 980,000 the prior year.

 

The broader affluent population, meaning households with a net worth of $500,000 or more, also grew in 2010. This population rose by 6% to 13.5 million in 2010, compared to 12.7 million the year before.

 

Households worth at least $100,000 also grew last year, to 36.2 million from 34.6 million. But the report showed that Americans, even those with money, are more cautious than they used to be.

 

"Overall attitudes are not the same as in 2007," the report said. "Many households no longer believe their home is a stable asset."

 

The report also showed that 55% of households worth less than $1 million "still feel that it is more important to protect their principal than grow their assets." To top of page

Edited October 19, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Square]

So what is top 20%? Are we talking household income? According to this wiki page, 92K+ is considered top 20% of household income. Which kind of blows my mind because the majority of people I know are above that as a two income house. I had no idea my friends were all living so fat.

 

I thought this was interesting comparison of CEO to average worker pay