....lybob
-
Posts
5,355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ....lybob
-
-
Huh? I'm lacking direct discussion? Where's the refutation of my definition that you promised?
It's simple. You keep shouting "50 dead" because it's supposed to make us sad and act irrationally. No thanks. You are no different than the ones who shout "50 dead" to try to take away guns.
but if we don't act irrationally then Osama bin Laden"s glorious vision of an America ground down economically will never come to past - we should immediately get bogged down again in the ME and spend huge amounts of money on security.
-
I have yet met anyone who admits to feelings of terror - so how can there be terrorists?
-
We should call this what it is - radical Salafi terrorism.
-
-
Soft Cell- tainted love
Nena- 99 Luftballons
-
Very sad. Very stupid. Hitchhiking isn't a great idea in the most peaceful of countries.
that was very sad in 2008
-
No **** Sherlock. Which part of legislative abdication in favor of grandstanding is hard for you to understand?
My guess is that very few of the jobs that are taken by illegals would be taken by Americans. Welcome to the first world dilemma.
Not only do very few Americans want to do those jobs but very few Americans could do those jobs physically even if they wanted to.
-
Also, it's photoshopped
aww you're ruining their fun
-
MY specific tales? I'm not allowed to believe my right to religious freedom is curtailed because the Little Sisters of the Poor's rights are? Or that my right to assembly isn't infringed by the IRS's refusal to consider certain groups for tax exemption? Or that my fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendment rights aren't violated by the mere existence of civil asset forefeiture, even though it hasn't been applied to me? Or that the tenth amendment wasn't gutted by Obergefell v Hodges?
You're going to argue that rights aren't abridged, and you can't be against rights being abridged, unless you've personally and directly been impacted?
Because if it is, you are going to get MASSIVE amounts of **** for your endless liberal pontificating for the rights of other people, you dumbass.
wasn't the question about your lost of rights over the last 8 years? how long have we had civil asset forfeiture ? did the IRS suddenly when Obama came into office start making judgements about which groups qualify for tax exemption status or have they been making judgements all along?
-
The American public being told their choice is Trump or Hillary
-
The possible leader of the free world.
T-rump says he can not be treated fairly by those with a Mexican heritage, Muslims, menstruating women, not my African-Americans or anyone with a strong bias against fraud
oh and babies who get upset about a little good nature ribbing of the disabled
-
If record numbers of people are on welfare, food stamps, over 90 million adults out of work, and many jobs being reduced to only 30 hours per week, how does it square that we have record job growth and such low unemployment?
Anyone who uses "over 90 million adults out of work" is either an idiot or a propagandist- which are you?
-
Just out of curiosity, how would anyone "regulate" prostitution?
-
U.S. businesses have now added 14.5 million jobs over 75 straight months, extending the longest streak on record.
unemployment rate falls to 4.7%
-
Except he is not 6'1 180 pounds
he is 6' nearly 200 pounds
just going on what the Bills have him list as - 6,1 183lbs
-
OK just a guess but Watson, Woods, Easley for ST if back from injury- Hankerson as our speed take the top off guy, Dezmin Lewis as our size jump ball guy and Boykin as our tough hands guy- Listenbee and Allen on practice squad
Listenbee at around 6,1 180lbs sounds a little frail to make the team this year
-
Friends don't let friends drive drunk or high
Friends also don't video friends who are drunk or high
-
Strawman.
"Corporations incorporating somewhere" does not somehow magically confer credit for a business' growth and achievement on the country in which they are incorporated. It does not make those fortunate enough to have their standard of living raised by being born in the nation in which that country is incorporated because it is incorporated there be owed something by those businesses. Since when does the Nation State have to be owed to rule? do they only make rules for those who owe them?
The overwhelming majority of outsourcing and off-shoring is done for access to cheap labor, lower standards of labor, and fewer burdensome regulations. Logistics and opening markets comes years down the line once capital inflows drawn in with cheap labor have worked to modernize economies, and create consumers out of former agrarianites.- well since offshoring began in the 1960s they must have created some consumers, and don't companies really go over seas because first world workers are lazy and have bad habits?
Without First World capital, those areas of the world will remain tribal wastelands ruled by warlords. Maybe some places but I rate this as hyperbolic
I was speaking hyperbolicly, but then, you already knew that. Yep
Also, on what planet do you believe businesses are not already straining themselves to take advantage of cost saving energy efficiency, innovation to lead their industries, and employee efficiency? Strain harder
In what alternate reality do you feel firms will devote more capital towards the things that make them the most money when they have less capital in total? I've heard that having less focuses the mind and that people really don't give their all until failure will lead to death (metaphorically)
-
That's absurd on so many levels.
First of all, those companies are private entities and do an immense service to the countries that are located in by providing their citizens with the lifestyle which today defines what a First World country is. Those companies do no owe the residents of the United States anything. Conversely the residents of the United States owe them everything that they have.
Secondly, doing this would decimate the Third World and emerging economies. Without the current incentives to invest there, those labor markets would go completely untapped, and there would be zero capital inflows.
Lastly, your suggestion, if implemented, would exponentially increase the domestic costs of good and services making everyone not sitting at the top of the economy much, much poorer.
1. Corporations are incorporated somewhere, I'm sorry if you don't like the nation state as the organizing principle of modern western society.
2. Third world countries would not lose all investment, foreign companies would still get their labor 50% off and companies often taut reasons other than labor costs as reasons for moving such as logistics or opening markets- plus indigenous companies could still make use of very cheap labor although they'd have a harder time marrying that ultra cheap labor to cutting edge design, technology, and manufacturing processes.
and oh yeah, circumstances don't matter as long as they have the right habits so any economy decimated will be sent "10 habits of the rich and successful" or "think and grow rich" or "rich dad poor dad" or one of the hundreds books of that ilk.
lastly, exponentially? are you sure? what exponential function are you using? are you calculating savings in transportation costs? have you included CEOs and other management getting less, have you thought about how if companies are not improving their bottom line by going for the cheapest labor they may have to turn their efforts towards greater productivity, increased energy efficiency, product quality and "R and D" ? wouldn't at least some offshore companies stay and pay a higher rate and wouldn't that allow those lucky few thirdworlders buy more goods and services or send their children to college? and wouldn't a labor squeeze allow workers in the first world countries to increase their pay somewhat offsetting higher prices?
-
Organized labor is on the way out in this country, and it's largely self inflicted. Unionized labor has priced itself out of the global market place.
Which is why instead of these free trade agreements the US spends immense effort and resources to attain, we need to spend those efforts and resources on a new multinational labor protection pact between first world countries that would force companies headquartered under those countries to pay at least 50% of the wages to offshore labor and to have identical safety and environmental standards.
-
You haven't, nor have Biven and Mitchell, made any rational or compelling argument that those dollars would be diverted into labor rather than earnings. Labor prices itself in a competitive market, just like everything else. Labor does not magically become more valuable once CEO pay is reduced.
Yours is an argument that only seeks to pay some less rather than others more.
wages basically have three options for growth, government mandate, labor scarcity, or pressure from collective bargaining -if earnings are increased organized labor can ask/apply pressure for a portion of that increase.
-
I'll ask again, since you ignored me the first time:
How many times more important to a company's short and long term success is the CEO than a low level factory or warehouse worker his company employs? 20x? 100x? 1000x? Or is the difference between an industry leader capable of negotiating billion dollar deals, and making billion dollar decisions, and an essentially fungible cog in his creation so unfathomably large that it's absurd to compare the compensation of the two?
I'll then ask you a second question:
Why do you believe a reduction in CEO pay would lead to higher salaries for low level employees?
It is sometimes argued that rising CEO compensation is a symbolic issue with no consequences for the vast majority. However, the escalation of CEO compensation and executive compensation more generally has fueled the growth of top 1 percent incomes. In a study of tax returns from 1979 to 2005, Bakija, Cole, and Heim (2010), studying tax returns from 1979 to 2005, established that the increases in income among the top 1 and 0.1 percent of households were disproportionately driven by households headed by someone who was either a nonfinancial-sector “executive” (including managers and supervisors and hereafter referred to as nonfinance executives) or a financial-sector executive or other worker. Forty-four percent of the growth of the top 0.1 percent’s income share and 36 percent of the top 1 percent’s income share accrued to households headed by a nonfinance executive; another 23 percent for each group accrued to financial-sector households. Together, finance workers and nonfinance executives accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent of households and 67 percent of the income growth of the top 0.1 percent. Relative to others in the top 1 percent, households headed by nonfinance executives had roughly average income growth, those headed by someone in the financial sector had above-average income growth, and the remaining households (nonexecutive, nonfinance) had slower-than-average income growth. These shares may actually understate the role of nonfinance executives and the financial sector since they do not account for the increased spousal income from these sources.7
We have argued above that high CEO pay reflects rents, concessions CEOs can draw from the economy not by virtue of their contribution to economic output but by virtue of their position. Consequently, CEO pay could be reduced and the economy would not suffer any loss of output. Another implication of rising executive pay is that it reflects income that otherwise would have accrued to others: what the executives earned was not available for broader-based wage growth for other workers. (Bivens and Mishel 2013 explore this issue in depth.)
There are policy options for curtailing escalating executive pay and broadening wage growth. Some involve taxes. Implementing higher marginal income tax rates at the very top would limit rent-seeking behavior and reduce the incentives for executives to push for such high pay. Legislation has also been proposed that would remove the tax break for executive performance pay that was established early in the Clinton administration; by allowing the deductibility of performance pay, this tax change helped fuel the growth of stock options and other forms of such compensation. Another option is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation. Other policies that can potentially limit executive pay growth are changes in corporate governance, such as greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.
-
Obama has never doubted America is underinvested in Asia and overinvested in Middle East: http://nyti.ms/1XOZAed
Which is why he invested almost the entirety of his second term to Iran............
Iran is in Asia
-
I just attributed personal finance mismanagement to idiocy by calling everyone idiots.
How is that NOT hedging?
I didn't mean your position on that particular matter I meant your lifestyle position as a miserable prick- you do not hedge you come right out an declare it with every post
Islamic Terrorism
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-man-who-says-he-was-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/
real or con job