|
|
Post by mcnoch on Mar 4, 2013 1:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 4, 2013 2:10:03 GMT -5
Matthias,
There never has been and never will be, equality of outcomes in human society. Both in the USA and Germany, or Australia or any country you care to name.
Some people are born lazy, not interested in school, and have no drive or ambition. The end result is guaranteed to show both underachievers and over achievers.
IMHO, The underachievers have NO rights to the fruits of the labours of the overachievers.
And where do you/they get the idea that 'wealth' should be "distributed' or 'RE-distributed' to the underachievers? To me that smell like socialism, communism if you like, and the old "From each - To each" fantasy that proved such a disaster from 1917 on.
All of us here know in our societies who is productive and who is UN productive.
I gave my resident grandson a tip some years ago as he prepared to go out into the world, "if you want sympathy, you will find it in the dictionary, between 'Shit' and 'Syphilis'.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Mar 4, 2013 2:16:06 GMT -5
Bravo
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Mar 4, 2013 2:20:32 GMT -5
Bravo is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 4, 2013 2:21:54 GMT -5
PS,
People make progress in this world by getting off their arse and working, not by sitting down and waiting for a REdistribution.
End of rant!
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Mar 4, 2013 3:17:10 GMT -5
I don't believe that everyone should get equal pay and share in wealth, but I - like many others - think that the situation with the super-rich has gotten a bit out of hand. Even the conservatives here in Europe believe that there is no justification for what happened in the last decade when it comes to bonuses and salaries for top-mananger. Even the Swiss population - not known to be socialistic - has voted with a large majority to stop this. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/03/swiss-referendum-executive-pay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 8:55:29 GMT -5
I don't agree with you that the situation has gotten out of hand regarding the super rich. IMO, congrats to them for being able to achieve that which all of us would give our right nut to do. I certainly don't hold it against them that they are smarter than I am when it regards acquiring wealth. Besides, I could beat the crap out of them playing golf and they probably don't enjoy rockhounding nearly as much as I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 4, 2013 13:12:26 GMT -5
Matthias,
What a man earns is nobodies business but his own, together with his employer of course.
A toilet cleaner in the local shopping mall gets what his labour is worth, not what is "fair", and a CEO of a major corporation gets what the Board of Directors is willing to pay to keep him. When recruited by that Board they look at a dozen or so applications, their qualifications and experience, and offer what they think will secure his services.
NOTHING to do with what is fair!
Maybe they should look at workers in Nurnberg and take 10% off and transfer it to the toilet cleaners,
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 4, 2013 13:59:53 GMT -5
I am always fascinated by these many UN substantiated claims that "The top 1% own 99% of the wealth, and the bottom 99% own 1% of the wealth". Or some variation of that, depending on how much impact the composer wants.
I have a strong interest in the stock market and investing in general, and I have some views on that claim.
The first is that I read annual reports often, and here in OZ they must disclose the 'Top 20' shareholders, presumably to expose the capitalist bloodsuckers on the share register.
Almost invariably, those 'Top 20" lists contain the names of the Retirement Funds, Investment Funds, other large companies, and so on. There are few if any private individuals in the top 20 lists. The vast majority of small shareholders are the 'mums and dads', usually retired.
THUS,
when I climb aboard my luxury helicopter and fly all over the US and Australia I see FARMS, SUBURBAN HOMES, SHOPPING CENTRES , FACTORIES, and vacant land. (and stock exchanges)
The farms are owned by families, or large scale operations (with shareholders).
The Suburban homes are owned, or being paid off, usually by the occupant, sometimes landlords.
The shopping centres are owned by large corporations like 'Westfield' (with shareholders)
The factories are often owned by small operation ventures owned by individuals and families, the others by corporations (with shareholders).
The vacant land is often Government owned on behalf of the nation.
The stock exchanges are explained above.
To me, that covers a large % of the wealth of the USA and Australia.
SO, to me the claims of the 1% are bovine excreta.
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2013 14:15:25 GMT -5
A CEO is but a gloryfied salesperson he brings in the orders for your company , the bigger the name the more barriers removed the more money your company makes , example given , CEO Sir John could have a negtivity on company profits , while CEO muleskinner07 profits soar , understand this is just an example on how the thing works .
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 4, 2013 15:00:45 GMT -5
A CEO who does not improve the balance sheet, to a degree that satisfies the Board, would not be the CEO for long.
Boards of Directors have little patience with excuse makers.
...and CEOs have Sales Directors to worry about that, and he SACKS the one that does not perform.
That is the downside of the fancy salary and office.
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 11:30:04 GMT -5
It has come to my attention that the wealthest people are the people with the most money , this simply is not true , Steve Jobs had billions couldn't buy another day on earth with it , Hugo Chavez with all his power he is still sinking into abyass , the weathlest people are those who have a pretty good chance of seeing tommorow .
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Mar 5, 2013 13:32:49 GMT -5
Very profound young man, very profound.
|
|
