Tully Mars

I googled, yahoo'd and looked under the bed. No luck. But it's out there somewhere.

Who knows maybe they used some f'd up method to reach their conclusions?

IMO, you're in the happy bracket if you look for family and friends to bring you happiness. Wanting a fancy car, a house larger then the local library won't do it. Getting them won't do it either.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

mixedmedia

I don't have a lot of time to write this morning, but I do have a link.

Take a look at this information:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executive2.html

This not liberal misinformation. It is factual numbers and it is getting worse. I don't know of anyone who isn't experiencing the truth day-by-day of the widening income disparities in this country and the effect it is having on what used to be called, the middle class. This isn't about people who are 'better at making money than others.' It is about greed, plain and simple.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Tully Mars

This whole pay the CEO nearly 500 times what the average worker makes is crap, pure crap. Company loses billions? Pay the CEO more, but lay off a few people and outsource to India. Company loses billions and billions? Send the CEO packing but give him a few hundred million on his way out the door. And lay off lots of folks.

Crap, pure crap.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Ustwo

..

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

flstf

I believe the thinking is that overseeing the downsizing of a company and having to lay off people is very stressful for CEOs and therefore justifies higher pay and bonuses.

Tully Mars

Yeah, it's hard, stressful work. But nothing a new Gulfstream 550 wouldn't cure.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Ustwo

I'm a CEO.

I make about 4* what my average worker makes. I am aiming for 10*.

Thats going to be going down a lot (1* very shortly) as I have a huge new investment and being the CEO/Owner means I take the loss. Right now I need to be making about 2500 a day to break even. Thats not paying me, thats just breaking even keeping the lights on. I'm not making that, I'm not breaking even, I have the gigantic risk out there, you bet your ass I'm going to be making more than the person who does a single job, is replaceable, and has no risk.

But I know you weren't talking about a CEO such as myself. I'd just like to point out that America has millions of CEO's out there, working their asses off, and sometimes losing everything doing so, while creating jobs for many many millions more people. This is what makes America an economic powerhouse.

But lets talk about those you were really talking about. The CEO's of giant companies who personally get paid millions of dollars.

They make a lot of money, for the same reason a professional athlete makes a lot of money. Not that many people have the skills to be the CEO of a giant mega corporation. Honestly, its impressive what some of these people do, but like a super star athlete sometimes it doesn't work out and the guy got paid a lot of money for doing a poor job. Its a risk.

But corporations don't hire these people to piss away money, they get paid that because its required to get people to do the job. Do you think someone is going to work at that level and take on that kind of responsibility without great compensation? Its been tried and its not worked out well. Some people are worth more to your business than others, sometimes 500* more.

If corporations could get way with paying the CEO what they pay the janitor, they would in a heart beat.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

loquitur

MM, I accept that there are widening disparities in income. Empirically I don't think it's an open issue: it definitely is happening. Historically, when there has been massive technological-innovation-driven dislocation in the economy, there has been widening income disparity, because those who are able to harness the power of the new technology gain more from its benefits, and it takes some time for the benefits to disperse generally through the economy. That's why we had robber barons at the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th century, as the country was installing electricity, roads, cars, railroads, mass production factories, etc etc etc. And it's why Michael Dell, Bill Gates, and their ilk are billionaires today.

What I want to know is why you think the mere fact of unequal incomes at any particular point in time is a problem. Unless you begrudge other people their success - and I can't imagine you're that kind of person - why does it hurt anyone if someone else does well? I could understand it if this was ancien regime France, or Tsarist Russia, where you had miserable serfs in barely subsistence-level lives, with small pockets of hereditary idle nobles who lived lavishly and contributed nothing. But that's not the US by a long shot.

I want everybody in this country to be rich. I want everyone to have the opportunity to chase their dreams and realize them. And for those who manage to succeed, I don't want to punish them for their success.

Willravel

Ever driven a Porsche? Heh.

Tully Mars

Maybe but I doubt it. CEO's often sit on the very boards that decide their pay and benefit packages. They pay themselves as much as they think the shareholders will swallow. I see it kind of like congress deciding in a middle of the night session they need a pay raise.

As for the pro-athlete analogy- If the team loses every game the athlete is toss out with the coach. Granted sometimes with some pay but nothing like the CEO's going rate. When a company loses money quarter after quarter the CEO is shown the door. All too often behind that door is a big fat pile of cash.

Paying someone for failing to preform doesn't seem very American to me. Hey ya failed miserably, but hey you tried real hard. Here's 75 million to make you feel better. Have a nice life. Crap ontop of crap.

BTW- I owned and operated a profitable small business for nearly 15 years. Never lost money, not even the first year. My brother currently owns a restaurant. Not sure about him but my pay was, on average, about 12 times what I paid people. I understand taking all the risk, having all the investment.
What I don't get is 500X pay. Sorry unless you're making every shareholder a ton of cash it's bullshit. It's even more bullshit if you're actions actually lose money. It's bullshit on top of bullshit if you're losing the shareholder's money and laying people off right and left.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

loquitur

[#49] Nope. I drive a five-year-old Chevy. A fancy car just doesn't do it for me. On the other hand, a huge library of books and the time to read them would be just lovely...........

Tully Mars

Yeah and a Ferrari too. Enjoyable, for the moment. Don't think it made me any happier overall.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Ustwo

And then the company fails. Poor management.

Lets say everything I said was wrong about high end CEO's, completely. It still doesn't get into the why it matters. What does it matter if some guy made 100 million dollars doing a shit job?

When I was making 8000 a year 7 years ago, and that plus my wifes secretarial salary is what we lived on, those guys didn't have an effect on me, what we could do, what we needed, or how happy I was. Their money didn't affect my health care, my car, our entertainment. Hell as happy goes we were just as happy then as now, maybe more happy now but thats kid related not money.

Why should I care what some overpaid CEO makes, its not my money to decide how its spent, and if they spent it wiser I'd still have been lower middle class economically. It might matter if my wifes company went belly up, and it wasn't a small company, but the CEO was the owner, its his money to spend, poorly or wisely. If she lost her job she could have found a new one, unemployment wasn't an issue then or now.

What I get from a lot of people on this is two things. One is their sense of fairness is violated and they want things to be 'fair' in their own eyes. Its not fair that someone makes millions while someone else is laid off, therefore that shouldn't be allowed. The other is just old fashioned jealousy. Its not fair that 'I' don't have millions, so no one else should either.

Perhaps the hardest lesson for me to learn in my 20's was not being concerned about others success, not being jealous of those who had more or got it easier, and being happy for people who succeed. I don't think most actors, athletes, or some CEO's deserve what they make in relation to what they do, but but good for them, I'm not going to legislate that they shouldn't.

Its actually a very nice place to be. It means I'm happy when I'm making very little money, I'm happy when I'm making a lot, and I'll be happy for the next several months when I'll have to cut back to school spending levels. I won't be happy if this new venture fails, but I'll still be happy over all.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Tully Mars

OK, everything you said was wrong.

Because somebody's paying a price for his 100 million dollar salary. Often that price is paid by people who can afford it the least. When a person who's doing his job right loses his job because someone making a 100 million is doing a shit job I think it's complete crap. I also think it's crap when people who bought stock in the company lose money while the company hands out cash like it grows on trees to the guy causing the stock loses.


I agree with that. I was as happy when I first got out of the Navy and was making not much more then min. wage as I was when I made many times that amount.


Unemployment and under employment most certainly are issues. Many area's of the US are in damn near depression territory because of large lay offs, out sourcing and downsizing.


For me it's a fairness issue. I'm not at all jealous. Personally I think the more money you have the less happy you are at some point. But I do not think it's fair to take from the shareholders and the employees to pay huge amount to the CEO, CFO, or anyone else at the top. I have less of a problem with this if it's a totally private company. What an owner wants to do with his company is his business and is none of my business. If he decides it's worth a couple more million to him to lay off a bunch of people, I'll think he's an asshole. But that's completely his decision. The worlds full of assholes rich and poor.


I'm not interested in legislating it either. I just don't do business with company that do this if I can help. If you're laying people off and out sourcing job to other countries I think that's unfair to the employees and to this nation as a whole. So I take my business elsewhere. I also closely watch my portfolio and try to stay out of funds that include such companies.



Good for you.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

loquitur

Tully, what I got from your posts is that you object to those who don't EARN what they make, and I think most people would agree with you (me included). But if the general run of things is that people do earn what they make, why is it objectionable that some people are better at earning money than others? Based on everything you wrote, why do you care if someone else makes more than you, if your life happiness isn't tied to how much money you make?

Ustwo

Well if you aren't interested in legislating this sort of thing, and we both can agree that sometimes it sucks, then really do you have a problem with income disparity?

Thats the question in the thread, and I've yet to see why its BAD someone makes a lot more than someone else as long as basic needs are not infringed on.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Tully Mars

First of all I think all too often it is not the general run of things. Or at least when it isn't the general run of things- the people that end up in the economic crapper are the least responsible. I don't have any problem when people earn more money. When actor gets paid 25 million to make a movie and that movie makes 500 million I'd said that actor earned that money. More power to him. But when a CEO loses other people their jobs and gets paid a huge sum in the process I call bullshit.

And second, What did I say that made you think I care when other's earn more money then I? I think I repeatedly said having more money wouldn't make me more happy. Personally I think you'd have to be pretty damn shallow to base your happiness on what someone else does or does not earn. Or what car or house someone else owns. In fact above basic needs I think basing your happiness on making more money is pretty shallow. Looking for happiness in monetary or material things is a fools game you'll never win.

In general I don't have a problem with income disparity unless it's based on paying someone else a salve wage or worse shit canning them and sending US jobs overseas. Warren Buffett makes a shit load of money, Probably makes more an hour then I make in a month, hell maybe a year? But from everything I've read and heard he treats his employees with loyalty and respect. He also, it would seem, pays them decently.


I do see a problematic trend in the US where the top few get paid more and more and the working class get squeezed harder and harder. Most of that squeeze, IMO, comes from the greed of a few and at the expense of many.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

loquitur

Tully, I think what you might be missing is that CEOs' duties run to their shareholders and not to their employees. I'm talking legal duties here. I would argue that treating employees well is good business and that a boss does shareholders no favors by shitting on employees, but there are occasionally times when it's necessary to cut back on workforce, and that can be for any number of reasons. If the end result is stemming losses or increasin profitability, then the CEO has done the company a service - including particularly the employees who remain with the company. I'd rather have a healthy company with fewer employees than a company that refuses to lay people off and then finds itself going under.

As far as shareholders are concerned, who do you think shareholders are? The biggest ones are not fat cats. The biggest ones are pension funds. In fact, I believe the single biggest shareholder in the country is CalPERS (see here: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/home.xml). It invests the benefit and retirement money of the employees of the California State government. In other words, the workers of the country are also the owners of the businesses. That's what a 401(k) is. That's what pension funds are kept in. If you have a whole life insurance policy, the savings piece of it comes from investments.

This is all interlinked. We have a wonderfully interdependent economy, and each of our success is linked to everyone else's success.

Tully Mars

If we were speaking face to face I'd ask you something to the effect of "when I say ________, what do you hear? But since we're writing back and forth I'll ask you- When I write things like this:

But I do not think it's fair to take from the shareholders and the employees to pay huge amount to the CEO, CFO, or anyone else at the top.


Or-

CEO's often sit on the very boards that decide their pay and benefit packages. They pay themselves as much as they think the shareholders will swallow.

What do you read?

No kidding. Which would be why I wrote this:

I also closely watch my portfolio and try to stay out of funds that include such companies.

Do you get the idea that I think I'm some fat cat?

I get the serious feeling that I'm writing one thing and reading something completely different.

Well I agree it's all interlinked. Exactly how wonderful that is or how one's success leads to another's is highly debatable. All too often, through pure greed, one's success comes at the expense of others, IMO.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

roachboy

question (sadly, that's all i have time for at the moment--i am caught between things in 3-d):

i wonder if what you're proposing in a backhanded kind of way is an abolition of the distinction between wage labor and capital when you say "i want everybody to be wealthy"--if you did that, then there'd be no structural explanation for unequal distribution of wealth and maybe your position would make sense, in my view.
but unless you do in fact abolish structural factors like that, it is hard to me to fathom how you can remove inequalities in wealth from the political arena--which seems to be what you'd like to do.

and if you are, in fact, arguing for the abolition of divisions like between wage labor and capital (which i use for shorthand's sake--i am fully aware that the contemporary situation is more complicated than this in some ways--e.g. in the fact that for example a pension fund can own stock and so and so--and i am also fully aware that this division in the economic arena repeats over and over throughout other zones of the mode of production expressed in it) maybe we might agree--->the only way to remove this from politics is a radical transformation of capitalism itself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

It is not the mere fact of unequal incomes. I really don't care that there are rich people and I am not. Hell, I have rich people in my family. My own parents are pretty well off. I certainly don't begrudge my parents because I know exactly how hard they worked to get it. But even they will tell you that there's something wrong going on today. My stepfather has been a well-paid executive for more than 40 years, and he will tell you that the executive branch of business today is out of control. The middle class is disappearing. Median incomes will not support the nuclear family anymore, yet a select few are drowning in money that they didn't earn in any quantifiable way. That they couldn't possibly have earned. And I'm not talking about people like Bill Gates. Obviously Bill Gates changed the world as we know it. I'm talking about CEOs and other top corporate executives who are earning millions - tens of millions, hundreds of millions - in undeserved perks and bonuses when the people who work for them are faced with dealing with the consequences of the increasingly funneled nature of our economy.

It is not whining or sour grapes. It is simply bewilderment and the disbelief that so many people are willing to ignore it...and even try to justify it. But it's only a matter of time...as more and more people who are used to getting by fall into the net of poverty, it will become more and more an urgent issue. For it's not a static phenomenon. Eventually, like all the insanity based on greed before it, the bubble will burst.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Ustwo

Just to get on this a bit, its false.

This has been talked about before, and when adjusted for inflation, the average family has the same buying power as in 1970. The problem is people are spending more on luxuries and viewing them as necessities. The income isn't the problem, its some peoples life style that is.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ngdawg

Isn't "median income" a false measurement, though? That, of course there has to be a median, but how does median fare against "average"? If half the population makes over(for example) $100k grand a year and half under, where does the real drop in income start to show? How many of those half-unders make what is considered middle-class? As you can see, I failed math...
As for the comment that the median income will not support the nuclear family anymore, that would greatly depend on where that family is. If the median income is, say again, $100K, that family would do really well in several of the southern states and a couple of the midwestern ones. They'd struggle, perhaps, in California, New Jersey and Manhattan. That same $100k might be earned differently in those states, ie; blue collar on the MidAtlantic Coast, high end executive in Alabama.

Baraka_Guru

Where was this discussed before? Because this is a bit false too.

1970s
Average salary: $7,564
Milk: $0.33/quart
Bread: $0.24/loaf
Round steak: $1.30/lb.
New home: $26,600
Regular gas: $0.36/gal.

2005
Average salary: $43,362 (573% change)
Milk: $2.00/quart (606%)
Bread: $2.79/loaf (1,163%)
Round steak: $6.39/lb. (492%)
New home: $264,000 (992%)
Regular gas: $2.96/gal. (822%)





There is something wrong here, and it isn't just luxury goods. Many things are more expensive to us than they were in the '70s, and the scary bit is that China won't be able to keep their inflation at bay for much longer. The party is likely over....

There are many Americans (North Americans?) who view luxury goods as necessities, and they've been doing it for decades. Since the invention of the television, we've seen an unprecedented amount of junk come into our lives. But it's the American way to get what you want, right?

Like I said, the party will likely be over soon. This is unsustainable. You're partly right, Ustwo. Luxuries (i.e. a television/computer for nearly every member of the household) will make the problem worse. We are no longer saving money; we are spending money that isn't ours.

Many of us are going to learn our lesson the hard way. You can't always get what you want, especially when it's technically harder to get things that are necessities, such as food, shelter, and a college education. (You don't want to see the difference between the cost of college in 1970 vs. 2005, and neither do I.)

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

mixedmedia

No, that is not the problem. I am not talking about people overextending their credit and buying 42" flat-screen tvs when they can barely make rent. I am talking about people who live modestly and still have to make hard choices about which bills to pay in a certain month.

Baraka's numbers up there are pretty illustrative. Do you deny them? Do you think if a company's executives are taking home multi-million dollar bonuses every year, regardless of the productivity of their efforts, it has no effect on the income and well-being of it's workers and shareholders? You say it has no effect on you but it does. And importantly to you, it has an effect on the people who come to you to spend their money so you can make a living. Have you noticed that company paid insurance plans are disappearing? That more and more, employees are being asked to either pay larger percentages of their own health insurance or participate in plans with high deductibles? Do you suppose this will not have an effect on your business somewhere down the line?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Tully Mars

Where did you get these figures?


These numbers make more sense.

Let's say 45 to 50K-

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...th/002484.html

As far as median v. average. I think, could be wrong, that median works better here. Median is the middle regarding population. Half the people make more and half the people make less, again I think. Whereas average means all the income divided by the population. So if you had a population of 1000 people and every one made one dollar a year except one who made a trillion dollars your average would be a lot closer to the trillion number then the dollar.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cynthetiq

I don't think that economic inequality matters in the context laid forth. Their potential inequality I agree with, since we cannot squash someone and keep them down.

But as far as those with incomes and wealth, there are many people I know who live paycheck to paycheck, they are rich, middleclass and poor. I believe it is a matter of values to money more than anything. There are many people who accumulate wealth by following the fundamental axiom:
Spend less than you earn.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

seems to me that there is a distinction between the structures that shape the economic and social systems as a whole and how individuals live inside that system--you can read off structural questions in how folk live, but you can't just go from how folk live to structural features.

maybe this is at the origin of the tendency of positions to talk by each other: we have no agreement about starting point.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Savings rate has nothing to do with it. As for the numbers, there was a post in the general board, and then one here where host was using a source that didn't support him, claiming it supported him, which flat out stated that while there are different costs the amount of disposable income was the same.

I'm to lazy to dredge them up right now.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Tully Mars

Savings rates have nothing to to do with it? That's like saying unemployment and under employment are not an issue. The number of people with little or no savings is a major issue, IMO. People living with a safety gap of one or two paychecks are increasing. I'd venture to guess the number of people without any financial safety net is pretty high. The cause of this can be debated. Over spending, living above your means via easily obtainable credit, raising cost of basic living, wages not keeping pace with inflation, any or all of these could be factors. I'm sure others could come up with factors I've haven't mentioned. But when people have an issue, say health reasons or job loss, and their personal safety net is wiped out it's a major problem. What do people do when the saving they do have are gone and the amount coming in does not equal the amount going out?

I'd say saving rates are an issue.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Cynthetiq

what does disposable income mean? I bought a $14,000 car when I could have easily bought a $30,000 car.

The monthly payments are $250 vs. $550. Is $300 disposable income? or is it part and parcel of the standard of living?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Tully Mars

I think you're speaking of discretionary income. Generally speaking, in economic terms, disposable income is gross income minus taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretionary_income

But your point makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly what is necessary or what basic needs are can vary greatly. I can get by on very little per month. I remember saving for my first house and cutting everything but hot dogs and Ramen noodles out. It was the mid 80's and I was making just over 1600.00 a month and I managed to put 1k a month in the bank. Would have been able to squeeze more out if it weren't for diapers and baby food.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

loquitur

Lots of good stuff here. I had the bad judgment to read this at work, and I don't have the time to put my thoughts together. I hope I remember to do it when I get home, hours from now...........

loquitur

Sheesh. I really dropped the ball here. Let's resume. Here is an interesting discussion about an article that analyzes the causes of inequality at the bottom of scale (i.e. the question being why the bottom quintile makes as little as it does rather than why the top earners earn so much). Here is a link and a sample quote:So inequality seems to stem from a whole bunch of factors at all levels. That means, if you want to reduce inequality, you can do it much more profitably and with more effectiveness by improving the skills and abilities of people at the bottom than by hobbling people at the top.

host

Bullshit !

It's a white man's "club"....it's been that way, it got a little more diverse, but not now. Only Jewish males have made any headway....and still, they are mostly white males, and not in the petroleum business, not as long as the bulk of world oil reserves are concentrated in the middle east.

Why don't you stop, loquitur.....the glaring reality of where the power in politics and business is concentrated, no matter how much "training", and "education" folks who aren't white male, pursue and achieve, they are not making it into those slots in any greater numbers.

1195 total fortune 100 companies boards of directors seats, white males hold 851 of those seats....

loquitur

No, host, why don't YOU stop. I posted an academic economic article and you come back with incoherent irrelevancies. This last post of yours boils down your entire political worldview to one word: ENVY. It's not attractive.

I want everyone to be well-off. You don't care if everyone is miserable so long as no one is doing better than you are. Very nice.

Cynthetiq

so wait, are you saying that Condi Rice, Colin Powell are just Uncle Toms? or whatever that derogatory infliction is that means they aren't there due to their ability or opportunity?

as far as those statistics are concerned, I recall in the 70s when those numbers were 0 minorities and 0 women.

are you expecting it to be radically different overnight?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

host

I am offended by your attitude and opinion, but most of all, by your sheer denial of a systemic problem that is all encompassing and has NOTHING to do with training and education.

Consider that I am offended, and I am a white male. Can you even imagine how your opinions are perceived by some educated non-white males?

It is a white man's club !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is 145 fucking years and three months since the emancipation proclamation was signed. There were more black elected officials holding higher office in Mississippi, for example, 140 years ago, than there are now.

<h3>If you could somehow dig up and animate Dr. King, and asked him to recite your post to a public audience, do you think he would do it, Cynthetiq?</h3>

Cynthetiq and loquitur, why are you both advocates for a status quo that neither of you would accept for yourselves or those who you care about, but you plead to the clearly disenfranchised? Where do you get the motivation to defend the backwardsness, the stagnation, versus looking at it as it actually is, and either remaining silent, or posting in objection to it?

loquitur

Host, your problem is that you really think there is a conspiracy out there to keep people down. You keep insisting it's a "fact," and it's just not. There might be some structural issues in the economy that are worth discussing, but insisting, as you did, that economic research is invalid and not worth considering unless it addresses your white boys' club is just not a useful way to proceed. And it's pretty rich for you to claim offense after you tell me I should "stop it" because I don't sign on to your conspiracy theory.

Good luck with your options positions, host. Do you really think that if your trades pay off big-time the big bad white boys club will come and steal it from you? Or could it be that the only person wanting a cut of your winnings will be the government?

Cynthetiq

hold the fucking phone a second here.

I don't see the words for accepting and advocating status quo.

I also don't know WTF you are talking about in respect to Dr. King. I'd say you have more of your own guilt to assuage than try and tape that to my back.

I'm stating that almost 40 years ago, those Forbes 100 were clearly as you stated 100% white male. In those 40 years of changs, we've had spurts and sputters, but now those numbers have increased, and increase on a daily basis. They have increased because they are qualified and have achieved their way to their position.

Again, are you stating that because they are black they should just be invited to sit there? so thus Colin Powell and Condi Rice have done nothing but been invited to join the ranks because they are black?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.