Is the American Dream Dead?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

@Beans:

Was I off base?

EditL Quotes and typo[/quote]

This deep in tax season, I scan posts and comment on relevant stuff to my interests.

You guys been talking about me this whole time?

lol[/quote]

Not really, just calling each other names. We did miss you though. Gotta love tax season.
[/quote]

I believe that USMC is a CPA as well…tax season is a bitch.

But seriously, I have never seen anybody get so riled up over somebody posting an answer to their question to somebody else. Ease up a little there H.

I mean I have been here over 12 years, is that a rule I was unaware of?[/quote]

I’m not a CPA, but I am an accountant.

82

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

@Beans:

Was I off base?

EditL Quotes and typo[/quote]

This deep in tax season, I scan posts and comment on relevant stuff to my interests.

You guys been talking about me this whole time?

lol[/quote]

Not really, just calling each other names. We did miss you though. Gotta love tax season.
[/quote]

FACELESS AVATAR GUY ALERT! Sound the horns. Bring everyone in. WHAT DO WE KNOW OF THIS FACELESS MAN!!! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

(Ironic considering beans is also faceless, but has found the time to put a picture in). In fact, only two people in this entire thread have a picture of their face as an avatar. And yet he isn’t calling out you guys.

I feel oh so special. [/quote]

The difference is I’ve had several interesting conversations with dmaddox and Beans that I’ve benefited from. You on the other hand have never once, that I can recall, said anything of note.

83

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

What are you guys talking about? I want in.[/quote]

No, please do not interject, this is a provate conversation on the internet. It’s also against H Factor’s PWI rules book. So for your sake I wouldn’t. He might call you names ;([/quote]

Are you calling me names? I can not believe you are personally attacking me. Well you are ugly. There ya go. I am now part of the conversation.

lol.[/quote]

I guess I should insult you back now…maybe tomorrow it’s time to go squat![/quote]

Make sure to get in a couple of sets of curls in the squat rack. Milk and Squats.
[/quote]

Oh I will (Good thing I own the place :slight_smile:

84

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Jesus Christ, for a dude who doesn’t care about a faceless avatar man (which seriously, the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard, you’re obsession with the fact that I haven’t put a goddamn picture up on an anonymous forum) it sure seems that’s all you can post about.
[/quote]

I mentioned you don’t have an avatar for a number of reasons that I suppose I need to explain to you. First of all when you throw insults around, as you have, while hiding behind a username, that to me is cowardly. Secondly, it limits your creditability. As you said you only have a few posts so there’s not much to go on. Finally, because you lack credibility I through your history and you lack any photos or videos I assume you are a troll. Do you even lift or contribute to the other forums? My guess is no.

Once again your reading comprehension is lacking. Beans , pretty clearly, said he was busy with tax season and thus only skims post. He could very easily have just missed your obvious insinuations towards him. I, knowing he is a tax accountant, know he’s busy (probably 55-65 hours a week) defended him. What’s funny is it wasn’t even in a mean spirited way, but you immediately got butt hurt and YOU derailed the thread. No me. I asked you 3 questions you never answered.

So asking for clarification on your position based off you response to another poster is a no no. Got it…

Exaggerate much?

There was no fuck up on part, I point that out to you a few posts ago. I gave my thoughts on debt and CEO pay, exactly what the OP wanted.

Again, I don’t even know you. I don;t even know what you look like (is that better I didn’t bring up your lack of a picture this time).

No, I believe in the 1st amendment so I think I’ll stay, thanks for the thought though.

Clearly droning on and on about something isn’t frowned upon because you continue to do it. Acting as if you’re not butthurt is kinda hard to pull off when you make gigantic posts about how butthurt you are.

But yeah, you did fuckup and no amount of long winded multi post will change that. You can continue to attack and whine about it if you like. After all you already talked about your first amendment rights to post here forever so keep rolling on.

85

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Jesus Christ, for a dude who doesn’t care about a faceless avatar man (which seriously, the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard, you’re obsession with the fact that I haven’t put a goddamn picture up on an anonymous forum) it sure seems that’s all you can post about.
[/quote]

I mentioned you don’t have an avatar for a number of reasons that I suppose I need to explain to you. First of all when you throw insults around, as you have, while hiding behind a username, that to me is cowardly. Secondly, it limits your creditability. As you said you only have a few posts so there’s not much to go on. Finally, because you lack credibility I through your history and you lack any photos or videos I assume you are a troll. Do you even lift or contribute to the other forums? My guess is no.

Once again your reading comprehension is lacking. Beans , pretty clearly, said he was busy with tax season and thus only skims post. He could very easily have just missed your obvious insinuations towards him. I, knowing he is a tax accountant, know he’s busy (probably 55-65 hours a week) defended him. What’s funny is it wasn’t even in a mean spirited way, but you immediately got butt hurt and YOU derailed the thread. No me. I asked you 3 questions you never answered.

So asking for clarification on your position based off you response to another poster is a no no. Got it…

Exaggerate much?

There was no fuck up on part, I point that out to you a few posts ago. I gave my thoughts on debt and CEO pay, exactly what the OP wanted.

Again, I don’t even know you. I don;t even know what you look like (is that better I didn’t bring up your lack of a picture this time).

No, I believe in the 1st amendment so I think I’ll stay, thanks for the thought though.

Clearly droning on and on about something isn’t frowned upon because you continue to do it. Acting as if you’re not butthurt is kinda hard to pull off when you make gigantic posts about how butthurt you are.

But yeah, you did fuckup and no amount of long winded multi post will change that. You can continue to attack and whine about it if you like. After all you already talked about your first amendment rights to post here forever so keep rolling on. [/quote]

Whatever you say boss. Read back through the thread, I’m clearly not the one who is butthurt. Again, calling me names while hiding, that’s brave of you.

86

Is this topic derailed completely yet?

I was going to add- I used to be a groundskeeper for an older guy who owned his own business. He built it from the ground up with his brother into a nation wide moving company. Admittedly, he didn’t even know how much it was worth any more, but it was in the hundreds of millions. I was going easy on him with the billing because I didn’t know this, so he decided to teach me a lesson. He handed me a bill back and said “Don’t go so easy on the pricing. I’ll let you know if you’re going overboard. At this rate you are working for practice. Write up another bill and bring it to my office tomorrow.”. I wrote him another one and he paid it without flinching (of course). But that lesson stuck with me. A lot of people never have the benefit of someone like that. The undercut themselves because they simply don’t know any better, and more often than not accept what they are told they are worth out of desperation.

Another guy I used to know who was also head of a very large company which develops business and industrial parks once said- “It doesn’t matter how much you make, It’s how much you keep.”. Another little nugget of wisdom that seems to escape way too many people.

I certainly can’t match those two for business accomplishments or acumen, but I’ve done OK, and really don’t begrudge people what ever make or charge for their services. I’ve managed to sock away a little bit here and there, and have purchased some small amounts of a couple of publicly traded companies. I could care less how much money the CEOs and upper management make in those companies. They make me money. Not an assload by any stretch, but I don’t have to work for it either. They do.

They also make everybody else some too. Anybody who has any type of managed fund- retirement, kids college fund, what ever, people are going to benefit from those at the top. When a company clears several billion a quarter, paying a CEO a few million is like getting a .1% commission on the corporations performance, and it isn’t going to change the dividend one iota.

I will probably never exit middle class through the top, and don’t really care either. What I really want though is for my kid to be able to go to a major university and not have to do what I have. Those top paid CEOs are working toward that end.

I say pay them what ever they want.

87

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Maybe I painted it completely wrong, but that’s how it looks to me. [/quote]

You did, but only because of your persepctive.

My point is: the people being paid this type of money have a certian skill very few people have. This makes them rare. Like certian presious metals or gems, they are worth more than people who don’t have these skills, in terms of wages. This doesn’t make them a good or bad person, just that they offer a skill to the market place that not many can, so they demand more pay.

Now these people are hired by companies who’s mission is to make profit by providing a product or service. This means they have to offer something consumers find valuable at a price they are willing to pay. This product or service cost money, expenses. The CEO’s pay is one of thos expenses. IN order to make profits, you will want to keep your expenses as low as possible. So it stands to reason these companies will pay the least amount they can get away with to get the talents the company needs, at all levels of the company. If someone at “the bottom” is getting “slave wages” then it onus is on them to learn a more marketable skill. It isn’t the companies responcibility to wipe every employees’ ass at the expense of the company, shareholders, customers and society at large.

Benefit happens when a company provides the product or service to consumers at a price that is worht the value added. Yes this benefits society as a whole. If WalMart doesn’t provide a benefit on the whole, people need to shop somewhere else. But until people stop spending money, in droves, at WalMart, it is reasonable to conclude WalMart, does in fact, provide a benefit to consumers at the very least.

I wouldn’t imagine we are all that far apart. I just hold the consumer and employee more responcible than you do.

Look at it this way:

Producers sit around and want to make Saving Private Ryan. They can hire Tom Hanks at 12 million, or Billy Joe Blanski at 200k to star in the film. Why do they chosse Hanks even though he is significantly more expensive (keep in mind, many people ‘on set’ are paid your same slave wages)? Talent and name reconition. Hanks gets a couple more asses in the seats than Blanksi does. No one ever has a problem with this, or paying $25 to go see a movie. But when the same basic model is applied to a CEO, that company becomes evil. [/quote]

I think it’s correct to view the company as evil, but you have to arrive at that conclusion by following a certain reasoning and understanding, as you say, “perspective.”

As you demonstrate, there is a demand for highly paid CEO’s, but there are also business models, like Costco, whose models are based on fairness maybe for the sake of popularity and appeasing people like me (imagine, owners that smart!) Or, they just have a high level of integrity and want to be able to sleep at night.

To me, I see, and know for a fact that there are businesses out there that rake in profits, out perform their competition in the stock game, AND pay their employees a fair wage from top to bottom. http://pacific-human-capital.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/costco-vs-walmart-2012.jpg

If a corporation doesn’t meet that criteria because there isn’t much of a profit margin to begin with, then fine. But when I see Walmart, it may as well be a piece of N. Korea to me because I know for a fact that their business model is designed to not pay full time storefront employees a living wage, pay a CEO shit tons of money, maximize stock value by squeezing the bottom employee. But we see that this model has problems in the long run, as when you don’t pay your people, they will steal! And that’s why Walmart stock sucks now. Because they didn’t pay their employee, lost more than they made in low wages through employee theft, bad publicity which all have led to less than optimal stock performance. So these really smart guys, aren’t necessarily as smart or have the foresight that is paid for.

Point being, the whole CEO argument applies, they need to get paid, but business stock owners are paying too much for positions that may not be as important as previously thought.

http://pacific-human-capital.com/wal-mart-vs-costco-which-business-does-better-for-employees-and-customers/

88

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

I say pay them what ever they want.

[/quote]

I think the hot topic is when CEOs want/demand high wages, yet the company they represent takes bailout money for example. I think CEOs pay should be based off performance both short and longer term. How you would structure the contract would be troublesome though. It would not be in the best interest of all stakeholders and not necessarily in the best interest of the shareholders to base pay on perfromance for upper level management.

89

@ Severiano:

Don’t most companies pay their employees a decent wage though? You used Costco as an example, which I think is a good one for your case. My thought though is that most companies have to reward talent in order to keep said talent, but in many cases a lot of their jobs don’t require talent. Walmart, for example, probably pays top dollar for experts in supply chain management because it’s a skill/expertise not everyone has due to education requirements and expereince.

However, the guy saying hello when you walk in. He could be replaced by a sign or any 15 year old looking for a job. So to me, it doesn’t make sense for Walmart to bother at all with the greeter because they don’t really add value. If they had to cut the job entirely it wouldn’t affect their customers or business. If they had to cut the supply chain management guy though, it would cause big problems for the business.

Also I thought Walmart was like the king of operating on the margin?

90

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

I say pay them what ever they want.

[/quote]

I think the hot topic is when CEOs want/demand high wages, yet the company they represent takes bailout money for example. I think CEOs pay should be based off performance both short and longer term. How you would structure the contract would be troublesome though. It would not be in the best interest of all stakeholders and not necessarily in the best interest of the shareholders to base pay on perfromance for upper level management. [/quote]

Sure. I understand where you are coming from with that. It seems that the problem is being addressed though.

Hope I did that right. I’m not a quote tab ninja like you guys.

91

The government should never bailout a business. There is no justification for it doing so. To accept that the government has the legitimate power to do so is to essentially accept communism.

To answer the question asked in this thread’s topic, not necessarily. The people of the U.S. can always vote themselves out of problems, but as long as we vote to keep expanding the government, the American dream will remain stagnate.

92

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I say pay them what ever they want.
[/quote]

Good post.

I also want to add that CEOs do not pay themselves unless they own the entire company.

CEOs get paid based on how much money they make for the majority shareholders.

At least theoretically we should want them to get paid as much as possible.

93

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The government should never bailout a business. There is no justification for it doing so. To accept that the government has the legitimate power to do so is to essentially accept communism.

To answer the question asked in this thread’s topic, not necessarily. The people of the U.S. can always vote themselves out of problems, but as long as we vote to keep expanding the government, the American dream will remain stagnate. [/quote]

There is perfect justification for bailouts from the government’s point of view. How do they maintain their legitimacy if they cannot grease the wheels for their friends?

In point of fact voting does not work except to loot wealth away from the loosing side.

94

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I say pay them what ever they want.
[/quote]

Good post.

I also want to add that CEOs do not pay themselves unless they own the entire company.

CEOs get paid based on how much money they make for the majority shareholders.

At least theoretically we should want them to get paid as much as possible.[/quote]

Good Lord have mercy…when did you take the red pill and get all fiscal?

95

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The government should never bailout a business. There is no justification for it doing so. To accept that the government has the legitimate power to do so is to essentially accept communism.

To answer the question asked in this thread’s topic, not necessarily. The people of the U.S. can always vote themselves out of problems, but as long as we vote to keep expanding the government, the American dream will remain stagnate. [/quote]

There is perfect justification for bailouts from the government’s point of view. How do they maintain their legitimacy if they cannot grease the wheels for their friends?

In point of fact voting does not work except to loot wealth away from the loosing side.[/quote]

LOL, you have a point. Bailouts are certainly justifiable from the government’s point of view. I guess I left out that point of view.

I’m not sure you’re correct about voting. Obviously that’s what voting in America(and everywhere else that I’m aware of) does today; however, if the people of this country vote for representatives who strictly abide by the Constitution and the legitimate purposes of government, then that won’t be possible. Government should not have the power to decide winners and losers or successes and failures.

96

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The government should never bailout a business. There is no justification for it doing so. To accept that the government has the legitimate power to do so is to essentially accept communism.

To answer the question asked in this thread’s topic, not necessarily. The people of the U.S. can always vote themselves out of problems, but as long as we vote to keep expanding the government, the American dream will remain stagnate. [/quote]

There is perfect justification for bailouts from the government’s point of view. How do they maintain their legitimacy if they cannot grease the wheels for their friends?

In point of fact voting does not work except to loot wealth away from the loosing side.[/quote]

LOL, you have a point. Bailouts are certainly justifiable from the government’s point of view. I guess I left out that point of view.

I’m not sure you’re correct about voting. Obviously that’s what voting in America does today; however, if the people of this country vote for representatives who strictly abide by the Constitution and the legitimate purposes of government, then that won’t be possible. Government should not have the power to decide winners and losers or successes and failures.
[/quote]

Since most voters do not even know what the purpose of the constitution is for don’t expect what you wish to ever happen.

97

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Good Lord have mercy…when did you take the red pill and get all fiscal?[/quote]

I fell down the Austrian Rabbit Hole years ago.

98

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The government should never bailout a business. There is no justification for it doing so. To accept that the government has the legitimate power to do so is to essentially accept communism.

To answer the question asked in this thread’s topic, not necessarily. The people of the U.S. can always vote themselves out of problems, but as long as we vote to keep expanding the government, the American dream will remain stagnate. [/quote]

There is perfect justification for bailouts from the government’s point of view. How do they maintain their legitimacy if they cannot grease the wheels for their friends?

In point of fact voting does not work except to loot wealth away from the loosing side.[/quote]

LOL, you have a point. Bailouts are certainly justifiable from the government’s point of view. I guess I left out that point of view.

I’m not sure you’re correct about voting. Obviously that’s what voting in America does today; however, if the people of this country vote for representatives who strictly abide by the Constitution and the legitimate purposes of government, then that won’t be possible. Government should not have the power to decide winners and losers or successes and failures.
[/quote]

Since most voters do not even know what the purpose of the constitution is for don’t expect what you wish to ever happen.[/quote]

I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire.

99

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire. [/quote]

“Saving the country” really only amounts to saving the government from collapse.

I hope you decide to save yourself first because “the country” doesn’t give a rip about you and will do all it can to save itself even if it has to suppress you in the process.

100

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I don’t expect it. I don’t believe that any country has been able to save itself after it began slipping. However, this country does still have the ability to save itself, if the people so desire. [/quote]

“Saving the country” really only amounts to saving the government from collapse.

I hope you decide to save yourself first because “the country” doesn’t give a rip about you and will do all it can to save itself even if it has to suppress you in the process.[/quote]

True enough. When I mention saving the country, I am talking about the people saving themselves from tyranny. Tyranny will eventually lead to government collapse, so I guess you’re correct.

I don’t want a government collapse. That would most likely do no good, and would almost certainly be bad. If a people were ever to arrive at anarchism by intellectual means, that would likely be great, but getting there by collapse would not be.