Worker's Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.[/quote]

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand

82

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?

What profits are “parasitic”?

Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.

Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.

There is no butting heads-there never will be.

If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.

As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.

So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.

Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.

Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.

They can always walk away.

You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.

You cannot walk away if you want to maximize your investments, do you have any money in the market ?

So if you want the best outcome you stay in them?

Um yeah, they are your best bet now.

But you do not welcome the save haven, you think they charge too high a fee?

Then turn your boat around and face the stormy seas.[/quote]

But you have avoided answering the staement that share holders control anything , The people incontrol are the ones making all the money , And if you have anyway to alter wo has all the money you get your share So the people in control stay in control

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�?�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand
[/quote]

Workers do not compete with their employers or vice versa. They work for their employers to provide a demanded service and in return they are given a wage. That is a mutual exchange. They are free at any time to leave if their demands are not being met.

All employment is at will – or voluntary – or else we call it slavery.

84

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�??�?�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand

Workers do not compete with their employers or vice versa. They work for their employers to provide a demanded service and in return they are given a wage. That is a mutual exchange. They are free at any time to leave if their demands are not being met.

All employment is at will – or voluntary – or else we call it slavery.[/quote]

You are right I am wasting my time

85

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�??�??�?�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand

Workers do not compete with their employers or vice versa. They work for their employers to provide a demanded service and in return they are given a wage. That is a mutual exchange. They are free at any time to leave if their demands are not being met.

All employment is at will – or voluntary – or else we call it slavery.

You are right I am wasting my time [/quote]

You cannot refute anything I have stated. And it is a waste of your time to try. You have been refuted every post you make.

So I guess the best you can do is throw up your hands and claim how you are wasting your time trying to explain to little ol’ me basic economic concepts. I must admit I don’t understand any of your gibberish.

86

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�??�??�??�?�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand

Workers do not compete with their employers or vice versa. They work for their employers to provide a demanded service and in return they are given a wage. That is a mutual exchange. They are free at any time to leave if their demands are not being met.

All employment is at will – or voluntary – or else we call it slavery.

You are right I am wasting my time

You cannot refute anything I have stated. And it is a waste of your time to try. You have been refuted every post you make.

So I guess the best you can do is throw up your hands and claim how you are wasting your time trying to explain to little ol’ me basic economic concepts. I must admit I don’t understand any of your gibberish.[/quote]

I think I have refuted what you say; you just dismiss my rebuttal as wrong.

It is the fact that you deny an attempt to shine a light on the world that is not yours is why I state I am wasting my time. I think you believe the whole notion that the world and you would be better off if we lived our lives with out rules, laws or anybody trying to assure that all men live a just life

You beat your drum even though there has never been a successful civilization like you fantasize. The fact that you can not fathom that you are wrong is amusing , I think Libertarianism has some great points but I think to think it is the one and only is very foolish and short sighted.

87

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that employers do not pay attention to what other employers of the same industry are paying�??�??�??�??�?�¢??

That is the market. Workers also pay attention to what other employers are paying too. That is how competition works.

Yes, you are wasting my time.

Fair competition would be company A versus company B not company A and B versus the worker. That is what I call unfair competition and why Unions elevated the working Class like they did.

And if I am wasting my time it is because you have limited capacity to understand

Workers do not compete with their employers or vice versa. They work for their employers to provide a demanded service and in return they are given a wage. That is a mutual exchange. They are free at any time to leave if their demands are not being met.

All employment is at will – or voluntary – or else we call it slavery.

You are right I am wasting my time

You cannot refute anything I have stated. And it is a waste of your time to try. You have been refuted every post you make.

So I guess the best you can do is throw up your hands and claim how you are wasting your time trying to explain to little ol’ me basic economic concepts. I must admit I don’t understand any of your gibberish.

I think I have refuted what you say; you just dismiss my rebuttal as wrong.

It is the fact that you deny an attempt to shine a light on the world that is not yours is why I state I am wasting my time. I think you believe the whole notion that the world and you would be better off if we lived our lives with out rules, laws or anybody trying to assure that all men live a just life

You beat your drum even though there has never been a successful civilization like you fantasize. The fact that you can not fathom that you are wrong is amusing , I think Libertarianism has some great points but I think to think it is the one and only is very foolish and short sighted.
[/quote]

That just proves you do not know how to read. I have stated no such things.

I rest my case.

88

article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674

89

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674 [/quote]

Replace capitalism with democracy?

Does he really not know the difference between a system of government and a system of property exchange?

Utopianism by an other name…

90

[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674 [/quote]

I am not sure of Mooreâ??s motivation but I could guess he feels the only way to combat the lunacy of the free market nuts is to be just as much as a lunatic.

91

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674

I am not sure of Moore�¢??s motivation but I could guess he feels the only way to combat the lunacy of the free market nuts is to be just as much as a lunatic.[/quote]

How is it that proponents of the free market are nut exactly?

It is you libs and neocons that keep fantasizing about a mythical horn of plenty that can only be made possible by government. That is the real lunacy and ultimately what is destroying civilization.

Defend your statement, now.

92

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674

I am not sure of Moore�?�¢??s motivation but I could guess he feels the only way to combat the lunacy of the free market nuts is to be just as much as a lunatic.

How is it that proponents of the free market are nut exactly?

It is you libs and neocons that keep fantasizing about a mythical horn of plenty that can only be made possible by government. That is the real lunacy and ultimately what is destroying civilization.

Defend your statement, now.[/quote]

You are specifically the typical nut job, I am referring too. Donâ??t get a big head you are not the only person that fantasizes about a non existent place and time

93

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674

I am not sure of Moore�??�?�¢??s motivation but I could guess he feels the only way to combat the lunacy of the free market nuts is to be just as much as a lunatic.

How is it that proponents of the free market are nut exactly?

It is you libs and neocons that keep fantasizing about a mythical horn of plenty that can only be made possible by government. That is the real lunacy and ultimately what is destroying civilization.

Defend your statement, now.

You are specifically the typical nut job, I am referring too. Donâ??t get a big head you are not the only person that fantasizes about a non existent place and time [/quote]

Which is where and when? Defend your statement.

94

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?

What profits are “parasitic”?

Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.

Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.

There is no butting heads-there never will be.

If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.

As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.

So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.

Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.

Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.

They can always walk away.

You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.

You cannot walk away if you want to maximize your investments, do you have any money in the market ?

So if you want the best outcome you stay in them?

Um yeah, they are your best bet now.

But you do not welcome the save haven, you think they charge too high a fee?

Then turn your boat around and face the stormy seas.

But you have avoided answering the staement that share holders control anything , The people incontrol are the ones making all the money , And if you have anyway to alter wo has all the money you get your share So the people in control stay in control[/quote]

This brings us to the point I made before.

Shareholders can walk away and that is an important thing.

They do not need to invest in shares, they can buy bonds, they can buy commodities, they can spend it and they can hide it under the mattress.

Ultimately if a company does not offer good enough a deal they can simply walk away and that is all the control they will ever need because they can do that in mere seconds and every manager knows this.

What more do you want?

What shareholder is interested in micromanaging a company?

95

[quote]orion wrote:
What shareholder is interested in micromanaging a company?

[/quote]
The mythical kind that can only exist in the same world as that horn of plenty that wages drop out of – in other words, in his own head.

96

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
gladiatorsteer wrote:
article on capitalism and michael moore

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22674

I am not sure of Moore�??�??�?�¢??s motivation but I could guess he feels the only way to combat the lunacy of the free market nuts is to be just as much as a lunatic.

How is it that proponents of the free market are nut exactly?

It is you libs and neocons that keep fantasizing about a mythical horn of plenty that can only be made possible by government. That is the real lunacy and ultimately what is destroying civilization.

Defend your statement, now.

You are specifically the typical nut job, I am referring too. Don�¢??t get a big head you are not the only person that fantasizes about a non existent place and time

Which is where and when? Defend your statement.[/quote]

It is nonexistent time, don’t you get it. I am referring to the time when you swoop down on the poor crossing your land and charge them a tariff, I am not going to research your posts , when you do not like the way a thread is going you run and hide like a little girl. Do your own research.

97

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:What are “high” wages?

What profits are “parasitic”?

Both are market signals without any intrinsic emotional connotation.

Neither term I used contains any “emotional” connotation. “High” wages would be “high relative to similar positions,” or what have you. Wall Street bonuses would certainly be an example of “parasitic” rates of profit. As some others have noted, it’s getting to the point where the management is butting heads with shareholders, parties whose interests are supposed to roughly coincide.

There is no butting heads-there never will be.

If shareholders do not want to pay said wages anymore they no longer will.

As long as they are willing to do that they expect to get even more than themselves out of it.

So, as long as the shareholder pay their salaries, as high as they may be, it is worth it to the shareholder who are incidentally the ones who also pay it.

Since value is strictly subjective this is really all that matters and those salaries cannot be “parasitic”. The host expects to benefit. The word is “symbiotic”.

Share holders have very lttle power, The ones in power want to remain so.

They can always walk away.

You more collectivist oriented types never seem to get how important that is.

You cannot walk away if you want to maximize your investments, do you have any money in the market ?

So if you want the best outcome you stay in them?

Um yeah, they are your best bet now.

But you do not welcome the save haven, you think they charge too high a fee?

Then turn your boat around and face the stormy seas.

But you have avoided answering the staement that share holders control anything , The people incontrol are the ones making all the money , And if you have anyway to alter wo has all the money you get your share So the people in control stay in control

This brings us to the point I made before.

Shareholders can walk away and that is an important thing.

They do not need to invest in shares, they can buy bonds, they can buy commodities, they can spend it and they can hide it under the mattress.

Ultimately if a company does not offer good enough a deal they can simply walk away and that is all the control they will ever need because they can do that in mere seconds and every manager knows this.

What more do you want?

What shareholder is interested in micromanaging a company?

[/quote]

Then we agree share holders can walk away anytime they like , but other than that have very little power to influence a company

98

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Then we agree share holders can walk away anytime they like , but other than that have very little power to influence a company[/quote]

Wrong. If a majority of shareholders move to sell their stock prices plummet and the company will be extremely influenced because the value of their company has been depreciated.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Then we agree share holders can walk away anytime they like , but other than that have very little power to influence a company

Wrong. If a majority of shareholders move to sell their stock prices plummet and the company will be extremely influenced because the value of their company has been depreciated.[/quote]

Oh you are so wise. How do you tell the CEO he is making too much money,

100

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Then we agree share holders can walk away anytime they like , but other than that have very little power to influence a company

Wrong. If a majority of shareholders move to sell their stock prices plummet and the company will be extremely influenced because the value of their company has been depreciated.

Oh you are so wise. How do you tell the CEO he is making too much money, [/quote]

You cannot even prove whether he is or not so it doesn’t matter.