All the rich people are socialists m8. I believe Pissydon posted the voting stats somewhere.JahManRed wrote:
The biggest risk takers where the bankers. Your kids will be paying for their mistakes and greed. Biggest socialist payout ever. Risk takers who became free loaders.lowing wrote:
Nope, we need the risk takers, we do not need the free loaders.
If paid maternity is left to the discretion of the employer, they simply never hire women.Flecco wrote:
If I had to guess I'd say lowing will tell you paid maternity leave should be left to the discretion of the employer, as ultimately it is their money and their job they are offering to others, putting their reputation on the line by employing these people as part of their company.
Not hiring women because they are women violates the anti-discrimination acts in most countries.AussieReaper wrote:
If paid maternity is left to the discretion of the employer, they simply never hire women.Flecco wrote:
If I had to guess I'd say lowing will tell you paid maternity leave should be left to the discretion of the employer, as ultimately it is their money and their job they are offering to others, putting their reputation on the line by employing these people as part of their company.
If it is taxpayer funded, the company doesn't lose anything. And it is more likely to attract competitive female workers.
Awesome change of tack, those hobbyhorses can just spin on a coin eh?lowing wrote:
Agreed
It is funny how America dies with the influx of modern liberalism brought on by Jimmy Carter.
Exactly how is it, anyone expects a country to survive with a belief system that rewards non-achievement and punishes achievement anyway?
agreed, but since they were not paid during the time you speak, by tax payer money, who are we, the tax payer, to say what they can and can not be paid.Dilbert_X wrote:
Awesome change of tack, those hobbyhorses can just spin on a coin eh?lowing wrote:
Agreed
It is funny how America dies with the influx of modern liberalism brought on by Jimmy Carter.
Exactly how is it, anyone expects a country to survive with a belief system that rewards non-achievement and punishes achievement anyway?
The US hasn't quite made it to the socialist utopia we all dream of quite yet, pretty sure there is still space for risk takers.
Looking at it from another perspective, Rodney Adler (australian business/conman), pointed out aptly that a large problem with the business market of today is the expectation that caretaker execs should be rewarded just the same as those who took risks and created the business in the first place.
eg the GM execs.
The people who created GM in the first place, took huge personal risks, floated it on the stockmarket, expanded, rewarded their stock holders etc deserved the multi-million dollar paychecks.
The current execs of GM, who took no personal risks at all, just slid into the seats at the top of an already successful company and barely maintained the status quo do not deserve the same rewards.
So? The purely Capitalist model has no anti-discrimination laws because they are anti-competitive in nature.Flecco wrote:
Not hiring women because they are women violates the anti-discrimination acts in most countries.AussieReaper wrote:
If paid maternity is left to the discretion of the employer, they simply never hire women.Flecco wrote:
If I had to guess I'd say lowing will tell you paid maternity leave should be left to the discretion of the employer, as ultimately it is their money and their job they are offering to others, putting their reputation on the line by employing these people as part of their company.
If it is taxpayer funded, the company doesn't lose anything. And it is more likely to attract competitive female workers.
Not seeing why you are trying to debate me on this one. I posted a guess at what lowing's opinion, as a fairly hard core capitalist, would be. I'm not gonna debate it because its none of my business until I get married... If I ever get trapped by a woman like that.AussieReaper wrote:
So? The purely Capitalist model has no anti-discrimination laws because they are anti-competitive in nature.Flecco wrote:
Not hiring women because they are women violates the anti-discrimination acts in most countries.AussieReaper wrote:
If paid maternity is left to the discretion of the employer, they simply never hire women.
If it is taxpayer funded, the company doesn't lose anything. And it is more likely to attract competitive female workers.
Don't tell me not to debate youFlecco wrote:
Not seeing why you are trying to debate me on this one. I posted a guess at what lowing's opinion, as a fairly hard core capitalist, would be. I'm not gonna debate it because its none of my business until I get married... If I ever get trapped by a woman like that.AussieReaper wrote:
So? The purely Capitalist model has no anti-discrimination laws because they are anti-competitive in nature.Flecco wrote:
Not hiring women because they are women violates the anti-discrimination acts in most countries.
The thing is, I have no monetary wealth. I am an average middle class worker. My belief also makes me a "victim" of "the mans" alleged "greed" an "unfairness". I simply think it is none of my or your business what others have or how they legally acquired it. Worry about your own life and how you are going to make it a good one. Just try and do so without stealing from others, under the banner of "fairness", who have what you want.Flecco wrote:
Not seeing why you are trying to debate me on this one. I posted a guess at what lowing's opinion, as a fairly hard core capitalist, would be. I'm not gonna debate it because its none of my business until I get married... If I ever get trapped by a woman like that.AussieReaper wrote:
So? The purely Capitalist model has no anti-discrimination laws because they are anti-competitive in nature.Flecco wrote:
Not hiring women because they are women violates the anti-discrimination acts in most countries.
lowing wrote:
I simply think it is none of my or your business what others have or how they legally acquired it. Worry about your own life and how you are going to make it a good one.
Well there's the contradiction, as most other people would see it.Just try and do so without stealing from others, under the banner of "fairness", who have what you want.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-05-26 06:30:11)
It is fair when the payouts are from the company itself and not the tax payer. If YOU as the tax payer are not flipping the bill then it is NONE of your business what he makes. If you do not like it, then boycott and refuse to buy the company's product.Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:
I simply think it is none of my or your business what others have or how they legally acquired it. Worry about your own life and how you are going to make it a good one.Well there's the contradiction, as most other people would see it.Just try and do so without stealing from others, under the banner of "fairness", who have what you want.
There is a fine line between acquiring something legally, and manipulating the system through a position of power so you can acquire whatever you want legally.
Happens in govt and business.
According to the GM execs its 'fair' that they should be paid 100 times what the average UAW guy gets paid, its fair they should get better healthcare, be able to send their children to better colleges, live in a better house, drive a better car etc.
In the UK parliament its apparently 'fair' that the taxpayer should pay whatever MPs decide they are going to be paid.
Overall the exec culture in the west has reached ludicrous extremes, and is responsible in large part for the collapse we see now.
You mean from the shareholder? Not from the company itself...lowing wrote:
It is fair when the payouts are from the company itself and not the tax payer. If YOU as the tax payer are not flipping the bill then it is NONE of your business what he makes. If you do not like it, then boycott and refuse to buy the company's product.
shareholders are the ones that hire the fuckin CEO give the contract and the payouts. So yes whatever is agreed upon is between the shareholders and the CEO, you have nothing to do with it.AussieReaper wrote:
You mean from the shareholder? Not from the company itself...lowing wrote:
It is fair when the payouts are from the company itself and not the tax payer. If YOU as the tax payer are not flipping the bill then it is NONE of your business what he makes. If you do not like it, then boycott and refuse to buy the company's product.
You see the company is in huge deficit and has had to file for bankruptcy. But that's okay, the CEO's still get there million dollar payouts. Shareholders lose everything though.
Is that how it works, fairly, when the tax payer is not involved?
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-26 08:22:43)
CEO's pay packets are awarded not by the shareholders but voted on by other CEO's in the company. Where have you been living, under a rock?lowing wrote:
shareholders are the ones that hire the fuckin CEO give the contract and the payouts. So yes whatever is agreed upon is between the shareholders and the CEO, you have nothing to do with it.
I guess I am, I kinda thought the major stock holders, IE the owners of the company picked their CEO's or at least had a say in the matter. guess I was wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
CEO's pay packets are awarded not by the shareholders but voted on by other CEO's in the company. Where have you been living, under a rock?lowing wrote:
shareholders are the ones that hire the fuckin CEO give the contract and the payouts. So yes whatever is agreed upon is between the shareholders and the CEO, you have nothing to do with it.
The shareholders have lost everything from GM, do you think they voted for the CEO's to be given millions when they were failing?
Major stock holders?lowing wrote:
I guess I am, I kinda thought the major stock holders, IE the owners of the company picked their CEO's or at least had a say in the matter. guess I was wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
CEO's pay packets are awarded not by the shareholders but voted on by other CEO's in the company. Where have you been living, under a rock?lowing wrote:
shareholders are the ones that hire the fuckin CEO give the contract and the payouts. So yes whatever is agreed upon is between the shareholders and the CEO, you have nothing to do with it.
The shareholders have lost everything from GM, do you think they voted for the CEO's to be given millions when they were failing?
I am assuming yo think a person wh oinvest millions into a company has no say as to that company's direction? really?AussieReaper wrote:
Major stock holders?lowing wrote:
I guess I am, I kinda thought the major stock holders, IE the owners of the company picked their CEO's or at least had a say in the matter. guess I was wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
CEO's pay packets are awarded not by the shareholders but voted on by other CEO's in the company. Where have you been living, under a rock?
The shareholders have lost everything from GM, do you think they voted for the CEO's to be given millions when they were failing?
How can shareholders, who in most cases own 49% or less of a company have any say?
A person. Singular? A single person investing millions into a company. Sounds to me like they are more than just a shareholder.lowing wrote:
I am assuming yo think a person wh oinvest millions into a company has no say as to that company's direction? really?AussieReaper wrote:
Major stock holders?lowing wrote:
I guess I am, I kinda thought the major stock holders, IE the owners of the company picked their CEO's or at least had a say in the matter. guess I was wrong.
How can shareholders, who in most cases own 49% or less of a company have any say?
The share holders vote at the AGM for the board of directors. The BOD set out a the business objectives, appoint the CEO and approve budgets.lowing wrote:
I guess I am, I kinda thought the major stock holders, IE the owners of the company picked their CEO's or at least had a say in the matter. guess I was wrong.AussieReaper wrote:
CEO's pay packets are awarded not by the shareholders but voted on by other CEO's in the company. Where have you been living, under a rock?lowing wrote:
shareholders are the ones that hire the fuckin CEO give the contract and the payouts. So yes whatever is agreed upon is between the shareholders and the CEO, you have nothing to do with it.
The shareholders have lost everything from GM, do you think they voted for the CEO's to be given millions when they were failing?
Perhaps... the answer is anarchy...Flecco wrote:
In a perfect world.Ioan92 wrote:
We need a system that absolutely excludes monetary use. It must have intelligent resource management and automated production facilities. Humans to work for intelligent goals such as space exploration/ medicine/ technology advance.AussieReaper wrote:
He had to be stopped, much the same way as Keneddy, and MLK and Ghandi...
Seriously though, you can't see that the right system has to be a balance between pure capitalism and pure socialism? Both extremes are hugely flawed.
Neither Capitafail, Socialfail and Communifail get it right.
And yes I realize this is the 1001th time I said this.
Good luck convincing people to set aside several thousand years of political, ethnic, religious and cultural conflict though.
Nah. If you want to draw inspiration from a recent film character look to...Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps... the answer is anarchy...Flecco wrote:
In a perfect world.Ioan92 wrote:
We need a system that absolutely excludes monetary use. It must have intelligent resource management and automated production facilities. Humans to work for intelligent goals such as space exploration/ medicine/ technology advance.
Neither Capitafail, Socialfail and Communifail get it right.
And yes I realize this is the 1001th time I said this.
Good luck convincing people to set aside several thousand years of political, ethnic, religious and cultural conflict though.
http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/imag … -joker.jpg
I understand the benefits for paid maternity leave. It can keep a company from spending money on retraining, IE they might have invested into that employee and keeping her around could be beneficial to that company. That should be a decision best left to the company and not to the govt.AussieReaper wrote:
Paid maternity leave is a very socialist concept, but rather than a woman quitting her job, with it she is more likely to rejoin the workforce.lowing wrote:
Nope, we need the risk takers, we do not need the free loaders.AussieReaper wrote:
He had to be stopped, much the same way as Keneddy, and MLK and Ghandi...
Seriously though, you can't see that the right system has to be a balance between pure capitalism and pure socialism? Both extremes are hugely flawed.
Providing opportunity throgh private risk, and the eventual payoff and growth is what is needed. Not a bunch of fools walking around thinking they are entitled to the good life by the work and risk of others.
Can you even acknowledge any benefits of a centric system, or does any remotely socialist concept equal "free loaders"?
Perhaps, the banks, along with the idiots who took out the loans should fall. Not the responsible peopleJahManRed wrote:
The biggest risk takers where the bankers. Your kids will be paying for their mistakes and greed. Biggest socialist payout ever. Risk takers who became free loaders.lowing wrote:
Nope, we need the risk takers, we do not need the free loaders.
