TPercy wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TPercy wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:It's amazing how the Republicans have managed to keep people voting against their own best interests over and over again. This is just the final nail in the coffin that rich and big corps have been trying to put the Middle Class and Poor into for decades. They've managed to rig the system and push all the money to the top. Now they can suck the rest of the money from Social Security, Medicare and all social programs.

I shouldn't be so shocked by the Craven and Cruel nature of these people but it still does have me shaking my head in disbelief. These people already have IT ALL and yet that's not enough. They've gotta take the crumbs too.

They are sitting on over 2 Trillion in profits (2015 data - current #s would be a lot higher) and it was the measly 400B that was keeping them from creating jobs. FUCKING HYPOCRITES
And 50% of the country fall for this **** every time they vote - democracy is truly custom built for the STOOPID

Whats this graph supposed to prove exactly? You do realize that high corporate tax rates incentivize buisness and investment overseas right? Talk about democracy truly being for the stupid.

The above chart shows US companies are sitting on all time record profits - so one can logically conclude if they wanted to invest in wage growth and job growth and innovation they have all the means at their disposal to do so. Instead they have chosen to use their capital for stock buy backs to artificially raise share prices so the C-suite can keep getting 90% of all the growth. Corporations are sitting on over 3 trillion in profits and the real median wage has fallen. But it's the tax rate that's keeping them from investing here? Are you seriously this stupid?

Now let's examine your right wing "talking point". Please go ahead and provide data that backs up its the "corporate tax rate" that has "incentivized overseas business and investment"
And when you do that make sure you articulate exactly what the fukk the tax rate has to do with anything and connect that up with actual taxes paid by corporations.

Yes but my point is that the location of these profits matters. Companies like Apple for example have 2 trillion dollars in companies overseas. My point is that with high corporate taxes here in the US, why exactly would they want to invest here? A lot of the big corporations don't pay anything in taxes because a lot of their operations are based overseas.

The chart is showing profits made in the US because it's focused on US Taxable income. Your point is not valid because companies don't pay tax at the tax rate. The actual rate of taxes collected (AFTER deductions) are well in line with advanced countries.

GustavBahler wrote:

TPercy wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TPercy wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:It's amazing how the Republicans have managed to keep people voting against their own best interests over and over again. This is just the final nail in the coffin that rich and big corps have been trying to put the Middle Class and Poor into for decades. They've managed to rig the system and push all the money to the top. Now they can suck the rest of the money from Social Security, Medicare and all social programs.

I shouldn't be so shocked by the Craven and Cruel nature of these people but it still does have me shaking my head in disbelief. These people already have IT ALL and yet that's not enough. They've gotta take the crumbs too.

They are sitting on over 2 Trillion in profits (2015 data - current #s would be a lot higher) and it was the measly 400B that was keeping them from creating jobs. FUCKING HYPOCRITES
And 50% of the country fall for this **** every time they vote - democracy is truly custom built for the STOOPID

Whats this graph supposed to prove exactly? You do realize that high corporate tax rates incentivize buisness and investment overseas right? Talk about democracy truly being for the stupid.

The above chart shows US companies are sitting on all time record profits - so one can logically conclude if they wanted to invest in wage growth and job growth and innovation they have all the means at their disposal to do so. Instead they have chosen to use their capital for stock buy backs to artificially raise share prices so the C-suite can keep getting 90% of all the growth. Corporations are sitting on over 3 trillion in profits and the real median wage has fallen. But it's the tax rate that's keeping them from investing here? Are you seriously this stupid?

Now let's examine your right wing "talking point". Please go ahead and provide data that backs up its the "corporate tax rate" that has "incentivized overseas business and investment"
And when you do that make sure you articulate exactly what the fukk the tax rate has to do with anything and connect that up with actual taxes paid by corporations.

Yes but my point is that the location of these profits matters. Companies like Apple for example have 2 trillion dollars in companies overseas. My point is that with high corporate taxes here in the US, why exactly would they want to invest here? A lot of the big corporations don't pay anything in taxes because a lot of their operations are based overseas.

Its been covered many times, but the effective rate, the rate they actually pay is closer to 18 percent.
Parking money oversees (a technicality) is being done primarily to reward top executives and the biggest shareholders.

When a company stashes that much overseas, to avoid paying taxes in spite of record breaking proftis, you have to wonder how patiotic they are. Thats the problem with Shareholder capitalism vs old school Stakeholder capitalism. It leaves a corporation's responsibility to their community, their employees, and their country, out of the equation.

Its just about the share price, and whatever you can do to pump it, goes. What a lot of people on the left have a hard time explaining to conservatives is that most of them aren't against capitalism. Its capitalism without any guard rails they object to. Because when there arent any, a lot of innocent people usually end up getting hurt, big time. We've seen more than enough evidence of that.

Corporations only go the share buyback route when they are no investment opportunities. I do think that the balance between labor and shareholder is tipped a bit in the shareholders favor;however, the idea that all corporations live and die for their shareholders completely is untrue.The most sucessful ones don't buy into a pure shareholder value theory model especially if they want to see long run growth.

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

nixluva wrote:Reading some of these posts it’s clear to me that there are some who don’t appreciate the way this country built the worlds largest Middle Class and the success that gave this country only to see it whittled away over the decades by a very few of this country’s richest and most powerful.

None of this imbalance was an accident. The gap in CEO to Employee pay has grown exponentially and they worked hard to rig things so this would happen. We’re LITERALLY witnessing a massive example of this right now!!!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ronbrownstein/status/936959114147704833

False False and False.

The middle class might have shrunk, but thats because people in the middle class joined the upper middle class. I don't understand why having a large middle class is a goal.

Employee compensation and CEO have always grown in tandem for the post part. Where is your evidence for this?

Guys, this is really too easy. Today, in this day in age, we have the Internet. And Google. And a whole crapload of other resources. If you can't take 1 minute to validate what is prominently well known, then you will look VERY silly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+pay+vs+worker+pay

Click on the articles to read the info. Click on the Images version to see the nice graphs.

Martin this is not helping. You can't just make a controversial claim without a lick of evidence and then force the challenger to go search for the proof. I want to see the evidence that Nix cites so that I can tailor my counterpoint to that specific piece of evidence. Its how discussion or any decent debate works.

Here's the thing, it's not a controversial claim. IT'S AN EASILY VERIFIABLE CLAIM FOR ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

nixluva wrote:Reading some of these posts it’s clear to me that there are some who don’t appreciate the way this country built the worlds largest Middle Class and the success that gave this country only to see it whittled away over the decades by a very few of this country’s richest and most powerful.

None of this imbalance was an accident. The gap in CEO to Employee pay has grown exponentially and they worked hard to rig things so this would happen. We’re LITERALLY witnessing a massive example of this right now!!!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ronbrownstein/status/936959114147704833

False False and False.

The middle class might have shrunk, but thats because people in the middle class joined the upper middle class. I don't understand why having a large middle class is a goal.

Employee compensation and CEO have always grown in tandem for the post part. Where is your evidence for this?

Guys, this is really too easy. Today, in this day in age, we have the Internet. And Google. And a whole crapload of other resources. If you can't take 1 minute to validate what is prominently well known, then you will look VERY silly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+pay+vs+worker+pay

Click on the articles to read the info. Click on the Images version to see the nice graphs.

Martin this is not helping. You can't just make a controversial claim without a lick of evidence and then force the challenger to go search for the proof. I want to see the evidence that Nix cites so that I can tailor my counterpoint to that specific piece of evidence. Its how discussion or any decent debate works.

Here's the thing, it's not a controversial claim. IT'S AN EASILY VERIFIABLE CLAIM FOR ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN

So I guess the multiple conservative/libertertain think tanks that have also refuted this claim many times are just idiots with half a brain? Martin if you make a claim, then you have to back that **** up. Its something that has been taught since middle school, so I don't understand why that is so hard to do especially if it is as "easily verifiable" as you claim.

Seriously, this is very stupid man. Click on my google link, glance over for your more preferred sources and they all kinda sorta say the same things:

First URL that comes up on my google search link above:

http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/

In between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000%, according to a report released on Sunday by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, typical workers in the U.S. saw a pay raise of just 11% during that same period.

With these increases in mind, it should come as no surprise that the ratio between average American CEO pay and worker pay is now 303-to-1. This ratio is lower than its peak in 2000, when it was 376-to-1, but it’s in excess of the 1965 ratio of 20-to 1.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/executive-pay
The gap between pay for U.S. chief executive officers and the people who work for them has widened sevenfold in three decades.

If you are not yet convinced that there is an enormous pay gap as well as wealth gap in the USA, you are about 10 chapters behind the rest of the class, and about 5 grade levels behind as well.

You might as well have a different conversation. Or just skip it.

TPercy wrote:

I like this graph better because it takes in outside factors and does it as a percentage of a corporations income.

I don't like the ones you cited because they constantly reference the AFL-CIO/the EPI and they dont factor in benefits like healthcare or free child daycare services that have become a lot more popular(my friend who works at Google has free childcare and lunch to keep the employees productive(I lowkey envy him) nevertheless such forms of benefits weren't the norm back then) nor do they take into performance-based payments like bonuses that also come into play. And don't even get me started on how EPI measures inflation.

When purely looking at pay, of course, one can easily assume that corporations have been dicking down its workers. However, that isn't the case.

If it were true most families wouldnt be one paycheck away from disaster. They could afford to save.
I would have thought that all you had to do is to look around tosee how many people are hurting. Where did all that money go they were supposed to get?

TPercy wrote:

I like this graph better because it takes in outside factors and does it as a percentage of a corporations income.

I don't like the ones you cited because they constantly reference the AFL-CIO/the EPI and they dont factor in benefits like healthcare or free child daycare services that have become a lot more popular(my friend who works at Google has free childcare and lunch to keep the employees productive(I lowkey envy him) nevertheless such forms of benefits weren't the norm back then) nor do they take into performance-based payments like bonuses that also come into play. And don't even get me started on how EPI measures inflation.

When purely looking at pay, of course, one can easily assume that corporations have been dicking down its workers. However, that isn't the case.

you are comparing Employee compensation and Corporate Profits.

Nix did not have anything to say about corporate profits. Not did I. Corporate profits are a whole different animal.

You are conflating to different things. Or replying to something else. I can't tell.

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

I like this graph better because it takes in outside factors and does it as a percentage of a corporations income.

I don't like the ones you cited because they constantly reference the AFL-CIO/the EPI and they dont factor in benefits like healthcare or free child daycare services that have become a lot more popular(my friend who works at Google has free childcare and lunch to keep the employees productive(I lowkey envy him) nevertheless such forms of benefits weren't the norm back then) nor do they take into performance-based payments like bonuses that also come into play. And don't even get me started on how EPI measures inflation.

When purely looking at pay, of course, one can easily assume that corporations have been dicking down its workers. However, that isn't the case.

you are comparing Employee compensation and Corporate Profits.

Nix did not have anything to say about corporate profits. Not did I. Corporate profits are a whole different animal.

You are conflating to different things. Or replying to something else. I can't tell.

How are they different if corporate profits are in line with employee compensation then ceo pay would likely aswell no?

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

nixluva wrote:Reading some of these posts it’s clear to me that there are some who don’t appreciate the way this country built the worlds largest Middle Class and the success that gave this country only to see it whittled away over the decades by a very few of this country’s richest and most powerful.

None of this imbalance was an accident. The gap in CEO to Employee pay has grown exponentially and they worked hard to rig things so this would happen. We’re LITERALLY witnessing a massive example of this right now!!!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/ronbrownstein/status/936959114147704833

False False and False.

The middle class might have shrunk, but thats because people in the middle class joined the upper middle class. I don't understand why having a large middle class is a goal.

Employee compensation and CEO have always grown in tandem for the post part. Where is your evidence for this?

Guys, this is really too easy. Today, in this day in age, we have the Internet. And Google. And a whole crapload of other resources. If you can't take 1 minute to validate what is prominently well known, then you will look VERY silly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+pay+vs+worker+pay

Click on the articles to read the info. Click on the Images version to see the nice graphs.

Martin this is not helping. You can't just make a controversial claim without a lick of evidence and then force the challenger to go search for the proof. I want to see the evidence that Nix cites so that I can tailor my counterpoint to that specific piece of evidence. Its how discussion or any decent debate works.

Here's the thing, it's not a controversial claim. IT'S AN EASILY VERIFIABLE CLAIM FOR ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN

So I guess the multiple conservative/libertertain think tanks that have also refuted this claim many times are just idiots with half a brain? Martin if you make a claim, then you have to back that **** up. Its something that has been taught since middle school, so I don't understand why that is so hard to do especially if it is as "easily verifiable" as you claim.

Seriously, this is very stupid man. Click on my google link, glance over for your more preferred sources and they all kinda sorta say the same things:

First URL that comes up on my google search link above:

http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/

In between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000%, according to a report released on Sunday by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, typical workers in the U.S. saw a pay raise of just 11% during that same period.

With these increases in mind, it should come as no surprise that the ratio between average American CEO pay and worker pay is now 303-to-1. This ratio is lower than its peak in 2000, when it was 376-to-1, but it’s in excess of the 1965 ratio of 20-to 1.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/executive-pay
The gap between pay for U.S. chief executive officers and the people who work for them has widened sevenfold in three decades.

If you are not yet convinced that there is an enormous pay gap as well as wealth gap in the USA, you are about 10 chapters behind the rest of the class, and about 5 grade levels behind as well.

You might as well have a different conversation. Or just skip it.

Its not really about issues anymore, its Yankees/Sox. Wasn't always that way, old enough to remember.
Either you love this type of capitalism, or you're from some hippie leftist commune. Thats what why its so hard to agree on facts.

Workers have done as well as top execs, there is no income inequality. Sure thing.

I need a break...

meloshouldgo wrote:

TPercy wrote:

I like this graph better because it takes in outside factors and does it as a percentage of a corporations income.

I don't like the ones you cited because they constantly reference the AFL-CIO/the EPI and they dont factor in benefits like healthcare or free child daycare services that have become a lot more popular(my friend who works at Google has free childcare and lunch to keep the employees productive(I lowkey envy him) nevertheless such forms of benefits weren't the norm back then) nor do they take into performance-based payments like bonuses that also come into play. And don't even get me started on how EPI measures inflation.

When purely looking at pay, of course, one can easily assume that corporations have been dicking down its workers. However, that isn't the case.

Yes that is very much the case. "Employee compensation" sound nice but when the C-suites make 90% of that number it don't mean Jack ****. Look at "real" meaning inflation adjusted median wedge in the country and compare that corporate profits. Here ill fukking do it for you. Wages include bonuses and base salary.

Erm no? Labor compensation is a much more accurate measurement my guy.

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

martin wrote:

TPercy wrote:

I like this graph better because it takes in outside factors and does it as a percentage of a corporations income.

I don't like the ones you cited because they constantly reference the AFL-CIO/the EPI and they dont factor in benefits like healthcare or free child daycare services that have become a lot more popular(my friend who works at Google has free childcare and lunch to keep the employees productive(I lowkey envy him) nevertheless such forms of benefits weren't the norm back then) nor do they take into performance-based payments like bonuses that also come into play. And don't even get me started on how EPI measures inflation.

When purely looking at pay, of course, one can easily assume that corporations have been dicking down its workers. However, that isn't the case.

you are comparing Employee compensation and Corporate Profits.

Nix did not have anything to say about corporate profits. Not did I. Corporate profits are a whole different animal.

You are conflating to different things. Or replying to something else. I can't tell.

How are they different if corporate profits are in line with employee compensation then ceo pay would likely aswell no?

No. These are ENTIRELY different things.

You just made a gigantic assumption which is ungodly wrong.

You are not even comparing apples to oranges. More like apples to elephants.

I disagree but either way it doesn't change the fact that EPI's and the CFL's calculations are flawed

nixluva wrote:So all those White Working Class Trump Voters who felt left behind are just imagining how bad things have gotten for them??? What about this country’s Crumbling Infrastructure that is LIGHT YEARS behind the rest of the modern world? Just imagine a legit upgrade of our Electrical Grid. The amount of new jobs added. On top of that a more serious effort to move towards Clean Power and Renewables would also add jobs and pay. New Bridges and Roads. An upgrade to Internet Speed. High speed Rail and Hyperloops.

Corporations and the Rich are sucking this country DRY and contributing as little to the common good as possible. We have the greatest Technological minds and yet we’ve fallen far behind as a country and why is that???

I love how all problems in this country is because of the rich(even though we had a leftist enough president with 8 years to fix the so call problem)

1. Keep in mind that other countries are a lot more dense than the US
2. You have to be careful of what ranking you use comparing US to other countries
3.a lot of US operations have moved overseas as well( which isn't a bad thing completely because goods get
Cheaper)
4. Buisnesses arnt in charge of improving public goods lol