blueblood

I beg to differ, there is a market on CEO salaries, it's just a mind boggling some of money market because of the intense competition for management.

That's a false scenario, no company is going to put a cap on CEO compensation because there is massive competition to get that CEO. Companies want the best and brightest leading them and will gladly pay for it. And at the end of the day, those CEOs often deliver. Not only that, a CEO screws up and they are canned fast.

Boo hoo unfair, it's a simple question. It's not a debate killing question, it's a simple question who would want to work for 10 cents on the dollar, and we have punked here moving the goal posts asking for a choice. No choice, work for 10 cents on the dollar, whatever outcome happens goes. So we have punked here who thinks he would work for 10 cents on the dollar if he were rich. So every decision he made, all the hours at the job, all the work of building up the company, vision for where the company goes, and he'll make 10 cents on the dollar. And punked would look at that paycheck and see a 90% deduction and what he could have been making and been fine with it. Punked would be fine seeing all that money go to the government instead of him financing entrepreneurs, buying more goods and services, giving to charity, and saving it in a credit union for members to have access to more capital. Hmmm.... I call BS.

This is a message to other schools that covering up child sex abuse will not be tolerated. Good on the NCAA for nailing them. You have to also realize that there were quite a few people who knew about this and did nothing. The students won't suffer, if anything, tuition will drop like a rock in order to get kids to go there in the first place. This hurts the boosters who were around since Sandusky and could very well have been in the loop. Those boosters are seeing their "investment" get annihilated. The NCAA won't lose out on this at all, some other school(s) will get the players and prospects and some other school will fill in the void. Remember SMU? It's ncaa's league and they can run it as they see fit. This is far harsher than what SMU got. No playoffs and bowl games for 4 years, nobody in their right mind is going to play for Penn state. This isn't about punishing kids, it's about sending a message.

When I hear yahoos calling for 75 and 90 cents on the dollar taxes for upper class with no loopholes, what are we supposed to expect? What your person fails to mention is that he is advocating a slippery slope to income equality. The free market already takes care of the balance between disparity and equality, just not at the levels you guys want. Would you want to work for 10 cents on the dollar? A simple yes or no will do.

That's not a straw man, you guys want income equality, and communist states are as fair example as any. China seems to be abandoning income equality because they know through experience it's a failure. Here at home we have western Canada which is slashing it's taxes yet is the jurisdiction putting all of Canada on it's back economically. Seems to me slashing taxes and encouraging private enterprise works very well for us. Heck my previous example of Sweden punting out their left wing govt and installing a centre right govt that is cutting taxes, didn't spend on stimulus, and has private sector job growth as it's main priority. If income equality is so good in Scandinavia, why did Sweden decide to change?

Don't the massive corporations have imaginations as well, they're the ones bankrolling the developing world getting out of the poor house. No revolution or massive taxes necessary. Would you prefer that all of the poor countries at the UN say "you know what north America and Europe are too rich, their GDP needs to be taxed and given to us so that we have a level playing field". I'd like to wonder how the average north American would feel about that. Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't and is getting richer by investment which is a voluntary distribution of wealth with the caveat of a return on investment at a later date. The reason why private investment and private charities are far more efficient at helping poor people is because it stays out of govt inefficiencies. What people don't realize is that back in the late 1800s when govt was small, a lot of the charities that exist today were founded back then because some people wanted to help out. Far more people benefit when the giving is voluntary, not mandatory. Ask the kids who get to go to camp because Tim bottoms has camp day when proceeds of coffee sales go to putting kids in camp. Now imagine a govt program with the same goal, which would cost taxpayers/customers less therefore is more efficient?

History also showed us what happens when a lot of countries try to force income equality on it's population, that didn't work out very well in those countries either.

It's far better than anything else.

And yet we have wealth being distributed amongst the world, not through forcefully taxation, but throuh investment. Those rich bastards have done more to help the developing world then governments with foreign aid could ever hope to.

So let me get this straight, wealth redistribution is only okay when we take it forcefully from rich people throu taxes which is what you guys want done in north America to fix our problems, yet it's pure evil for those rich people to invest money overseas, making those people far richer than before? I don't get it, I thought you guys wanted the developing world to become better off. Or are you guys just jealous?

Did it increase demand for products and services in 1920s Germany when people had wheel barrows full of cash?

Why does an income gap matter? Does it matter if a CEO makes 30 million dollars and an employee makes 50,000 dollars? It doesn't matter as long as e boats all rise. As august always says we are far richer than we were 30 years ago. We can buy powerful computers for less than a VCR when they were first invented. We have unprecedented access to information, and the technology in our vehicles and machinery is mind blowing, and we're poorer? Here's some food for thought rich people don't cause inflation, it takes a large proportion of people with newfound money to do that. Ever wonder why there's backlash on minimum wage increases? It's because over time with their "wage" increase they will be poorer because the price of goods they buy goes up as well.

Your tone suggests otherwise. You said that what should all those kids with specialized degrees quit their crying and turn wrenches in the oil patch. Those kids are the ones doing all the whining that there's no work for them. your suggesting that since those kids have specialized degrees that they're entitled to jobs whether they exist or not. Unfortunately the market says we need more wrench turners and less arts degrees. This kids wasted their time and money.

Hence why we have the new Dallas reboot. Welcome back JR!!!

It all comes down to articulation of the events. What some people deem as violent and excessive, others view it as normal procedure. From what I got out of how using a taser goes, it's if buddy has something in his hand or there is a physical mismatch. Using it another x amount of times on the ground is where it looks bad...

It increasing their popularity and bringing them into the mainstream. Potentially leading to more usage throuh more awareness.

It's hard for capital to flow into some of those communities because the Indian act contravenes the bank act. And as we know throughout history, private lending from banks is the most efficient way to grow the economy and make people richer. Why would the govt want to delay projects on fn reserves, the amount of tax dollars that comes in/saved from social assistance would be a benefit to everyone. Maybe it's govt red tape screwing them over again.

Yet the shows about collecting junk, bartering, auctioning abandoned storage units, and the wheelings and dealings of pawn shops seem to have exploded as of late. Coincidence?

It is a bit of a problem, and there's been a push by the new commissioner to make it easier to fire people. I'm pretty sure that those in any organization don't want people wrecking it for each other, given the complexity of the process used to can someone in a fed. Govt position, it's easier to bury that person in a shitty job and never hear from them again. The cost it is to get rid of some of these people dictates that it's far easier to do nothing and defend the brand. One also must realize that some aspects of police work often aren't pretty and the bad guy puts up a fight or is resisting and he has to be restrained. Sometimes it doesn't look good.

And here we go, playing the person not the ball. It's not lazy debating, it's an observation. What, why can't people be happy for those who end up making money and focus their efforts on joining the party instead of protesting? Yahoos new CEO is going to make a kings ransom, why aren't business schools as hard to get in as becoming a doctor?

And Obama can keep telling the biggest fairy tale of all that prosperity is just around the corner.

That's because of inflation. It's simple, when mommy joined the work force there are now more dollars around to chase the products being produced hence a part of the reason why things cost more. That and essentially printing money every time there was a mild recession. That last quote is preposterous, ever wonder why "pawn stars" became popular?

No it's just common sense. I put the most concern on people who have an entitled attitude and think the rules don't apply to them. Last I checked a gun doesn't alter the chemical balance inside one's head, thus influencing their decisions and causing health issues.

Far better than sitting at home with a thumb up heir ass earning nothing. Maybe those degrees are worthless and the market is saying they are unnecessary. It's simple theres a job that pays well and they aren't taking them. Who's fault is that they are unemployed? The writing is on the wall when a patch worker is making double what someone with a sociology degree makes out east for being a social worker. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Why is there such outrage with grunts making more than people who get arts degrees? Or is jealousy the actual problem?