Here's what's really wrong with this countries economy

[Elmo]

The free market is the only sustainable model. lets look at the crock that just came through in this health care law. It wasn't the big old bad CEO's that were the focus of this evil d'jour it was the insurance companies that were making absurd profits at the expense of the little guys. So in steps the Govt to make it all better. If they really had the inclination to make it better and fix what the insurance companies were doing why didn't they just start govt insurance as a seperate organization. offer insurance and present a product at what they feel is a resonable cost. If it was that great people would flock there and that would force the competing insurance company rates down. but they didn't becasue it isn't about insurance. It is about redistribution....providing something for nothing. If the govt could operate an organization at a break even it would be great, but they can't . Hell to post office can't do it and they had a monoploy on it for years..

Private companies should naot have manadated wages for their exec's. The govt should have nothing to say about it. The govt should also lat private companies fail with no bail outs. if the service is truely needed the void will be filled by a new company providing the service at a profit. if it doesn't it wan'st needed. fat , lazy and unproductive should not be rewared or financed and that is on a corporate or personal level.

Good point.

[WNYBuckHunter]

WNY: CEO of a publicly traded company has to expose their salary. It's part of the territory. As far as Steve Jobs go, I don't know enough about him so maybe I should have used him but my point was that the CEO's who do the right thing and boost the company should be rewarded. Those who don't, should not.

Just because its public knowledge doesnt make it the public's place to try and set limits on what they can make. Again, if you are a share holder, you get a say in it (vote).

[WNYBuckHunter]

George Bush was a liberal?

Economically? Yes.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Woodsman, I agree with you 100%. I do not feel that it is fixable at this point though. I think that the government has grabbed enough power in the last 20 years to make the changes that we need, next to impossible to attain. I really think its going to come down to revolt in order to turn things around. Im not an optimist though.

[adirondackbushwhack]

I agree, which is why I think a base salary and heavily padded with incentives could work.

WNY: CEO of a publicly traded company has to expose their salary. It's part of the territory. As far as Steve Jobs go, I don't know enough about him so maybe I should have used him but my point was that the CEO's who do the right thing and boost the company should be rewarded. Those who don't, should not.

Who decides what ceos are paid?

[sits in trees]

I heard on fox news that the next step to socialism is that Obama is going to mandate that we all eat brocolli?

[Elmo]

• 
  Who decides what ceos are paid?
  

Government mandates the method and max base pay, stock holders determine the % or profit and base pay? Almost like a form of salary cap like football.

[Robt Weber]

most CEOs I know well are paid a small base pay and they make their money on bonuses. which almost always are based on a profit sharing type work ups, as well as alot of stock. a $100k CEO may be looking at ulcers and early death, 90-100 hour work weeks and all that goes with that, but they also have maybe 90 million riding on bonuses.

everyone gets wound up over who makes what and why, I worry about it as much as I wonder what I can do about the weather.

sports, religion, politics, .....who gives a rats butt? start working on the important issues, like; why is gravity getting stronger? cant get out of my sleeping bag as easy as i used to....why are the hills getting steeper? at this rate my favorite grouse covert is going to be like scaling everest in a year or two ( by the way I bet you didnt know you can wake up in your motel and fly to the peak of everest and be back by breakfast, did ya? you can. can't land though because of all the jackwhangs all over the old landing strip..) anyhoo...I

'm in maine and the tide is out, I'm going to bed....wake me when you solve everything....IMPORTANT! lol

[adirondackbushwhack]

• 
  

Government mandates the method and max base pay, stock holders determine the % or profit and base pay? Almost like a form of salary cap like football.

Ha Government decided salary caps? If that came about why would the government stop with deciding ceo's pay? They'd decide your pay as well.

[dave6x6]

''Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." Ronald Magnus Reagan, Farewell address, January 11, 1989.

[Elmo]

Ha Government decided salary caps? If that came about why would the government stop with deciding ceo's pay? They'd decide your pay as well.

They already do have one form of controlling salary. It's call minimum wage. As a result, companies shift their labor overseas where they can set up sweat shops.

I wonder how the public would react if they abolished minimum wage so companies can open sweat shops here in the states?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Elmo

[WNYBuckHunter]

• 
  

Government mandates the method and max base pay, stock holders determine the % or profit and base pay? Almost like a form of salary cap like football.

Seriously? That sounds like freedom to you?

[WNYBuckHunter]

They already do have one form of controlling salary. It's call minimum wage. As a result, companies shift their labor overseas where they can set up sweat shops.

I wonder how the public would react if they abolished minimum wage so companies can open sweat shops here in the states?

Minimum wage controlls the other end of the spectrum and is there to protect the employees, not cap their salaries.

[adirondackbushwhack]

They already do have one form of controlling salary. It's call minimum wage. As a result, companies shift their labor overseas where they can set up sweat shops.

I wonder how the public would react if they abolished minimum wage so companies can open sweat shops here in the states?

Ah so you agree that minimum wage does NOT work so you would go back to the government for salary caps too?

If minimum wage were abolished then companies would have to pay a wage necissary to attract workers. The people would react by refusing to work where wages were to low to attract them. If that happens the government would probably have to import workers from some third world country if they want wages to go too low. Wait.....they are importing workers from a third world country.......no wonder the unions need to go.

Incidentally if our wonderful government would only tax imports at a rate that made sweat shops in other countries not profitable then the factories would stay here.

Edited July 7, 2012 by adirondackbushwhack

[Elmo]

WNY: Complete freedom is anarchy. Laws are in place to restrict some of that freedom so that certain people won't abuse their freedom at the cost of the majority. The question we as the people have to decide is whether that restriction is a benefits the majority? Setting minimum quality quality standards hurts the baby toy industry but benefits the majority. (company instead, goes overseas but that's another issue)

[Elmo]

Union is another headache. Here's my experience with the union. I needed to have a new security door installed for my office.

Facility Manager: Okay, they'll start at 8AM so can you come by at 8AM and open the door?

Me: I start at 9AM, can't they start at 9AM instead?

FM: No, they can't. They're union so that means they need to take their break at 10AM. If they start at 9AM, they'll only get an hours worth of work in which isn't much. They won't get much done.

Me: Take a break at 10AM? Can't they take the break later?

FM: No, they have to take a break at 10AM. It's not my call.

So I had to come in at 8AM that day. Took 3 guys the entire day (they finished around 4PM due to their various "breaks") to install the new door. All they really had to do is install a bolt on the metal door and a new socket on the wall.

[dave6x6]

WNY: Complete freedom is anarchy. Laws are in place to restrict some of that freedom so that certain people won't abuse their freedom at the cost of the majority. The question we as the people have to decide is whether that restriction is a benefits the majority? Setting minimum quality quality standards hurts the baby toy industry but benefits the majority. (company instead, goes overseas but that's another issue)

First Elmo, I do not except the most basic premis of this statement and more importantly, neither does our Constitution. The flaw is that somehow freedom has to benifit the majority or the lack of freedom is ok as long as the majority benifits from it. The Constitution was purposely written as individual rights because they knew that collective rights could be used by currupt governments to restrict freedom. That is how we won that major 2nd ammendment battle a few years back.

[burmjohn]

Union is another headache. Here's my experience with the union. I needed to have a new security door installed for my office.

Facility Manager: Okay, they'll start at 8AM so can you come by at 8AM and open the door?

Me: I start at 9AM, can't they start at 9AM instead?

FM: No, they can't. They're union so that means they need to take their break at 10AM. If they start at 9AM, they'll only get an hours worth of work in which isn't much. They won't get much done.

Me: Take a break at 10AM? Can't they take the break later?

FM: No, they have to take a break at 10AM. It's not my call.

So I had to come in at 8AM that day. Took 3 guys the entire day (they finished around 4PM due to their various "breaks") to install the new door. All they really had to do is install a bolt on the metal door and a new socket on the wall.

Which is why I'd put the door up myself in 30 min and they can go blow the rat up outside and bitch.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Which is why I'd put the door up myself in 30 min and they can go blow the rat up outside and bitch.

haha! So true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

[Elmo]

First Elmo, I do not except the most basic premis of this statement and more importantly, neither does our Constitution. The flaw is that somehow freedom has to benifit the majority or the lack of freedom is ok as long as the majority benifits from it. The Constitution was purposely written as individual rights because they knew that collective rights could be used by currupt governments to restrict freedom. That is how we won that major 2nd ammendment battle a few years back.

I'm not sure what you mean. There's a law stating that I can't hunt deer out of season. Isn't this law a restrict of my freedom? Isn't it my right to be able to hunt deer whenever I feel like it?

[Dom]

Which is why I'd put the door up myself in 30 min and they can go blow the rat up outside and bitch.

That is funny!How ever there is prob,a city law that require's a unionized company to do the work.

[WNYBuckHunter]

WNY: Complete freedom is anarchy. Laws are in place to restrict some of that freedom so that certain people won't abuse their freedom at the cost of the majority. The question we as the people have to decide is whether that restriction is a benefits the majority? Setting minimum quality quality standards hurts the baby toy industry but benefits the majority. (company instead, goes overseas but that's another issue)

I see what you are saying, but you cannot create laws that go against the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Setting a cap on someones salary in a private company would be the government infringing on their rights.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I'm not sure what you mean. There's a law stating that I can't hunt deer out of season. Isn't this law a restrict of my freedom? Isn't it my right to be able to hunt deer whenever I feel like it?

No. Deer and all other wildlife are resources, which the state has a right to manage. Completely different thing from restricting ones freedom to pay someone whatever they want to, or someone to have the freedom to make as much as they can.

[adirondackbushwhack]

Union is another headache. Here's my experience with the union. I needed to have a new security door installed for my office.

Facility Manager: Okay, they'll start at 8AM so can you come by at 8AM and open the door?

Me: I start at 9AM, can't they start at 9AM instead?

FM: No, they can't. They're union so that means they need to take their break at 10AM. If they start at 9AM, they'll only get an hours worth of work in which isn't much. They won't get much done.

Me: Take a break at 10AM? Can't they take the break later?

FM: No, they have to take a break at 10AM. It's not my call.

So I had to come in at 8AM that day. Took 3 guys the entire day (they finished around 4PM due to their various "breaks") to install the new door. All they really had to do is install a bolt on the metal door and a new socket on the wall.

And so that is why you envey the pay of ceo's, and crave more government control over liberty?

[dave6x6]

I'm not sure what you mean. There's a law stating that I can't hunt deer out of season. Isn't this law a restrict of my freedom? Isn't it my right to be able to hunt deer whenever I feel like it?

You keep going back to this no laws, anarchy thing but no one is debating that laws are essential. We are a nation that was built on the rule of law. My point was that collectivism, which is what you are advocating for, is diametrically opposed to freedom, liberty, and why our constitution is different from every other nations constitution. Our constitution provides individuals to reach their full potential in an atmosphere of maximum opportunity. The majority benifit concept sounds great in theory but for every INDIVIDUAL freedom you give up in the name of security or economic good or socail progress is another step towards tyranny.