Occupy Wallstreet

[silverandslow1]

@Vovchandr

Oh man I can have a field day with you.

How much physical labor somebody does, always matters when talking about working hard. I’ve been on both sides and having more responsibility doesn’t make you “work harder”. A guy in a warehouse having to move 10,000 pounds of shit a night will work his ass off during the night while the supervisor won’t. Since when is “being responsible” work?

They are public business because they are a public company as anybody can become a shareholder and it’s open market. If a company is going to waste money on contracts that don’t reward hard work from it’s CEO’s and punish lazy and unsuccesfull CEO’s I’ll want nothing to do with that company. I’m sure none of the shareholders agree with those contracts either, but clearly they have no voice in the matter, it’s up to the board.

Again, it’s an easy ass job. I’ve been there.

You are just something else aren’t you. Fine it’s not real world numbers, lets use some real world examples. You said you wouldn’t take a promotion that paid more because you have to work harder? Then you have no right to tell others to work harder or get a better job. You wouldn’t take a promotion if it came to you? You’d get paid more and you would be taxed more. Just like in my example :facepalm

Another examples of how conservatives are ignorant. It is impossible for US to price match overseas jobs for the same labor. You aren’t going to have people working here to make $10 a day or kids making shoes and Tshirts in sweatshops all day for $5. Get the fuck out of here.

I don’t remember last time I voted for welfare. Do you? Welfare get’s voted on by people in power who can’t seem to pass any other bill worth a shit that makes any financial sense. People in power vote for welfare because of lobbyists and direct other interests of people who make money off it and encourage the voting for it. End of story.

Partially agree. However you don’t understand what happens when people are removed from welfare. They aren’t just going to go on the street and die or “stay quiet” about it. People will do anything to survive in desperate times. You know what the easiest and popular job over seas that requires no education and pays very well? Criminal activity. This is why gangs are more predominant and mafia is more popular the poorer people get. A guy in wealth pays pretty good money by finding people with nothing else to lose.

1. You’ve never been the ceo of a large corporation which is who you were talking about when you talked about severance packages which is really what my arguement was based on but it still works for low level supervision.
   - responsibility is not more work if by work you mean the literal definition of the amount of force it takes to perform a task. But even so, the purpose of supervisor is not to continue laying bricks. It’s to coordinate the brick layers to be effective. Noone said it was more physical labor. There is more responsibility which a company entrusts to you even on the lowest levels of supervision which is what I’m going to assume you meant when you said you’ve “done both”.If the laborers continue to fail to perform satisfactorily that is on the supervisor. More risk, more responsibility,more skill, more education, more money.

2.Wrong. Just because a company has shares which CAN be purchased by the public doesn’t make it the entire publics right to make policy for the company. They are willing to sell shares to anyone, they aren’t forcing you therefore if you choose to purchase shares you should probably agree with the dealings of that company. If you don’t have a share, you REALLY have no ground to stand on telling them what to do. If you do owns shares and they are not acting in a way you find ethical, or the board isn’t making decisions you approve of, you have a choice…sell your share and don’t support the company.

3. I do have the right to tell people to get a better job. But I also have a valid argument. Yes, it is true that i would not take a 20000 raise, if I saw 2000 dollars of it, because again 20,000 for a company means more responsibility (evil word i know) or more time or both and the small gain wouldn’t be worth it. But it is also true that I’m not complaining about my salary or taxes and I am content with what I make. This is the fundamental arguement against huge tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. If I make 100k a year, and 50k is taken out why not just work an easier less stressful jobe for 60k a year and take home 45k. In YOUR example of just getting a huge raise with no expectation of more resonsibility of course I’de take it but that wouldn’t happen. Again, if you work for a private business and feel you are underpaid at the bottom, it is private, get another job.

4. It isn’t impossible to compete. I’de say an incentive to hire domestically with taking away double taxation, pay only income tax which could be very low. And the increase in jobs overall in teh country would allow lower taxes per person.

5. I don’t remember the last time I voted for it but I do remember when I voted against it(as often as possible), and I didn’t say you voted for welfare, but there are people out there, beleive it or not who love welfare so much they actually vote for it. EX: The chick at the Obama rally who couldn’t wait for Obama to buy her a car…I’m pretty sure she didn’t much care about his stance on NAFTA.

6. I do actually know what happens when you take welfare away. Not only that, but I know how ridiculous those ON welfare act. Sure crime will surge and it would take some very aggressive and necessary policies to lower the surge. You konw where it starts though? How bout making qualifications for NEW applicants more difficult…that way we weed them out right away.
   I’m sure many will turn to crime sure, but guess what, thats not my problem…I’m not going to gladly pay scumbags my hard earned money becuase of the threat that they will commit crimes (as if they are all the most law abiding group anyway) Let them commit crimes and be dealt with.