chipwhich Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 LMAO!! OK man, whatever you say I would love to see the answer as well. Typical drsmith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I know it is bothersome when the large gap has come because the government has been willing to intervene and create laws to allow working class folks to end up stagnate and now those folks want to government to stike a balance. My CEO makes a million a year but has not pension and is not entitled to any severance if terminated and the company agreed to a new contract for raises for me and then and only after that did they decide to raise managments wages so no one here is complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I know it is bothersome when the large gap has come because the government has been willing to intervene and create laws to allow working class folks to end up stagnate and now those folks want to government to stike a balance.My CEO makes a million a year but has not pension and is not entitled to any severance if terminated and the company agreed to a new contract for raises for me and then and only after that did they decide to raise managments wages so no one here is complaining. You dont watch your own nation's news? http://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/rising-ceo-pay-could-it-fuel-social-unrest N (Business News Network) has taken on the thorny topic of soaring CEO pay in Canada. Two former CEOs joined CCPA Senior Economist Armine Yalnizyan for a discussion about CEO pay and came to agreement on three important points: Executive compensation has gotten out of line; workers at the bottom and middle of the income spectrum need a boost, and higher taxes on the richest Canadians is the easiest solution to this worsening inequality. As one of the former CEOs noted, allowing the gap to keep growing is setting the tone for social unrest right here in Canada. See the discussion here. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/managing/executive-compensation/back-in-the-green-ceo-pay-jumps-13-per-cent/article2039083/ Back in the green: CEO pay jumps 13 per cent Recession? What recession? The economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 was a distant memory by 2010 for Canada’s top chief executive officers, at least as far as their pay packages were concerned. A Globe and Mail review of executive pay last year shows CEOs at Canada’s 100 largest companies saw their compensation jump 13 per cent last year, led higher by a 20-per-cent increase in annual cash bonuses. Base salaries climbed 4 per cent. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/rise-canadas-richest-1 his generation of rich canadians is staking claim to a larger share of economic growth than any generation that has preceded it in recorded history. An examination of income trends over the past 90 years reveals that incomes are as concentrated in the hands of the richest 1% today as they were in the Roaring Twenties. And even then, the Canada’s elite didn’t experience as rapid a growth in their income share as has occurred in the past 20 years. Canada’s richest 1%1 — the 246,000 privileged few whose average income is $405,000 — took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes in the fastest growing decade in this generation, 1997 to 2007. LOL, please spare us the sanctimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I would love to see the answer as well. Typical drsmith. Me too, sorta. Even if it is just to stop SS from going into a full blown "WTFOMG LOLZURSODUMBOMFG LMAOLMFAO!1!!1!" seizure or something. It is getting close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Me too, sorta. Even if it is just to stop SS from going on a full blown "WTFOMG LOLZURSODUMBOMFG LMAOLMFAO!1!!1!" seizure or something. It is getting close. why would you say that? Asking for a simple answer to a simple question is inappropriate now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 why would you say that? Asking for a simple answer to a simple question is inappropriate now? I wasn't saying that. I have no problem at all with you asking for an answer. I also have no problem making a joke about the funny escalations of "LOL" that you were going through. I was simply concerned for your wellbeing, as a full blown "LOL seizure" can be very dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I wasn't saying that. I have no problem at all with you asking for an answer. I also have no problem making a joke about the funny escalations of "LOL" that you were going through. I was simply concerned for your wellbeing, as a full blown "LOL seizure" can be very dangerous. Ahhh, I went from LOL to LMAO. I see where you are going. (Thats about the most I will do normally, maybe I can work in a bunch of smileys and even a big ol ROTFL just for spice!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Ahhh, I went from LOL to LMAO. I see where you are going. (Thats about the most I will do normally, maybe I can work in a bunch of smileys and even a big ol ROTFL just for spice!) Just don't break out with the lollerskates or roflcopterwtfbbq or we'll have to sedate you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 http://cafehayek.com/2011/06/muscle-inequality.html Dear Sir or Madam: Driving from the gym during today’s 1pm hour I caught your report on Sunday’s Washington Post article about income inequality. Your reporter presumes that income differences necessarily reflect something amiss. That presumption is mistaken. I spend about six hours weekly (and weakly) lifting weights at the gym. The modesty of my effort combines with my age (early 50s) to ensure that I’ll never be as buff as younger guys who spend more time at the gym than I do. The result is muscle inequality! And I’m tempted to feel envious. I want to be as bulging-biceped, broad-shouldered, and chiseled as are my young gym-rat friends. Really, though, how seriously do I want this outcome? I could build more muscle if I spent not six hours weekly at the gym but, rather, six hours daily. But I choose not to do so. Spending more time at the gym means spending less time working (that is, earning income), less time with family and friends, and less time doing other things that I judge to be worthwhile. The fact that I’d be more buff if being more buff were costless is irrelevant. It’s not costless; therefore, the size of my muscles is largely the result of the way I choose to make trade-offs. So I resist the temptation to envy men with bigger muscles (men whose muscles, do note, were not built with fiber taken from my muscles). And if muscle redistribution by government were possible, I’d oppose it. Not only would the result be less muscle bulk to ‘redistribute’ (Would you pump weights for hours each day knowing that a large chunk of what you build will be stripped away and given to someone else?) but, more importantly, I’m not entitled to the confiscated fruits of other people’s efforts. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 http://cafehayek.com/2011/06/muscle-inequality.htmlDear Sir or Madam: Driving from the gym during today’s 1pm hour I caught your report on Sunday’s Washington Post article about income inequality. Your reporter presumes that income differences necessarily reflect something amiss. That presumption is mistaken. I spend about six hours weekly (and weakly) lifting weights at the gym. The modesty of my effort combines with my age (early 50s) to ensure that I’ll never be as buff as younger guys who spend more time at the gym than I do. The result is muscle inequality! And I’m tempted to feel envious. I want to be as bulging-biceped, broad-shouldered, and chiseled as are my young gym-rat friends. Really, though, how seriously do I want this outcome? I could build more muscle if I spent not six hours weekly at the gym but, rather, six hours daily. But I choose not to do so. Spending more time at the gym means spending less time working (that is, earning income), less time with family and friends, and less time doing other things that I judge to be worthwhile. The fact that I’d be more buff if being more buff were costless is irrelevant. It’s not costless; therefore, the size of my muscles is largely the result of the way I choose to make trade-offs. So I resist the temptation to envy men with bigger muscles (men whose muscles, do note, were not built with fiber taken from my muscles). And if muscle redistribution by government were possible, I’d oppose it. Not only would the result be less muscle bulk to ‘redistribute’ (Would you pump weights for hours each day knowing that a large chunk of what you build will be stripped away and given to someone else?) but, more importantly, I’m not entitled to the confiscated fruits of other people’s efforts. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux That would all be fine and good execpt here is the thing, The same guy who works 40 hours a week has not seen his pay raise as fast CEOs and other execs, so it is not a question of the effort they have put in. What you have had happen had happen is the government take away some of that which you would you use to build muscles (pay) with right to work legislation. Then government have created a enviroment where there are less gyms (jobs) because they have been shipped over seas thanks to trade agreeements so now you have more people competing for those jobs so people can say I do not need to raise the pay if you do not like I will fins someone who will for the same or less. So like I stated earlier when the government does not help create this situation then one can not say now you fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just don't break out with the lollerskates or roflcopterwtfbbq or we'll have to sedate you Who needs LOLlerskates when you can have LOLlapalooza or LOL in the family? :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.