Fair enough but the “we don’t have the money” part is what doesn’t really make sense. CEO compensation, however egregious, is still a very small part of total payroll.
It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to show how ridiculously inverted the current distribution of wealth and resources is in virtually all major US industries. The point is that the money is there. It’s just getting sucked up to the top.
If you think I can’t have opinion on that because english is my second language, then I guess we are done, yes. Because I don’t want to have anything to do with you.
I just haven’t use that word in past time in a while and I forgot. Something felt weird while writing it, but I don’t feel the need to spellcheck everything for somebody on the internet.
So you’re saying we’d only need to sacrifice the pay of one guy to get free or mostly-paid-off utilities or groceries or gas for an entire month for hundreds of thousands of people? Seems like a worthy sacrifice.
I don’t think @aport@programming.dev is saying CEOs should be defended, but rather that their income isn’t a good measure for the rate of exploitation, because a great part of the companies profits that aren’t retained are divided among the shareholders, that is arguably where the greatest theft lies.
Yes it provides job protection but many people can’t afford that much unpaid time off.
It’s fair. He went against the unions to push nafta through which decimated the middle class. We say lots of high paying manufacturing jobs move to Mexico and Canada. That decimated the middle class and he knew it. You either defend unions or you don’t. He didn’t. It destroyed the middle class last
Throughout his first year in office, Reich was a leading proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration and supported by Clinton following two side agreements negotiated to satisfy labor and environmental groups. Reich served as leading public and private spokesman for the Clinton administration against organized labor, who continued to oppose the Agreement as a whole.
In July 1993, Reich said that the unions were “just plain wrong” to suggest NAFTA would cause a loss of American employment and predicted that “given the pace of growth of the Mexican automobile market over the next 15 years, I would say that more automobile jobs would be created in the United States than would be lost to Mexico… [T]he American automobile industry will grow substantially, and the net effect will be an increase in automobile jobs.” He further argued that trade liberalization following World War II had led to the "biggest increase in jobs and standard of living among the industrialized nations [in] history. "[31]
Sounds more like him being wrong and/or lied to by the Clinton administration that was mostly far to the right of him on just about anything than any sort of malice on his part, much less “going out of his way to screw the working class”…
Yes, really, because you want to give him this huge benefit of the doubt when it’s one of the few things where he actually had influence and what he did was the opposite of all the principles he professes. Occam’s razor there is that it’s just classic political hypocrisy, waxing poetic all day about your principles but then doing the wrong thing any time it actually counts.
No, I’m giving him the benefit of everything else he’s ever done. That’s not just doubt, that’s evidence of a several decades pattern of behaviour that in no way fits your supposition.
As for it being “one of the few things where he actually had influence”, that’s overstating how much influence he ever had when Clinton set his mind to something while simultaneously ignoring his massively influential work in academia and documentary film making.
Occam would take his razor away from you since you obviously have no clue how it or indeed anything works.
If you gave the Ford CEOs income evenly among all the employees, it would be an extra $200 a year.
CEO-to-worker pay ratio isn’t a particularly useful metric but it does a good job making people rightfully angry.
Maybe the point, which you’re missing, is that nobody should be making that much money at a company.
Fair enough but the “we don’t have the money” part is what doesn’t really make sense. CEO compensation, however egregious, is still a very small part of total payroll.
Ok, now add in all the other C-suite execs and the board of directors
The board of directors is not on payroll, they’re the owners, they get dividends or can sell part of the actions.
Shilling for millionaires?
Fuck off yo.
It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s meant to show how ridiculously inverted the current distribution of wealth and resources is in virtually all major US industries. The point is that the money is there. It’s just getting sucked up to the top.
I mean that’s kinda up to the board of directors, isn’t it?
“It’s ok because other rich people are saying its fine to pay rich people a ton of money”
CEOs shouldn’t be payed less, because I will be CEO of Apple in 10 years.
If you can’t spell “paid” you probably don’t know enough about how any of this works to have a strong opinion
If you think I can’t have opinion on that because english is my second language, then I guess we are done, yes. Because I don’t want to have anything to do with you.
I just haven’t use that word in past time in a while and I forgot. Something felt weird while writing it, but I don’t feel the need to spellcheck everything for somebody on the internet.
Couldve just not responded at all
Removed by mod
So you’re saying we’d only need to sacrifice the pay of one guy to get free or mostly-paid-off utilities or groceries or gas for an entire month for hundreds of thousands of people? Seems like a worthy sacrifice.
I don’t think @aport@programming.dev is saying CEOs should be defended, but rather that their income isn’t a good measure for the rate of exploitation, because a great part of the companies profits that aren’t retained are divided among the shareholders, that is arguably where the greatest theft lies.
deleted by creator
Reich also went out his way to screw the working class. Citing him just shows someone is citing someone that is saying what they want to hear.
He went out of his way to screw people when he was in power.
At least he got minimum wage increased
He did not such thing. Congress has the power to set the minimum wage. Maybe you need to brush up on how bad this man destroyed the middle class.
Sure, he didn’t specifically himself pass it, but he was Secretary of Labor and he lobbied for it. He’s also the reason we have FMLA.
I don’t think it’s fair to say he “destroyed” the middle class.
Fmla is garbage. 12 weeks of unpaid time off
Yes it provides job protection but many people can’t afford that much unpaid time off.
It’s fair. He went against the unions to push nafta through which decimated the middle class. We say lots of high paying manufacturing jobs move to Mexico and Canada. That decimated the middle class and he knew it. You either defend unions or you don’t. He didn’t. It destroyed the middle class last
https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/#:~:text=By establishing the principle that,end of World War II.
Can you recommend a place to start brushing up on that?
In what way did Robert Reich of all people “go out of his way to screw the working class”?
This should be good…
Guessing it’s this:
Sounds more like him being wrong and/or lied to by the Clinton administration that was mostly far to the right of him on just about anything than any sort of malice on his part, much less “going out of his way to screw the working class”…
That is an extremely generous take.
Not really, no. Would be extremely out of character and go against what he’s been doing for all the rest of career to deliberately hurt workers.
He didn’t leave the Clinton administration because everyone agreed with him and let him do what he thought was best without undue influence…
deleted by creator
Yes, really, because you want to give him this huge benefit of the doubt when it’s one of the few things where he actually had influence and what he did was the opposite of all the principles he professes. Occam’s razor there is that it’s just classic political hypocrisy, waxing poetic all day about your principles but then doing the wrong thing any time it actually counts.
No, I’m giving him the benefit of everything else he’s ever done. That’s not just doubt, that’s evidence of a several decades pattern of behaviour that in no way fits your supposition.
As for it being “one of the few things where he actually had influence”, that’s overstating how much influence he ever had when Clinton set his mind to something while simultaneously ignoring his massively influential work in academia and documentary film making.
Occam would take his razor away from you since you obviously have no clue how it or indeed anything works.