Posted on 06/24/2006 10:28:20 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Do you read what you type before you hit "post"?
If workers want to earn fat pensions then they should become more motivated instead of producing widgets for 30 years.
LMAO!
Elitist drivel.
Has FR sunk that low?
We'll disagree.
That analogy is just as stupid as your NFL Players and executive compensation analogy!
Chickens are coming home to roost, that's all.
I don't think they're cradle-to-grave socialism. At the percentage rates they're paid out to rank-and-file workers, they shouldn't be considered as such.
If I were running a company, I wouldn't even have pensions. Assets that don't go into pensions are thus available for expanding the company, seeking out new markets, hiring needed employees, etc.
I'd have a good 401(k) or other savings plan that any worker or CEO could contribute to with whatever amount he saw fit. I'd also lobby for lower individual and corporate taxes so that the rank-and-file could afford to contribute to these plans. Socialist Insecurity will not be enough in the future, I'm sure.
If my company did do pensions, however, you can rest assured that I wouldn't indulge in screwing over the rank-and-file workers so that I could enrich my own retirement with impunity. So there.
If the sh*t fits, the cabal members should wear it.
If they had succeeded with me, I wouldn't have both a 401(k) and a Roth IRA to make up for those squanderous, youthful years...
Pointing out how companies are cutting rank-and-file pension benefits while not even funding the pensions of their executives is not class warfare!
...and jump through all of the regulatory and tax hoops put in place by various slimy politicians and bureaucrats over the years. Some people might just say the heck with it and do a 9-to-5 instead just to keep their lives simple.
See my reply #85 to Extremely Extreme Extremist.
The WSJ article was NOT about "A lot of corporate executives do go out of their way and play by the rules. But then they get fined or jailed for not dotting an "I" on a contract or agreement."---which is an *argument* that exists only in your own mind ---- not the real world.
The WSJ article was about how companies are being looted for the private gain of a bare few individuals.
Which you indicated was justified, in your eyes.
Many here outlined to you, just how wrong you were.
This attempt at "reasonableness", now, is what is "Pathetic". You could have said, "hey guys, I was only kidding...", or how about, to some of the folks here, you could have said, "you are correct, what I said here was out-of-line", or SOMETHING.
Get it?
GQ Bob was hired to bring it out of the malaise that
resulted when Ken "Unix=Snake Oil" Olsen missed key
market indicators. Instead he cut the heart out of the buisness and sold the remainder out to Compaq.
FYI
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.