”
Posted on 12/18/2006 8:53:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Cute comparisons.
The problem is, corporate CEO's are supposed to be fiduciaries acting on behalf of the stockholders. The rapid escalation in their pay packages is a sign of weak corporate governance. Unlike NBA players and actors, who have to deliver value to someone else, corporate CEO's often manage to make themselves unaccountable to anyone for performance. Like World Series of Poker players, they are out for themselves only, and that is *not* how a capitalist economy functions optimally.
Quite frankly, I long for the days when CEO's had the attitude of Jay Gould: "The public be damned, I work for my stockholders" instead of the attitude of today's CEO's which seems to by "I got mine". Enron was but an extreme example.
”
This appelation is only true for those families living in areas like the San Francisco Bay Area, NY, etc. The Big Liberal Meccas.
And this is why there is an exodus by lower and middle classes OUT of these areas. But for the vast majority in the US, the opportunities for success are teeming in abundance -- so teeming, those wishing to enter this land of opportunity -- nearly break laws to get here.
I disagree. I think in a poll, Americans are disquieted by an inequality of result and because they might be quite aware of how many choose, willfully, to not improve their own lots in life. By hearing the laments of those worse off, they feel better than. And this is the "disquieting" parts of their guilt over doing better than others. An economic schadenfreude, if you will.
Additionally, I find that many who are discomforted by the "results" of economic results are usually those who'd rather keep others in perpetual poverty (in order to feel "better" than) -- than by offering a positive, tough love approach to encouraging others to take the very necessary steps of lifting themselves, by hard works, taking advantage of the abundance of opportunities, into improving their lots in life.
And then there are those, who are simply arrogant in their ignorance, declaring everyone else a "cheater" in the system. Shouting this refrain is certainly their own shot at pretense to being "conservative" in reserving their own energies for the shouting and lamenting and shrieking, then by say, taking a class at a college, filling out a job application.
The quintiles are not static. For example, when we were just starting out my wife and I were in the bottom 60%, but now we are in the top 40% and probably in the top 20%. People do not have to stay in the same quintile of earners over the course of their income-earning years, yet some do, many if not most as a result of the decisions they make regarding work and regarding consumption vs investment choices with the income they earn (or receive).
Exactly.
Let's use this example.
You've been using a 1940s oven. It is still functional. It is an abject energy hog, and requires a great deal of monitoring over a long cooking time.
Available on the market now is an energy savings oven which also does convection cooking, and with a temp probe. The technology of this newer model is compatible with the newer forms of energy being marketed in the more technologically progressive areas of the country; and in your location.
You search out the best price, you purchase this newer model. You now have the older, still functional model oven on your hands. You can junk it; give to a collector; sell it either domestically or abroad.
Obviously, some industries have been determined to be far too costly for the American age and economy. Nonetheless, developing nations are glad for that older oven. That older oven if it could be a productive good in another location of the American economy, it would MORE THAN LIKELY MOVE (M-O-V-E) to that location. But if there is no researched net gain to moving that industry to another location within the American economy, it will be put on the open market for purchase elsewhere in the world.
The American users of that "older oven" can decide themselves whether or not they wish to give up baking and broiling or acquire a newer model more compatible with current technologies. In either case there is a net cost involved with either decision. There is also a net cost involved with purchasing the newer oven.
There are costs involved with being a citizen of every country in the world.
I know its a shock for some to know this; but why should they when they can snag a headline asserting they are being personally "discriminated against" either by business or government. When in fact, this "reality" is in perfect keeping with both Darwin and Christianity and what the market bears for the people by the people.
And, those who comprehend this "reality" are generally referred to in coinage as the "haves" and those who do not grok this reality are generally referred to as the "have nots".
Why learn to live with reality when one can natter "DISCRIMINATION" and create a newer industry. We refer to this industry as the "grievance elite".
;>
This is one of many facts that the America-bashers overlook when they're bad-mouthing the US economy --the Heritage Council did a nice study on income distribution lies here and it included a few other points, some of which they combined into this bar chart.
Why do you think the itulip chart proves the economy is not humming along? Are you ever going to respond to my criticisms of your "professor"? Just curious.
The problem with you buffoons is that you think you can't be convicted because you have earned a degree. The problem is, there are a growing number of Americans with degrees in finance and economics that are wise to your anti-American policies; the most blatant of which is your defense of selling out American interests/workers so your fellow money-changers can make a quick buck off of the Red Chinese.
Guns was super-happy with HaverAnalytics when he was showing that the middle class was getting paid less for their homes, but the minute you used one of Haver's charts to say something good about the US, you loose your credibility.
Ah --I've got it! Your Haver charts prove that American's are rapidly losing the ability to earn less than $50k/year and pretty soon we'll be unable to provide any of our own cheap labor!!!
Are you talking about Fekete?
The problem is, there are a growing number of Americans with degrees in finance and economics
Then why do you post the guys who don't understand finance and economics?
Did they take nontaxable income into consideration?
Or does grandma's social security check not factor into their equasion.
Yes.
Take out Illegals and Single Mothers and the income distribution looks much different.
Or does grandma's social security check not factor into their equasion.
According to my link in post #22, transfer payments, 14.7% of personal income in 2004, are excluded. That's why poverty stats are also worthless. They don't include transfer payments either.
In the first place, all kinds of families are already better off these days, including them hard working ones. In the second place, even if they weren't we sure as hell don't want to try and fix things with bigger government taxing and spending. In the third place, this stuff really shouldn't have to be explained to a "conservative".
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.
