Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Just got banned, brought back memories

Just got banned, brought back memories
Thread Tools
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2020, 08:17 PM
 
There's a web forum called river dave's place, it's for fast boats. Joined a bit ago. They have a group on FB too.

So on FB, I see some jackasses posting boats w huge trump flags, or pics of their boats w confederate flags hanging on them.

I get into it with them. "I joined to see boats, not politics, and anyone who honestly still believes in the two party system is a dumbass. " was basically my sentiment.

Hour later, thread is still up, all my comments are gone, then I'm banned.

Go onto the forum. Ask who the admin is, and why I was banned for being AGAINST politics being on a boat page.

Accounted deleted.

Trump people are such ****ing douchebags, they complain about 'liberals needing safe spaces' but then they just ban anyone who talks back to their idiotic viewpoints.

I hope everyone who supports Trump gets covid.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2020, 08:18 PM
 
And BTW not really a liberal or a democrat. Just. ****ing wow tho. Complains about safe spaces. Bans/silences anyone who doesn't fall in line.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2020, 11:59 PM
 
They are oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

At least this time you didn't get a secret service call.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2020, 03:42 AM
 
Yeah, anyone who moans about snowflakes tends to be a massive snowflake and Trump fans are the absolute worst. If ever there was a justification for cleansing a population, that's a level of irredeemable obnoxiousness that might actually be it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2020, 07:57 PM
 
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2020, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.

-t


The old "Bad as each other" false equivalence.

People committing acts of violence in the name of equality, rights and science are not as bad as people who commit violence because they are nazis, like wandering about in public acting tough with their gun collection or just don't like paying taxes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2020, 02:09 AM
 
I don’t know the numbers for the US, but here in Germany, the number of deaths resulting from right-wing violence since reunification in 1990 is officially around 85.

Number of deaths from left-wing violence? Three.

And due to a tendency to underrepresent right-wing violence as “intoxication” or just not politically motivated, it’s probably around 200 murdered. (For example, a triple murder in 2003, where a Neonazi killed an attorney and his family, still isn’t counted as “right-wing” because he also took the opportunity to rob them.)

While left-wing “violence” includes resisting arrest at demonstrations and the like.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2020, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I don’t know the numbers for the US, but here in Germany, the number of deaths resulting from right-wing violence since reunification in 1990 is officially around 85.
… and as you correctly write, this number is an underrepresentation.
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Number of deaths from left-wing violence? Three. And due to a tendency to underrepresent right-wing violence as “intoxication” or just not politically motivated, it’s probably around 200 murdered.
Yup. Traditionally, the more serious left-wing crimes typically center around property crimes (e. g. vandalism during May 1st demonstrations or as you mention, resisting arrest). And right-wing extremism is by numbers a much more serious issue than islamic terrorism, too.
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
(For example, a triple murder in 2003, where a Neonazi killed an attorney and his family, still isn’t counted as “right-wing” because he also took the opportunity to rob them.)
Another case that spontaneously comes to mind is the shooting in the Olympia Einkaufszentrum in Munich (a shooting in a shopping mall). The Bavarian justice ministry fought tooth and nail that this wasn't counted as a right-wing attack even though there was clear and convincing evidence (the shooter was inspired by Anders Breivik).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2020, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.
<mod voice>Let's keep it civil, this is the regular lounge, not the PL. We can disagree with each other without calling the other an idiot.</mod voice>
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2020, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.

-t
Right-winger: "Democrats are the worst!"

*Right wing terrorist violence, shitty right-wing president, right-wing fascist police violence, right-wing federal government committing tyrannical acts against citizens*

Right-winger: "Both sides are the worst!"
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.

-t
It's possible to ****ing hate both sides and consider anyone who associates themselves with either party a moron.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 04:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
It's possible to ****ing hate both sides and consider anyone who associates themselves with either party a moron.
You can but if you don't think the Republicans are worse then theres something wrong with you.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You guys are one-sided as always.

All these virtue-signaling, “peaceful riot” - property destroying leftist a$$holes are as bad as opinionated Trump fans.

If you still think that one side is clearly bad / wrong, and the other side is all good, you are an idiot Democrat.

-t
Thing is, the vast majority of left-wing voters and supports don't agree with or condone the actions of those people- we don't fall in behind the worst of those on our side, and, for the most part, find it pretty shameful and embarrassing.

You guys elected your embarrassment president.

Not equivalent.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 01:07 PM
 
The current republican party is the tea party.

if we had a system that allowed for multiple parties, we wouldn't need to lump everyone together.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can but if you don't think the Republicans are worse then theres something wrong with you.
They're worse in some ways. They support 2A tho... I don't trust cops/government so I want an armed population, esp as income disparity increases and automation will soon eliminate a lot of unskilled jobs. We should all be armed.

Also, the 'modern' left (aka centerists) will go on and on and on about SJW issues like bathroom policy, yet barely a peep about income inequality, which affects EVERYONE, LBGT and minorities included.

LBGT = 3% of the population, yet it seems to be a good 1/3 of their entire platform. Why? Because they're corporate puppets as well, and they will do anything to keep the population divided and arguing about dumb shit that doesn't much matter to avoid having us unify and demand wages that keep up with cost of living.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
They're worse in some ways. They support 2A tho... I don't trust cops/government so I want an armed population, esp as income disparity increases and automation will soon eliminate a lot of unskilled jobs. We should all be armed.
Supporters of the Second Amendment always go on about them being armed being a bullwark against a police state and an overreaching federal government. Where are the 2A supporters when the federal government sends in “police” that looks like they came straight from Fallujah, who shoot on civilians (with less lethal ammunition and tear gas) and abduct moms in unmarked vans? As far as I can tell the majority of Republican voters, which intersects greatly with Second Amendment supporters are in favor of this. What do you think about this?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 09:25 PM
 
The right values maintaining the current structures of authority more than being compassionate towards the protesters, especially those with the explicit aim of dismantling those authority structures. The right considers how the state is behaving as well within what’s justified to defend itself from a valid threat. If anything, I’d say many on the right believe the state is being far too restrained.

Should the left feel the state has gone too far, the means of assassination have constitutional protection.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
They're worse in some ways. They support 2A tho... I don't trust cops/government so I want an armed population, esp as income disparity increases and automation will soon eliminate a lot of unskilled jobs. We should all be armed.

Also, the 'modern' left (aka centerists) will go on and on and on about SJW issues like bathroom policy, yet barely a peep about income inequality, which affects EVERYONE, LBGT and minorities included.

LBGT = 3% of the population, yet it seems to be a good 1/3 of their entire platform. Why? Because they're corporate puppets as well, and they will do anything to keep the population divided and arguing about dumb shit that doesn't much matter to avoid having us unify and demand wages that keep up with cost of living.
But income inequality is a policy of the Republicans. They always work to maintain it or make it worse. And LGBT only seems like a big issue because the RW press make a big deal about it. It gets them viewers, angry ones. They don't talk about income inequality because they favour it and because you can't talk about it to the sorts of right wingers who are watching RW media all day in any way that makes it sound like a good thing for them. They might even lose a few voters talking about that stuff. Money is the one thing that truly drives republican voters anyway, we've seen that with Trump.

Republicans also work to dismantle or devalue public education hence so many unskilled workers and republican voters. Universities aren't full of liberals because they are liberal. Its because educated folks become liberals when they're educated.

All that SJW bullshit is just s smokescreen. It was the right who raised bathrooms anyway. Unsubstantiated claims that pedophiles would start declaring gender changes in order to rape kids in bathrooms. Like you can't get into the opposite sex bathroom easily enough anyway and hid in a cubicle. Its telling how their minds work though.
Aren't most of those cops you don't trust republicans too?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2020, 10:13 PM
 
I don’t claim to have the answer to the bathroom question, but I think women being uncomfortable with men in their bathroom isn’t that out there.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2020, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t claim to have the answer to the bathroom question, but I think women being uncomfortable with men in their bathroom isn’t that out there.
I can understand feeling queasy about that, but I believe it's mostly a problem of getting your head around the idea that transgender women aren't men.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2020, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I can understand feeling queasy about that, but I believe it's mostly a problem of getting your head around the idea that transgender women aren't men.
Like many things in life i think this is a matter of degree. There are some transgender women who present as biological women. And there are other transgender women who present as a man in a dress. And everything in between. Those who harp on the bathroom issue tend to focus on the latter and the horror stories they can then imagine ... justifiably or not. When the former is the far more likely scenario one would encounter ... knowingly or not. This is because how the transgender person presents may be in contrast to how they identify .... and the cultural norms (in the US at least) with respect to public bathrooms are rooted in former. IMO the solution isn't to try force the acceptance of transgender people into a paradigm that is fundamentally segregated for no good reason. That's like trying to get racist white people to accept a bi-racial person who identifies with their white heritage at a segregated lunch counter. It's never going to happen! Instead we should shift the paradigm to something that actually makes sense. Like gender neutral public bathrooms with private stalls and common handwashing areas. Then it doesn't matter how you present and/or how you identify. And it's not about "LGBT" or "SJW" or the myriad of other ways that the Fox News crowd works itself up into a lather. We do this all day everyday when it comes to dressing rooms in stores. Private stalls to change. Common area to see the outfit in full length mirrors and show it off to one's shopping companion (or the person who's going to foot the bill). And yet ... the sky doesn't fall.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2020, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
transgender women aren't men.
How true this is depends on how inclusive we make the definition of transgender women. The more inclusive it becomes, the less true the statement. The statement is least true when the definition is at its most inclusive.

If we pin the definition to the statement, by necessity it comes at the cost of being exclusionary. Likewise, if we pin the definition to inclusion, there’s no alternative but to sacrifice using the statement as a rationale for letting transgender women into women’s spaces.

What the definition should be is another thing I don’t claim to have the answer to, but whichever is chosen, it will negate the benefits of the other.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 10:46 AM
 
This thread is a microcosm of our media. Again, look how far you guys are going debating about LBGT bathroom policy, when income inequality affects almost everyone, and LBGT are 3% of the population?

Most rural voters are red, and have higher poverty rates, so they're basically being brainwashed by the republicans to vote against their own interests. Income inquality isn't just a redpublican thing. Look at the trends of the middle class for the past 3 decades, or the ratio of average wage to cost of housing/healthcare/education. It doesn't matter which red or blue clown is in charge because they're ultimately, if you go up far enough, all controlled by MONEY. Corporate interests control both the left and the right, and the banks control corporations (who gets a loan to expand, vs who doesnt, etc etc etc). The ultra mega wealthy in charge of the banks ultimately control both political aisles in an effort to divide the population.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 12:03 PM
 
I'm baffled how you seem to think people on the left are silent about income inequality. It's a pretty regular topic in the circles I run. It is, however, a far harder nut to crack, and, ultimately, is far more threatening to the ruling classes, who will fight such a fundamental change to the status-quo with every penny and ounce of influence they have. Thus, any work on income inequality is going to require significant and broad-based buy-in just to get the topic seriously considered. Securing LGBTQ rights are pretty low-hanging fruit in comparison.

Also, whataboutism is lame.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
This thread is a microcosm of our media. Again, look how far you guys are going debating about LBGT bathroom policy, when income inequality affects almost everyone, and LBGT are 3% of the population?

Most rural voters are red, and have higher poverty rates, so they're basically being brainwashed by the republicans to vote against their own interests. Income inquality isn't just a redpublican thing. Look at the trends of the middle class for the past 3 decades, or the ratio of average wage to cost of housing/healthcare/education. It doesn't matter which red or blue clown is in charge because they're ultimately, if you go up far enough, all controlled by MONEY. Corporate interests control both the left and the right, and the banks control corporations (who gets a loan to expand, vs who doesnt, etc etc etc). The ultra mega wealthy in charge of the banks ultimately control both political aisles in an effort to divide the population.
Which income disparity do you want to tackle first... the one with our Chinese slaves, or the Mexican ones?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 01:06 PM
 
Perhaps CEO pay could be tackled first. It's an unsympathetic indicator of low wages vs economy. Courtesy of CNBC.



Employee pay rose slower than the economy, except CEOs rose faster.

As I see it, a business must satisfy multiple masters:
• Customers (via prices & service)
• Stockholders (dividends & stock price)
• Employees (regular and CEOs)

Over the last few decades, companies have prioritized stockholders, CEOs, and customers (via competitive prices, less often via service). Exception: dysfunctional industries, like ISPs, don't satisfy Customers at all. Both prices and service are de-prioritized.

I've observed a trend on satisfying Stockholders, where they are served more via stock price, and less via dividend. Extra cash is used more often for stock buybacks, mergers, & acquisitions. Less often used for dividends. Can't point to any graphs though - it's personal observation.

The parties most often left out (in decreasing order) are: Employees (regular), Customers (service), Stockholders (dividends).

Employee pay not keeping up with the economy is your income inequality. Stockholders being "paid" primarily via stock price is a related factor, because you can realize that pay only by selling your capital investment. Trading profit today for fewer assets tomorrow.

Letting customer service slide into mediocrity doesn't impact income inequality much, it just makes that company suck. Tends to happen more the less competition there is in that industry.

Possible solutions to rebalance things:
• Cap the ratio of CEO pay to lowest wage in a company. Include contract workers and temps so companies cannot just outsource everything to India. Include stock, golden parachutes, etc. This doesn't directly improve employee wages, but does incentivize the CEO who has a big say in employee wages. If he/she wants more, they must approve increased compensation in the entire company.
• Limit mergers & acquisitions. We've tried to do that judicially - companies just wait for a sympathetic administration. Then run all the mergers through. We could add a tax incentive on top of antitrust concerns: any business merger or acquisition owes 25% of the value to the national government. Say via 20% of the smaller company value, and 5% of the bigger company value. That would discourage bigger companies more, from buying up their future competitors.
• Discourage stock buybacks: 25% of the buyback must be paid to the government. For every $Million spent buying back their stock, $250K must be paid to the Federal Gov.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
This thread is a microcosm of our media. Again, look how far you guys are going debating about LBGT bathroom policy, when income inequality affects almost everyone, and LBGT are 3% of the population?
This is a pretty regular talking point of many Democrats, and I feel that the manufactured controversy over trans men in women's bathrooms is an attempt by the GOP to deflect from actual issues like income inequality, health care, rising tuition costs, etc.

Ditto for things like an update and actual enforcement of anti-trust. Anti-trust was very successful in the US when it was an actual tool that has seen use. IMHO we would have been better off if Microsoft had been broken up in the 1990s. And e. g. Amazon should be broken up now. Just imagine if rather than breaking up Bell they would have been allowed to enter different, adjacent industries instead? That's the world Americans live in now.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2020, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Perhaps CEO pay could be tackled first. It's an unsympathetic indicator of low wages vs economy. Courtesy of CNBC.
Good overview. The other thing that gets me is that even when CEOs are fired (aka “They want to spend more time with their family.”) most get a golden parachute. Also that is in direct contradiction to how all other people are treated in the workplace: if I do a shitty job, I don't get a large bonus for retiring early. The other thing is that the state of the economy is identified with the state of the stock market. And the welfare of a people is identified with the state of the economy.

Capping CEO salaries specifically would be tricky to do legally I think. But what could help is to significantly increase the marginal tax rate, and treat all forms of income equally.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2020, 08:05 AM
 
I understood the issue to be CEOs make most of their money from stocks. Short-term growth inflates stock value so CEOs are incentivized to make that the priority.

While raising wages can spur long-term growth, it cannibalizes the short-term variety.


Edit: also, long-term growth doesn’t help a CEO who could very well be gone by the time benefits are realized.
( Last edited by subego; Aug 9, 2020 at 08:47 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2020, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I understood the issue to be CEOs make most of their money from stocks. Short-term growth inflates stock value so CEOs are incentivized to make that the priority.
CEOs don’t get salaries, they have compensation packages.
I’m by no means an expert, but you are right that stock options are usually part of the package, perks (access to company jets, coverage of certain legal expenses), golden parachutes, etc. As far as I understand, legal “tax evasion” is usually also part and parcel of it. (You know what I mean by that, I don’t claim they are necessarily doing something illegal, just that they want to minimize taxes in creative ways that are not open to the general public.) It seems like a different universe that plays by very different rules.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
While raising wages can spur long-term growth, it cannibalizes the short-term variety.

Edit: also, long-term growth doesn’t help a CEO who could very well be gone by the time benefits are realized.
That’s one huge problem. The other is that companies are forced to grow — which is fine for smaller companies. But if you think about e. g. Amazon, if you want to grow Amazon’s revenue by, say, 50 %, how do you do that? There are very few industries that are big enough to make a dent, including health care. Ditto for Apple: just imagine if Apple stopped growing its revenue for, say, 10 years. Everything else would still be the same, they’d continue to have ~40 % margins and have a larger revenue than the GDP of some smaller first-world countries. I’m no stock expert, but I’m quite sure their stock would tank — Apple would no longer be an investment with insane returns.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2020, 01:06 PM
 
The CEO of Walmart, the world's biggest employer makes $22 million / yr. At least 1 other executive makes $45 million /yr. If you seized 100% of both their pays & divided it among Walmart's 2,200,000 employees, that would give each employee $30 more per year, or 1.5 cents more per hour. If you seized 100% of Walmart's 10 highest paid people it would net each employee less than 10 cents /hr extra. Not exactly life changing...

Amazon CEO makes ~$1.8 million in compensation, but he owns $140 billion of the company. He's worth that much because middle class & poor people CHOSE to give him their money for his poor quality slave made products instead of spending their money at companies who made products locally in 1st world nations under the very 1st world regulations & workers rights laws they lobbied for... What do you do about middle class hypocrites choosing to punish companies who manufacture locally under local wage laws while choosing to support slavery every time they're given the chance not to? Do you just blame people like Bezos & seize half their' ownership to disperse that value to the people who willingly made him rich? Even though it wont help you at all 'cause thats not how the ponzi scheme of money & stock value works...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2020, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The CEO of Walmart, the world's biggest employer makes $22 million / yr. At least 1 other executive makes $45 million /yr. If you seized 100% of both their pays & divided it among Walmart's 2,200,000 employees,
Making up a fake argument and then beating it handily...if only there were a term for this kind of logical fallacy.

Do you still believe in trickle down?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2020, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Making up a fake argument and then beating it handily...if only there were a term for this kind of logical fallacy.

Do you still believe in trickle down?
What part is fake? Other than you wouldn’t ever seize all a ceo’s salary so the real wealth redistribution would be even less than I stated.

Money is created at the top through loans used in business creation & expansion. All such money is spent on hiring people since loans must be paid back. In that sense there is trickle down. There’s no guarantee of trickle down from tax breaks on the other hand since theres no obligation to hire or expand.

I also believe the disastrous effects of the current bailout will trickle down destroying everyone’s buying power (Like the last bailouts) & that we’ll have to listen to people whine about wages not keeping up with costs of living for another 20 yrs due to a policy they supported.

If all money was seized & redistributed evenly so everyone had the same amount, would everyone be equally rich, equally middle class, or would everyone be equally poor?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2020, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
What part is fake?
The thing you made up about redistributing the wealth of some millionaires. No one here is advocating for that. Whatever media you consume has latched onto that as an ideal that the EVIL LIBERALS have, and you took the bait.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2020, 12:40 AM
 
I got it right from this thread, not media. The complaint was brought up that ceo’s get paid too much compared to their employees; meaning employees should get a share of that wealth. That’s why they said cap ceo pay in relation to lowest paid employee pay. So I showed in the simplest of terms that the ceo’s compensation package, not matter how you work the numbers, even in the most extreme case, couldnt be lowered in a way that makes significant change to the lower employees.

The wealth gap is somewhat of a myth in the sense that its agenda factors in stock valuations which could never realistically all be cashed in for the market cap value that they’re calculated at.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2020, 03:27 AM
 
Lowering the CEOs pay would not result in any added money going to other employees. All savings would go back in the company coffers.

However, CEOs are able to increase wages. Observed fact for their own wages. If a ratio cap were applied vs lowest-paid employee, a greedy CEO would have financial incentive to increase other employee wages. So long as they do not bankrupt the company, they can give themselves whatever raise they desire. They just have to bring along the lower ranks.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2020, 04:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
However, CEOs are able to increase wages. Observed fact for their own wages. If a ratio cap were applied vs lowest-paid employee, a greedy CEO would have financial incentive to increase other employee wages. So long as they do not bankrupt the company, they can give themselves whatever raise they desire. They just have to bring along the lower ranks.
I would also add to that that the business models of many companies, from old-school companies like Walmart to new companies like Amazon and Uber, relies on minimum wage jobs. The state (i. e. everybody else) is subsidizing this business model with their taxes. Because we will have to pick up the tab when these people get sick or are in other financial trouble. Amazon, for example, is not sharing its incredible growth with its employees at the bottom. Moreover, the company isn't paying its fair share of taxes (meaning as a percentage of their earnings, it is paying far, far less than small and medium-sized businesses would). That's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor in my book. How can any smaller company that may develop into a competitor grow big enough to compete under these circumstances?

I would also say that if a business model doesn't work if it relies on “gig workers” or minimum wage earners, then IMHO this is an unsustainable business model.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2020, 05:19 AM
 
A ratio cap is a really nice idea if its done right. It would have to include more than CEOs, everyone at a certain level or above otherwise today's CEO would simply become tomorrow's 'Chairman' or 'President' or 'Senior Partner' 'Chief Profit Muncher' or some other title to circumvent the rules. These rules would have to be unfathomably airtight to avoid abuse or loopholes. Its difficult to see it working in reality. I can already imagine there being exceptions at the bottom end so anyone under X hours per week or any subcontractors or freelancers etc would be exempted from the ration calculation. Companies would go to lengths to restructure around any rule put in place. And with the current levels of corrupt croneyism in western governments, those writing the rule would be eager to make sure to include enough loopholes to last a good long time for all their CEO donors and school chums.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2020, 09:35 PM
 
How would this work? Lets say we peg walmart's CEO pay to 2 million/yr for every $1/hr his lower employees get. So if his lowest employees make $8/hr he gets $16 mil/yr. If he gets a raise to $24 million that only costs the company 8 mil extra - a drop in the bathtub from the companies perspective. But then his employees would need to be raised to $12/hr. If just the lower 3rd of employees got just a seemingly small $4/hr raise that costs the company 6.1 billion. Now that costs the company almost 5% of profits. And we're still not even at the $15/hr min that socialists are fighting for. See CEO pay doesnt really matter, employee pay is where the big expenses are. Thats not even including payroll taxes which to businesses are treated like a fine that discourages them from hiring more people. These costs will just be past onto the consumer, so you're robbing the consumer to pay the employees... Kinda like how democrats claimed tariffs would play out.

But wait... thats not the worst by a long shot since walmart doesnt operate in a bubble. Walmart has higher paid people than the CEO because thats what it costs to get certain skill sets bid away from other companies. So say you're a smaller business who's willing to offer one of walmart's executives 48 mil/yr to pull her away from walmart because you could really use that skill-set. But as a smaller company you cant afford to pay your lowest menial laborers $24/hr based on the peg because that would cost the company $4.8 billion annually assuming you had 1/23 the amount of employees walmart had & assuming nobody at your company got paid more than $24/hr, which is highly unrealistic. In reality you'd be paying WAY more for at least 25% of your employees. And you wouldnt be able to compete with larger companies because guvernment forced you to invest in your least valuable employees rather than the most valuable with the peg. Assuming your profit was 1/23 the size as walmarts (to match the # employee reduction) you're total employee pay would be equal to your total profits.

Liberals always like highly structured solutions, lifestyles & systems for doing things. They have an addiction to stability & think their vision of the right life should be forced on everyone. Why cant they see how these unnatural things just add to more flaws & overly complicated bureaucracy with endless loopholes that need constant plugging which leads to even more extremely rigid complex bureaucracy inevitably costing too much for small businesses to afford to understand. In the end more money is lost to the time consuming bureaucracy than what you got from the CEOs.

Whenever you raise some kind of min wage, it just becomes the new baseline to define the lowest middle-class as prices rise to compensate. Instead of being obsessed with intense structure & overly systematized ways of doing things, why dont you guys just stop giving free money to billionaires? Lets start there, lets see if you can stop your party from overwhelmingly supporting giving more free trillions to the top 1% in bailouts/stimulus/quantitative-easing/welfare/subsidies. Then we can talk taxes & all these other overly complicated solutions.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2020, 10:20 PM
 
Raising the minimum wage always screws those at the bottom.

At $15/hour robots are almost always going to be cheaper... All of the Walmarts in my city of torn out all but one cashier lane for self check out, and I usually only see two or three employees in the entire store when I go.

The cynical side of me thinks if you tried to institute some sort of CEO pay ratio/cap, companies would simply get rid of all employees below a certain cut off.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2020, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Whenever you raise some kind of min wage, it just becomes the new baseline to define the lowest middle-class as prices rise to compensate.
Prices rise anyway. The federal minimum wage was last adjusted in 2009, and left alone since. But prices continued to rise. If the minimum wage is not corrected over time, inflation gradually adjusts its value towards zero. Countries with hyperinflation see this happen faster, where a local dollar from a decade ago, can become toilet paper today.

Minimum wage prevents slavery, as being paid a quarter (original fed minimum wage) nothing for an hour's work would leave a worker completely at the mercy of their owner's fringe benefits. May I remind you we banned slavery in the 13th Amendment. Allowing negligible wages effectively allows slavery. Where the employee no longer has freedom outside of work, because they have no means.

In real buying power, the $7.25 federal minimum wage is approaching its historical low value.



When the alternative to overly complicated solutions is no solution, then I'll take the complicated ones. Trying is better than not trying, even if you have to keep plugging loopholes. I've yet to see the right offer a simple solution that works. Trickle-down economics have been tried for ~40 years now, cutting the highest tax bracket lower and lower. When is it supposed to kick in? It's ballooned the federal deficit, while economic inequality has grown. Perhaps if we cut taxes on the rich to 0%, they'll finally start spending, hiring, and giving raises on their own?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Thats not even including payroll taxes which to businesses are treated like a fine that discourages them from hiring more people. These costs will just be past onto the consumer, so you're robbing the consumer to pay the employees...
Charging consumers to pay employees and owners is not robbing, it's how business works. The free market.

Payroll taxes are the Social Security checks for retired people. The ones who paid in all their lives, and have extremely high voter turnout in elections.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
How would this work? Lets say we peg walmart's CEO pay to 2 million/yr for every $1/hr his lower employees get. So if his lowest employees make $8/hr he gets $16 mil/yr. If he gets a raise to $24 million that only costs the company 8 mil extra - a drop in the bathtub from the companies perspective. But then his employees would need to be raised to $12/hr. If just the lower 3rd of employees got just a seemingly small $4/hr raise that costs the company 6.1 billion. Now that costs the company almost 5% of profits. And we're still not even at the $15/hr min that socialists are fighting for. See CEO pay doesnt really matter, employee pay is where the big expenses are.
Finally, we are in 100% agreement. The CEO pay does not matter, what matters is the CEO motivation to raise employee wages. The CEO can be as greedy as he/she likes, but to get more money, they would *have* to OK the higher expense to raise employee wages.

Our objective isn't to adjust the US economy to maximize WalMart's profits. We're supposed to be on the side of our citizens, who are overwhelmingly employees rather than CEOs. In your example, a 5% hit on WalMart profits would give a $4/hr raise to a large number of employees. If that doesn't hit $15 per hour, it's because you chose those example numbers so they did not. A greedier CEO would force raises large enough to reach $15, without anyone having to touch the federal minimum wage.

Not sure I could have said it better than you. Bravo. Let's see it happen.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2020, 01:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Liberals always like highly structured solutions, lifestyles & systems for doing things. They have an addiction to stability & think their vision of the right life should be forced on everyone. Why cant they see how these unnatural things just add to more flaws & overly complicated bureaucracy with endless loopholes that need constant plugging which leads to even more extremely rigid complex bureaucracy inevitably costing too much for small businesses to afford to understand.
If you have a better solution to prevent concentration of wealth in the top-1 %, let's hear it. Trickle-down economics hasn't worked, and the latest round of senseless tax cuts has hampered the US's ability to react to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The economy is not a self-fulfilling prophecy that is meant to make rich people richer, it is meant to regulate the flow of goods and allow everyone a good life. If you extract money from the flow of money that is literally the life blood of capitalism and park it in the off-shore bank of billionaires and corporations, you starve the body of the economy, i. e. the vast majority of the population. That's unsustainable and will eventually lead to mass protests and perhaps even revolution.

Have a look at what is going on in Chile, it is quite instructive of what could happen to the United States. After the coup, Pinochet remodeled the entire system of Chile according to the neoliberal Chicago School. And society is cracking there. Whole villages can't get water, because water rights have been privatized (not in “we aren't getting water, because we are not paying our bills”, but as in “you are not getting waters because we'd rather use it to grow avocados”). Its health care system is AFAIK the closest to the US, which is not a good thing. Ordinary people have trouble getting proper health care. But if you are blessed with money, you can get excellent health care. Their current president is even a (proper) billionaire. The vast difference between rich and poor has destabilized the country.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Whenever you raise some kind of min wage, it just becomes the new baseline to define the lowest middle-class as prices rise to compensate.
And if we don't raise the minimum wage, tax payers pick up the bill when people can't make a living on minimum wage. That's socialism for big companies and the rich. Any business model that doesn't work for a given minimum wage is simply a business model that doesn't work.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Instead of being obsessed with intense structure & overly systematized ways of doing things, why dont you guys just stop giving free money to billionaires? Lets start there, lets see if you can stop your party from overwhelmingly supporting giving more free trillions to the top 1% in bailouts/stimulus/quantitative-easing/welfare/subsidies. Then we can talk taxes & all these other overly complicated solutions.
Empirically, this is not correct: in the past few decades, Democratic presidents have been more frugal (when it comes to the federal budget) than Republican ones. The common lore that Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism doesn't bear out.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Aug 24, 2020 at 01:34 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2020, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is a pretty regular talking point of many Democrats,
Sure. Talking point. But they haven't done shit.

I left the area I grew up in because I would not be able to maintain a quality of life that I grew up with. Housing was simply too expensive and out of reach. I could have MAYBE afforded a tiny piece of shit house with a 1 car garage.... but that's not happening. So I left.

And this was in the midwest... for coasties, it's even MORE insane. Cost of housing has skyrocketed, wages haven't. But again... the left wants to SJW so much. LBGT represent 3% of the population yet it's like 50% of the the democratic platform. Same constant imperialism and wars, same militarized police, same corporate controlled politicians, no actual fundamental change.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2020, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Sure. Talking point. But they haven't done shit.
Well, your initial claim was that Democrats didn’t talk about income and wealth inequality. Doing something about it is another matter. The last time the Democrats had a trifecta was in 2008–2010, and they used all the energy to pass Obama Care. True, a lot of centrist Democrats weren’t really in favor of doing hard things like significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. But especially now a lot of younger Democrats who are farther to the left are defeating Democratic incumbents in the primaries.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I left the area I grew up in because I would not be able to maintain a quality of life that I grew up with. Housing was simply too expensive and out of reach. I could have MAYBE afforded a tiny piece of shit house with a 1 car garage.... but that's not happening. So I left.
I’m not sure why you complain about that. You are lucky, you are mentally tough enough to move in order to have a better life. Most people can’t handle that. I moved countries and continents to follow my dreams. While I don’t think what I did was that extraordinary, I get reminded that it isn’t common when I look back at my classmates from high school. Even though quite a few spent time abroad, etc., most of them are salmons, i. e. they return to the place they were born in order to reproduce. I’m not wired that way and it seems so are you. You should be glad about it.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
And this was in the midwest... for coasties, it's even MORE insane. Cost of housing has skyrocketed, wages haven't.
This is a pretty universal truth in many cities and urban areas in the world, be it London, New York, Toronto, Paris, Tokyo, Berkeley or Munich. Although I see no relation to SJWs or the LBGTQ community, it is simply a function of demand far outstripping supply and most cities not doing a good job to keep housing affordable.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
But again... the left wants to SJW so much. LBGT represent 3% of the population yet it's like 50% of the the democratic platform.
I think it is interesting that this is your perception.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Same constant imperialism and wars, same militarized police, same corporate controlled politicians, no actual fundamental change.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a discussion you can sensibly have right now. This was my biggest criticism of Hillary Clinton, she was way too much of a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, for example. But thanks to the GOP’s shenanigans, we never got to discuss that in 2016 and instead got like 7 or 8 committees on Benghazi and a big bruhaha about emails (by a bunch of phonies who also used private email accounts for official business). Sensible discussion gets drowned out.

However, I think it is important to keep in mind what your choices are. As much as Obama escalated the drone war, for example, Donald Trump kicked it up a few notches. I expect that a President Biden would be restrained by voices in his party when it comes to police militarization, for example, whereas the GOP applauds police officers who are acting in blatant disregard for human life and fundamental rights.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2020, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post

This is a pretty universal truth in many cities and urban areas in the world, be it London, New York, Toronto, Paris, Tokyo, Berkeley or Munich. Although I see no relation to SJWs or the LBGTQ community, it is simply a function of demand far outstripping supply and most cities not doing a good job to keep housing affordable.
Funny how everyone wants to live with the lefty SJWs though isn't it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2020, 03:54 PM
 
There’s something of an irony in that cities are where people go to escape social injustice, but they’re also where one goes to find social injustice.

Cities are where we have the highest concentration of poverty, systemic discrimination, and cops who will shoot you and your dog.

From a lefty SJW perspective, cities are actually kinda capitalist hellscapes.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2020, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There’s something of an irony in that cities are where people go to escape social injustice, but they’re also where one goes to find social injustice.

Cities are where we have the highest concentration of poverty, systemic discrimination, and cops who will shoot you and your dog.

From a lefty SJW perspective, cities are actually kinda capitalist hellscapes.
In cities social injustice is more visible, the racial homogeneity in many places in the US covers up social injustice. That’s why quite a few people see homogeneity as a solution to “city problems” rather than one of the main causal factors. At my high school in PA, I can remember two black kids and one Indian American girl. She is wicked smart, PhD at Yale in biology, the full package. But her family had to hear quite a few not-so-nice things, which got worse after Trump’s election. Despite living in their neighborhood for several decades, they still aren’t accepted as “true Americans”.

Furthermore, I don’t think it is accurate to say that cities have the highest concentration of poverty, there are plenty of rural areas that are way poorer. What you have in cities is a bigger disparity between rich and poor. The reason cities attract people are precisely the massive opportunities you have there. It is for good reason that states like New York and California are the economic engines and transfer a vast amount of money to many Southern and mid-Western states (which usually preach financial responsibility).

When Republicans denounce Democrats for their failure to govern cities, a cynical counter may be that if the city were led by a Republican, then yes, you wouldn’t have many of the problems many cities face today. But perhaps the reason might be that these cities wouldn’t be as economically prosperous. Reality isn’t simple and clearcut.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 02:16 PM
 
Are there ANY cities that are 'red'?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 04:05 PM
 
Kenosha?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2020, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Kenosha?
I’d like to hear your definition of “city”.

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,