Bernie Sanders Thread

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

That is absolutely stealing...

What is CEO and executive pay over the last 40 years increasing from a 20:1 ratio (compared to employees) to a 300:1 ratio classify as? Considering the employees who work for them haven't seen their pay increase much at all in that time frame. Sounds like theft of compensation to me.

 

[orangeluvr]

Regarding Bernie's bullet point of "make joining a union easier". That's fine. Leaving a union should be a simple matter as well. You should also be allowed to opt out of joining a union, even in an at-will state and the right to specify that your union dues are not used for political purposes.

Union membership should be voluntary and public employee unions should be abolished.

:lolabove:

You're so FOS it ain't funny. :crazy:

 

[orangeluvr]

After 2008 and definitely 2012 you say this?

What about 'oo and '04. ost-4-1090547912: :fool:

 

[Biopsyman]

What is CEO and executive pay over the last 40 years increasing from a 20:1 ratio (compared to employees) to a 300:1 ratio classify as? Considering the employees who work for them haven't seen their pay increase much at all in that time frame. Sounds like theft of compensation to me.

So you think an average worker in a factory has the same skills as the CEO? It simple supply and demand, There are many workers that are paid a market rate and few capable CEO's. The CEO's pay in approved by the board of directors. They too are paid a market rate

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Why are you in favor of high taxation on successful people? Who determines how much someone needs?

High taxation of "successful" people wouldn't, and shouldn't, even be an issue, but only is because they've literally horded the nation's wealth for half a century while the middle class has been drowning in debt in order to maintain a standard of living. If employee compensation had kept up with productivity, nobody would be upset.

Let's look at the minimum wage in 1976. It was about $2.60 an hour. Adjusted to inflation, the minimum wage should be right at $10.00 an hour right now. Of course, if we did that prices would skyrocket and the entire economy would collapse (blue font). During this same time, CEO and executives have seen their incomes grow over 10x that of the average worker.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

So you think an average worker in a factory has the same skills as the CEO? It simple supply and demand, There are many workers that are paid a market rate and few capable CEO's. The CEO's pay in approved by the board of directors. They too are paid a market rate

I never said that. I said that the average worker hasn't seen their pay increase in accordance with their productivity, but CEOs have seen theirs grow from 20x the average worker to over 300x that of the average worker. Of course CEOs should get paid more than the assembly line guys, but 300x more? That's theft of production compensation imo.

 

[MG1968]

High taxation of "successful" people wouldn't, and shouldn't, even be an issue, but only is because they've literally horded the nation's wealth for half a century while the middle class has been drowning in debt in order to maintain a standard of living. If employee compensation had kept up with productivity, nobody would be upset.

Let's look at the minimum wage in 1976. It was about $2.60 an hour. Adjusted to inflation, the minimum wage should be right at $10.00 an hour right now. Of course, if we did that prices would skyrocket and the entire economy would collapse (blue font). During this same time, CEO and executives have seen their incomes grow over 10x that of the average worker.

This is only true if "the nation's wealth" was a finite number. It isn't finite, therefore your entire premise is false.

 

[BeecherVol]

High taxation of "successful" people wouldn't, and shouldn't, even be an issue, but only is because they've literally horded the nation's wealth for half a century while the middle class has been drowning in debt in order to maintain a standard of living. If employee compensation had kept up with productivity, nobody would be upset.

Let's look at the minimum wage in 1976. It was about $2.60 an hour. Adjusted to inflation, the minimum wage should be right at $10.00 an hour right now. Of course, if we did that prices would skyrocket and the entire economy would collapse (blue font). During this same time, CEO and executives have seen their incomes grow over 10x that of the average worker.

Eh. To an extent. Your always gonna have people that want something someone else has. And some that are even willing to take less if it requires nothing in return.

Our politicians have decided that tax talk is a useful vote buying tool come election time.

 

[Biopsyman]

High taxation of "successful" people wouldn't, and shouldn't, even be an issue, but only is because they've literally horded the nation's wealth for half a century while the middle class has been drowning in debt in order to maintain a standard of living. If employee compensation had kept up with productivity, nobody would be upset.

Let's look at the minimum wage in 1976. It was about $2.60 an hour. Adjusted to inflation, the minimum wage should be right at $10.00 an hour right now. Of course, if we did that prices would skyrocket and the entire economy would collapse (blue font). During this same time, CEO and executives have seen their incomes grow over 10x that of the average worker.

Sorry... the average worker is replaceable especially if the worker is low skilled or has no education. This is a problem for the worker. Our economy primarily is knowledge based now vs trade based. The trade based job like steel and coal are protected by unions in many cases. If someone works in a low skilled environment, then they can be replaced very easy like minimum wage workers, which is a non issue There is less than 3 million workers making minimum wage and is not the average worker wage.

 

[Biopsyman]

I never said that. I said that the average worker hasn't seen their pay increase in accordance with their productivity, but CEOs have seen theirs grow from 20x the average worker to over 300x that of the average worker. Of course CEOs should get paid more than the assembly line guys, but 300x more? That's theft of production compensation imo.

Its very dangerous when the government tries to set wages to be equal across the board.. Its has been tried and has been a miserable failure. We have desire, will and competition among all of us. Some will rise and other won't. Most CEO;s bust there ass getting where they are ruining their marriages and never seeing their children. Thats their choice, but nothing is handed to them.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Eh. To an extent. Your always gonna have people that want something someone else has. And some that are even willing to take less if it requires nothing in return.

Our politicians have decided that tax talk is a useful vote buying tool come election time.

You're right. People will always want more, it's human nature. But people only seem to think it is greed and envy when middle class workers want more. When the CEO wants more, it's okay because they earned it with blood, sweat, and tears.

 

[BeecherVol]

You're right. People will always want more, it's human nature. But people only seem to think it is greed and envy when middle class workers want more. When the CEO wants more, it's okay because they earned it with blood, sweat, and tears.

Yeah. The term gets applied to a lot. Its not restricted to just one or the other. I don't see it any worse than someone willing to live very modestly off someone elses tax dollars because that is a viable way to survive and takes little effort.

 

[FLVOL_79]

What is CEO and executive pay over the last 40 years increasing from a 20:1 ratio (compared to employees) to a 300:1 ratio classify as? Considering the employees who work for them haven't seen their pay increase much at all in that time frame. Sounds like theft of compensation to me.

Sounds like the employees are being paid their worth and/or are too indifferent to find better pay elsewhere. The attempt to demonize anyone with more money than another person is troubling.

 

[FLVOL_79]

You're right. People will always want more, it's human nature. But people only seem to think it is greed and envy when middle class workers want more. When the CEO wants more, it's okay because they earned it with blood, sweat, and tears.

They're the boss so...

This isn't a communist country. Being employed isn't an entitlement or a privilege. I don't get why people seem to think that it is.

And when democrats talk about the middle class..they are confusing dirt poor with actual middle class. <-- Example..remember Casey Anthony? When she killed her kid the news said she was from an upscale east Orlando neighborhood. I guess I missed the memo that said $100,000 homes with multiple families living in all of them became "upscale". I guess I'm like Trump rich in the eyes of the left.

 

[1972 Grad]

This is only true if "the nation's wealth" was a finite number. It isn't finite, therefore your entire premise is false.

They look at it as a zero-sum game.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

Post-war middle class Americans enjoyed higher pay and less debt than they do today. They work more hours and have been producing more, every year, over the past 40 years, but their wages don't reflect their productivity anymore. Meanwhile, CEO and other executives raise their own salaries tenfold because they're the boss. That is redistribution of wealth.

Wealth isn't finite, but there is only a given sum of it at any given time. Of course it can continue to grow over time as the economy changes. The current amount of wealth in the U.S. is about around 120 trillion and the top 20% of Americans own 85% of it.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

They're the boss so...

This isn't a communist country. Being employed isn't an entitlement or a privilege. I don't get why people seem to think that it is.

And when democrats talk about the middle class..they are confusing dirt poor with actual middle class. <-- Example..remember Casey Anthony? When she killed her kid the news said she was from an upscale east Orlando neighborhood. I guess I missed the memo that said $100,000 homes with multiple families living in all of them became "upscale". I guess I'm like Trump rich in the eyes of the left.

I've never suggested that being employed was a right. I've only suggested we try to move forward as a country that invests more in the middle class because it is good for business.

A CEO making 100 million doesn't often spend anymore than one making 10. Most of our nation's wealthy don't "create jobs" with their earnings, they often invest it in the financial market to make themselves more money or they save it. A well paid employee uses a far higher percentage of their yearly pay than either of the above CEOs do. The middle class creates jobs by taking their earnings and boosting the economy with it with consumer spending.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

 

[FLVOL_79]

I've never suggested that being employed was a right. I've only suggested we try to move forward as a country that invests more in the middle class because it is good for business.

A CEO making 100 million doesn't often spend anymore than one making 10. Most of our nation's wealthy don't "create jobs" with their earnings, they often invest it in the financial market to make themselves more money or they save it. A well paid employee uses a far higher percentage of their yearly pay than either of the above CEOs do. The middle class creates jobs by taking their earnings and boosting the economy with it with consumer spending.

One 100 million dollar CEO contributes more than 1000 middle class. The property taxes they pay cover more social services than entire middle class neighborhoods.

Also investing money in financial markets is creating jobs. In fact that is how a lot of companies generate the funding to expand, hire more people, get off the ground, make new products, etc.

I do agree..investing in the middle class IS how you strengthen the ecnomy and its how people can climb out of poverty. That's common sense. There are ways to invest in the middle class without punishing people not in it. I consider myself middle class (even though financially I fall into the upper class)..but thats mostly because I just don't have any..class lol:

 

[volinbham]

Post-war middle class Americans enjoyed higher pay and less debt than they do today. They work more hours and have been producing more, every year, over the past 40 years, but their wages don't reflect their productivity anymore. Meanwhile, CEO and other executives raise their own salaries tenfold because they're the boss. That is redistribution of wealth.

Wealth isn't finite, but there is only a given sum of it at any given time. Of course it can continue to grow over time as the economy changes. The current amount of wealth in the U.S. is about around 120 trillion and the top 20% of Americans own 85% of it.

A couple points to add to this:

1) the current amount of direct benefits to the middle class (and lower) is way higher than it was post-war. In effect, the government is subsidizing the growth and standard of living for the middle class today is as high or higher than that of post war america. On a side note, there is more debt today since people buy larger houses, multiple cars, vacations, home furnishings, eat out, etc. etc. Compare the household of the 50s to now and it's night and day how much crap we possess now. That isn't a CEO's fault; it is cultural.

2) I quibble with calling raising CEO pay higher than worker pay as redistribution of wealth; particularly compared to taxation. In the latter, an outside entity (the government) takes wealth from one group under penalty of law and chooses how it will dole it out to others. In the former the company presents an offer to an employee that can be taken or left. The CEO is not taking wealth that the employee had.

 

[BeecherVol]

A couple points to add to this:

1) the current amount of direct benefits to the middle class (and lower) is way higher than it was post-war. In effect, the government is subsidizing the growth and standard of living for the middle class today is as high or higher than that of post war america. On a side note, there is more debt today since people buy larger houses, multiple cars, vacations, home furnishings, eat out, etc. etc. Compare the household of the 50s to now and it's night and day how much crap we possess now. That isn't a CEO's fault; it is cultural.

2) I quibble with calling raising CEO pay higher than worker pay as redistribution of wealth; particularly compared to taxation. In the latter, an outside entity (the government) takes wealth from one group under penalty of law and chooses how it will dole it out to others. In the former the company presents an offer to an employee that can be taken or left. The CEO is not taking wealth that the employee had.

Good points on both.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

A couple points to add to this:

1) the current amount of direct benefits to the middle class (and lower) is way higher than it was post-war. In effect, the government is subsidizing the growth and standard of living for the middle class today is as high or higher than that of post war america. On a side note, there is more debt today since people buy larger houses, multiple cars, vacations, home furnishings, eat out, etc. etc. Compare the household of the 50s to now and it's night and day how much crap we possess now. That isn't a CEO's fault; it is cultural.

2) I quibble with calling raising CEO pay higher than worker pay as redistribution of wealth; particularly compared to taxation. In the latter, an outside entity (the government) takes wealth from one group under penalty of law and chooses how it will dole it out to others. In the former the company presents an offer to an employee that can be taken or left. The CEO is not taking wealth that the employee had.

1. Yes, people have health insurance and sometimes dental and vision through their employers, but that's assuming every employer offers every employee these options. Employees, across the board, are making less. This includes lower middle class workers in positions that don't often offer fringe benefits. And that is a point I made earlier, middle class Americans are told to tighten their belts and live within their means and not enjoy the better things in life, only the top are allowed to do that. While it is true, some people are living far beyond what they should, attempting to keep up with the Jones' a bit too much. But I'm not talking about those families who can afford to live in $200,000 homes and eat out every meal, because by and large they're making enough to sustain that standard of living.

2. They're taking more wealth that the employees have helped create, not that which was in their pockets. Where as they used to take less of the company's earnings (20:1 difference in pay compared to 300:1 difference in pay today). It has been redistributed. And taxing the wealthier at a higher rate doesn't mean that money will be gifted to those in the middle class. It is meant to help lift the tax burden off of the middle class and to support the general welfare of our country (infrastructure, education, training, national defense, space exploration, technology, medicine, etc.)

Edit: I'm being facetious about the reverse redistribution part, it just is funny how we get accused of being zero-sum thinkers, when the very idea of redistribution of wealth as a bad thing that will collapse the economy, is zero-sum thinking. If we accept that wealth isn't finite.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

People forget that Enron happened and seem to think it was an isolated event. Every single poor or middle class person in this country is where they are because of the choices they made and every CEO and executive is where they are because they worked hard. Of course no cronyism has ever occurred.

 

[Mtntrout]

People forget that Enron happened and seem to think it was an isolated event. Every single poor or middle class person in this country is where they are because of the choices they made and every CEO and executive is where they are because they worked hard. Of course no cronyism has ever occurred.

Asking people questions sometimes bypasses our mutual political programming. Example: "Why is the middle class eroding?" "Why is class mobility lower in the US than in other western countries?" Doesn't always work to steer things away from talking points, but it's political Sex Panther. 60 % of the time, every time.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Asking people questions sometimes bypasses our mutual political programming. Example: "Why is the middle class eroding?" "Why is class mobility lower in the US than in other western countries?" Doesn't always work to steer things away from talking points, but it's political Sex Panther. 60 % of the time, every time.

Maybe members of the "middle class" have become dumber and less capable of surviving in modern society?