Rep. Ryan is correct. The differences in viewpoint, between those who view wealth and income, created by individuals, as theirs, and those who view all wealth and income as belonging to the government, of which only the government’s benevolence allows us to retain some of that wealth and income, is the real difference of opinion, concerning the economy, between conservatives and liberal/progressives.
But even that is only one small part of the much bigger issue, or difference of viewpoint, between conservatives and liberal/progressives. The liberal/progressives believe that all things, whether it be wealth and income, or ‘rights’, or freedoms and liberties, come from the government, and it’s benevolence towards it’s citizens. That viewpoint stands in complete opposition to the viewpoint held at the founding of our nation, that man’s own industry created his wealth and income, and that all rights were granted by a creator(GOD), and not by government, and that government must be just big enough to provide for those things individuals and states could not effectively provide for, such as defense, but limited enough so as not to encroach upon the rights of the citizens of the US.
I would suggest that none of these individuals personally created goods or rendered services worth an amount that’s even remotely near the amount he or she was paid.
It would be interesting to hear any of them explain how they personally created in a single year the level of wealth that much money represents.
If the people who are actually building the products their corporations are selling wanted a 50 cent per hour raise at the end of a year of labor, what would the first reaction likely be up at the top?
Since corporate America shows little inclination to more equitably distribute the wealth it acquires with those who labor their entire lives producing it–and seem intent, in fact, on doing exactly the opposite–it falls to government to moderate the result.
The wealthiest may not like that system, but it’s better than a revolution.
I would suggest that none of these individuals personally created goods or rendered services worth an amount that’s even remotely near the amount he or she was paid.
And many people feel that professional athletes are not worth the money that they make, either. You listed CEO’s. How about the top paid lawyers? In my opinion, they are not worth the money they make, but I imagine that you would beg to differ on that. The simple fact is, in a free-market, that a person is worth, regarding income, whatever their employer, or themselves if self-employed, is willing to pay them for their services.
If the people who are actually building the products their corporations are selling wanted a 50 cent per hour raise at the end of a year of labor, what would the first reaction likely be up at the top?
The physical act of making a product is only one small portion of the total labor required to get a product into the market. What you seem to suggest is that the physical labor is more equitable, as compared to the other labors involved, than it ofttimes is, in reality, for putting a product in the market. That is a valid debate, as long as one doesn’t forget the other labors involved, such as, inventing the product, testing the product, engineering the manufacturing process for the product, the supervision of the labor involved during daily manufacture, and the supervision of them all, in concert, to ensure the product makes it to market. In the end, though, as I stated in the preceding paragraph, that a person is worth whatever the employer is willing to pay.
Since corporate America shows little inclination to more equitably distribute the wealth it acquires with those who labor their entire lives producing it–and seem intent, in fact, on doing exactly the opposite–it falls to government to moderate the result.
Thank you, Greg, for stating the liberal/progressive position on wages. There are, however, several things wrong with that statement.
One, the job of management, in a corporation, is NOT to ensure that any wealth created, by the making and selling of it’s company’s products, but rather, to ensure their product has a place in the market, and that includes not just the usefulness and utility to the consumer, but the price of the product compared to similar products, as well as numerous other little issues concerning the product making it to market.
Two, and this is the most important point, is that the Constitution, in no way, gives government the power to ” moderate the result.” There is no clause, phrase, paragraph, section, etc., that you can point to, that gives government the power to do such a thing. So, while you may desire that government has that power, and that it be used by them, they cannot just simply do so without being in violation of the Constitution, by usurping powers left to the states, or to the people.
Three, it is based on opinion only that the wealth created by a corporation, in all phases of bringing a product to market, is NOT distributed equitably amongst all those involved. And, more importantly, it is not your place, or anyone else’s outside of that company, to decide what is, in fact, an equitable distribution of the wealth within a private company. The mere fact that you do so suggests that you believe either you, or someone(s), has that power, belies a lack of belief in the principle of private property. And yes, the decision making powers within a private company are to be considered their property, even if it is not a physical, tangible item of property. There is no difference between a corporation deciding what their employee’s wages will be, and a father deciding how much allowance to give his child, yet, you would not presume to have the government involve itself in telling a parent how much money they can give to their child, and how often, would you?
The wealthiest may not like that system, but it’s better than a revolution.
It’s not just the wealthiest who wouldn’t like that system, Greg. I am far from wealthy, yet I despise a system where government usurps power, even, and maybe especially, within a private company, in order to tell that company how they can operate. And I am not alone in being a non-wealthy citizen who does not want to see that kind of system.
Greg
13 years ago
So how is the great majority, consisting of all of the people who actually do the work of the world, supposed to respond, when concentrated wealth and privilege threaten to become so powerful that they can turn every rule of the game to their own advantage?
I don’t view the sort of compensation we see in that list as a reflection of a free market system, so much as the workings of a freebooter system. It looks to me like an exclusive private club, where privileged members are mainly serving the interests of one another. The interests of the country and of the common man are pretty much irrelevant to them, except as part of a political pitch that’s necessary to keep the people they want in power. To play that tune, they hire the best violinists that money can buy.
Mr. Irons
13 years ago
Ed Shultz is expected to be worth about 3 million dollars alone in his Radio business not counting his real estate, aircraft pilot license certifcation, or TV broadcast contracts…
Rachel Maddow is expected to be worth almost as much if not more than Shultz…
Olbermann was well worth 10 million in his run from MSNBC…
So yet they still attack the, “Rich.”
Al Gore, a major attacker of that damn dirty, “Rich” is well within the 30 million dollar range and still consumes more BTU’s and over all wattage than a middle class family could consume in a decade per year.
So what is your argument again, Greg? The very left who supports the ideas of Socialism do not want their own private wealth cannibalized. They just want to see their competition in the market removed and the wealth expand their private coffers by elbowing up with politicans who’ll promise to target their opponents.
I don’t object to anyone being rich. What I object to is how some people seem to be getting that way, and what they’re apparently willing to do to other people to stay that way.
Mr. Irons
13 years ago
You, “object” to people getting that way? So you should object how Oblermann, Shultz, Maddow, and Soros made their monies as they didn’t physically earn them unlike say a man who invents an operating platform and sells it in the open market (Steve Jobs) or hey someone who makes a beverage then bottles it and sells it in the open market. Your so called, favored rich, didn’t do a damn physical thing to get their contracts or their wealth. They sat on celeb status and assault their physical opposition in the market instead of produce an item for resale consumption.
Socialism and wealth redisturbtion will ultimately fail due to laws of Scarcity that impacts physical raw resources. Even if you could take all from those, “Damn dirty” rich you hate and give it to the poor that poor will never be able to afford the goods and services you want them to buy due to the prices inflating because it is impossible to supply the same level of resource or service to all of the population with limited materials. This is why the Soviets collapsed and formed a private sector industry. This is why the People’s Republic of China is allowing (one of the if not only) freedom of wealth collection of its citizens by silver purchasing and investment into their growing private sector industry that is slowly disconnecting itself from Government regulation boards. Europe is in total chaos and fire due to Socialist ideas of taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor as the, “wealthy” are now broke (aka Greece) and when I mean fire I mean there are people fighting one another in the streets in Greece over basic commodities such as food or gas due to how scarce the items are. Is that what you advocate? If so, why not visit those Nations and see what damage your Socialist ideals have done. Hell a lot of the damage has been, “sheetrocked” over like molded wood frames of a house wall to hide the damage since 1999 and 2000 and giving sweet tangy lies about how Conservatives done it when Economic Conservatives have not been in any state of Power to do such things for over a decade. (Don’t even try to say 2002-2006 GOP was an economic Conservative party or Bush was, they spent like a Liberal on steroids.)
So how is the great majority, consisting of all of the people who actually do the work of the world,
Once again, Greg, just because the CEO’s of corporations do virtually no physical labor whatsoever at their jobs, does not mean that they contribute nothing to the making of a product. In my above post I merely said that it “seems” to be your position that only physical labor matters. After reading your response, it is evident that you, indeed, believe that only physical labor matters. Until you realize that there is much more involved in getting a product to market than the direct physical labor in making the product, it is useless to discuss this with you. You just parrot tired old liberal/progressive “workers’ heartaches” over their jobs and the wages they pay.
I don’t view the sort of compensation we see in that list as a reflection of a free market system, so much as the workings of a freebooter system.
Of course not. And that’s because you don’t see the labor involved in being a CEO. You believe it’s all kicking back, letting secretaries and minions do everything, while the CEO rakes in the money. Nothing could be further from the truth, concerning most companies.
The rest of that post is just inane whining about the “CEO fatcats” raking in their ill-gotten loot, and as such, adds virtually nothing to the conversation other than to let other readers see the jealous rantings of a liberal/progressive.
Nan G
13 years ago
Greg must think business owners sit around all day or just crack a whip to get rich.
He’s never run even a small business, that’s for sure.
I used to 1/2 run our business.
I can tell you, it made all of my 9-to-5 type jobs seem like walks in the park in comparison.
Think about what I’d do in a day…..and I only did about 1/2 of the work….
*I was always researching the competition to see where we could cut corners or make more sales.
*Someone was always late paying their bills so I would have to play phone tag until we got paid.
*Just having an accountant isn’t enough, I had to keep all the paperwork ready FOR the accountant to make heads or tails of it, or we would pay more taxes than necessary.
*I had to juggle all the regular days’ off schedules and also all of the vacation and sick days off for everyone, in advance where possible. ….Think juggling cats.
*Before a repair appointment was set I had to try to fix nearly every machine we had, in an attempt to save the cost of the service call.
*Whenever new laws were passed I had to figure out how (or if) they impacted us.
*Sometimes I also estimated the prices of jobs, a very complex calculation.
Basically, everybody on the payroll could just come in and do their assigned tasks all day BECAUSE hubby and I smoothed the way for that to be possible every day.
We were first to arrive and last to leave every day.
And on top of it all you must exude an air of confidence so customers trust you can do the job on time and budget.
Greg does not understand what the job of business owner, or company president, actually entails. As well, I don’t believe he understands exactly what the other managerial and non-production jobs in a company do, in order to ensure the products keep moving out the door, and new ones are developed to replace outdated ones. That being the case, he cannot understand how their jobs are “worth” as much as they are.
I wonder, then, if he’s so prejudiced towards physical labor jobs, how he could justify lawyers making so much, or TV producers, or movie execs, or, and this is the topper, the union bosses.
Oh really now? Since when did making a lie equate to a proper defense?
I don’t object to anyone being rich. What I object to is how some people seem to be getting that way, and what they’re apparently willing to do to other people to stay that way.
What is wrong with you? You said it fair and square and now you’re trying to backtrack? Please, grow some backbone and just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Rep. Ryan is correct. The differences in viewpoint, between those who view wealth and income, created by individuals, as theirs, and those who view all wealth and income as belonging to the government, of which only the government’s benevolence allows us to retain some of that wealth and income, is the real difference of opinion, concerning the economy, between conservatives and liberal/progressives.
But even that is only one small part of the much bigger issue, or difference of viewpoint, between conservatives and liberal/progressives. The liberal/progressives believe that all things, whether it be wealth and income, or ‘rights’, or freedoms and liberties, come from the government, and it’s benevolence towards it’s citizens. That viewpoint stands in complete opposition to the viewpoint held at the founding of our nation, that man’s own industry created his wealth and income, and that all rights were granted by a creator(GOD), and not by government, and that government must be just big enough to provide for those things individuals and states could not effectively provide for, such as defense, but limited enough so as not to encroach upon the rights of the citizens of the US.
Consider this list of the 100 highest paid CEOs in America, showing a single year’s compensation for each.
I would suggest that none of these individuals personally created goods or rendered services worth an amount that’s even remotely near the amount he or she was paid.
It would be interesting to hear any of them explain how they personally created in a single year the level of wealth that much money represents.
If the people who are actually building the products their corporations are selling wanted a 50 cent per hour raise at the end of a year of labor, what would the first reaction likely be up at the top?
Since corporate America shows little inclination to more equitably distribute the wealth it acquires with those who labor their entire lives producing it–and seem intent, in fact, on doing exactly the opposite–it falls to government to moderate the result.
The wealthiest may not like that system, but it’s better than a revolution.
If anybody had vetted the Tesla Auto loan of $350 MILLION from the US taxpayers via the DoE it would never have happened.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/tesla-motors-model-s-electric-car-sedan-350-million-doe-loan.php
As it is Tesla went under today.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/27/rip-tesla/#
Write off another 1/3rd of a BILLION because Obama is an idiot!
Obama must be stopped.
He is throwing our money away as fast as humanly possible.
@Greg:
And many people feel that professional athletes are not worth the money that they make, either. You listed CEO’s. How about the top paid lawyers? In my opinion, they are not worth the money they make, but I imagine that you would beg to differ on that. The simple fact is, in a free-market, that a person is worth, regarding income, whatever their employer, or themselves if self-employed, is willing to pay them for their services.
The physical act of making a product is only one small portion of the total labor required to get a product into the market. What you seem to suggest is that the physical labor is more equitable, as compared to the other labors involved, than it ofttimes is, in reality, for putting a product in the market. That is a valid debate, as long as one doesn’t forget the other labors involved, such as, inventing the product, testing the product, engineering the manufacturing process for the product, the supervision of the labor involved during daily manufacture, and the supervision of them all, in concert, to ensure the product makes it to market. In the end, though, as I stated in the preceding paragraph, that a person is worth whatever the employer is willing to pay.
Thank you, Greg, for stating the liberal/progressive position on wages. There are, however, several things wrong with that statement.
One, the job of management, in a corporation, is NOT to ensure that any wealth created, by the making and selling of it’s company’s products, but rather, to ensure their product has a place in the market, and that includes not just the usefulness and utility to the consumer, but the price of the product compared to similar products, as well as numerous other little issues concerning the product making it to market.
Two, and this is the most important point, is that the Constitution, in no way, gives government the power to ” moderate the result.” There is no clause, phrase, paragraph, section, etc., that you can point to, that gives government the power to do such a thing. So, while you may desire that government has that power, and that it be used by them, they cannot just simply do so without being in violation of the Constitution, by usurping powers left to the states, or to the people.
Three, it is based on opinion only that the wealth created by a corporation, in all phases of bringing a product to market, is NOT distributed equitably amongst all those involved. And, more importantly, it is not your place, or anyone else’s outside of that company, to decide what is, in fact, an equitable distribution of the wealth within a private company. The mere fact that you do so suggests that you believe either you, or someone(s), has that power, belies a lack of belief in the principle of private property. And yes, the decision making powers within a private company are to be considered their property, even if it is not a physical, tangible item of property. There is no difference between a corporation deciding what their employee’s wages will be, and a father deciding how much allowance to give his child, yet, you would not presume to have the government involve itself in telling a parent how much money they can give to their child, and how often, would you?
It’s not just the wealthiest who wouldn’t like that system, Greg. I am far from wealthy, yet I despise a system where government usurps power, even, and maybe especially, within a private company, in order to tell that company how they can operate. And I am not alone in being a non-wealthy citizen who does not want to see that kind of system.
So how is the great majority, consisting of all of the people who actually do the work of the world, supposed to respond, when concentrated wealth and privilege threaten to become so powerful that they can turn every rule of the game to their own advantage?
I don’t view the sort of compensation we see in that list as a reflection of a free market system, so much as the workings of a freebooter system. It looks to me like an exclusive private club, where privileged members are mainly serving the interests of one another. The interests of the country and of the common man are pretty much irrelevant to them, except as part of a political pitch that’s necessary to keep the people they want in power. To play that tune, they hire the best violinists that money can buy.
Ed Shultz is expected to be worth about 3 million dollars alone in his Radio business not counting his real estate, aircraft pilot license certifcation, or TV broadcast contracts…
Rachel Maddow is expected to be worth almost as much if not more than Shultz…
Olbermann was well worth 10 million in his run from MSNBC…
So yet they still attack the, “Rich.”
Al Gore, a major attacker of that damn dirty, “Rich” is well within the 30 million dollar range and still consumes more BTU’s and over all wattage than a middle class family could consume in a decade per year.
So what is your argument again, Greg? The very left who supports the ideas of Socialism do not want their own private wealth cannibalized. They just want to see their competition in the market removed and the wealth expand their private coffers by elbowing up with politicans who’ll promise to target their opponents.
@Mr. Irons, #6:
I don’t object to anyone being rich. What I object to is how some people seem to be getting that way, and what they’re apparently willing to do to other people to stay that way.
You, “object” to people getting that way? So you should object how Oblermann, Shultz, Maddow, and Soros made their monies as they didn’t physically earn them unlike say a man who invents an operating platform and sells it in the open market (Steve Jobs) or hey someone who makes a beverage then bottles it and sells it in the open market. Your so called, favored rich, didn’t do a damn physical thing to get their contracts or their wealth. They sat on celeb status and assault their physical opposition in the market instead of produce an item for resale consumption.
Socialism and wealth redisturbtion will ultimately fail due to laws of Scarcity that impacts physical raw resources. Even if you could take all from those, “Damn dirty” rich you hate and give it to the poor that poor will never be able to afford the goods and services you want them to buy due to the prices inflating because it is impossible to supply the same level of resource or service to all of the population with limited materials. This is why the Soviets collapsed and formed a private sector industry. This is why the People’s Republic of China is allowing (one of the if not only) freedom of wealth collection of its citizens by silver purchasing and investment into their growing private sector industry that is slowly disconnecting itself from Government regulation boards. Europe is in total chaos and fire due to Socialist ideas of taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor as the, “wealthy” are now broke (aka Greece) and when I mean fire I mean there are people fighting one another in the streets in Greece over basic commodities such as food or gas due to how scarce the items are. Is that what you advocate? If so, why not visit those Nations and see what damage your Socialist ideals have done. Hell a lot of the damage has been, “sheetrocked” over like molded wood frames of a house wall to hide the damage since 1999 and 2000 and giving sweet tangy lies about how Conservatives done it when Economic Conservatives have not been in any state of Power to do such things for over a decade. (Don’t even try to say 2002-2006 GOP was an economic Conservative party or Bush was, they spent like a Liberal on steroids.)
That isn’t what I said.
@Greg:
Once again, Greg, just because the CEO’s of corporations do virtually no physical labor whatsoever at their jobs, does not mean that they contribute nothing to the making of a product. In my above post I merely said that it “seems” to be your position that only physical labor matters. After reading your response, it is evident that you, indeed, believe that only physical labor matters. Until you realize that there is much more involved in getting a product to market than the direct physical labor in making the product, it is useless to discuss this with you. You just parrot tired old liberal/progressive “workers’ heartaches” over their jobs and the wages they pay.
Of course not. And that’s because you don’t see the labor involved in being a CEO. You believe it’s all kicking back, letting secretaries and minions do everything, while the CEO rakes in the money. Nothing could be further from the truth, concerning most companies.
The rest of that post is just inane whining about the “CEO fatcats” raking in their ill-gotten loot, and as such, adds virtually nothing to the conversation other than to let other readers see the jealous rantings of a liberal/progressive.
Greg must think business owners sit around all day or just crack a whip to get rich.
He’s never run even a small business, that’s for sure.
I used to 1/2 run our business.
I can tell you, it made all of my 9-to-5 type jobs seem like walks in the park in comparison.
Think about what I’d do in a day…..and I only did about 1/2 of the work….
*I was always researching the competition to see where we could cut corners or make more sales.
*Someone was always late paying their bills so I would have to play phone tag until we got paid.
*Just having an accountant isn’t enough, I had to keep all the paperwork ready FOR the accountant to make heads or tails of it, or we would pay more taxes than necessary.
*I had to juggle all the regular days’ off schedules and also all of the vacation and sick days off for everyone, in advance where possible. ….Think juggling cats.
*Before a repair appointment was set I had to try to fix nearly every machine we had, in an attempt to save the cost of the service call.
*Whenever new laws were passed I had to figure out how (or if) they impacted us.
*Sometimes I also estimated the prices of jobs, a very complex calculation.
Basically, everybody on the payroll could just come in and do their assigned tasks all day BECAUSE hubby and I smoothed the way for that to be possible every day.
We were first to arrive and last to leave every day.
And on top of it all you must exude an air of confidence so customers trust you can do the job on time and budget.
@Nan G:
Greg does not understand what the job of business owner, or company president, actually entails. As well, I don’t believe he understands exactly what the other managerial and non-production jobs in a company do, in order to ensure the products keep moving out the door, and new ones are developed to replace outdated ones. That being the case, he cannot understand how their jobs are “worth” as much as they are.
I wonder, then, if he’s so prejudiced towards physical labor jobs, how he could justify lawyers making so much, or TV producers, or movie execs, or, and this is the topper, the union bosses.
@Greg:
Oh really now? Since when did making a lie equate to a proper defense?
What is wrong with you? You said it fair and square and now you’re trying to backtrack? Please, grow some backbone and just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.