Lowe's CEO gets 2012 pay package valued at $12.1M

[Steelplate]

Now you are just emotively trying to talk over me. Please answer my questions, if you wish to have dialogue.

Keep your questions to a minimum, and try not to hide them in a four or five paragraph diatribe, and you might have better luck.

You don't wish to have dialogue....you just want to be right. That it's OK for workers to be fucked in various ways. Well, you're not.

ONCE AGAIN..... I have no problem with someone being successful.... I have no problem with people becoming filthy rich. What I do have a problem with is having to subsidize these greedy fucks with my tax dollars so that their employees can afford to live in OUR country.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

where would that person be without the workforce providing the goods or services?

I know of NO examples where the CEO makes more than the collective workforce of the company. Therefore, your question is without merit or basis in this conversation. Even IF you can find an example where a CEO earns more than the collective workforce producing the product or service, I would argue that capitalists who paid him, saw a benefit in doing so, because they wouldn't do it otherwise.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The worker doesn't matter in this argument. Is the worker going to perform the job of the CEO? Would the workers have been better off if the company scrimped on the CEO, while their competitor hired a much better one? If the company decided to run without a CEO, do you think this would mean workers make more money?

Keep your questions to a minimum, and try not to hide them in a four or five paragraph diatribe, and you might have better luck.

You don't wish to have dialogue....you just want to be right. That it's OK for workers to be fucked in various ways. Well, you're not.

ONCE AGAIN..... I have no problem with someone being successful.... I have no problem with people becoming filthy rich. What I do have a problem with is having to subsidize these greedy fucks with my tax dollars so that their employees can afford to live in OUR country.

As you can see, my questions are clearly stated in one small paragraph.

"Greedy fucks?" Who are you talking about? CEOs? Are they ALL greedy fucks? Is this based on your perception that CEOs really don't do anything and don't really serve a valid purpose, as I correctly articulated earlier?

 

[Steelplate]

As you can see, my questions are clearly stated in one small paragraph.

"Greedy fucks?" Who are you talking about? CEOs? Are they ALL greedy fucks? Is this based on your perception that CEOs really don't do anything and don't really serve a valid purpose, as I correctly articulated earlier?

No...just the greedy fucks that take advantage of our welfare system as a way of getting off cheap on labor costs.

 

[Steelplate]

To answer your questions...

It's a combination of no and not necessarily. You have me wrong....at least for the most part.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

To answer your questions...

It's a combination of no and not necessarily. You have me wrong....at least for the most part.

Okay, I highlighted three questions and you gave me two answers. If I have you wrong, do you think that might have something to do with your own clarity?

CEOs are hired and paid by capitalists who have their own capitalist interest at stake. It defies capitalist logic that they would fritter away potential capitalist profit, to pay some do-nothing figurehead to provide essentially no value to their capitalist venture. So we HAVE to assume they see a value in hiring a good CEO to run their company. Now, just like with every other specialty in the free market, good CEOs command the highest rates of remuneration.

So what is YOUR solution here? Do we make it where capitalists can't pay CEOs more than a certain amount, based on how well the employees are compensated? Is that what you'd like to see? So okay, big companies who have many assets and can pay employees more, can hire the best CEOs and smaller companies or upstarts, have to settle for bottom of the barrel. What will be the long-term effect of this policy? Wouldn't the bigger companies just get bigger while smaller companies fail? The smaller company can't go out there and hire a really GOOD CEO, because they don't yet meet the criteria of employee compensation, so they are fucked.

The way I see it, you don't really have any viable alternative than what we are doing now. The free market capitalist system works, and CEOs are paid what the market demands. If you think they make too much, it's probably because you have no real idea of what they do.

 

[Steelplate]

Okay, I highlighted three questions and you gave me two answers. If I have you wrong, do you think that might have something to do with your own clarity?

CEOs are hired and paid by capitalists who have their own capitalist interest at stake. It defies capitalist logic that they would fritter away potential capitalist profit, to pay some do-nothing figurehead to provide essentially no value to their capitalist venture. So we HAVE to assume they see a value in hiring a good CEO to run their company. Now, just like with every other specialty in the free market, good CEOs command the highest rates of remuneration.

So what is YOUR solution here? Do we make it where capitalists can't pay CEOs more than a certain amount, based on how well the employees are compensated? Is that what you'd like to see? So okay, big companies who have many assets and can pay employees more, can hire the best CEOs and smaller companies or upstarts, have to settle for bottom of the barrel. What will be the long-term effect of this policy? Wouldn't the bigger companies just get bigger while smaller companies fail? The smaller company can't go out there and hire a really GOOD CEO, because they don't yet meet the criteria of employee compensation, so they are fucked.

The way I see it, you don't really have any viable alternative than what we are doing now. The free market capitalist system works, and CEOs are paid what the market demands. If you think they make too much, it's probably because you have no real idea of what they do.

ONCE AGAIN....If part of a company's strategy is to take advantage of the welfare system to get away with paying their employees shitty wages....they are greedy fucks. Simple as that. And if their CEO's are raking in massive amounts if money using this practice? They are greedy fucks too and no.... should not be making what they do.

Let me ask you this.....do you think it's acceptable for a full time worker to have to have government help to simply be able to afford to live here?

How is THAT a good deal for America or Americans?

Of course, the alternative is to let them live out of a box on the street....and somehow, I have a feeling you'd be OK with that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ONCE AGAIN....If part of a company's strategy is to take advantage of the welfare system to get away with paying their employees shitty wages....they are greedy fucks. Simple as that. And if their CEO's are raking in massive amounts if money using this practice? They are greedy fucks too and no.... should not be making what they do.

Let me ask you this.....do you think it's acceptable for a full time worker to have to have government help to simply be able to afford to live here?

How is THAT a good deal for America or Americans?

Of course, the alternative is to let them live out of a box on the street....and somehow, I have a feeling you'd be OK with that.

Well, I don't know of ANY company whose goal and objective is to take advantage of the welfare system so they can pay cheap wages. If this were their objective, it makes even less sense that they would be paying a CEO millions. There is just not a way for us to apply one universal understanding of how each individual business works, but none that I am aware of, have ever stated the goal and objective of screwing people over. You seem to think that ANY company who has a CEO are "greedy bastards" who are screwing the workers. You have no basis for this other than a bunch of blathering propaganda from people who aren't even making logical sense.

Your MAOIST "worker" arguments FAIL here because we have free market capitalism! Workers can form unions and negotiate wage contracts. People are free to compete for better wages based on their performance, as CEOs as well as "workers" in every field. The free market system allows capitalists to realize value, and set pay scales accordingly. Some capitalists find value in paying employees better than their competitors. Some capitalists find value in hiring a top-tier CEO. If you think they are screwing people and being greedy, the free market system allows you to compete! Go out and start up a company where your CEO doesn't make any more than the average worker, if you think that is best! Or if you think your workers deserve to split all the profits of your company equally... whatever the hell you think is best, you can give it a shot! You are perfectly free to do this in a free market capitalist system.

 

[Steelplate]

Well, I don't know of ANY company whose goal and objective is to take advantage of the welfare system so they can pay cheap wages. If this were their objective, it makes even less sense that they would be paying a CEO millions. There is just not a way for us to apply one universal understanding of how each individual business works, but none that I am aware of, have ever stated the goal and objective of screwing people over. You seem to think that ANY company who has a CEO are "greedy bastards" who are screwing the workers. You have no basis for this other than a bunch of blathering propaganda from people who aren't even making logical sense.

Your MAOIST "worker" arguments FAIL here because we have free market capitalism! Workers can form unions and negotiate wage contracts. People are free to compete for better wages based on their performance, as CEOs as well as "workers" in every field. The free market system allows capitalists to realize value, and set pay scales accordingly. Some capitalists find value in paying employees better than their competitors. Some capitalists find value in hiring a top-tier CEO. If you think they are screwing people and being greedy, the free market system allows you to compete! Go out and start up a company where your CEO doesn't make any more than the average worker, if you think that is best! Or if you think your workers deserve to split all the profits of your company equally... whatever the hell you think is best, you can give it a shot! You are perfectly free to do this in a free market capitalist system.

you're so fucking naive. BTW.... fuck you and your maoist bullshit. If I'm a Maoist, then you're a Nazi piece of shit.

Who said anything about "equally"? You really are a fucking hack, aren't you? You cannot speak without vomiting right wing talking points.

The bottom line is this. Whether it's intentional or not..... if a person who is working their asses off needs government assistance to live....not only are we subsidizing the individual, we are subsidizing their employer.

Why are you OK with that? Go consult the blaze and get back to me.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me ask you this.....do you think it's acceptable for a full time worker to have to have government help to simply be able to afford to live here?

How is THAT a good deal for America or Americans?

Of course, the alternative is to let them live out of a box on the street....and somehow, I have a feeling you'd be OK with that.

You continue to EMOTE without giving me any idea of what you want to do. When you pose these emotive simple-minded questions, it makes me wonder how much you've really thought about this. Most people don't have government help, and most people have full time jobs. Perhaps some jobs pay less, and people who do them, struggle to afford things? But there is a very basic principle in play here, and that is, the more you increase cost of labor, the more the final product costs. If workers suddenly make $1 an hour more ($40 a week) and groceries, rent, clothing, etc., increases in cost by an average of $40 a week, how are they any better off?

Okay... Supply and Demand... I know you have heard this term before, but do you understand this applies to labor too? You see, there is not much "demand" for fry cooks at McDonalds who make $500k per year. Why not? Well, because consumers don't want to pay $500 for a Big Mac. Now, if only a few people possessed the talent and skill to fry up a hamburger, perhaps this job would pay more? But since it so happens that you can teach pretty much any breathing person how to do this job, the rate of pay is relatively low.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you're so fucking naive. BTW.... fuck you and your maoist bullshit. If I'm a Maoist, then you're a Nazi piece of shit.

Who said anything about "equally"? You really are a fucking hack, aren't you? You cannot speak without vomiting right wing talking points.

The bottom line is this. Whether it's intentional or not..... if a person who is working their asses off needs government assistance to live....not only are we subsidizing the individual, we are subsidizing their employer.

Why are you OK with that? Go consult the blaze and get back to me.

Well nothing I've ever said has anything to do with National Socialism, so I have no idea where that came from, but what you seem to be flapping your yapper about, is Maoist philosophy. This is the teaching and preaching of Mao Zedong, who led the People's Revolution on basically the very premise you continue to gravitate toward. The Maoist argument was that greedy capitalists were controlling all the wealth while the people starved, and this wealth had to be redistributed, the workers would share equally in the capitalist profits, everything was going to be glorious. Sounds like the same shit you seem to be saying here, but you won't ever come out with any "solutions" so I can't tell for sure.

Anyone who is working their ass off and still can't make it without help, needs to think about doing a different job, maybe getting a better education or technical training in something, and we provide government assistance for this. Perhaps the person doesn't understand how to budget money? Maybe they irresponsibly spat out a bunch of kids they didn't plan for? Maybe they are dope heads who can't get a better job because they can't pass a piss test? I have no way of knowing every individual circumstance, so I can't become emotionally involved. What I do know is, that ANY person in this country, can become as successful as they want to be, and it all depends on their individual motivation and drive to succeed.

 

[Steelplate]

You continue to EMOTE without giving me any idea of what you want to do. When you pose these emotive simple-minded questions, it makes me wonder how much you've really thought about this. Most people don't have government help, and most people have full time jobs. Perhaps some jobs pay less, and people who do them, struggle to afford things? But there is a very basic principle in play here, and that is, the more you increase cost of labor, the more the final product costs. If workers suddenly make $1 an hour more ($40 a week) and groceries, rent, clothing, etc., increases in cost by an average of $40 a week, how are they any better off?

Okay... Supply and Demand... I know you have heard this term before, but do you understand this applies to labor too? You see, there is not much "demand" for fry cooks at McDonalds who make $500k per year. Why not? Well, because consumers don't want to pay $500 for a Big Mac. Now, if only a few people possessed the talent and skill to fry up a hamburger, perhaps this job would pay more? But since it so happens that you can teach pretty much any breathing person how to do this job, the rate of pay is relatively low.

You don't get it. The cost doesn't have to go up. That's a fallacy in the majority of cases. You think there's no alternative other than to pass it on to the consumer. Like big corporations don't have wiggle room.

BTW....emoting? Your the one with the Maoist bullshit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't get it. The cost doesn't have to go up. That's a fallacy in the majority of cases. You think there's no alternative other than to pass it on to the consumer. Like big corporations don't have wiggle room.

BTW....emoting? Your the one with the Maoist bullshit.

There is no alternative other than to pass cost along to the consumer. Have you ever ran a business?

The "fallacy" here, is the liberal notion that capitalists are going to absorb the increased cost instead of the consumer.

Also, I am not the one emoting Maoist bullshit about "the worker" ...that is YOU!