• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions

Vespasian said:
Pure ignorance. The CEOs job is to make money for the shareholders. It isn't to provide a job for those stupid and lazy enough to be relegated to worker bee status.



Yes. Firing employees whose services are no longer beneficial to the company is an integral part of running a successful business.



How's it not? The only time it appears fallable is when the dumbass government sticks their nose into it.



Exactly.



Yes, most CEOs/founders/owners/businessmen are in better financial shape than you and the like. There's a reason for that.

What a company/CEO decides about their pay/bonuses is none of your, a likely 9-5 ham and egger, damn business.
Click to expand...

exactly......the ceo's job is to make money. so, the company loses money, and the ceo fires employees. the ceo gets a bonus. wonderful.
 
Vespasian said:
I love the fact you left "smart" out of the equation. I'ver never met someone who was smart and hard-working who wasn't, at least, living comfortably. (2 story house, a couple of cars, pretty wife, maybe a kid or two, etc.)
Click to expand...

wow...i've met plenty of idiots who inherited their money. not smart, not hard working. and there are plenty of people who are smart and hard working who are struggling.
 
Vespasian said:
The scientists at Pfizer are highly skilled and intelligent. Not everyone has the ability to do what they do. Anybody can do the jobs the class warfare folks b!tch about losing to outsourcing, etc.
Click to expand...

you're something else. i'm not sure what.
 
liblady said:
exactly......the ceo's job is to make money. so, the company loses money, and the ceo fires employees. the ceo gets a bonus. wonderful.
Click to expand...

Nobody is gauranteed a job for life. Look at the stats I posed for number of employees and revenue for Hewlett-Packard. Sometimes people have to lose their jobs to save the company and the jobs of the many other people who work for the company. Things change in the economy and you have to adapt. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of employees got a nice severace. Its pretty common for large companies like HP. I also bet at least some of these people got another job. I know its hard not to be jealous of some of these CEO's. I am a little jealous too but this is not some terrible thing when you take into consideration the tremendous amount of money and employees involved.
 
Hoplite said:
That's fine, but can you prove that belief?
.
Click to expand...
Please. Some are smarter than others. Some can jump higher. Some are faster. Some are beautiful; some are hideous. Some are tall; some are short. Natural ability is the determiner in almost everything anyone does. You may be a fine chess player, but no matter how hard you study, practice, etc., you couldn't beat a drunk Bobby Fischer.

liblady said:
exactly......the ceo's job is to make money. so, the company loses money, and the ceo fires employees. the ceo gets a bonus. wonderful.
Click to expand...
The CEO fired the employees because they weren't needed. Period. Not sure why you can't understand that.

liblady said:
and there are plenty of people who are smart and hard working who are struggling.
Click to expand...

I don't know any; granted, we likely run in different circles. A friend of mine's drunk brother was recently fired; time it took for him to find a new job? 2 weeks.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Could you please site your claims to at least a link. You seem to forget all the loopholes for the rich, and the fact that many corporations pay little if any taxes. Warren Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes then he does. He has said that himself.

YouTube - Warren Buffett's Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary's
Click to expand...

I love the tax and hike types who buy into the Buffet dishonesty

1) Buffet sets his salary way below any similarly situated executives to avoid taxes. He takes almost all his compensation in Capital Gains which are taxed lower. He only takes a 100K salary but that salary is taxed at a higher rate than his secretary. Since he controls how he and she are both compensated his rants are dishonest

2) he still pays 1000 times more in taxes than she does-does anyone seriously believe he uses more in government services than he pays in taxes

3) the dems and other class warfare advocates always like to use Buffett as a prototype for those who are targeted for tax hike soaking-those making 200K to a couple million a year. That is the main target of the obamatards.
 
Coronado said:
Taxation is not about what everyone should pay; it is about what amount the government needs to carry out it's essential functions. The idea that somehow people who have more should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes displays a total perversion of the idea behind taxes. The tax code is not a tool for implementing economic reform or equality, nor should it ever be.
Click to expand...

One of the most astute posts I have ever seen on DP.
 
Lachean said:
I'm quite certain most CEO's agree that Police, Military and Law Courts are within the proper functions of government and would be more than willing to pay their fair share for THOSE services.
Click to expand...

I am an attorney. The poor use far more of the court system. Most of those in jail are poor. most of those victimized by criminals are poor. Do you know what it costs to keep one prisoner in a USP--30=50K a year. Sure, big corporations are in court-usually as defendants in suits brought by plaintiff's lawyers or engaged in company on company suits. But those pale in comparison to criminal cases. In our federal court in Cincinnati. the docket is usually 65-76% criminal. In county court its even higher

While the police are a local government issue, the fact remains that the police spend most of their efforts on poorer areas. Wealthy areas don't have much crime or many police calls.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Of course it would be fair, but we would have to do away with loopholes and hideaways for money to be untaxed. That way if we all pay ten percent, for example a person making 40k would pay $4k and the wealthy man who makes 100million has to claim all 100million and pay his 10million.

Oh, and why wouldn't they pay the majority of taxes? They control 90% of the wealth! Simple math understanding would show that the larger the number of monies controlled will inflate any amount paid even at low percentage rates.
Click to expand...

you seem confused. an income tax is a tax on income not wealth. The top 1% of American tax payers make 22% of the income and pay 40% of the Income taxes (and almost all the estate taxes btw) which means they are paying far more than their fair share even with all those loopholes the envious like to bray about

you all tend to look at the uber wealthy and extrapolate what they do to the bulk of the high net tax payers-those in the 250K to 2 Million range. While those people are "comfortable" they certainly don't have the means to engage in the sort of tax avoidance the billionaires claim to be able to do.
 
Johnny said:
I believe that sone people are just born smarter than others.

I mean, Bush is a Yale graduate and he's a moron.
Click to expand...

that is a moronic statement. He might not speak well (I knew two Chess Grandmasters at Yale who had a hard time conversing with anyone but both had IQ's off the chart) but even former Dem white house counsel Lanny Davis admitted that Bush was extremely bright in several areas (just as there are many areas of athletic talent-quickness, balance, speed, and endurance)-there are many areas of intellect. Davis noted Bush was a genius when it came to figuring out what motivated a person. When he was pledging a frat at Yale, all of the prospective members gathered with upperclassmen at a party. Bush was able to name every man in the room and where they were from after only meeting them an hour before. There were over 50 people there.

BTW Bush's IQ is reportedly higher than JFKs

(and if anyone quotes that idiotic spoof Lovenstein institute they should be drawn and quartered)

When Bush attended Yale, it was not uncommon for schools like Andover, Hotchkiss, St Pauls and Choate to send over half their graduates to Yale. Different prep schools fed different ivies. Groton and Middlesex tended towards Harvard, Andover, HOtchkiss and Choate-Yale, Episcopal Academy and Lawrenceville Princeton etc. Bush's admission to yale was neither irregular or out of the ordinary.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am an attorney. The poor use far more of the court system. Most of those in jail are poor. most of those victimized by criminals are poor. Do you know what it costs to keep one prisoner in a USP--30=50K a year. Sure, big corporations are in court-usually as defendants in suits brought by plaintiff's lawyers or engaged in company on company suits. But those pale in comparison to criminal cases. In our federal court in Cincinnati. the docket is usually 65-76% criminal. In county court its even higher

While the police are a local government issue, the fact remains that the police spend most of their efforts on poorer areas. Wealthy areas don't have much crime or many police calls.
Click to expand...


Its truly sad that someone doesn’t use Effects (crime) to-cause (Poverty) reasoning
Isn’t it? :confused:
 
TurtleDude said:
I am an attorney. The poor use far more of the court system. Most of those in jail are poor. most of those victimized by criminals are poor. Do you know what it costs to keep one prisoner in a USP--30=50K a year. Sure, big corporations are in court-usually as defendants in suits brought by plaintiff's lawyers or engaged in company on company suits. But those pale in comparison to criminal cases. In our federal court in Cincinnati. the docket is usually 65-76% criminal. In county court its even higher

While the police are a local government issue, the fact remains that the police spend most of their efforts on poorer areas. Wealthy areas don't have much crime or many police calls.
Click to expand...


Because the poor resort to crime due to poverty and lack of opportunity. That's life.
 
donc said:
Its truly sad that someone doesn’t use Effects (crime) to-cause (Poverty) reasoning
Isn’t it? :confused:
Click to expand...

why the straw man-the issue is not why people use government services but that they do

the claim that the rich use more government services than the poor thus justifying outrageous tax bills on the rich is just plain Bull Crap.

Why are people poor? its not the fault of the rich

tell me why does a group that was subjected to 1000 or more years of bigotry and the worst genocide in known human history make up 2% of the US population yet produces over 15% of the students at the top universities and law schools and have at least 10% of teh senators in the USA?

why have the children of the vietnamese refugees (AKA "boat people") featured more service academy valedictorians in the last 25 years than blacks have in 50 despite being a much smaller group?



its truly sad that you cannot refute my point so you set up an idiotic strawman and attack it
 
Johnny said:
Because the poor resort to crime due to poverty and lack of opportunity. That's life.
Click to expand...

poor life choices are as much a reason as Lack of opportunity

doing drugs, getting knocked up at a young age or not attending school are major reasons that cause someone to be poor

but again the issue is who uses government services not why and claiming the rich use more government services is pure BS
 
I wonder if Wall-Street culture's needless extravagance enables its participants to have a fulfilling life.

poor life choices are as much a reason as Lack of opportunity

doing drugs, getting knocked up at a young age or not attending school are major reasons that cause someone to be poor

but again the issue is who uses government services not why and claiming the rich use more government services is pure BS
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define 'service' and 'rich'.

But to put in the simplest terms, society is held together by state-supported organizations (the military, the police, firemen, etc), organizations without which the commerce necessary to form a strong, corporation-hosting economy would not be possible. The wealthy have the biggest stake in the private capital protected by the state. If society fails and a poor man gets caught up in it, he can he move elsewhere and regain his losses, but it is unlikely a wealthy person would have the same opportunity. The wealthy are therefore more reliant on government services in the passive sense that they have a greater need for institutions like the police to deter and apprehend criminal threats to their assets.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
I wonder if Wall-Street culture's needless extravagance enables its participants to have a fulfilling life.



That depends on how you define 'service' and 'rich'.

But to put in the simplest terms, society is held together by state-supported organizations (the military, the police, firemen, etc), organizations without which the commerce necessary to form a strong, corporation-hosting economy would not be possible. As the wealthy have the biggest stake in the private capital protected by the state, they have more of an obligation to pay for infrastructure. If society fails and a poor man gets caught up in it, he can he move elsewhere and regain his losses, but it is unlikely a wealthy person would have the same opportunity.
Click to expand...

there were plenty of rich people before we had a progressive income tax, a death confiscation tax or a 16th amendment. Obviously, we didn't need that sort of taxation to create wealth and we were already the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world before the scourge of class warfare was started by the dems.

The rich are far more mobile than the poor btw ask Monte Carlo for example
 
liblady said:
this kind of greed is what makes everyday workers snap. the board members taking care of each other, a good old boys club. **** em. they run a business into the ground, then get PAID for it.


CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

Whahhuuual , golly there huck. It's kinda why they pay the executives their salaries. When the work isn't coming in they are supposed to lay workers off because there isn't any work for them to do. It'd be kinda stupid not to, don't ya think? That saves the company from going bankrupt and having ALL of the workers lose their jobs. Duh uh huh duh huh duh.............
 
washunut said:
No offense but this is a pretty simplictic view of what happens. Surely there are cases when the above this happens. Usually in bad companies which over time will not be able to compete.

In other cmpanies changes in work force may be due to investments in IT for example so you can improve productivity. Better processes, finding things that you were doing that was not adding value to customers and stop doing that are other examples where there are reductions that do not hurt employees, customers but help both. That is because you can be more competitive, retain customers and be able to give remaining workers a stable work environment.
Click to expand...

A switch to a more organized system, IT or otherwise, would be under what I pegged as ". . . Maybe letting go of people who are directly related to those assets being *there* - *and then* based on that result of that - deciding if you need to let more of your employees go." - this is where it's acceptable to do so.

Example: a farmer purchasing a mass harvester machine instead of hiring hands.

Thus - it would be an acceptable reduction in the workforce. People aren't needed - they have been actually replaced. The workload they carried is not being just dumped onto other people who then have to pick up the pace to make up for their absence. . . the overall workload placed on people has been reduced.

As opposed to "I want to save money - fire 1/2 my harvesting people and expect the other 1/2 to pick up their workload and maintain production"
 
Aunt Spiker said:
A switch to a more organized system, IT or otherwise, would be under what I pegged as ". . . Maybe letting go of people who are directly related to those assets being *there* - *and then* based on that result of that - deciding if you need to let more of your employees go." - this is where it's acceptable to do so.

Example: a farmer purchasing a mass harvester machine instead of hiring hands.

Thus - it would be an acceptable reduction in the workforce. People aren't needed - they have been actually replaced. The workload they carried is not being just dumped onto other people who then have to pick up the pace to make up for their absence. . . the overall workload placed on people has been reduced.

As opposed to "I want to save money - fire 1/2 my harvesting people and expect the other 1/2 to pick up their workload and maintain production"
Click to expand...

Execs who do the latter don't last in their jobs long.
 
TurtleDude said:
there were plenty of rich people before we had a progressive income tax, a death confiscation tax or a 16th amendment. Obviously, we didn't need that sort of taxation to create wealth and we were already the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world before the scourge of class warfare was started by the dems.

The rich are far more mobile than the poor btw ask Monte Carlo for example
Click to expand...

The American people need to stop being melodramatic. There's no moral or practical value in it.

Anyway, security was comparatively cheaper in the 19th century. Geographic barriers like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans did most of the deterrence for us. With new technologies comes new economic developments, but increasing complexity means increasing vulnerability.

Also, being the wealthiest and most powerful nation doesn't amount to much when a majority of the population is poverty stricken. All the wealth and power is concentrated into a few persons, with the teeming millions falling into "general utility and support group."
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
That isn't what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here is why CEOs should be receiving bonuses when they are tanking the business. Why should CEOs be rewarded for lousy managing?
Click to expand...

Obama just killed 23,000 jobs on the Gulf. When will you cut his bonus?
 
Morality Games said:
The American people need to stop being melodramatic. There's no moral or practical value in it.

Anyway, security was comparatively cheaper in the 19th century. Geographic barriers like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans did most of the deterrence for us. With new technologies comes new economic developments, but increasing complexity means increasing vulnerability.

Also, being the wealthiest and most powerful nation doesn't amount to much when a majority of the population is poverty stricken. All the wealth and power is concentrated into a few persons, with the teeming millions falling into "general utility and support group."
Click to expand...

A MAJORITY of the population are povertry stricken? MAJORITY? You really expose and extreme lack of perspective with that statement. A FEW persons with all the wealth? Come on, that is a gross exaggeration. Look around you as you go about your daily life. Unless you live right in the middle of a very poor neighborhood you walk right besides people, most people, who are my no means stricken with poverty. If we had a society where the government was given more money to distribute to even things out more then commerce and a lot of peoples jobs would be lost. How and the hell are you going to support a nation of people with everyone falling into what else than "general utility and support groups". No economy, not one exists any other way. Wealth will always been relative unless you have some true poverty stricken country like Cuba whose government thinks a lot like you do that we need spread as much misery to as many people as possible so nobody gets jealous.
 
I'd rather continue to be a broke worker bee than to be slightly better but be subservient to the government.

The less taxes the better. That means more money for everyone. Rich people have more and build new houses or buy new cars and boats which means jobs.

The working class has more money to buy what they need and save up.

Less taxes and regulation means it's easier for working class folk to start their own business.

Over taxation and overregulation is keeping the poor, poor.

No system is perfect but I'd choose a system that puts more money in my pocket than programs that cause inflation and tax me so much I'm stuck in that rut.

I'm against bailouts as well.

Government is just as bad as the corrupt corporations. They stop competition and **** everything up.
 
j-mac said:
Nonsense. the top 1% of earners in this country pay something like 75% of the tax burden or somthing like that. 50% of the population pays no tax at all. How about we institute a flat tax and make everyone pay. Wouldn't that be fair?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Another myth with no verification. Nice to see you believe whatever backs up your idealogy without any proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom