• 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!

BMW layoffs exemplify the evisceration of the middle class

I can't respect anybody who reads your post and says "Yeah. And?"

It's not a "yeah and" thing.

He's already prefaced the argument with false information.
Broad brushing entire market segments and assuming "if only those corporate fat cats would be nice to the working poor."

It's totally ignorant and politically persuaded reasoning.
 
It's not a "yeah and" thing.

He's already prefaced the argument with false information.
Broad brushing entire market segments and assuming "if only those corporate fat cats would be nice to the working poor."

It's totally ignorant and politically persuaded reasoning.

Talk is cheap, Prove it, or let people see your credibility for what it is.
 
Talk is cheap, Prove it, or let people see your credibility for what it is.

When has America become like Mexico?
Why should businesses break compensation agreements with the CEO, when it could cost the company more in losses, than if they honored what they agreed to pay?
 
Last edited:
Those are really the only corporate choices? Screw the workers, or screw management?
 
Those are really the only corporate choices? Screw the workers, or screw management?

In the very narrow picture you guys are painting, sometimes yes.

Employment is optional for both management and wage earner.
You piss too much on someones cheerios and they resign their positions.
The company will lose profitability to support any wages and taxes.
 
When has America become like Mexico?
Why should businesses break compensation agreements with the CEO, when it could cost the company more in losses, than if they honored what they agreed to pay?

I didn't realize you do not know the definition of premise. Here you go: "A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."
premise - definition of premise by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Upsideguy's premise was,
"many companies have been cutting workers, making the remaining workers work hard for flat to inflation adjusted decreasing wages... and paying the additional profits out in the form of executive bonuses..... "
 
I didn't realize you do not know the definition of premise. Here you go: "A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."
premise - definition of premise by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Upsideguy's premise was,
"many companies have been cutting workers, making the remaining workers work hard for flat to inflation adjusted decreasing wages... and paying the additional profits out in the form of executive bonuses..... "

"We are creating a Mexican economy in the US."

Prove this, this is what he said.

Prove that those businesses didn't cut unnecessary workers and they paid non contractual bonuses.
 
I think if I'm posting record profits, maybe out of some sort of loyalty or compassion for my employees who are making me rich I'd not lay them off. If it ain't broke, and whatnot.

Yes, I can improve quarterly profit reports by 3% if I lay them off and outsource, but maybe I'm just the sort of person who doesn't see my employees as numbers but rather as people with families.
 
"We are creating a Mexican economy in the US."

Prove this, this is what he said.

That was the associated result of upsideguy's premise which I listed above. Glad we got that cleared up.

If your really are not aware that CEO's income has been going up dramatically while wage earners have stagnated, I'll provide the documentation. The 2010 Census showed us that as of 2009, 1 in 7 Americans were officially poor. We are creating a Mexican economy, a country of haves and have-nots, just like upsideguy stated.

:sun
 
When has America become like Mexico?
Why should businesses break compensation agreements with the CEO, when it could cost the company more in losses, than if they honored what they agreed to pay?

Exactly when this happened is probably found in another study..... but it has happened.

Excerpted from Power in American, Wealth, Income and Power. G. William Domhoff

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Income inequality in other countries

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 4 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.

and, of course, the result... Third world countries have little to no middle class, which is where the US is headed.



Table 7: Income equality in selected countries
Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1. Sweden 23.0
2. Norway 25.0
8. Austria 26.0
10. Germany 27.0
17. Denmark 29.0
25. Australia 30.5
34. Italy 32.0
35. Canada 32.1
37. France 32.7
42. Switzerland 33.7
43. United Kingdom 34.0
45. Egypt 34.4
56. India 36.8
61. Japan 38.1
68. Israel 39.2
81. China 41.5
82. Russia 42.3
90. Iran 44.5
93. United States 45.0
107. Mexico 48.2
125. Brazil 56.7
133. South Africa 65.0


Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).
 

Attachments

  • Distribution of Wealth.jpg
    Distribution of Wealth.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 27
  • Wealth disparity in US.jpg
    Wealth disparity in US.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 27
I didn't realize you do not know the definition of premise. Here you go: "A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn."
premise - definition of premise by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Upsideguy's premise was,
"many companies have been cutting workers, making the remaining workers work hard for flat to inflation adjusted decreasing wages... and paying the additional profits out in the form of executive bonuses..... "

It's all about an employee's worth. If a worker earning 30 g's a year, only makes the company 50 g's, then he's getting what he's worth. If an employee is making 5 million a year, but he's making the company 20 million a year, then he's getting what he's worth.

I think the biggest point that some folks are missing, is that if the company goes belly up everybody is out of work.
 
It's all about an employee's worth. If a worker earning 30 g's a year, only makes the company 50 g's, then he's getting what he's worth. If an employee is making 5 million a year, but he's making the company 20 million a year, then he's getting what he's worth.

I think the biggest point that some folks are missing, is that if the company goes belly up everybody is out of work.

And clearly BMW was not in danger of going belly up.
 
And clearly BMW was not in danger of going belly up.

Exactly. I can't understand how people can defend the indefensible. I'm assuming it's because none of their friends, family or loved ones were employed by BMW.
 
And clearly BMW was not in danger of going belly up.

Thanks to their obvious business savvy.

10 employees represent over a half million dollars in expense. If those 10 employees aren't going to generate million+ in revenue, then something has got to give.

Employing people isn't free, ya know?
 
Exactly. I can't understand how people can defend the indefensible. I'm assuming it's because none of their friends, family or loved ones were employed by BMW.

Myself, my family and my friends are employed in the oil and gas industry. I don't see you shedding any tears for us, since the government ****ed with our jobs.

In fact, I've been called an, "oil company shill", for speaking out against the government imposed drilling ban.
 
Myself, my family and my friends are employed in the oil and gas industry. I don't see you shedding any tears for us, since the government ****ed with our jobs.

In fact, I've been called an, "oil company shill", for speaking out against the government imposed drilling ban.

And I'm sure you've never used a similar term for anyone who favors the ban for environmental reasons. Nope. Never.
 
The one thing we do know is that if we would have taxed the hell out of the doctors and lawyers and other such rich people bmw would have never laid these people off.



Sure they would cause those evil rich bastards would stop buying our bmw's. :shrug:
 
Sure they would cause those evil rich bastards would stop buying our bmw's. :shrug:

Yes, a 3% increase in taxes on income over $250k/year would definitely prevent someone from buying a BMW!
 
Yes, a 3% increase in taxes on income over $250k/year would definitely prevent someone from buying a BMW!



I might not get the M6, just another 650. :shrug:


I always find it funny, Let me ask you, what percent of the population makes over $250k. And this is for couples no?
 
Yes, a 3% increase in taxes on income over $250k/year would definitely prevent someone from buying a BMW!

Good lord! I hadn't thought of it that way!! I am Deeply Ashamed I didn't think things through.

Deeply.

/me hangs head

/and self, in closet

------> over there
 
I might not get the M6, just another 650. :shrug:


I always find it funny, Let me ask you, what percent of the population makes over $250k. And this is for couples no?

Around 3% if I remember right, although I've always thought the 250k mark is arbitrary and oversimplified. Somehow it became the magic number for everything.
What is this relevant to?

If you can't afford the M6 on 250k/year, you're feeding your kids too much :mrgreen:
 
I do not know the situation, I do know that Japanese automotive companies in Canada and America specifically have very good benefits, start you out at around $15/hr at least (topping out at around $30) and many have free to very cheap health care. They all do profit sharing as well to some degree. The downside is that the Japanese companies will work you for very long weeks, sometimes 60 hours, and the work can drop off to part-time. However, it is non-union, and the Japanese companies do fine. I think if it works for some companies such as Toyota it should be a model for the business. It sucks sometimes, but every pay day I don't seem to mind it as much. In some instances though where conditions are far more dangerous and abuse can be easily done by the company such as coal mining, power plants, sanitary workers, oil and gas workers, etc I still believe unions hold a great firm place and are essential to the survival of the businesses.
 
Exactly when this happened is probably found in another study..... but it has happened.

Excerpted from Power in American, Wealth, Income and Power. G. William Domhoff

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Income inequality in other countries

The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.

The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 4 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.

and, of course, the result... Third world countries have little to no middle class, which is where the US is headed.



Table 7: Income equality in selected countries
Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient

1. Sweden 23.0
2. Norway 25.0
8. Austria 26.0
10. Germany 27.0
17. Denmark 29.0
25. Australia 30.5
34. Italy 32.0
35. Canada 32.1
37. France 32.7
42. Switzerland 33.7
43. United Kingdom 34.0
45. Egypt 34.4
56. India 36.8
61. Japan 38.1
68. Israel 39.2
81. China 41.5
82. Russia 42.3
90. Iran 44.5
93. United States 45.0
107. Mexico 48.2
125. Brazil 56.7
133. South Africa 65.0


Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).

I'm guessing the far-right's response to these facts regarding income inequality in the US will either be to deny them, or say who cares. Let's see if that is the case.,:sun
 
And I'm sure you've never used a similar term for anyone who favors the ban for environmental reasons. Nope. Never.

The problem is, the so called, "environmental reasons", are bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom