Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Blizzard employees crying and hugging in the parking lot

123468

Comments

  • psiicpsiic Member RarePosts: 1,619
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Income inequality is actually still an issue.  And no, governments don't print money all willy nilly, even if every dollar isn't backed by a physical good.


    Individuals making a change isn't going to be seen by Amazon's bottom line.....  That's..  kinda the point people have about these corporations.  It's a singular entity's focused interest balanced against million of disparate entities' interests.  Most folks, with jobs and families, don't even have time to research the total pros and cons of purchasing from a corporation as opposed to a local shop.  That's why we have folks that study the stuff and politicians that are supposed to be using that information to help steer the ship, so to speak.  And all of that is called division of labor.  And none of it makes the detrimental effects of such corporate influence okay, desirable, or best-case.
    We all have the same opportunity for success, we can all come up with an idea, write up a business plan and proposal, go to investors, launch our own business, work hard for our own success and with luck our idea takes off, we expand, we create jobs, we take on share holders, we take on executives, we realize the success from our brilliance and our hard work. But no along come communists, that call themselves democratic socialists and progressives. They are young, lazy, entitled they think they should have 75-80% of what the successful people have worked their asses off for. They should have it all with their Robin Hood economics and they should even be entitled to a share even if they do not ever want to work at all. That is where the far left is wanting us to go. So if the ones with ideas who want to work hard and create something, create jobs, create wealth now get robbed for doing so, why should they bother at all. They can just lay around and get $15 a hour for jacking off and playing video games all day, why should they create a business with all its hard work? How long until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, well look at Venezuela for that answer. Because they managed to tumble down their democratic socialism in less than 30 years, to the point where no new jobs or businesses were formed because they entitled that did not want to work took all the profit out of doing so. 
    GdemamiMadFrenchieKylerancraftseeker
  • WargfootWargfoot Member UncommonPosts: 248
    Why is it that the same people who dislike Amazon and big business are usually the same people who want to turn all the health care over to single payer and totally eliminate competition in that sector?

    Off topic I know, but it hurts my brain.
    alkarionlogpsiiccraftseeker
  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,462
    Wargfoot said:
    Why is it that the same people who dislike Amazon and big business are usually the same people who want to turn all the health care over to single payer and totally eliminate competition in that sector?

    Off topic I know, but it hurts my brain.
    I actually like competition, but the presence of Amazon and Google kinda defeats that purpose, wouldn't you say? We all benefit from competition, not so much from mono / duo polies.

    Now, if you don't mind I need to back off from these discussions. They...unnerve me. Because the more I see how Capitalism and all the resources are mangled, the more...bad I feel. I'm not the one to retreat from reality, but in this case...you understand. Such reality isn't pleasurable at all. I'll stick to my nonsense I think.
    Gdemamicraftseeker
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member EpicPosts: 3,074
    Wargfoot said:
    Why is it that the same people who dislike Amazon and big business are usually the same people who want to turn all the health care over to single payer and totally eliminate competition in that sector?

    Off topic I know, but it hurts my brain.
    because most people, belive in the goverment is out there to look out for you, protect you, and keep you happy, in short, brainless peons, who are too damn lazy to think for thenselfs, since even that is "too hard".


    craftseeker
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Wargfoot said:
    Why is it that the same people who dislike Amazon and big business are usually the same people who want to turn all the health care over to single payer and totally eliminate competition in that sector?

    Off topic I know, but it hurts my brain.
    because most people, belive in the goverment is out there to look out for you, protect you, and keep you happy, in short, brainless peons, who are too damn lazy to think for thenselfs, since even that is "too hard".


    Wildly inaccurate generalization spotted.
    Gdemamicraftseeker

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    psiic said:
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Income inequality is actually still an issue.  And no, governments don't print money all willy nilly, even if every dollar isn't backed by a physical good.


    Individuals making a change isn't going to be seen by Amazon's bottom line.....  That's..  kinda the point people have about these corporations.  It's a singular entity's focused interest balanced against million of disparate entities' interests.  Most folks, with jobs and families, don't even have time to research the total pros and cons of purchasing from a corporation as opposed to a local shop.  That's why we have folks that study the stuff and politicians that are supposed to be using that information to help steer the ship, so to speak.  And all of that is called division of labor.  And none of it makes the detrimental effects of such corporate influence okay, desirable, or best-case.
    We all have the same opportunity for success, we can all come up with an idea, write up a business plan and proposal, go to investors, launch our own business, work hard for our own success and with luck our idea takes off, we expand, we create jobs, we take on share holders, we take on executives, we realize the success from our brilliance and our hard work. But no along come communists, that call themselves democratic socialists and progressives. They are young, lazy, entitled they think they should have 75-80% of what the successful people have worked their asses off for. They should have it all with their Robin Hood economics and they should even be entitled to a share even if they do not ever want to work at all. That is where the far left is wanting us to go. So if the ones with ideas who want to work hard and create something, create jobs, create wealth now get robbed for doing so, why should they bother at all. They can just lay around and get $15 a hour for jacking off and playing video games all day, why should they create a business with all its hard work? How long until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, well look at Venezuela for that answer. Because they managed to tumble down their democratic socialism in less than 30 years, to the point where no new jobs or businesses were formed because they entitled that did not want to work took all the profit out of doing so. 
    Your "have 75-80%" comment immediately shows how out of touch with reality you actually are.
    Gdemamicraftseeker

    image
  • psiicpsiic Member RarePosts: 1,619
    psiic said:
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Income inequality is actually still an issue.  And no, governments don't print money all willy nilly, even if every dollar isn't backed by a physical good.


    Individuals making a change isn't going to be seen by Amazon's bottom line.....  That's..  kinda the point people have about these corporations.  It's a singular entity's focused interest balanced against million of disparate entities' interests.  Most folks, with jobs and families, don't even have time to research the total pros and cons of purchasing from a corporation as opposed to a local shop.  That's why we have folks that study the stuff and politicians that are supposed to be using that information to help steer the ship, so to speak.  And all of that is called division of labor.  And none of it makes the detrimental effects of such corporate influence okay, desirable, or best-case.
    We all have the same opportunity for success, we can all come up with an idea, write up a business plan and proposal, go to investors, launch our own business, work hard for our own success and with luck our idea takes off, we expand, we create jobs, we take on share holders, we take on executives, we realize the success from our brilliance and our hard work. But no along come communists, that call themselves democratic socialists and progressives. They are young, lazy, entitled they think they should have 75-80% of what the successful people have worked their asses off for. They should have it all with their Robin Hood economics and they should even be entitled to a share even if they do not ever want to work at all. That is where the far left is wanting us to go. So if the ones with ideas who want to work hard and create something, create jobs, create wealth now get robbed for doing so, why should they bother at all. They can just lay around and get $15 a hour for jacking off and playing video games all day, why should they create a business with all its hard work? How long until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, well look at Venezuela for that answer. Because they managed to tumble down their democratic socialism in less than 30 years, to the point where no new jobs or businesses were formed because they entitled that did not want to work took all the profit out of doing so. 
    Your "have 75-80%" comment immediately shows how out of touch with reality you actually are.
    Cortez is demanding 70%, even at 70% the numbers are not there.  You would need to tax at 82% to provide everything she is demanding for her green deal.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,265
    Wargfoot said:
    laserit said:

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.
    People pick on these hugely successful people but the fact is we have competition in our daily lives at an individual level.

    If a local contractor gives me 10% off and I use his services that means someone else isn't getting the job.  Is that local contractor predatory?  What percentage of the work does he have to do in order to suddenly become immoral?

    Small town Mom & Pop shops run each other out of business all of the time.  We've had Ice Cream wars in my home town now for 5 years - tiny businesses running each other out of town and the churn will continue this summer.  How is Ed Peterson, the guy who just won that war last summer, any more or less moral than Jeff Bezos?

    ---------------------------------------

    People are rewarding Amazon with tons of business because they're doing it better than Kmart, Sears, and dozens of other companies.  I can do shopping at Amazon in 15 minutes that would take me literally an entire day and 6 stops via conventional methods.  

    ---------------------------------------

    The problem, at the very core, is greed.  

    It doesn't matter if that greed is in the heart of Jeff Bezos or the heart of the little girl on the corner selling lemonade.

    I'm not comfortable calling out someone else on that point as I cannot read hearts and minds from where I'm sitting.
    Always enjoy a good  conversation :)

    All your points are valid. Take your local contractor and pit him up against a billion dollar corp/competitor who can sell product at a loss indefinitely in a localized market in order to thin out the competition. It's something that happens regularly, it's something that happened to me and it wasn't their only tactic. As I said earlier it cost me a product line, that product line at the time was about 75% of my business. I survived and thrived by turning my business into a service, a job shop. I make many different products for others. I have a handful of large accounts but the majority are small accounts. A lot of start ups, a lot of product development and prototyping.

    Interestingly enough I purchase very little from Amazon because I usually find what I'm looking for at a competitive price locally.

    p.s. I wasn't knocking Bezos, I was just using him as an example. I'm questioning whether these monster corps are good for our society as a whole. It's not something I know any answers to but its something I think about.
    Gdemami

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,997
    edited February 2019
    But look at that stock price rise!

    WOOHOO! 

    Trickle Down boyz! Think about the opportunities opening up on mobile software development. 

    You all have phones right?
    TierlessXarkoHatefull

    You stay sassy!

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    psiic said:
    psiic said:
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Income inequality is actually still an issue.  And no, governments don't print money all willy nilly, even if every dollar isn't backed by a physical good.


    Individuals making a change isn't going to be seen by Amazon's bottom line.....  That's..  kinda the point people have about these corporations.  It's a singular entity's focused interest balanced against million of disparate entities' interests.  Most folks, with jobs and families, don't even have time to research the total pros and cons of purchasing from a corporation as opposed to a local shop.  That's why we have folks that study the stuff and politicians that are supposed to be using that information to help steer the ship, so to speak.  And all of that is called division of labor.  And none of it makes the detrimental effects of such corporate influence okay, desirable, or best-case.
    We all have the same opportunity for success, we can all come up with an idea, write up a business plan and proposal, go to investors, launch our own business, work hard for our own success and with luck our idea takes off, we expand, we create jobs, we take on share holders, we take on executives, we realize the success from our brilliance and our hard work. But no along come communists, that call themselves democratic socialists and progressives. They are young, lazy, entitled they think they should have 75-80% of what the successful people have worked their asses off for. They should have it all with their Robin Hood economics and they should even be entitled to a share even if they do not ever want to work at all. That is where the far left is wanting us to go. So if the ones with ideas who want to work hard and create something, create jobs, create wealth now get robbed for doing so, why should they bother at all. They can just lay around and get $15 a hour for jacking off and playing video games all day, why should they create a business with all its hard work? How long until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, well look at Venezuela for that answer. Because they managed to tumble down their democratic socialism in less than 30 years, to the point where no new jobs or businesses were formed because they entitled that did not want to work took all the profit out of doing so. 
    Your "have 75-80%" comment immediately shows how out of touch with reality you actually are.
    Cortez is demanding 70%, even at 70% the numbers are not there.  You would need to tax at 82% to provide everything she is demanding for her green deal.
    Who said anything about her Green New Deal?


    And please look up how income taxing in America actually works.
    parrotpholkGdemami

    image
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    psiic said:
    psiic said:
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Income inequality is actually still an issue.  And no, governments don't print money all willy nilly, even if every dollar isn't backed by a physical good.


    Individuals making a change isn't going to be seen by Amazon's bottom line.....  That's..  kinda the point people have about these corporations.  It's a singular entity's focused interest balanced against million of disparate entities' interests.  Most folks, with jobs and families, don't even have time to research the total pros and cons of purchasing from a corporation as opposed to a local shop.  That's why we have folks that study the stuff and politicians that are supposed to be using that information to help steer the ship, so to speak.  And all of that is called division of labor.  And none of it makes the detrimental effects of such corporate influence okay, desirable, or best-case.
    We all have the same opportunity for success, we can all come up with an idea, write up a business plan and proposal, go to investors, launch our own business, work hard for our own success and with luck our idea takes off, we expand, we create jobs, we take on share holders, we take on executives, we realize the success from our brilliance and our hard work. But no along come communists, that call themselves democratic socialists and progressives. They are young, lazy, entitled they think they should have 75-80% of what the successful people have worked their asses off for. They should have it all with their Robin Hood economics and they should even be entitled to a share even if they do not ever want to work at all. That is where the far left is wanting us to go. So if the ones with ideas who want to work hard and create something, create jobs, create wealth now get robbed for doing so, why should they bother at all. They can just lay around and get $15 a hour for jacking off and playing video games all day, why should they create a business with all its hard work? How long until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, well look at Venezuela for that answer. Because they managed to tumble down their democratic socialism in less than 30 years, to the point where no new jobs or businesses were formed because they entitled that did not want to work took all the profit out of doing so. 
    Your "have 75-80%" comment immediately shows how out of touch with reality you actually are.
    Cortez is demanding 70%, even at 70% the numbers are not there.  You would need to tax at 82% to provide everything she is demanding for her green deal.
    Who said anything about her Green New Deal?


    And please look up how income taxing in America actually works.
    But Occasional Cortex's deal is hillarious, honestly, nobody can read it without laughing :p
    parrotpholkMadFrenchie
  • TierlessTierless ColumnistMember EpicPosts: 3,363
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    parrotpholkGdemamiMadFrenchie
    But not all men seek rest and peace; some are born with the spirit of the storm in their blood, restless harbingers, knowing no other path.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,265
    Horusra said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:

    We've gotten past that point.

    Now large corporations buy up smaller business's or worse to get rid of competition. I lost a whole product line to a multinational and the way they did it was pretty shitty.  Where as the products we're locally made and employed local people. The taxes we're paid to local government. Now that revenue gets sucked out of the country and out of the local economy.

    Yes there is a good side to big corporations. Things can be produced that are too big and too long in development for smaller companies to take on. But there is also the bad side of corporations using their muscle to kill smaller business's and taking that wealth out of smaller communities and countries for that matter.

    All that wealth that used to be spread around a greater area gets more and more concentrated to fewer and fewer.

    In a small business you are a person, the big guy will probably know you by name. When they have to lay someone off there is a face attached, a human being.  Profit is important, but profit isn't the only thing that's important. In a corporation you are only a number.
    sure because that don't generate local taxes anyway and local sellers don't profit from selling it, in the end of the day people will buy the cheaper one save for one or 2 who like to yell I support the little men, big corps sell cheaper
    My companies municipal government made 180k off me last year. My company pays income taxes and payroll taxes. My employees and myself pay personal income taxes. Now if I wanted to, I could easily send 60% of my production to China and significantly increase my bottom line. Truth be told I'd rather call it a day and enjoy retirement than do that, it's not what drives me.

    Corporation's like Amazon are killing local sellers. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, his wealth comes at others expense. The wealth of 10's of thousands concentrated into the wealth of a single person.

    Is this good and healthy for our societies? Good for my kids and grandchildren? 

    All I can say is that time will tell.
    Concentrations of wealth in a few does not matter as money is no longer a limited commodity.  As much money exists as the world wishes to generate.  People seem to believe that wealth concentration is a new thing.  It has existed as long as humans have existed.  We are still here.  It is the access to goods and services and the expectation that everyone should have them that has changed.  Go back 70 years and people did not expect to have multiple TV's or even one, but now days people act like it is a right that they have multiple TV's.

    Bezos created a means for cheap products and due to current human nature that they believe they deserve everything buying the most for the cheapest is going to win.  Is it good for society...probably not, but are you going to tell you kids that they should settle for less because it helps out the little guys.  Or are you going to tell your kids to get the most they can for each and every dollar they spend?  "Hey Johnny you only have one sock this year and next year I will get you the other because I bought from an expensive local dealer and not Amazon where I could have got you 3 pairs."
    Respectfully:

    I believe you only see things through the eyes of your own country. Have you done any traveling? Seen any other industrialized countries? Seen any of the third world? Seen how the other 9/10 of the world lives?

    Money is very much a limited commodity, it's managed. When its not limited or poorly managed you get runaway inflation/hyper inflation.

    I don't take what I have for granted, my parents and their generation went through hell on earth.

    I agree with you that we have things very good here where we are for now. That doesn't mean it will always be that way. 


    Gdemami

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    TimEisen said:
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    Because people losing their jobs is depressing, more so when the company in question just said they had an extremely profitable year. If you think about it too much, it just makes you angry  :/
    GdemamiTierless
  • WargfootWargfoot Member UncommonPosts: 248
    Gorwe said:

    Now, if you don't mind I need to back off from these discussions. They...unnerve me. Because the more I see how Capitalism and all the resources are mangled, the more...bad I feel. I'm not the one to retreat from reality, but in this case...you understand. Such reality isn't pleasurable at all. I'll stick to my nonsense I think.
    You need to head over to MMORPG.com and find a new game to bury your head in.
    That's what I do.

    :D
    MadFrenchie
  • summerstringssummerstrings Member UncommonPosts: 76
    It is always the minions that suffer and never the masters . Most of the people responsible for making the bad decisions will keep their jobs :( 

    I feel very sorry for these people I hope they land on their feet . 

    The thing is thru a CT scan of the brain we can now tell if someone has reduced connections between a part of the brain associated with empathy and decision-making, known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex . 

    if it gets to a point (not sure we if we are quite there yet) where it becomes effective to spot someone with sociopathic or psychopathic traits using this method then they should be barred from working in certain areas like politics , corporate businesses or holding any kind of position of authority . 

    Sounds a bit "Gattaca" I know but I would certainly sleep better knowing that there was a reduced chance that a sociopath was in control of the Economy or the nations defence . 
    Gdemami
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,872
    Phry said:
    TimEisen said:
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    Because people losing their jobs is depressing, more so when the company in question just said they had an extremely profitable year. If you think about it too much, it just makes you angry  :/
    Right but being profitable doesn't mean that the status quo should be kept. If I have a company that is profitable but I just realized that 2 out of 20 of my employees don't really contribute to revenue, doesn't it make sense to let them go?

    Perhaps, reassigning them is better but if their expertise doesn't cut it, then it is fine to let em go. 
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,872
    Wizardry said:
    Sovrath said:


    Well like all walks of life,large corps are hit n miss,some are doing good things some are not and most we simply can't trust one way or another.
    EVERYTHING that is wrong in this world is about power and money.Me or any average person could make 100k a year in gaming we would be thrilled,top execs,investors want to see huge numbers or they are not happy and start pointing fingers.

    The other aspect is when large corps are making loads of money,they start to do some good things,well every corp except pharmaceuticals lol,they just continue to scam the world of money.

    They say that Kotick clown made 24+ million in 2012 although much of it deferred.In 2017 he made 23 million,that is outrageous numbers,they say 300x the median for a ceo in his position.

    Imagine how many jobs that could supply Blizzard if one asshat wasn't leeching it all?

    Refer to the other thread on my long diatribe of capitalism and why I think CEO's are justified in their position. 

    How many jobs do you really think 20 million will net you? If each person on average makes 40k salary, it probably costs the company close to 50k with health insurance and benefits. 

    50k x 20 people = $1 million per year. 

    so you can probably support 400 people for $20 million a year. 400 people who probably don't actually make the company money. 

    LOOK BELOW to see the importance of a CEO. 

    Activision Blizzard Annual Net Income
    (Millions of US $)
    2018                                           $578
    2017$273
    2016$962
    2015$881
    2014$817
    2013$987
    2012$1,125
    2011$1,069
    2010$414
    2009$112
    2008$-107
    2007$227
    2007$86
    2006$139
    2006$40
    2005$135

    Wow, under the CEO's direction, they more than doubled their net income . . . he added $300 million in a year. So please tell me, how much should a person who was the major one responsible for that be paid?

    How much would you pay a person who just made you $300 million more than last year? 500k? 1 million? 10 x median salary? . . . 


    Now should a company like blizzard be like, oh hey, we made half a billion in profit, we can keep these people employed for ever .. . . 



    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/net-income
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,265
    Phry said:
    TimEisen said:
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    Because people losing their jobs is depressing, more so when the company in question just said they had an extremely profitable year. If you think about it too much, it just makes you angry  :/
    Right but being profitable doesn't mean that the status quo should be kept. If I have a company that is profitable but I just realized that 2 out of 20 of my employees don't really contribute to revenue, doesn't it make sense to let them go?

    Perhaps, reassigning them is better but if their expertise doesn't cut it, then it is fine to let em go. 
    There are many jobs in a workplace that don't contribute to revenue. Janitorial staff, maintenance, HR etc.

    All part of overhead

    Some companies cut corners on these things and it can show. 
    Gdemami

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,872
    edited February 2019
    laserit said:
    Phry said:
    TimEisen said:
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    Because people losing their jobs is depressing, more so when the company in question just said they had an extremely profitable year. If you think about it too much, it just makes you angry  :/
    Right but being profitable doesn't mean that the status quo should be kept. If I have a company that is profitable but I just realized that 2 out of 20 of my employees don't really contribute to revenue, doesn't it make sense to let them go?

    Perhaps, reassigning them is better but if their expertise doesn't cut it, then it is fine to let em go. 
    There are many jobs in a workplace that don't contribute to revenue. Janitorial staff, maintenance, HR etc.

    All part of overhead

    Some companies cut corners on these things and it can show. 
    Your posts are awesome in general laserit. I am jealous of your business too. I also thought your last post was awesome how you prefer not to outsource your work. However, I disagree with this post of yours. 

    Indirectly, janitorial staff, maintenance, and HR contribute to your business via opportunity cost

    Janitors clean stuff so regular employees don't have to spend time doing it and can focus on bringing in the money, maintenance fixes shit so the staff can do the work that brings in money, and HR handles all your employees because once you get so big you need people to do it for you and your employees bring you money. 

    They are part of the support team which is very important. 
    laserit
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited February 2019
    Wizardry said:
    Sovrath said:


    Well like all walks of life,large corps are hit n miss,some are doing good things some are not and most we simply can't trust one way or another.
    EVERYTHING that is wrong in this world is about power and money.Me or any average person could make 100k a year in gaming we would be thrilled,top execs,investors want to see huge numbers or they are not happy and start pointing fingers.

    The other aspect is when large corps are making loads of money,they start to do some good things,well every corp except pharmaceuticals lol,they just continue to scam the world of money.

    They say that Kotick clown made 24+ million in 2012 although much of it deferred.In 2017 he made 23 million,that is outrageous numbers,they say 300x the median for a ceo in his position.

    Imagine how many jobs that could supply Blizzard if one asshat wasn't leeching it all?

    Refer to the other thread on my long diatribe of capitalism and why I think CEO's are justified in their position. 

    How many jobs do you really think 20 million will net you? If each person on average makes 40k salary, it probably costs the company close to 50k with health insurance and benefits. 

    50k x 20 people = $1 million per year. 

    so you can probably support 400 people for $20 million a year. 400 people who probably don't actually make the company money. 

    LOOK BELOW to see the importance of a CEO. 

    Activision Blizzard Annual Net Income
    (Millions of US $)
    2018                                           $578
    2017$273
    2016$962
    2015$881
    2014$817
    2013$987
    2012$1,125
    2011$1,069
    2010$414
    2009$112
    2008$-107
    2007$227
    2007$86
    2006$139
    2006$40
    2005$135

    Wow, under the CEO's direction, they more than doubled their net income . . . he added $300 million in a year. So please tell me, how much should a person who was the major one responsible for that be paid?

    How much would you pay a person who just made you $300 million more than last year? 500k? 1 million? 10 x median salary? . . . 


    Now should a company like blizzard be like, oh hey, we made half a billion in profit, we can keep these people employed for ever .. . . 



    https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/net-income
    Do you have any objective measure whatsoever to prove what percentage of profit change is directly attributable to the CEO position alone?

    Any at all?  Anything that guarantees or leads to an even reasonable assurance that, had they hired another CEO (all other factors being identical), it would've led to a massive amount of lost profit potential?  And, incidentally, if you do, can you provide further evidence that there wasn't an even better option they could've taken?

    Do you have insider knowledge of how hands-on that CEO was with every key decision that may have contributed?  Whether he shook things up in each department, or largely kept them intact?  Something you can show us?
    TierlessGdemami

    image
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,872
    edited February 2019
    Do you have any objective measure whatsoever to prove what percentage of profit change is directly attributable to the CEO position alone?

    Any at all?  Anything that guarantees or leads to an even reasonable assurance that, had they hired another CEO (all other factors being identical), it would've led to a massive amount of lost profit potential?  And, incidentally, if you do, can you provide further evidence that there wasn't an even better option they could've taken?

    Do you have insider knowledge of how hands-on that CEO was with every key decision that may have contributed?  Whether he shook things up in each department, or largely kept them intact?  Something you can show us?

    Of course not.
    - You never know if you'd do better with another CEO or something else unless you had a parallel universe. 
    - Time will tell if they made the right decision. Whether they are right or wrong, is not the reason they get paid so much, it is their potential that they are getting paid for. That potential goes in both directions. Either ton of profit or mega tank or anything in between. 

    But the CEO's has the final decision on the direction of the company. They are the chief executive. They have the final say in everything. They will decide if the company goes mobile and how much they go in that direction. They make the most meaningful decisions. They clearly have the biggest influence over revenue. 

    They are essentially the captain of a ship. They decide where the ship goes. Isn't that the most important person on the whole ship?

    Put it this way, as an analogy, the most important decision for the highest ranking person in the military is the person/people who decides whether they go to war or not.  Platoon leader, general, colonel, grunt, supply staff, military cook, their job is important but not even close to the most important. 

    In the military the pay gap isn't that high because the success of military is based on something other than money. But in business, success = money, you want money, pay a ton to the person who has the most influence. 

    Sorry, MadFrenchie, CEO salaries are completely justified in my mind. Are there CEO's which are selfish and greedy sure, but the relative level of their salaries I'm okay with. 

    I mean, think about this, let's say hypothetically that Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon) hired a CEO 20 years ago. Let's say they paid that hypothetical CEO 10 mil per year for 20 years. 

    Wow, he made 200 million over 20 years and made Bezos 100,000+ million dollars. Now let's say, this CEO was due for a contract extension right now. How much money should he ask for?

    He could literally be like, dude, I made you 500 times my salary per year, I'd like 500 million per year. He'd be worth it. Hell if you paid the guy 1 billion per year for 20 years, it would have been ludicrously worth it for Bezos. Of course this is an extreme example of success, but you get the point of the figures. 

    FYI, highest salary is some guy named Hock Tan (103 million per year). 

    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 3,125
    Do you have any objective measure whatsoever to prove what percentage of profit change is directly attributable to the CEO position alone?

    Any at all?  Anything that guarantees or leads to an even reasonable assurance that, had they hired another CEO (all other factors being identical), it would've led to a massive amount of lost profit potential?  And, incidentally, if you do, can you provide further evidence that there wasn't an even better option they could've taken?

    Do you have insider knowledge of how hands-on that CEO was with every key decision that may have contributed?  Whether he shook things up in each department, or largely kept them intact?  Something you can show us?

    Of course not.
    - You never know if you'd do better with another CEO or something else unless you had a parallel universe. 
    - Time will tell if they made the right decision. Whether they are right or wrong, is not the reason they get paid so much, it is their potential that they are getting paid for. That potential goes in both directions. Either ton of profit or mega tank or anything in between. 

    But the CEO's has the final decision on the direction of the company. They are the chief executive. They have the final say in everything. They will decide if the company goes mobile and how much they go in that direction. They make the most meaningful decisions. They clearly have the biggest influence over revenue. 

    They are essentially the captain of a ship. They decide where the ship goes. Isn't that the most important person on the whole ship?

    Put it this way, as an analogy, the most important decision for the highest ranking person in the military is the person/people who decides whether they go to war or not.  Platoon leader, general, colonel, grunt, supply staff, military cook, their job is important but not even close to the most important. 

    On the other hand, when a ship is sinking the captain makes sure everybody is safe before getting of the ship himself  ;)

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    TierlessMadFrenchieCryomatrixNyctelios
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,265
    laserit said:
    Phry said:
    TimEisen said:
    A thread about people's great loss turns into a battle between objective facts taken from the observation of reality and propaganda based on truthiness. This is the now. 
    Because people losing their jobs is depressing, more so when the company in question just said they had an extremely profitable year. If you think about it too much, it just makes you angry  :/
    Right but being profitable doesn't mean that the status quo should be kept. If I have a company that is profitable but I just realized that 2 out of 20 of my employees don't really contribute to revenue, doesn't it make sense to let them go?

    Perhaps, reassigning them is better but if their expertise doesn't cut it, then it is fine to let em go. 
    There are many jobs in a workplace that don't contribute to revenue. Janitorial staff, maintenance, HR etc.

    All part of overhead

    Some companies cut corners on these things and it can show. 
    Your posts are awesome in general laserit. I am jealous of your business too. I also thought your last post was awesome how you prefer not to outsource your work. However, I disagree with this post of yours. 

    Indirectly, janitorial staff, maintenance, and HR contribute to your business via opportunity cost

    Janitors clean stuff so regular employees don't have to spend time doing it and can focus on bringing in the money, maintenance fixes shit so the staff can do the work that brings in money, and HR handles all your employees because once you get so big you need people to do it for you and your employees bring you money. 

    They are part of the support team which is very important. 
    You see the value but you might be surprised at how many business owners believe some of those things are a complete waste of time and resources. Believe me a lot of companies skimp on those things, some to the detriment of their employees and/or customers.

    Yes they are part of the support team, but they are not directly tied to revenue. What their effect on revenue actually is, can never be truly known.

    It's a cost of doing business not a revenue generator.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited February 2019

    Of course not.
    - You never know if you'd do better with another CEO or something else unless you had a parallel universe. 
    - Time will tell if they made the right decision. Whether they are right or wrong, is not the reason they get paid so much, it is their potential that they are getting paid for. That potential goes in both directions. Either ton of profit or mega tank or anything in between. 

    But the CEO's has the final decision on the direction of the company. They are the chief executive. They have the final say in everything. They will decide if the company goes mobile and how much they go in that direction. They make the most meaningful decisions. They clearly have the biggest influence over revenue. 

    They are essentially the captain of a ship. They decide where the ship goes. Isn't that the most important person on the whole ship?

    Put it this way, as an analogy, the most important decision for the highest ranking person in the military is the person/people who decides whether they go to war or not.  Platoon leader, general, colonel, grunt, supply staff, military cook, their job is important but not even close to the most important. 

    In the military the pay gap isn't that high because the success of military is based on something other than money. But in business, success = money, you want money, pay a ton to the person who has the most influence. 

    Sorry, MadFrenchie, CEO salaries are completely justified in my mind. Are there CEO's which are selfish and greedy sure, but the relative level of their salaries I'm okay with. 

    I mean, think about this, let's say hypothetically that Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon) hired a CEO 20 years ago. Let's say they paid that hypothetical CEO 10 mil per year for 20 years. 

    Wow, he made 200 million over 20 years and made Bezos 100,000+ million dollars. Now let's say, this CEO was due for a contract extension right now. How much money should he ask for?

    He could literally be like, dude, I made you 500 times my salary per year, I'd like 500 million per year. He'd be worth it. Hell if you paid the guy 1 billion per year for 20 years, it would have been ludicrously worth it for Bezos. Of course this is an extreme example of success, but you get the point of the figures. 

    FYI, highest salary is some guy named Hock Tan (103 million per year). 

    Again, you're placing every bit of the profits the entire company made directly and fully attributable to the CEO, because you then have him "negotiate" by saying he made him 500 times his salary per year.  But what is his answer when Bezos replies with: "Are you literally asserting you, alone, created that profit?  And, if not, what is the ratio of company profit to your current salary you can prove is directly attributable to your work, and not the work of others who (in spite of any overarching direction you may have given) exercise autonomy in decision-making that affects the overall health of the company every day?"

    That "provable percentage" directly attributable to the CEO would affect that claimed ratio, would it not?  It would certainly seem to affect the validity of said ratio.

    Don't get me wrong; I never said CEOs shouldn't make more than other employees.  But you're not arguing a binary, you're arguing a matter of degree.  I would ask that you provide more causative evidence to directly support the degree you claim is necessary.  And if we're unable to do so (EDIT- by do so, I mean provide more causative evidence)...  What does that say about the strength of that argument by degree?
    GdemamiCryomatrix

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.