Views expressed on this website are those of the person or persons posting the message and does not reflect the views of Gogouyave.com
Rules Of this Talk Shop
Do not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, obscene, vulgar, hateful, abusive, threatening, or an invasion of a person's privacy, or otherwise a violation of any laws.
So please! please! try to keep your posts clean. Webmaster
You can’t take shelter from the rain if there is no roof over your head. It makes no difference whether the floor and the side walls are already up, if there is no roof the rain will surely come through, and there won't be any place to shelter. So it's importance cannot be minimized.
But as important as the roof is, how can it cover anything if there are no supporting side walls and pillars to hold it up? That leaves us asking the question, which is the single most important part of the house? Some may regard the roof as the most important for obvious reasons, but by how much more importance is it than those walls?
As simple as this analogy may seem, yet it helps put the concept of importance in perspective. When I hear of CEOs making thousands and thousands times more salary than the workers upon whom they must depend to make their business succeed, my mind reverts to this housing analogy. Is it fair that those leaders ought to be making so many, many times more than the worker?
We must have seen the workers protests against Wal-Mart on t/v over this Thanksgiving weekend. How could Wal-Mart in good conscience argue that they cannot afford to pay better wages to workers since the buying public is demanding that the prices of their goods be held down? Why should it always be the workers’ wages that must bear the brunt of cost cutting in order to satisfy the consumer's wishes? Why not the CEO? Why not settle for less profit?
It completely blows my mind when the huge profits that these companies make are announced time and time again. Now I am not against a fair return on investment. After all that’s why people invest in the first place. But to continually expect ever-growing profits, give huge bonuses to CEOs, but use the argument that the worker should not expect or demand better wages is simply unconscionable, and from my perspective impossible to justify.
That is why I began with the housing analogy to ask "how many times over is the roof more important than the supporting side walls?" How does one assign value to importance?
I agree, the workers should not be paid salaries that condemn them to poverty; however, there is a mathematical way to look at this.
Let's say the CEO for the sake of argument makes $100 million a year, there are over 2 million walmart workers. If the CEO is not paid a penny and his $100 million dollars is added to the underpaid employees, that will just be equal to an average of $50 increase a year in their salary= about $4 extra a month.
So to solve the problem, NO MORE $99 DOLLARS TV, NO MORE 'CHEAP CLOTHES', EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THE STUFF.ARE YOU/ WE READY TO PAY MORE?
Capitalism at work brother.
And if they refuse to fill the position, Walmart maybe able to petition for a certificate of need and import foreigners to fill the positions- some of the immigrants will be more than willing to work for even less.
Man, there are so many hospital crying out for doctors and the hospitals have to import junior doctors just recently out of medical training to fill those slots; yet there are so many unemployed people in this country. Why?
It's obvious that one of us failed somewhere in the dialogue. It's either that I did not make myself clearly enough for you to respond to my real point; or even though my point was clear you failed to get it and therefore responded to what I did not say.
Re-read my original post and you'll see that I never said that the CEO's salary should be redistributed among the workers. That would have been the only way that your mathematical equation would pertain to the discussion. But I never said so, so I am failing to see the relevance. Take a minute to note that in the analogy to the house I wrote "Some may regard the roof as the most important for obvious reasons, but by how much more importance is it than those walls?" Substitute CEO for roof and workers for supporting walls and you might start to understand what I was saying.
Let me again restate the main concern I voiced in case I didn't make it clear enough for you to understand: >>Is it fair that those leaders ought to be making SO MANY, MANY TIMES MORE (capitalized for emphasis) than the worker?<<
Now if you wish to respond, and stick to that essential question, then we'd be talking about the same thing and be related to my question.
Btw, I certainly agree with you that >> the workers should not be paid salaries that condemn them to poverty.<<
And here is what I am suggesting to help get that extra monies to pay them. I am suggesting that it could come either from a REDUCTION in the NUMBER OF TIMES MORE that the CEO is paid, or reducing the unbelievably huge profits that these companies make.
I have nothing against Capitalism. I would never have freely chosen to live here if I had, so I understand your "Capitalism at work brother." But to my way of thinking, unadulterated capitalism without empathy is unconscionable. That will explain why I'll continue to find it rather difficult to relate to the Republican Party's way of thinking.
Finally, I would have loved to refer to you likewise as "brother," but I have no idea who on earth you are (lol).
There was no failure in your ORIGINAL COMMENTS and there WAS NO FAILURE IN MY COMMENT. You touched on an important topic that many people talk about and that has been on the news recently. I understand clearly what you were saying in your initial comment TEACHER( and you are not the only one sir,and btw, not knowing who I am does not make me not your brother , LOL).
I see beyond problems, I think about solutions, i.e possible solution scenarios and when the solutions are presented that sometimes help us put things in perspective.
Mathematical facts are mathematical facts Mr.
And if forfeiting the CEO total salary or "rip off" as some may call it will not make a dent in the employees finances, I don't see how reducing the CEO's salary to an amount greater than zero will make a significant financial difference to the employees.
So that leaves us with the only other option which is you and I and all those who shop at Walmart paying much more for our goods, more for our prescribed drugs, or maybe we can start tipping the workers/ employees at Walmart.
your fellow Gouyaveman.
Since there was no failure in communication by either one of us, let's therefore agree to continue seeing things from different perspectives. You hold on to your views, and I'll hold on to mine. How about that?
Be of good cheer.