The Occupy Wall Street protests

Maybe you're only seeing things the way you want (boy that's stating the obvious ) but I've seen signs and heard interviews with topics from abortion to racism and everything in between.

Many of these people don't even know why they're complaining. If this is simply an "up or down thing" why are they just complaining now? Did this issue just arise? Are you truly attempting to say politics aren't involved in this?

It's pretty obvious the targets are limited. Once again it's a perfect example of double-standards and hypocrisy.

I thought "Hope & Change", stimulus programs, "Cash for Clunkers", bailouts, "shovel-ready projects", and getting rid of Bush were supposed to solve all these problems. I guess the Chosen One is just a false prophet. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake twice.

 

I haven't kept up with the protests much but have heard quite a few responses regarding "what it's all about" that have varied significantly.

I think it's fairly obvious that "some" of the CEOs of today are able to significantly increase their own compensation without sufficient regulation. Then, the other CEOs in the industry realize they are "underpaid" and have supporting evidence to bump up their pay to match the crooked CEOs. If this continues to happen, does that 25 times ('70) that increased to 300 times (today) comparison eventually become 1,000 times, etc?

If there were proposed legislation to address the out of control increases, would these same CEOs have enough of a voice to tell their politicians to shoot them down quickly? If so, is it at least possible to sever this link?

 

Then don't invest in those companies. Geez, do I have to tell you everything?

 

according to who? you? you are always wrong to get into the game of deciding who gets paid what, unless you are doing the paying. it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of freedom that people who are not you pay each other amounts that are not your concern.

 

Exactly. Liberals want what's "fair" without any regard for what's fair to the ones who own what they want.

 

presumably you are implying that the 1% are actually better than us (at earning money), like baseball players are better than me at baseball. you are correct.

it is a good thing i am not infected with this infantile jealousy about relative wealth. get some ****ing perspective. if you live in america, you are already killing basically everyone else on earth with money and opportunity. so play it that way if you want to worry about relative wealth.

 

i mean really how much do we need to consume? how much of the 1%'s money do we need? we are a nation of fat ****s with more **** that we could ever use. i am poor as hell and even i own so much **** it drives me crazy. i cant understand what we are complaining about.

there is 1 thing in america that is expensive. 1 thing. health care. and that is because it is expensive to hire these folks with a zillion years of education to fix you. if you struggle to afford a quadruple bypass or 5 year of chemoptherapy, i undertsand. but you will be able to afford it even less if you tax the rich. ALL TAXES HURT THE POOR

 

This is a little off topic and may(?) not be directly related to the protests but that Enron documentary keeps coming to mind. Ken Lay and others fought hard to de-regulate specific industry norms to allow them to recognize increased profits, in turn affecting their personal compensation. While Lay, Skilling, Fastow, and others may have done some illegal things (esp towards the end), much of their activity was legal (although unethical) since they had effectively changed the rules of the game. Should they have been able to have that much influence? Do the CEOs of today still have that influence or has it been diminished?

Regarding the compensation issue, I guess martin has a good point. I've worked in large corporations and have friends that do also. I keep hearing everyone say that their company has bypassed raises again while CEO/CFO/COO compensation continues to sky rocket. I guess that's just the way it's going to be and gives me something to shoot for down the road.

 

the probelm with those companies was not regulation. it simply was fraud. they were lying on their financial reports. there are already regulations against fraud. the issue has nothing to do with executive compensation. and if you have a brain you diidnt have your retirement tied up in enron stock.

lets say for the sake of argument that steve jobs make 1 billion as a salary. wouldnt that be fair? he increased the value of apple by many times that. so isnt he worth it?

dont answer. because it was a trick question. it is none of our business what he is paid or how much apply wants to pay him. ig you are an apply shareholder and you think he makes too much you should sell your stock. same with any other company.

executive comp is a non-issue. it is meant to help liberals by advancing class envy. the oldest trick in the marxist playbook. it plays on the weaker aspects of human nature.

just do your thing, dont worry what others make. you wont ever be happy worrying about that.

 

That's not entirely true. It was part regulation and part fraud. Mark to market was taken advantage of but was agreed to by the regulators. However, my question is, if a kid is a fatass and eating too much candy, do you sit there and yell at the kid or do you yell at the parents. The kid (business) is doing the only thing it know how to do, eat a ****load of candy. The parents (government) are the ones who need to do something about it if something needs to be done. So why do they keep yelling at the kid. It makes their whole cause reek of attention seeking whorishness.