So, in the instance you're using, how many other jobs would potentially be "saved" vs. the number "lost". Hypothetically, because I know it varies by company.

 

And, does that mean that of the jobs saved, those people's livlihoods, or jobs, are deemed more "important" to the company than those lost?

I couldn't put a number to it as it would definitely vary depending on the company. But if the company moves manufacturing but doesn't fold then you would still have nonproduction jobs available. If they have distribution here in the states then you would need warehouse workers, truck drivers, sales force, and probably a few others I am not thinking about. Sure it would be far less then the if the production was still in the states but it's something. Far better then everyone losing their job.

"CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

The average annual salary for a U.S. worker in 2005 according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics was $39,795.33. Based on a 40 hour week, a CEO making more than $33,333 in ten minutes ($3,333.33 per minute) would have a weekly (2,400 minutes) salary of about $8 million and an annual salary of about $416 million. How many CEOs met that qualification? 0.

 

The $39,795.33 is based on working only 40 hours/week?

 

CEO's only work 40 hrs/week?

 

What does the "average" (is there such a thing?) CEO make?

I'm not trying to vilify anyone. And yes, I'm very cost-conscious. I don't hate Wal-Mart, and I don't hate companies who do what they need to do to reduce costs to stay competitive.

 

I've often posted that part of the problem that people don't take into account when railing against the companies that do this, is that labor unions, while serving a purpose, have pretty much tied the hands of owners because of their historic lack of compromise. Wages have been historically very good for union workers in manufacturing, benefits as well. But, by being so rigid, they priced their workers out of their jobs, IMO. There's plenty of blame to share, including the "average" American.

Please don't think that was directed towards you personally. I was speaking more in general then specifics.

 

And I completely agree with the rest of your post. Look no further then GM for an example of enough blame to go around. Yes GM could have made a ton of better decisions but the Union has played a huge roll in bringing them down.

So...they giveth....and they taketh away...and they benefit when they send the jobs oversees. Doesn't that say that they're more concerned about their own well-being than the domestic employees they origninally hired?

 

How are they carrying "us" on their backs, if they aren't creating jobs for people in America?

 

If 20 of us go a lunch buffet where it costs us $100 and I pay $60 of it, yeah, I'm carrying you on my back. Or at least my wallet. As to the jobs, they are still being created daily in this country. I have to wonder why they're still taking the risk as they put everything on the line, work their tails off, then when they're successful people think paying 60% of the taxes isn't paying their "fair share". Plus, some people scream about them making their money off the backs of the workers if they do create jobs.

Edited March 7, 200917 yr by rockmom
fixed quote

The $39,795.33 is based on working only 40 hours/week?

 

CEO's only work 40 hrs/week?

 

What does the "average" (is there such a thing?) CEO make?

According to Forbes, the highest CEO salary for 2005 was Yahoo's Terry Semel at $230 million.

Some CEOs do make $10.4 million a year. That's about the average for the top 500 companies. Some Obama supporters do even better, including Steven Spielberg, who makes $110 million a year; George Clooney, $25 million; Matt Damon, $24 million; Will Smith, $31 million. Do we hear Obama making a fuss about them?

The $39,795.33 is based on working only 40 hours/week?

 

CEO's only work 40 hrs/week?

 

What does the "average" (is there such a thing?) CEO make?

 

Last figure I heard for the fortune 500 companies was $10 million a year.

Last figure I heard for the fortune 500 companies was $10 million a year.

:thumb:

 

According to Forbes, the highest CEO salary for 2005 was Yahoo's Terry Semel at $230 million.

Some CEOs do make $10.4 million a year. That's about the average for the top 500 companies. Some Obama supporters do even better, including Steven Spielberg, who makes $110 million a year; George Clooney, $25 million; Matt Damon, $24 million; Will Smith, $31 million. Do we hear Obama making a fuss about them?

$10 mill/$40 thousand = 250

 

So, if Obama has instead said that the average CEO makes 250 times what the average worker makes, you would have been okay with his comparison?

Edited March 7, 200917 yr by True blue (and gold)
remove superfluous zeroes

$10 mill/$40 thousand = 250,000

 

So, if Obama has instead said that the average CEO makes 250 times what the average worker makes, you would have been okay with his comparison?

 

As long as he said fortune 500 company I'm ok with it as it's factual.

Here's some examples before he was even elected. He was stiring the pot then to get himself elected.

 

1. January 20, 2008, "The Great Need of the Hour" speech on MLK Day

 

 

"We have a [moral] deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months."

 

2. Radio ad in the Texas primary race

 

 

"Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

 

3. April 11, 2008, REUTERS article quoting Obama in Indianapolis

 

 

"Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year."

 

No class envy is those comments.

 

I'm not sure how that would be considered class envy, particularly since neither class nor envy were discussed. However, I would consider that a justifiable criticism of American capitalism.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not sure how that would be considered class envy, particularly since neither class nor envy were discussed. However, I would consider that a justifiable criticism of American capitalism.

 

I'm with you. I see it as hyperbole. Something every single politician, without exception, engages in so they can "fire up" the constituency.

It absolutly is class warfare by it's very nature.

 

BTW, those 5% of the families are already carrying the rest of us on their backs.

 

Unless the flat tax comes into play, then by definition its always "class warfare" so what's new here?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Absolutely! Should be as plain as the nose on one's face. :thumb:

Unless the flat tax comes into play, then by definition its always "class warfare" so what's new here?

 

Nothing really, it's no different than"tax cuts for the rich".