Coffeehouse Thread

77 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

EU opportunity for good jobs < nepotism; albeit DE

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , cbae wrote

    Even if the statements are true, which is not the case, how is any of that socialism? Where is he advocating social or government ownership of the means of production?

    And you didn't answer any of my questions. Do you see nothing wrong with the egregious wealth imbalance that we are witnessing today? What do you think the average CEO in the US makes compared to his/her own workers?

    Socialism is much broader then that single definition you have given. One can also consider bringing free institutions under government control, socialism. And if you look at your definition, 49% of the Dutch GDP is spent by government, US is about 40%, that should be a good indication that we have socialist governments. 

    Let me ask you this then;

    How much would the workers make without CEO's?

    Z E R O !

    Flip the question around, how much would a CEO make without any employees?

    Z E R O !

    They need one another, so it's in their best interest to keep each other happy. It's the symbiotic relationship between capital and labor, one cannot exist without the other.

    When government sticks it's nose in and provides favors to the one party at the expense of the other, this tension between capital and labor becomes out of balance. Then you end up with either over paid or under achieving CEOs and employees. The more you twist and turn, the more out of balance it becomes and you end up where we are now.

    It's staring you right in the face, yet you do not wish to look it into it's eyes.

    But it doesn't really matter, the US has to come up with several hundreds trillion dollars in the next 50 years to pay off all it's debts. So the whole thing will come crashing down soon anyway, maybe just after the EU crumbles.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    And once again a thread gets derailed. How about you get it back on topic and stop pooping all over threads, or I'll just lock them. There's a nanny state for you right there.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Good, I see you edited some constructiveness into your post.

    *snip*

    No. Because in the wake of that 1% will be the 99% who get wealthier (not rich, wealthier).

    The 99% get wealthier but not rich. And how is that a bad thing?

    *snip*

    No. You get paid close to what you produce. If that is little, you get paid little.

    So a Chinese worker making iPhones should be making way more than $8 per day salary then right? Because he certainly produces way more than $8 per day.

    So if a CEO employs a million people and he takes 1%, he will very fast make hundred times more then they do. But they still earn close to what they produce and if they don't like the percentage, they are free to move elsewhere. 

    CEOs don't produce anything. CEOs are overhead. You need to stop sucking up to corporate executives, as if they're some kind of demigods.

    And having a CEO employ a million people is at the heart of the "too big to fail" problem. Don't give CEOs an excuse to justify such a huge salary just because he employs so many people. If he fucks up and costs 1 million people their jobs, are his personal consequences any greater than if he employed only 100? That's a big fat "NO". He's going to end up with $50 million golden parachute instead of a $100K golden parachute.

    What do you propose? A tax on the top? So that he has to take even a bigger share of the income, so that the little guy get's even less wage, but now he is dependent on government, who also takes a cut?

    No, you give tax breaks for smaller corporation. This will incentivize corporations to stay small. You also break them up if they start forming oligopolies. Don't wait until they become monopolies.

    *snip*

    No. It's a profit and loss system, we can't all be winners.

    Nobody is saying everybody should be winner. What we can't have is 99% of the people being losers. Capitalism can't exist under those conditions.

    What would you like as a solution? Everybody wins? How would you go about implementing that? Communism?

    Did I say everybody should win? You only know the extremes, don't you?

    *snip*

    Yes, and you are willing to spend even more of their money on stimulus packages to give to large corporations, KUDOS!

    Most of the stimulus money went to tax breaks. Doesn't that mean that the government took even less of the people's money by force, as you like to call it? You really need to get your facts before making an * of yourself with statements like this.

    Or did you miss that the FED is going to print 40 BILLION a MONTH bailing out the banks and their CEO's?

    The solution is not MORE government control, but LESS.

    Make sure you don't have to learn the lesson we are learning over here.

    For about the millionth time, the banks needed to be bailed out to avert a global economic depression. That's the end of pipe solution to avoid a disaster. The front of pipe solution to prevent the possibility of this crisis from ever happening again, is to regulate the * out of the banks, because it's plainly obvious except to the densest of people that capitalism cannot self-regulate. There is no such thing as pure capitalism anyway. It's an invisible pink unicorn. You're never going to see it in your lifetime. So don't delude yourself into think you can.

    We have to work within the given parameters: government must exist in order for capitalism to exist. And within these parameters we've tried going to one extreme of laissez-faire capitalism several times, and each time ended with near disaster. We can slowly turn the notch the other way without taking it to 11. Or in Maddus's world does there exist only 0 or 11?

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    Socialism is much broader then that single definition you have given. One can also consider bringing free institutions under government control, socialism. And if you look at your definition, 49% of the Dutch GDP is spent by government, US is about 40%, that should be a good indication that we have socialist governments. 

    "Spent by government" means corporations are on the receiving end of the transaction. How is that socialism?

    Let me ask you this then;

    How much would the workers make without CEO's?

    Z E R O !

    Flip the question around, how much would a CEO make without any employees?

    Z E R O !

    They need one another, so it's in their best interest to keep each other happy. It's the symbiotic relationship between capital and labor, one cannot exist without the other.

    It would be good if it were a symbiotic relationship. The truth is, it's more like a parasitic relationship. Take a wild guess which is the host and which is the parasite.

    And you don't honestly think CEOs represent the capital, do you? You're not even using the right term here. A CEO is neither labor nor capital. Again, a CEO is OVERHEAD.

    When government sticks it's nose in and provides favors to the one party at the expense of the other, this tension between capital and labor becomes out of balance. Then you end up with either over paid or under achieving CEOs and employees. The more you twist and turn, the more out of balance it becomes and you end up where we are now.

    You're now blaming the fat cat salaries that CEOs receive on government? Bwahaha. You've really lost it. Seriously.

    It's staring you right in the face, yet you do not wish to look it into it's eyes.

    But it doesn't really matter, the US has to come up with several hundreds trillion dollars in the next 50 years to pay off all it's debts. So the whole thing will come crashing down soon anyway, maybe just after the EU crumbles.

    Maybe this will happen. You know who has the most to lose if everybody has to start again from zero? Unfortunately, greed is so blinding it's difficult to see that the 1%'s unrelenting desire to keep all of their wealth is only slitting their own throats. In a game, when one person ends up with all the money, the money ends up being worthless. Because the GAME ENDs. We need to do whatever we can to keep the game going. And if that means "the government has to take the money by force" from the wealthy, then so be it. It's really for their own good.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , blowdart wrote

    And once again a thread gets derailed. How about you get it back on topic and stop pooping all over threads, or I'll just lock them. There's a nanny state for you right there.

    Sorry. I'm done.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    The article mentions that southern EU countries are worst regarding nepotism; Spain, Italy, Greece.

    I don't think those countries are as eager to correct nepotistic actions as their northern counterparts.

    Germany has the advantage due to the east/west not knowing each other well enough so that the culture of "who you know" hasn't had time to grow into hard lines. I like that. They are kicking arse, too (as usual).

    Blowdart quoted an article that points out how family owned corporations handed down to successive family generations are proof the nepotism is a working and workable model. I think that's a bit superficial. It doesn't address public employment, which it would have to do in order to be true. Of course, nepotism has no place in public employment.

    If a family has capable offspring to hand business control over to, then that is workable, but many times the offspring are not capable and the business is run by hand-picked experts within the corporation and the offspring gets the big title and no teeth. Their parents/family lets them know that their ideas will first be vetted before being brought before the board members. Once their parents die, they are a serious liability to the company and companies can dissolve pretty quickly. I know a few of these scenarios from front row seats at small companies. Publicly traded corporations would yield a board who is not so interested in seeing CEO hand control over to an offspring. They may prevent it outright. Publicly traded companies are no longer family owned, of course, but usually the families hold onto a majority of shares. This is where nepotism is not a given right and should not be allowed without the board of directors vetting the offspring's capability, imho.

    Nepotism can bring unqualified workers into the light. Those who 'recommended' the unqualified and exposed worker now has egg on his face. He recommended an incompetent worker. His word is now no longer honorable. His reputation suffers. This is why only a parent would push an unqualified worker into a job, because only a parent is that biased in favor of an incompetent worker. I suspect that in Spain and Italy, there is little if any backlash for a 'recommended' putz failing miserably. That would be a major difference from the USA right there. True?

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    , JohnAskew wrote

    That would be a major difference from the USA right there. True?

    I give you the Kennedy and Bush families.

    No, it's not different at all.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    @JohnAskew: I think stock shares that pass from the deceased to beneficiary should be taxed right away as inheritance tax. This will force inheritors of large equity positions in publicly traded companies to sell some of the stock to pay the tax liabilities. As Winston Churchill stated, the estate tax is "a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich". When the wealth of the rich is 90% held in stock, then it's not much of a corrective. The "step-up in basis" rule for stock essentially wipes out any tax liability for the beneficiaries since the cost basis for the stock is adjusted to the current fair market value when the shares exchange hands.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    @cbae: +1  

    ...Warren Buffett isn't spoiling his offspring, at least not %100...

    Great Sir Winston Churchill quote, and I've been looking for a good quote to bark out ceremoniously with cigar and toddy in hand.

    Smiley

    @blowdart: I concede things are not so different, at least not in UK or DE, but Spain and Italy???

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @blowdart: I concede things are not so different, at least not in UK or DE, but Spain and Italy???

    It's the same in the whole western world. Some things are better, some things are worse, but overall it all balances out.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    , PaoloM wrote

    *snip*

    It's the same in the whole western world. Some things are better, some things are worse, but overall it all balances out.

    True. The shoes are way better in Italy. The accents though are very silly.

     

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @cbae:

    Terrible terrible idea.

    1) you force tax on something of unstable value.

    2) like you said, people will sell large amount of inherited stock as "Predicted". That opens up so much problems, including making the stock very unstable.

    3) back to point one. Tax on something could potentially be zero is just ridiculous.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Whatever the system is, the fact is unchanged. A country's economy is heavily based on the competitiveness globally. When the workforce cannot offer good quality workers at reasonable price, the country will lose its competitiveness.

    All the factors only plays a part of the equation, nepotism, government involvement, war, crime, education. But in the end of all, the answer is in ourselves. Can we produce quality product at competitive price? If not, then, explain to me why someone should spend more money on us to produce equal or less quality products? Without that, doesn't matter it is nepotism or not, there is no job because we are expensive.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , blowdart wrote

    And once again a thread gets derailed. How about you get it back on topic and stop pooping all over threads, or I'll just lock them. There's a nanny state for you right there.

    Dude, care to elaborate?

    Discussion was about an article that stated that nepotism was the cause/major contributing factor of unemployment of the youth in southern countries. I raised a point that I believe that this effect was not the main cause, but laws that protect the workers are the significant factor.

    How is that pooping all over threads?

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    double

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    @Maddus Mattus: I think Blowdart's point is that this thread is about Nepotism, not about the general state of the employment market (which would result in another 7-page rambling thread where you and cbae argued political dogma).

    Herbie

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @Dr Herbie: ah, I see,..

    I'll refrain from getting into those types of debates in the future,..

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , JohnAskew wrote

    I don't think those countries are as eager to correct nepotistic actions as their northern counterparts.

    Why would one need to 'correct' it?

    It's their business, so it's theirs to do with as they please.

    And I really don't think that adding yet another tax is really the way to go.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.