Confessions of a Welfare Queen

[carlosMM]

In Germany, parties must declare large contributions and get money by vote %.
The CDU had TONS of illegal 'black' money, got busted. Tried to lie their way out of it. A few heads rolled.

ex-chancellor Helmut Kohl REFUSED to name the donors (obstruction of justice), claiming he had given his word of honor. He got a tiny fine. NORMAL punishment would be finding him in contempt of court dan jailing him until he talked.

people still vote for the CDU, even a guy who BY JOB DESCRITPION should have known about the slush funds. He is on the way to become an important secretary after the next election.



What can we learn from this?

money wins. period.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by Renata
I didn't read the whole thing, just the first part, on flood insurance. It seemed to missing one vital piece of information: what does the government pay out in claims versus what it takes in in premiums? The implication given by the rhetoric is that the payout is overwhelmingly more than the amount collected, and the difference made up by us poor taxpayers. But the article never actually gives the numbers. For all the reader knows, the government could be making money off the Flood Insurance program that it's then able to *spend* on taxpayers. This would actually be a good program for the government! Undercutting those nasty greedy insurers and making some spending money into the bargain!

Anyway, whatever the case may actually be, the article itself is severly flawed by omitting this rather important piece of information.

Ren

I agree that the book should have listed the numbers, but if the government was truly making money off the flood insurance, why would private insurance carriers be undercut? They'd drop their rates close to the break-even point in order to compete in the market. Heck, if it meant getting the homeowners' other insurance business they'd probably include it even at at a slight loss. And why would our government be competing with private insurance carriers in any case?

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by stormbind


Similarly, I have never seen an example where lazai faire works. I have seen examples of where it was used... and it resulted in wide spread poverty, disease, famine, squallor, ignorance.

These are not examples of great civilisations, they are the oposite!

Please do us the favor of listing your examples.

 

[Renata]

Originally posted by IglooDude


I agree that the book should have listed the numbers, but if the government was truly making money off the flood insurance, why would private insurance carriers be undercut? They'd drop their rates close to the break-even point in order to compete in the market. Heck, if it meant getting the homeowners' other insurance business they'd probably include it even at at a slight loss. And why would our government be competing with private insurance carriers in any case?

Oh, I highly doubt the government is actually making money off the plan (although I *would * like to see the actual numbers. How much are we actually on the hook for? Telling me how much the insured property is worth is meaningless). And I have no informed opinion on whether government should or should not be 'in business', so to speak. I've just had it up to here with this style of reporting, where everything is insinuated and nothing is actually nailed down.

Renata

 

[Bobo the Ape]

Abuses of process are often used in this debate to imply that the process itself is flawed, yet this is not logical.
You may argue that:
- the process doesn't lead to the desired outcome (in which case identify a process that does better), or
- the desired outcome is wrong (in which case identify a more preferable outcome), or
- the process is being abused (in which case identify a way to address the abuse).
The problem with Newfangle's argument (and that of many commentators) is that he fundamentally disagrees with the desired outcome, but uses abuse of the process to support his argument.
So, if you believe the desired outcome is wrong (e.g. alleviation of poverty for those unable to work in the case of domestic welfare) then state your alternative and give reasons why you think it is better, but don't bring welfare abuse into it, it is irrelevant

Great post! Arguments ,for either side, based on feeling,emotion, and an extreme case or two are meaningless.

This post should be at the beginning of every debate in this forum.

On the specific case of Newfangle's argument I didn't see him state that he was against the"desired" outcome of individual welfare but rather the "actual" outcome. Most people agree on the same general desired outcome. The debate lies in the best road to take there.

 

[delsully]

Originally posted by Bobo the Ape


Really? As someone who's actually been personally affected by this , and not some disaffected student with a part time job screaming "Down with Corporate Greed!" I realize this. I also realize that most CEOs don't make the bulk of their money from salaries. Which is why CEOs like the head of Cisco are able to cut their salaries to zero in a PR move and still be rich.

1980-Ceo salaries are 25x higher than average employee of company
2000- CEO salaries are 415x higher than the average employee of company

Now, does it matter if it was a pink monkey yelling "down with corportate greed"?

 

[Double Barrel]

Originally posted by Renata
Oh, I highly doubt the government is actually making money off the plan (although I *would * like to see the actual numbers. How much are we actually on the hook for? Telling me how much the insured property is worth is meaningless). And I have no informed opinion on whether government should or should not be 'in business', so to speak. I've just had it up to here with this style of reporting, where everything is insinuated and nothing is actually nailed down.

Renata

Renata, no offense, but by your own admission you did not even read the whole article. Admittedly, it is a rather long one, but later he does give out figures for different handouts to rich people. And it is a simple fact that the government insurance program, The National Flood Insurance Program, "is currently the biggest property insurance writer in the United States, putting taxpayers on the hook for more than $640 billion in property."

The point of the article was pretty well summed up with the quote at the beginning: "Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law." - Oliver Goldsmith

The point being that money buys influence. Corporate "welfare" is pork that only serves the interests of those that buy the influence.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by IglooDude

Originally posted by stormbind


Similarly, I have never seen an example where lazai faire works. I have seen examples of where it was used... and it resulted in wide spread poverty, disease, famine, squallor, ignorance.

These are not examples of great civilisations, they are the oposite!

Please do us the favor of listing your examples.

The 18th Century had no comprehension of Socialism. Everything was lazai faire. Early Victorian Britain inherited that lazai faire concept...

As power increased they conducted regular census. They saw that the policy of lazai faire had resulted in:

1. Widespread poverty, especially in rural areas
2. Disease and frequent death, especially in city regions
3. No protection of workers, nothing to prevent exploitation of women and children
4. No mass education, no prospects for the masses
5. Poverty drew homeless people to the cities where they died en mass
6. Famine: Great potato famine. This is a prime example of misplaced belief in lazai faire.

Later Victorian Britain became the first "nanny state". They introduced worker rights, regulated industries, gave free (and later compulsory) education to children, abolished slavery and much more...

So you see that lazai faire has been put the test, it was used throughout the 18th Century but as people were not wealthy they didn't invest in census or investigate ways to improve the situation.

You also see the lazai faire was used in the 19th Century, but when coupled with wealth and power it's utter failure to protect the people and provide a decent standard of living was exposed.

The 19th Century documents survive today. You can read them youself.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@delsully

Now, does it matter if it was a pink monkey yelling "down with corportate greed"?

Anybody can yell whatever they want. I was simply stating why I might yell it. I personally think it's a stupid thing to yell. It means nothing. Every corporation is different and every CEO is different. Protesting against an abstract concept is pointless. You should be protesting specific companies and/or individuals.

2000- CEO salaries are 415x higher than the average employee of company

What you mean is compensation not salary. The average salary is something just over a million.

1,000,000 / 415 = $2409

Obviously this isn't the case. The real money is in the total
compensation package!

www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/

Now the compensation packages include things like stock options and such so it's not necessarily money being pulled directly from the companies for the coffers but let's ignore that and say.....

$10,830,000 / 415 = $26,096

ok....

www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWIgrowth.html

So it's actually more like $33,500 nationally. For the white collar jobs that make up the bulk of the workers in the companies these CEOs preside over it's even higher.

The question isn't about how much CEOs make compared to 20 years ago. The question is how much the average worker makes compared to 20 years ago. Is the average employee better off than they were in 1980? The unemployment rate was higher (7.1%) and they made less in real dollars.

 

[delsully]

OK, so it is compensation package. I'm not going to waste time on the semantics of terminology. The point remains that CEOs have compensated themselves far and away greater than the average worker has been. Sure, unemployment was slightly higher then but service workers are paid considerably less than the majority of manufacturing jobs that have been lost. The "less real dollar" earners in the 80's had their medical insurance paid for by the company. Today, most workers pay part of the premium out of their pocket (upwards of $500/month for some families) and had company pension plans (didn't have to contribute part of paycheck for 401K). As far as the white collar jobs you talk about, those that haven't been downsized, their wages have increased, as well as their work hours, stress, tasks, and premiums. Essentially, they have to do the work of their laid-off co-workers. Sounds like progress for the workingman.

 

[Bobo the Ape]

@delsully

OK, so it is compensation package. I'm not going to waste time on the semantics of terminology.

It's actually not necessarily semantics. Much of the compensation package may be in the form of options and such. These do not come out of the corporate bank account and do not affect the amount of money to pay the rest of the workers. I've been at two different companies that when they couldn't give out raises they just handed out more useless stock. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything.

The point remains that CEOs have compensated themselves far and away greater than the average worker has been.

So the guy at the top makes more? When in human existence was it not the case that the guy at the top was better off?

but service workers are paid considerably less than the majority of manufacturing jobs that have been lost

If a large amount of high paying jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs then the math says that average wages would drop. However, that's not the case.

Today, most workers pay part of the premium out of their pocket (upwards of $500/month for some families) and had company pension plans (didn't have to contribute part of paycheck for 401K)

I won't go through the disaffected student speech again .....but I know how much it costs to insure a family. This is about the rising cost of insurance and not "corporate greed". When the cost of employee benefits gets too high the company can either decrease the employees or the benefits.

You don't "have" to contribute any part of your paycheck to the 401K. It's up to you. Most companies will match what you put in. And you can transfer it if you leave the company. With pensions you cannot. You need to stay at the same company for however many years to receive it tying you even closer to the company. Plus the pension money still comes out of the workers paycheck. It's just that in the case of the pension they have no choice.

As far as the white collar jobs you talk about, those that haven't been downsized, their wages have increased, as well as their work hours, stress, tasks, and premiums. Essentially, they have to do the work of their laid-off co-workers. Sounds like progress for the workingman.

What does the unemployment rate have to do with "corporate greed"? While the salaries of most CEOs is huge in comparison to the average salary it's usually an incredibly small percentage of total operating costs. Simply cutting the CEOs money will have little if no impact on reviving most failing companies.

The point is this. The objective of most companies is to make money. It's not to provide benefits for it's employees. Benefits are there to attract employees. If the cost of doing business becomes greater than the revenues then,corporate welfare, the company fails and guess who gets hurt most?.......the working man not the CEO.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Bobo the Ape
It's actually not necessarily semantics. Much of the compensation package may be in the form of options and such. These do not come out of the corporate bank account and do not affect the amount of money to pay the rest of the workers. I've been at two different companies that when they couldn't give out raises they just handed out more useless stock. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything.
[/quote
semantics.
fact: the bosses have a way better living than the workers compared to the relation a few decades ago.

So the guy at the top makes more? When in human existence was it not the case that the guy at the top was better off?

You are avoiding the issue! The guy at the top is earning more and more each year in comparison to the worker - who also earny more and more, but the percentage is going down.
In case you weren't simply trying to avcoid the issue and really didn't get it:
if you earn $1000 and the boss $2000, then you earn 50% of his wage.
Now, if you later earn $2000, you have doubled your wage - but the boss will be at around $10,000 - essentially you suddenly only earn 20% of his wage.
Woudln't it be fair if you earn more and he less, keeping the 50%-relation?

or have, in the past 50 years, the workers gotten dumber and less productive while the bosses got smarter and carry more responsibility?

If a large amount of high paying jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs then the math says that average wages would drop. However, that's not the case.

Tsk, tsk, the median will drop, but the average can easily stay high - juest give the some huge sums to a very few top earners..... (which is what happenes)

When the cost of employee benefits gets too high the company can either decrease the employees or the benefits.

Or, when the cost of employment benefit gets too high, the company can look at who gets incredibly high benefits and cut them - i.e. the huge compensations for ex-managers who led the firm into near-ruin.

I am thinking here of quite a few cases of 50 million buck benefits for people who ruined large cmpanies - from that money you could have paid half the laid of workers for 2 years in one case!

You don't "have" to contribute any part of your paycheck to the 401K. It's up to you. Most companies will match what you put in. [/quot€]
Oh, great, you have the choice to stay uninsured - how nice of the company to let you!
Why do they not pay it all (as most used to?). To give you the choice of not doing it at all? How democratic!

What does the unemployment rate have to do with "corporate greed"? While the salaries of most CEOs is huge in comparison to the average salary it's usually an incredibly small percentage of total operating costs. Simply cutting the CEOs money will have little if no impact on reviving most failing companies.

Interestingly, this is not true - in many middle-sized firms the total wage&benefits package (compensation on getting fired included!!!) is NOT a negligible percentage of the firms PROFITS!

The point is this. The objective of most companies is to make money. It's not to provide benefits for it's employees. Benefits are there to attract employees. If the cost of doing business becomes greater than the revenues then,corporate welfare, the company fails and guess who gets hurt most?.......the working man not the CEO.

What firm is better off and is better for society:

Firm A makes a huge profit each year by giving no benefits whatsoever, paying minimum wage and not insuring the workers. It DOES however pay all the profit into buying sweatshop companies from Asia, risks the huge amounts also in the Stock Market and gives high profits for stock owners.

Firm B makes hardly a profit. It sells a huge amount of goods, pays out almost all the profit in wages and cannot afford to expand into the stock market.


Which is better?

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by carlosMM
You are avoiding the issue! The guy at the top is earning more and more each year in comparison to the worker - who also earny more and more, but the percentage is going down.
In case you weren't simply trying to avcoid the issue and really didn't get it:
if you earn $1000 and the boss $2000, then you earn 50% of his wage.
Now, if you later earn $2000, you have doubled your wage - but the boss will be at around $10,000 - essentially you suddenly only earn 20% of his wage.
Woudln't it be fair if you earn more and he less, keeping the 50%-relation? [/B]

Carlos and his leftwing nonsense......

Who cares what is fair! If a company (and its shareholders) want to pay the boss 10.000, it is their business! Not one single leftwing lunatic should have a say about it. This typical socialist feature of telling companies how much they should pay the bigshots does harm economy.
Companies do not pay large salaries because they like it! They do so, because the expect someone to make the company more effective, to make more money, to make a bigger profit.
In the end, that is what makes economy run and it is what will create jobs.

 

[carlosMM]

stapel: create jobs?

monimum wage jobs in africa, yes!

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Stapel
Companies do not pay large salaries because they like it! They do so, because the expect someone to make the company more effective, to make more money, to make a bigger profit.

Employers keep the best workers where they know they will work best - which means very little hope of promotion.

Why give someone promotion if they are most profitable on the ground floor? Think like a capitalist

The people who get promotion get it because they aren't that profitable in their current job, and maybe they will be more useful somewhere else in the company... sad but true.

And thus management inherently ends up being the most incompetent bunch you ever immagined. The reason they earn more is because a graduated scale maintains loyalty throughout the firm.

For example, the best engineers don't get moved out of engineering. It makes economic sense. They may work hard, have the qualifications, deserve and desire promotion to management but they ain't likely to get it if the company thinks it will make more profit from keeping them in the workshop.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by stormbind


Employers keep the best workers where they know they will work best - which means very little hope of promotion.

Why give someone promotion if they are most profitable on the ground floor? Think like a capitalist

The people who get promotion get it because they aren't that profitable in their current job, and maybe they will be more useful somewhere else in the company... sad but true.

And thus management inherently ends up being the most incompetent bunch you ever immagined. The reason they earn more is because a graduated scale maintains loyalty throughout the firm.

For example, the best engineers don't get moved out of engineering. It makes economic sense. They may work hard, have the qualifications, deserve and desire promotion to management but they ain't likely to get it if the company thinks it will make more profit from keeping them in the workshop.

Oh my God! This is exactly what goes wrong in the socialist's mind. Let me try to get this out of your head:
One does not deserve a promotion to management, because one has been a profitable engineer on the workfloor for a decade.

A promotion will be deserved, if one shows management capabilities.

You really seem to think that the best people on the workfloor are the best managers! That is 100% nonsense. Managing people or processes is different ballgame.

 

[carlosMM]

stapel: why then are most managers incapable and talk of shareholder value instead of securing market shares?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Stapel
A promotion will be deserved, if one shows management capabilities.

You really seem to think that the best people on the workfloor are the best managers! That is 100% nonsense. Managing people or processes is different ballgame.

I never said that, can you not read?

I said that the best workers don't get promotion. And if you read carefully I also said that the same applies even when they have the right qualifications for promotion.

A good manager works with the workers, understands the worker's needs and can improve productivity by acting on those needs.

Paper pushers in offices are not a good managers, never have been. But the good engineer is unlikely to get a chance to demonstrate his managerial skills because the company sees that he is very profitable where he is, no need for change.

However, an incompetent engineer may well get promotion... and may well make an incompetent manager as well

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by stormbind


I never said that, can you not read?

I said that the best workers don't get promotion. And if you read carefully I also said that the same applies even when they have the right qualifications for promotion.

A good manager works with the workers, understands the worker's needs and can improve productivity by acting on those needs.

Paper pushers in offices are not a good managers, never have been. But the good engineer is unlikely to get a chance to demonstrate his managerial skills because the company sees that he is very profitable where he is, no need for change.

However, an incompetent engineer may well get promotion... and may well make an incompetent manager as well

What in the world makes you think you understand who is a good manager and who not?

A board, that does what the shareholders want, will fire the poor engineer, reward the fine engineer, and promote whoever shows management skills.

In any case, the shareholders should decide! It is their money, their company.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by carlosMM
Stapel: why then are most managers incapable and talk of shareholder value instead of securing market shares?

First of all: Securing markets is not per se a good thing. The 'internet bubble' is a fine example.

Most managers do fine. But that is not the point. If I start a comapny and want to hire a poor manager for a million a year, that is MY business. Nobody should interfer with it.