$168 Per Day

[Funkyterrance]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

[Symmetry]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

[Night Strike]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

The minimum wage has done more to harm young workers and unskilled workers than any CEO's pay has harmed them.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

From the Federal Election Comission:

Family Dollar Store: Did not appear to support any Political Action Committees

Howard Levine:
- November 3, 2000 - $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee
- June 1, 2012 - $2,000 to Jim Pendergraph (Republican)
- October 30, 2006 - $250 to Joe Liberman (at that point, Republican?)
- November 18, 2003 - $500 to Sue Myrick (Republican)
- October 7, 2002 - $250 to Sue Myrick (Republican)
- October 30, 2012 - $2,000 to Jennifer Roberts (Democrat)
- April 20, 2012 - $1,000 to Jim Pendergraph (Republican)
- September 25, 2002 - $500 to Chris Kouri (Democrat)

Boeing:

2012 PAC summary - $2,590,590 total receipts; $2,641,403 spent. Contributions totalled 43% to Democrats and 57% to Republicans

James McNerney:

- December 28, 2011 - $1,000 to George Allen (Republican)

Walmart:

2012 PAC Summary - $2,992,289 total receipts; $3,119,794 spent. Contributions totalled 50% to Democrats and 50% to Republicans.

Michael Duke:

- April 17, 2007 - $1,000 to Mike Huckabee (Republican)
- Various - $300 each for four periods to the Arvest Bank Group PAC (unaffiliated)
- Various - $500 to $1,000 each for four periods to John Boozman (Republican)
- September 15, 2000 - $500 to Republican Party of Kansas (Republican)
- May 1, 2001 - $500 to Tim Hutchinson (Republican)
- November 18, 2003 - $2,000 to Bush (Republican)
- July 28, 2005 - $500 to Donald Young (Republican)
- March 27, 2000 - $500 to Bush (Republican)

Also - shall I re-re-re-post the "who makes minimum wage" data again, lest we forget that pretty much everyone makes more than minimum wage and that the unstated purpose of the minimum wage is to get union employees' salaries higher?

[Funkyterrance]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.
Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

[Symmetry]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.
Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

[Juan_Bottom]

You see, JB here is a true believer in the paradigm. Who needs critical thinking when you have a quasi-religious calling to promote class warfare instead of actually trying to look at the underlying foundation of what everything is built on. Namely, the currency system.

This is why nothing can ever get fixed, because the true believers worshiping in their church of social justice only believe what their preacher is preaching to them.

And this is also why when the current currency system finally collapses it will be replaced by an equally flawed system and the whole misery and strife will just start right back over again.

Well, I guess it keeps mankind consistent.
It's not so much that history keeps repeating itself, it's more that human beings keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

Oh well, I tried.

Best of luck solving the world's problems!

You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

You guys are missing the point. NS's thread here appears to be attacking the poor, while totally ignoring the fact that we have CEO's in this country making $16,400K an hour. WTF? CEO compensation is up 726.7%!!!! The stock market is up. Corporate profit margins have never been higher. But wages as a percentage of GDP have never been lower. Businesses have been getting rich by taking away your money.

If you want to blame someone, why not blame the rich people who are pathologically hoarding so much cash that they are impoverishing everyone else? Or how about the politicians who's retarded views appear to mirror everyone else's in that the Wal*Mart babies are smart business people who deserve extra tax breaks while their workers make so little they are on the dole and forced to shop at Wal*mart. While CEO compensation rose by 727% between '78 and 2011, ours rose just 5.7%. They got all that extra money by not giving you your share. This elite class of citizens was not born to be your lords and ladies. Nobody was born spurred and nobody was born saddled. You want to blame the a system that spends $168 a day per poor person for why this country is fucked?
Well, I'm going to point one finger at you and one finger at the guy who makes $16,400 a day.

Once the Bush tax cuts end, we're going to save a trillion dollars. This is a filthy-rich country and there is a lot of wealth here, but we lock it up. There's money everywhere, and not just in the tax loopholes or offshore accounts. What did Clinton figure out that we can't figure out for ourselves?




Even with this disparity, we're still the richest nation. This country isn't fucked yet. Solidarity Forever.

[patches70]

You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

I don't care about your class warfare rhetoric. All you are doing is attempting to throw down one set of elites and replace them with another set of elites. And you don't even identify the right problem. The CEO pay is but a consequence of the debt based currency.

""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".- Jefferson

Considering what you are railing against, you might want to reread that Jefferson quote a few more times until it finally sinks in.

You're like a doctor giving the flu patient a tissue instead of fighting the very virus that is causing the sickness.

[Symmetry]

You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

I don't care about your class warfare rhetoric. All you are doing is attempting to throw down one set of elites and replace them with another set of elites. And you don't even identify the right problem. The CEO pay is but a consequence of the debt based currency.

""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".- Jefferson

Considering what you are railing against, you might want to reread that Jefferson quote a few more times until it finally sinks in.

Your like a doctor giving the flu patient a tissue instead of fighting the very virus that is causing the sickness.

"You're"

[Funkyterrance]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.
Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

No, that's an extreme oversimplification in your mind. I didn't even imply that. You are putting words in my mouth and projecting. It's just the facts, I haven't opined when was better/worse, just that it stands to reason that this is the issue at hand.

[Symmetry]

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.
Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

No, that's an extreme oversimplification which you wrote, I didn't even imply that. You are putting words in my mouth and projecting. It's just the facts, I haven't opined when was better/worse.

Historically, I disagree.

[Funkyterrance]

If you want to blame someone, why not blame the rich people who are pathologically hoarding so much cash that they are impoverishing everyone else? Or how about the politicians who's retarded views appear to mirror everyone else's in that the Wal*Mart babies are smart business people who deserve extra tax breaks while their workers make so little they are on the dole and forced to shop at Wal*mart. While CEO compensation rose by 727% between '78 and 2011, ours rose just 5.7%. They got all that extra money by not giving you your share. This elite class of citizens was not born to be your lords and ladies. Nobody was born spurred and nobody was born saddled. You want to blame the a system that spends $168 a day per poor person for why this country is fucked?
Well, I'm going to point one finger at you and one finger at the guy who makes $16,400 a day.

Once the Bush tax cuts end, we're going to save a trillion dollars. This is a filthy-rich country and there is a lot of wealth here, but we lock it up. There's money everywhere, and not just in the tax loopholes or offshore accounts. What did Clinton figure out that we can't figure out for ourselves?
Even with this disparity, we're still the richest nation. This country isn't fucked yet. Solidarity Forever.

Ok, let's look at it from this perspective:
Do you personally buy any products/services from corporate owned companies? Isn't it really consumer buying habits then that are to blame? If nobody bought products/services from corporate owned enterprises there would be no big fat CEO's grubbing all the profits. The low prices gained by the corporate structure are what's attractive to people but then they don't like the consequences of their support. Why is it so easily forgotten that the two things are connected?

[Night Strike]

Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

[Metsfanmax]

Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?