Disturbing advances in Klimate Khange...

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Disturbing advances in Klimate Khange...

Disturbing advances in Klimate Khange...28-12-2018 22:24
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Saw this story in the news, a little disturbing, but probably doesn't mean much. https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/pelosi-taps-florida-democrat-to-lead-climate-change-panel/895525601 The only reason the 'House', would need a Climate Panel, would be to discuss ways to steal our paychecks. We've already got the IPCC to develop and market propaganda. The announcement of the panel, sounded like the words from a kool-aid (spiked with gin) chugging believer, so not likely to question the validity of IPCC propaganda. Hopefully Trump catch their slippery attempts sneak a carbon-tax past, in the ObamaCare fashion. The direct tax approach didn't float in France, guess this is how the Demoncrats hope to make one transparent (invisible), to a void protests, rioting, and looting. Trump's tax cut, just means to them, that we all have some spare change in our pockets, that they need to relieve us of the burden. Kind of like our annual raise at work, since Obama, just enough to cover the insurance increases. Not complaining about work, they don't have to give us that, or a lot of the perks. What's disturbing, is that the tax-masters, want to bring in experts, and really know ways to squeeze our bank accounts, and put the blame on our employers. Up until about 10 years ago, my employers were a lot more generous with perks and incentives, some of those were cash. Changed, when these were all considered compensation (wages), and taxed. These little perks weren't part of our paychecks, guaranteed, nor did everybody always get something. There were drawings for door prizes at company events, performance awards, ideas for safety, photo contest, Christmas gifts (actual gifts, like TVs, appliances, bicycles), several others. They tried to comply at first, there would still be prizes and gifts, but the winner had a small amount taken out of there check, as tax. Incentives where paid in weird amounts, to cover the tax. Gifts, turned to gift-cards. And now, any extras are rare. All the 'good' employee programs/incentives went away as well. The main ones, that work very well, were performance, attendance, and safety. I can understand how they slip those taxes in, probably during the Obama-bailout corporate bonus, where his friends with 'struggling businesses' weren't very discrete, with how they used their taxpayer funded windfall. They gave themselves bonuses, raises, and tropical retreat conferences. I use to think that a carbon-tax, carbon-credits/offsets were for corporations, and the consumers would just pay higher prices. Seems like the proposals are heading toward everyone, eventual becoming part of a carbon economy, and every household will be on a carbon credit/offset system as well. Seems like the average working man is going to get squeezed the hardest. We'll pay higher prices for commercial products and services, to pick up part of their tax, we'll be taxed at the pump, and taxed if we exceed our carbon quota. The goal is zero carbon emissions, so the government will have free run at adjusting those carbon limits, until we can no longer afford to burn anything.
29-12-2018 01:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Saw this story in the news, a little disturbing, but probably doesn't mean much. https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/pelosi-taps-florida-democrat-to-lead-climate-change-panel/895525601 The only reason the 'House', would need a Climate Panel, would be to discuss ways to steal our paychecks. We've already got the IPCC to develop and market propaganda. The announcement of the panel, sounded like the words from a kool-aid (spiked with gin) chugging believer, so not likely to question the validity of IPCC propaganda. Hopefully Trump catch their slippery attempts sneak a carbon-tax past, in the ObamaCare fashion. The direct tax approach didn't float in France, guess this is how the Demoncrats hope to make one transparent (invisible), to a void protests, rioting, and looting. Trump's tax cut, just means to them, that we all have some spare change in our pockets, that they need to relieve us of the burden. Kind of like our annual raise at work, since Obama, just enough to cover the insurance increases. Not complaining about work, they don't have to give us that, or a lot of the perks. What's disturbing, is that the tax-masters, want to bring in experts, and really know ways to squeeze our bank accounts, and put the blame on our employers. Up until about 10 years ago, my employers were a lot more generous with perks and incentives, some of those were cash. Changed, when these were all considered compensation (wages), and taxed. These little perks weren't part of our paychecks, guaranteed, nor did everybody always get something. There were drawings for door prizes at company events, performance awards, ideas for safety, photo contest, Christmas gifts (actual gifts, like TVs, appliances, bicycles), several others. They tried to comply at first, there would still be prizes and gifts, but the winner had a small amount taken out of there check, as tax. Incentives where paid in weird amounts, to cover the tax. Gifts, turned to gift-cards. And now, any extras are rare. All the 'good' employee programs/incentives went away as well. The main ones, that work very well, were performance, attendance, and safety. I can understand how they slip those taxes in, probably during the Obama-bailout corporate bonus, where his friends with 'struggling businesses' weren't very discrete, with how they used their taxpayer funded windfall. They gave themselves bonuses, raises, and tropical retreat conferences. I use to think that a carbon-tax, carbon-credits/offsets were for corporations, and the consumers would just pay higher prices. Seems like the proposals are heading toward everyone, eventual becoming part of a carbon economy, and every household will be on a carbon credit/offset system as well. Seems like the average working man is going to get squeezed the hardest. We'll pay higher prices for commercial products and services, to pick up part of their tax, we'll be taxed at the pump, and taxed if we exceed our carbon quota. The goal is zero carbon emissions, so the government will have free run at adjusting those carbon limits, until we can no longer afford to burn anything. Dead right. This is about control. Absolute control if they can manage it. It is about destroying constitutional government and converting the United States into a vast oligarchy (dictatorship by committee) when themselves as 'the elite'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-12-2018 11:27
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Really hope something breaks soon, the democrats are really overextending themselves, showing their true color. Trump's wall isn't that expensive, compared to how much the government spends each year. Much of that money will go back into the economy, in materials and labor. True, the wall won't stop much of anything, it's more of a symbol. We have locked doors on our homes, fenced yards, but we still get robbed. The wall just makes it a little more difficult, and obviously crossing the line, is a crime. Our elected legislators are there to represent the people. The majority, elected Trump, because they liked his ideas, and the wall was one of his key campaign issues. Should never have been questioned or obstructed, the people spoke at the polls. They would rather show their control and power, than do their jobs, and do what the people who elected them wanted. Have a hunch the Russian investigation will turn out to be two years of nothing as well. They don't give many details, since it's an ongoing investigation, but so far, the crimes seem pretty much technicalities, relatively minor offenses, and not related to collusion at all. Really think the democrats will go beyond what anyone is going to accept, since they are basking in their power and control. They won't be sneaky enough with the carbon-taxing, and squeeze way too hard. Even the true believers, aren't going to agree it's good for anyone.
30-12-2018 00:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Really hope something breaks soon, the democrats are really overextending themselves, showing their true color. That they are. I've not seen the country this polarized since WW2. This time, though, the ugly head of Marxism is rising up within our own country. This could blow up into a civil war. We've never had one in the United States before. The War of Secession (what schools teach as the 'civil war', but it wasn't) was bad enough. HarveyH55 wrote: Trump's wall isn't that expensive, compared to how much the government spends each year. It's a drop in the bucket. HarveyH55 wrote: Much of that money will go back into the economy, in materials and labor. True, but $5b or even $25b into the economy won't do much. Our economy (the GDP of the United States) won't even see any significant difference. $25b is only 0.0325% of the GDP. HarveyH55 wrote: True, the wall won't stop much of anything, it's more of a symbol. It will stop quite a bit. It works. HarveyH55 wrote: We have locked doors on our homes, fenced yards, but we still get robbed. But we still have them. Why? Because they work. Not perfectly, but they work. HarveyH55 wrote: The wall just makes it a little more difficult, and obviously crossing the line, is a crime. The modernized wall is much more difficult to cross than the old one was. Where it has been installed, the border agents see a marked difference. They want the wall. It helps them to do their jobs. HarveyH55 wrote: Our elected legislators are there to represent the people. The majority, elected Trump, because they liked his ideas, and the wall was one of his key campaign issues. Should never have been questioned or obstructed, the people spoke at the polls. That they did. They elected the electoral college that elected Trump. HarveyH55 wrote: They would rather show their control and power, than do their jobs, and do what the people who elected them wanted. Have a hunch the Russian investigation will turn out to be two years of nothing as well. It was never anything to begin with. Putin is a Marxist and a socialist. He believes in communism, or at least fascism. Why would such an individual even WANT Trump in office?? They would want someone like Hillary, who shares Putin's views! HarveyH55 wrote: They don't give many details, since it's an ongoing investigation, but so far, the crimes seem pretty much technicalities, relatively minor offenses, and not related to collusion at all. The Russians do not have any capability to throw our election. Elections are spread out all over the country. They are done individually, district by district, State by State. They all operate independently. For the Russians (or anyone else) to throw the election would involve literally thousands of people and would be extremely obvious it was happening before the election itself could be completed. Sure, the Russians encourage certain directions (they favored Hillary during the 2016 election, and favored Obama). The United States also encourages elections in other countries to go certain ways. That is not collusion. The Democrats have so much invested in this false story (which came out a 'dossier' that was written by an individual (Glenn Simpson) attached to Obama and the Clintons, and funded by the Clinton Foundation and Fusion GPS). Their goal is to smear Trump any way they can, and to declare his election void. HarveyH55 wrote: Really think the democrats will go beyond what anyone is going to accept, since they are basking in their power and control. They won't be sneaky enough with the carbon-taxing, and squeeze way too hard. Even the true believers, aren't going to agree it's good for anyone. The leaders of this movement toward Marxism and absolute control are going to be the 'elite' benefiting from the theft of your wealth. They will not stop. The followers tend to be mindless (that's what makes them followers!), not realizing what they are agreeing to until it's too late. Then they will be trapped by the very monster they supported. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-12-2018 01:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The wall probably won't help the economy a lot, but it will help some. Mostly, I was thinking that $5 billion wouldn't just disappear, like much of Obama's $8.6 trillion borrowed. Least we get a wall, and $5 billion back into the economy. The wall will help, but mostly just to stop the 'honest' illegals. There will still be tunnels, semi-trucks, and boats. Guess Florida would become a new, illegal immigration destination, well, more than it already is. Would think Mexico would be interested in completing the wall, most of the illegals they get out of our country, are very dangerous fugitives, no maybe about it. Think the wall is good start though, we can add cameras a sensor later, aerial surveillance, all can be semi-automated these days, and give enough warning to stop most from crossing. Still sort of wonder what sort of greenie fuel airplanes are going to be using. I don't recall anything in the IPCC report about air travel, seem like commercial air travel generates a considerable amount of CO2. Guess not many could afford to fly, after they get done draining our savings. I've got a strong suspicion that Trump will be swamped with investigations, his whole presidency, and have to really struggle to get anything done. He really needs to get some of his own investigating done. There has to be a key figure or two, causing all his problems. The Russian Probe, has been going, even before he was elected, 2 years later, still not complete. Anybody else, it would have be closed in a few months, if even started in the first place. It's not such a huge issue, if they didn't find anything the first few days. It was one thing for Hillary to cast suspicion during the campaign, they all do stuff like that, but should have been dropped a long time ago. Somebody has to be pushing it forward, I'm sure the people actually doing the investigating are fed up with it as well, but have to do the work they're assigned. CNN is clearly anti-Trump. We get cable TV in the breakroom, and one is CNN, which covers mostly only Trump, and never anything positive. Wish they'd pick another news channel, there are a lot more important things going on, I'd like to catch a story about. Guess we can only hope somebody with a little bit of a heart, and conscious left, will come forward, and spill. The Climate Panel should be well hidden, since most people consider it a non-issue, and Trump won't sign off on carbon taxes. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to sneak those taxes in, and Trump isn't going to see it, any better than most of us, until after.

30-12-2018 20:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: The wall probably won't help the economy a lot, but it will help some. Mostly, I was thinking that $5 billion wouldn't just disappear, like much of Obama's $8.6 trillion borrowed. Obama's$8.6 trillion didn't disappear. It was a an attempt to devalue the dollar. It worked somewhat, but not as well as Obama had hoped. Much of it went to paying off his buddies in the unions. HarveyH55 wrote: Least we get a wall, and $5 billion back into the economy. Sort of. Government spending can help economies, but only if the spending is financially sound. Obama paying off union bosses wasn't. Spending on a wall is. HarveyH55 wrote: The wall will help, but mostly just to stop the 'honest' illegals. Not so much the 'honest' ones (as if there were any!), but the lazier ones. Remember a lot of them come here to sponge off the United States. That's an act of laziness. HarveyH55 wrote: There will still be tunnels, semi-trucks, and boats. Those are the drug dealers. They have a lot of cash to spend it on such things. They even have submarines. The wall will not stop the drugs. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess Florida would become a new, illegal immigration destination, well, more than it already is. Been to Little Havana lately? It's a fair bit bigger now! The only thing that is stopping it is the Everglades. More of them are spreading throughout Florida too. HarveyH55 wrote: Would think Mexico would be interested in completing the wall, most of the illegals they get out of our country, are very dangerous fugitives, no maybe about it. Think the wall is good start though, we can add cameras a sensor later, aerial surveillance, all can be semi-automated these days, and give enough warning to stop most from crossing. The modernized wall has cameras and sensors. Aerial surveillance is already being used in problem areas and remote areas. The desert itself is the biggest barrier for remote areas. HarveyH55 wrote: Still sort of wonder what sort of greenie fuel airplanes are going to be using. Oil. Kerosene for jet engines, and gasoline for reciprocating engines. That is not going to change. In aircraft, it's all about energy per weight. Oil products are the best resource for that. The Church of Green cannot force any fuel upon aircraft. The bureaucracy to do it is incredibly dense. They would have to get the FAA and the NTSB, as well as the airlines and aircraft owners themselves to go along with it. Gasoline for aircraft still uses TEL for the moderator (tetra-ethyl lead). They have been trying to get a fuel with ethanol as the moderator developed over the past two decades, but nothing is approved yet. Ethanol fuels have special problems in aircraft. HarveyH55 wrote: I don't recall anything in the IPCC report about air travel, seem like commercial air travel generates a considerable amount of CO2. Mostly on the ground. The jet engine is the most efficient engine we have today, but only at altitude. That's why commercial jets climb out so quickly, and why they descend so quickly. They are trying to stay at altitude for as much of the flight as they can. Remember, fuel costs money, and jet engines use a LOT of it taxiing around on the ground. Yes, they do emit CO2. Big deal. CO2 incapable of warming the Earth. They also emit water (like any internal combustion engine). That's the contrail you see in the sky when the jet passes through more humid air. The passing jet triggers cloud formation a bit better than naturally occurring, except the clouds are long and narrow. They are too narrow and too thin to affect sunlight coming through to the surface. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess not many could afford to fly, after they get done draining our savings. It won't get that far, not without a civil war. HarveyH55 wrote: I've got a strong suspicion that Trump will be swamped with investigations, his whole presidency, and have to really struggle to get anything done. Trump IS getting things done. You just don't hear about his successes on the news. He quite properly calls the 'investigation' a witch hunt. HarveyH55 wrote: He really needs to get some of his own investigating done. There has to be a key figure or two, causing all his problems. There is. The investigation is already underway. Another thing you don't hear about on the news. HarveyH55 wrote: The Russian Probe, has been going, even before he was elected, 2 years later, still not complete. There never was a Russian probe. The story was completely fabricated. The people involved are acting like the KGB. Mueller's goal is to torpedo as many people around Trump as he can, and Trump himself if he can manage it. Some of those caught are liars themselves, and are putting out testimony under duress. (They were caught for lying, not anything to do with Russia). HarveyH55 wrote: Anybody else, it would have be closed in a few months, if even started in the first place. Nah. It's a witch hunt, pure and simple. It always was. HarveyH55 wrote: It's not such a huge issue, if they didn't find anything the first few days. It was one thing for Hillary to cast suspicion during the campaign, they all do stuff like that, but should have been dropped a long time ago. Somebody has to be pushing it forward, I'm sure the people actually doing the investigating are fed up with it as well, but have to do the work they're assigned. Hillary and Obama are pushing it forward. Yes, other members of the FBI are getting quite tired of Mueller and his witch hunt. HarveyH55 wrote: CNN is clearly anti-Trump. We get cable TV in the breakroom, and one is CNN, which covers mostly only Trump, and never anything positive. Wish they'd pick another news channel, there are a lot more important things going on, I'd like to catch a story about. Good luck with that! CNN isn't the only one! The AP is also clearly anti-Trump. So is Reutors, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, and even most of FOX. The Guardian is also quite anti-Trump. So is Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and much of Amazon. Twitter even tried to shut off Trump's account, but got roasted from conservatives that also threatened to sue. Trump is a most unusual President. Unlike past presidents, the media didn't make him. They can't break him. They are mad as hell because of it. All the dirty tricks to put pressure on the President don't work with Trump. They called Reagan the 'Teflon' president. Any mud slung his way just slid off. I call Trump the 'Corbomite' president. The term refers to a mythical substance from a original series Star Trek show. Corbomite was used as a bluff by Kirk, who explained to an enemy that his ship was equipped with it, and any attacker would have his attack rebound upon himself, destroying himself. Like Corbomite, anyone that attacks Trump only winds up destroying themselves. As a result, Facebook and Twitter both have seen a tremendous loss in real revenue and in investors. So has Target, which openly mocks Trump. The money being lost at the news agencies is legendary in scope. These people are discovering the hard way they don't have nearly the power they think they have. People are beginning to understand that the news media in general is like Pravda, and they are rejecting it. HarveyH55 wrote: Guess we can only hope somebody with a little bit of a heart, and conscious left, will come forward, and spill. They already have. More are 'spilling' as time moves on. Another thing you don't see reported in the news much. HarveyH55 wrote: The Climate Panel should be well hidden, since most people consider it a non-issue, and Trump won't sign off on carbon taxes. At the federal level at least, Carbon taxes will be rejected by Trump. He cannot control the States on this issue. Some States are being stupid, like California, others are rejecting the idea. HarveyH55 wrote: Unfortunately, there are so many ways to sneak those taxes in, and Trump isn't going to see it, any better than most of us, until after. He does see it, but he has no authority to do anything about States being stupid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-12-2018 20:58
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: Saw this story in the news, a little disturbing, but probably doesn't mean much. https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/pelosi-taps-florida-democrat-to-lead-climate-change-panel/895525601 The only reason the 'House', would need a Climate Panel, would be to discuss ways to steal our paychecks. We've already got the IPCC to develop and market propaganda. The announcement of the panel, sounded like the words from a kool-aid (spiked with gin) chugging believer, so not likely to question the validity of IPCC propaganda. Hopefully Trump catch their slippery attempts sneak a carbon-tax past, in the ObamaCare fashion. The direct tax approach didn't float in France, guess this is how the Demoncrats hope to make one transparent (invisible), to a void protests, rioting, and looting. Trump's tax cut, just means to them, that we all have some spare change in our pockets, that they need to relieve us of the burden. Kind of like our annual raise at work, since Obama, just enough to cover the insurance increases. Not complaining about work, they don't have to give us that, or a lot of the perks. What's disturbing, is that the tax-masters, want to bring in experts, and really know ways to squeeze our bank accounts, and put the blame on our employers. Up until about 10 years ago, my employers were a lot more generous with perks and incentives, some of those were cash. Changed, when these were all considered compensation (wages), and taxed. These little perks weren't part of our paychecks, guaranteed, nor did everybody always get something. There were drawings for door prizes at company events, performance awards, ideas for safety, photo contest, Christmas gifts (actual gifts, like TVs, appliances, bicycles), several others. They tried to comply at first, there would still be prizes and gifts, but the winner had a small amount taken out of there check, as tax. Incentives where paid in weird amounts, to cover the tax. Gifts, turned to gift-cards. And now, any extras are rare. All the 'good' employee programs/incentives went away as well. The main ones, that work very well, were performance, attendance, and safety. I can understand how they slip those taxes in, probably during the Obama-bailout corporate bonus, where his friends with 'struggling businesses' weren't very discrete, with how they used their taxpayer funded windfall. They gave themselves bonuses, raises, and tropical retreat conferences. I use to think that a carbon-tax, carbon-credits/offsets were for corporations, and the consumers would just pay higher prices. Seems like the proposals are heading toward everyone, eventual becoming part of a carbon economy, and every household will be on a carbon credit/offset system as well. Seems like the average working man is going to get squeezed the hardest. We'll pay higher prices for commercial products and services, to pick up part of their tax, we'll be taxed at the pump, and taxed if we exceed our carbon quota. The goal is zero carbon emissions, so the government will have free run at adjusting those carbon limits, until we can no longer afford to burn anything. Way back in the 80's I was given a stock option to work for a company. That company became very successful for awhile but then my mother contracted cancer and radiation treatments were "research" so her medical insurance wouldn't pay for it. I cashed in my stock options for about a million dollars after taxes. I paid for her treatments and paid off her house so that she would never again have to worry about payments. She lived another almost 30 years so it was well worth it. But I haven't seen any businesses offering any serious stock options like that since.
31-12-2018 00:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Don't see stock options on the employee level, because they are taxed, just like your salary or wages. Lot of companies used stock options to dodge taxes, and a few other less ethical reasons. Would also guess that employees are mostly going to sell their stock, not buy more in quantities. Some will dump a lot of share for person reasons, like you did, others might see a change coming, and feel it best to dump, before the price takes a dive. Those watching stock in the market, might interpret this as time to dump as well, sort of bad for the company, since price and activity, effect business options, like loans, mergers, acquisitions, sales. The executives know this, still get stock options, but handled a little differently, and less likely to sell, useful, beyond the cash value.
31-12-2018 00:15
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: Don't see stock options on the employee level, because they are taxed, just like your salary or wages. Lot of companies used stock options to dodge taxes, and a few other less ethical reasons. Would also guess that employees are mostly going to sell their stock, not buy more in quantities. Some will dump a lot of share for person reasons, like you did, others might see a change coming, and feel it best to dump, before the price takes a dive. Those watching stock in the market, might interpret this as time to dump as well, sort of bad for the company, since price and activity, effect business options, like loans, mergers, acquisitions, sales. The executives know this, still get stock options, but handled a little differently, and less likely to sell, useful, beyond the cash value. You have a very negative opinion of company executives and in my experience of over 40 years it has no basis in reality. If YOU get rich, they get rich. You work harder to make your stock worth more and produce products that work well and reliably. I have never understood this negative attitude towards the people that make it possible for you to make a nice living.
31-12-2018 01:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	It's not quite that simple, the executes get paid very well, regardless of how the company is doing. The only difference, is in the bonuses they can earn, when the company does well. The folks down on the production level, don't general get bonuses, or anywhere near what an executive might get. Executives aren't general laid-off, when business is slow. I'm not really that negative about corporate structure, a business exists to make money. Those at the top, just get a larger portion. I could go to school, work hard, and maybe land me one of those jobs. I didn't, so no right to be bitter, I do appreciate all I'm given.
31-12-2018 20:51
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: It's not quite that simple, the executes get paid very well, regardless of how the company is doing. The only difference, is in the bonuses they can earn, when the company does well. The folks down on the production level, don't general get bonuses, or anywhere near what an executive might get. Executives aren't general laid-off, when business is slow. I'm not really that negative about corporate structure, a business exists to make money. Those at the top, just get a larger portion. I could go to school, work hard, and maybe land me one of those jobs. I didn't, so no right to be bitter, I do appreciate all I'm given. Workers are workers - they do not invent the products. They do not sell the products. And they most certainly do not risk their money and their lives to build companies that employ workers that can simply move elsewhere if the company fails. This BS of acting as if the workers are the owners of a company is nothing more than a socialist agenda that has been shown every single place it has been tried to be an absolute failure. Even Karl Marx wrote his crap while living freely in England.
01-01-2019 00:07
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: It's not quite that simple, the executes get paid very well, regardless of how the company is doing. The only difference, is in the bonuses they can earn, when the company does well. The folks down on the production level, don't general get bonuses, or anywhere near what an executive might get. Executives aren't general laid-off, when business is slow. I'm not really that negative about corporate structure, a business exists to make money. Those at the top, just get a larger portion. I could go to school, work hard, and maybe land me one of those jobs. I didn't, so no right to be bitter, I do appreciate all I'm given. Workers are workers - they do not invent the products. They do not sell the products. And they most certainly do not risk their money and their lives to build companies that employ workers that can simply move elsewhere if the company fails. This BS of acting as if the workers are the owners of a company is nothing more than a socialist agenda that has been shown every single place it has been tried to be an absolute failure. Even Karl Marx wrote his crap while living freely in England. I work for a grocery distribution company, 28 or so divisions, about to open a second here in Florida. Guess I'll see how much they value there employees in March or April, since about half our current business will be shifted over there. We are already over-staffed, and business hasn't been what it once was. There are going to be some big changes, probably not so good for many. I've been there 28 years, hopefully that counts for something. We've always gotten an annual raise, but it's pretty much about the same as the increase on our health insurance, assuming a 40 hour week. The employees don't own the companies, but we do invest a lot of our time to them, make a lot of sacrifices when called to, and yeah, we stay there, when we could walk out at anytime. Most large companies aren't owned buy the executives, or even the CEO, it's shareholders, who most have never been to any of there investments, it's just paper. Walmart use to 'own' my company, bought us mostly to handle their cigarettes and seasonal candy. They sold us to Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet). We have our own corporate structure. When Walmart owned us, we had the option to purchase associate stock, still own about a dozen shares. Use to get a prospectus every year, gone paperless for a while, but use to thumb through, mostly looking for mention of my company. Walmart executives are well compensated, many raises, beyond what I earned in a year. The executives have the same option to pack up and leave, as any other employee down the chain. I don't think a company owes me anything more, than what was promised when hired, which they have been quite generous. We do get a lot benefits they don't have to offer, but the do know about the economy and cost of living, just think they could do a little better for the rest of us.
01-01-2019 00:33
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: It's not quite that simple, the executes get paid very well, regardless of how the company is doing. The only difference, is in the bonuses they can earn, when the company does well. The folks down on the production level, don't general get bonuses, or anywhere near what an executive might get. Executives aren't general laid-off, when business is slow. I'm not really that negative about corporate structure, a business exists to make money. Those at the top, just get a larger portion. I could go to school, work hard, and maybe land me one of those jobs. I didn't, so no right to be bitter, I do appreciate all I'm given. Workers are workers - they do not invent the products. They do not sell the products. And they most certainly do not risk their money and their lives to build companies that employ workers that can simply move elsewhere if the company fails. This BS of acting as if the workers are the owners of a company is nothing more than a socialist agenda that has been shown every single place it has been tried to be an absolute failure. Even Karl Marx wrote his crap while living freely in England. I work for a grocery distribution company, 28 or so divisions, about to open a second here in Florida. Guess I'll see how much they value there employees in March or April, since about half our current business will be shifted over there. We are already over-staffed, and business hasn't been what it once was. There are going to be some big changes, probably not so good for many. I've been there 28 years, hopefully that counts for something. We've always gotten an annual raise, but it's pretty much about the same as the increase on our health insurance, assuming a 40 hour week. The employees don't own the companies, but we do invest a lot of our time to them, make a lot of sacrifices when called to, and yeah, we stay there, when we could walk out at anytime. Most large companies aren't owned buy the executives, or even the CEO, it's shareholders, who most have never been to any of there investments, it's just paper. Walmart use to 'own' my company, bought us mostly to handle their cigarettes and seasonal candy. They sold us to Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet). We have our own corporate structure. When Walmart owned us, we had the option to purchase associate stock, still own about a dozen shares. Use to get a prospectus every year, gone paperless for a while, but use to thumb through, mostly looking for mention of my company. Walmart executives are well compensated, many raises, beyond what I earned in a year. The executives have the same option to pack up and leave, as any other employee down the chain. I don't think a company owes me anything more, than what was promised when hired, which they have been quite generous. We do get a lot benefits they don't have to offer, but the do know about the economy and cost of living, just think they could do a little better for the rest of us. When you work a very long time for a company you tend to doubt that you could survive in the outside world. Most of my jobs lasted a year and the longest one was 5 years. You take unemployment as an inconvenience and nothing more. My father and older brother worked almost their entire lives for the railroad and couldn't understand why I would quit a job if I saw a better one on the horizon. Why should I work for an idiot that doesn't recognize how much good I did for his company?
01-01-2019 01:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: It's not quite that simple, the executes get paid very well, regardless of how the company is doing. The only difference, is in the bonuses they can earn, when the company does well. The folks down on the production level, don't general get bonuses, or anywhere near what an executive might get. Executives aren't general laid-off, when business is slow. I'm not really that negative about corporate structure, a business exists to make money. Those at the top, just get a larger portion. I could go to school, work hard, and maybe land me one of those jobs. I didn't, so no right to be bitter, I do appreciate all I'm given. Workers are workers Compositional error. There are many different kinds of workers, each contributing in their own way. Wake wrote: - they do not invent the products. Yes they do, Wake. They even have the patent for that product in their name! Wake wrote: They do not sell the products. Yes they do, Wake. A salesman is also a worker. The entire sales department of any company are also workers. Wake wrote: And they most certainly do not risk their money and their lives to build companies that employ workers that can simply move elsewhere if the company fails. It's the employees that build a company, Wake. If they go form their own company, they are still workers, but owners as well. Wake wrote: This BS of acting as if the workers are the owners of a company is nothing more than a socialist agenda WRONG. That is capitalism, Wake. Wake wrote: that has been shown every single place it has been tried to be an absolute failure. WRONG. It works, and it still works. Wake wrote: Even Karl Marx wrote his crap while living freely in England. WRONG. Karl Marx never wrote anything supporting capitalism. Marx's position was to take the companies away from the owners and give it to the workers. That's socialism, Wake. That's theft. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Disturbing advances in Klimate Khange...: