You seem to forget that government officials are entangled in that same web as those executives. Politicians are always looking at their career after they exit politics, which can happen on a week's notice. They would like to get a top position in a commercial company in that case, and of course this becomes less likely when they negatively affect the position of people in that position.
Usually they have no intention to become active in a drugs cartel (although there are exceptions), so it does not hurt to go after those.
When hearing executives about salaries, their claim is often that "this salary is paid in other countries as well so when we don't pay high salaries here all those people will go to other countries". This of course is a circular reference, and there is also no proof that it would hurt a country when greedy executives all leave to other countries.
sonably high, and there's probably room for legislative intervention to dis mantle the interlocking rings of "executive remuneration committees" who al l award one another unreasonably high salaries.
out maximum wage legislation here, but rather regulating a situation where boardrooms are colluding to pay themselves a lot more than they are worth, and messing up the country in the process.
That's a matter of opinion, and yours is worth no more than mine - probably less because you seem to buy your opinions from cheap retailers.
? And you spout a lot about messing up the country, but that is just your opinion. Not a fact.
formatting link
most_Always_Do_Better
There's enough statistics in that to make it as close to a fact as one can get. Not enough to persuade the archetypical right-wing nit-wit - James Art hur - who is happy to accept the opinion of a right-wing Scottish non-stati stician that the evidence doesn't stack up, but for the purposes of rationa l discourse it's an open-and-shut case.
an the war on drugs, which prohibits American from using anything except et hanol and caffeine and nicotine to adjust their state of mind.
mined on it's own merits. The war on Drugs crap is just an attempt to dist ract the readers.
The claim that regulating wages isn't a legitimate government function - wh en pretty much every government does it - is a rather more blatant attempt at distraction.
he climate even faster than it is being screwed up now, and wrecking the ec onomy with progressively more "unpredictable" extreme weather events.
e keystone pipeline is not built, the oil will go to west coast of Canada a nd be shipped from there.
building pipelines to connect to existing pipelines. But the Canadians hav e invested billions into extracting oil from sands. They are not going to sit by and junk all that.
They probably are, eventually. Getting oil by fracking is expensive, but no t as expensive as getting it out of oil sands. The amount of CO2 we can aff ord to dump in the atmosphere is finite, and we'll almost certainly stop do ing it before the Canadians can get their money back.
Note that the companies that hire illegals do seem to have quite a bit of m oney available for lobbying and bribing politicians.
the border is very long and hard to control effectively.
job on a pretty long border, but your crew can't - or find it inconvenient
- to manage anything half as effective.
ween New England and Canada is about as long as the border around Germany, much less the border between East and West Germany.
Numbers? The USA is a lot richer than East Germany ever was, and should be able to afford to fence off at least the troublesome segments of its border s.
The US governments now seem to spend more on prisons than they do on educat ion. Diverting some of that money to stop the illegals getting into the cou ntry before they can commit crimes that will lead them to add even more pre ssure to the prison system should sound like a great investment to any righ t-wing nitwit.
ly less because you seem to buy your opinions from cheap retailers.
My opinons are worth much more than yours because mine are the result of th inking . Where as yours seem to be the result of your environment.
ve? And you spout a lot about messing up the country, but that is just you r opinion. Not a fact.
Almost_Always_Do_Better
n get. Not enough to persuade the archetypical right-wing nit-wit - James A rthur - who is happy to accept the opinion of a right-wing Scottish non-sta tistician that the evidence doesn't stack up, but for the purposes of ratio nal discourse it's an open-and-shut case.
If you look at that title you will see the word " Almost " Which means the author does not say it is an open and shut case.
than the war on drugs, which prohibits American from using anything except ethanol and caffeine and nicotine to adjust their state of mind.
ermined on it's own merits. The war on Drugs crap is just an attempt to di stract the readers.
when pretty much every government does it - is a rather more blatant attemp t at distraction.
If you read the U.S. Constitution you will find no reference to the Federal Government having anything to do with regulating wages. Maybe the Austral ian constitution is different, but I doubt it.
the climate even faster than it is being screwed up now, and wrecking the economy with progressively more "unpredictable" extreme weather events.
the keystone pipeline is not built, the oil will go to west coast of Canada and be shipped from there.
r building pipelines to connect to existing pipelines. But the Canadians h ave invested billions into extracting oil from sands. They are not going t o sit by and junk all that.
not as expensive as getting it out of oil sands. The amount of CO2 we can a fford to dump in the atmosphere is finite, and we'll almost certainly stop doing it before the Canadians can get their money back.
Nice thought , but most likely wrong. It may be a while before recovering oil from oil sands is profitable, but mean while there is all that debt tha t has to be serviced. Meaning they will produce oil at a loss in order to service the debt.
? Note that the companies that hire illegals do seem to have quite a bit of money available for lobbying and bribing politicians.
se the border is very long and hard to control effectively.
d job on a pretty long border, but your crew can't - or find it inconvenien t - to manage anything half as effective.
etween New England and Canada is about as long as the border around Germany , much less the border between East and West Germany.
e able to afford to fence off at least the troublesome segments of its bord ers.
But East Germany did not pay very high wages. So menial jobs as guarding a border did not cost them much.
ation. Diverting some of that money to stop the illegals getting into the c ountry before they can commit crimes that will lead them to add even more p ressure to the prison system should sound like a great investment to any ri ght-wing nitwit.
But that requires doing rational thinking. Politicians work on solving the problem of the day, not solving something which can be put off. So that wi ll not happen.
--- The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they formulate a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."
You resent the rich because you didn't have the balls to go for the prize when you could, and now it's too late for you to do anything but kvetch about how - if you'd only been given permission - you could be as important as your alliance allowed.
Some people get rich as a by-product of building things that they have a passion for. Of course, some other people get rich because all they care about is wealth and power. Public policy seems to favor the latter.
Rich people organize ordinary people to get stuff done. Humans are tribal and need leaders.
And rich people are the only people who can defer significant consumption in favor of investment.
I don't know why so many people resent the rich. Rich people's wealth is mostly stock shares, which are just pieces of paper. A billionaire doesn't eat a hundred times as much as the average person, and doesn't live in a million square foot house.
en richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from som ebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem t o be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.
I don't resent the rich, and while I might have made more money by taking g reater risks, my environment was full of people who had taken that kind of risk and lost everything they had. There are a couple of exceptions - the g uy who invented a better way of building a confocal microscope eventually m ade millions out of it, though his brother the dentist's pension fund and h is father's house were at risk at one stage.
Sadly, there's good observational evidence that having too many rich people around does bad things to the social fabric.
formatting link
most_Always_Do_Better
This isn't a tract about cutting everybody down to the same level. The US i n 1970 had lots of rich people, but they weren't s rich as they are now, an d weren't creating the social problems that the extra money they've accumul ated since then have exaggerated.
Neither Scandinavia nor Germany is short of rich people - it's just that th ey aren't as rich as their US equivalents, and don't put the same strain on the social fabric, nor feel the need to rip off the middle class to make t hemselves even richer.
ven richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from so mebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.
formatting link
most_Always_Do_Better
makes the point that the rich do go around emphasising the fact that they a re richer than the rest of us, and this makes all the social gradients stee per, which doesn't seem to do anything good for the rest of us.
Some social gradient is fine, and Scandinavia and Germany have social class es and gradients just like everywhere else, but there the gradients are sha llower, and turn out to be shallow enough not to worry people much.
The US has remarkably steep social gradients, and they have a variety of un fortunate side-effects, which "The Spirit Level" spells out in lots of deta il and considerable statistical rigor - not that James Arthur or John Larki n are going to risk their intellectual certainties by actually reading the book and exposing themselves to persuasive statistics.
I got rich by buying stocks instead of buying new cars. Some of it was luc k, but mostly just recognizing what companies seemed to have their act toge ther and buying their stock. I bought Texas Instruments, John Fluke, IBM, Hexcel, and others. And bought S & P 500 index funds in my 401K . I also bought a little Nucor stock when it was Nuclear Corp of America. Should ha ve lost my ass on that, but it turned out okay.
It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.
My current house has gone up about 60% from what I paid, to about where it originally sold in '07. Are we in another "absurd doubling of value" bubble?
I don't think that buying established stocks, getting rich that way, does society much good. Except for new issues, the stock market is mostly a gambling pool.
I disagree with you there. Investing in the stock market does involve a li ttle risk, but it is not much of a gamble. If you buy say ten stocks, there is almost no gamble. One or two may go belly up, but it is extremely unli kely that all will. And you will be better off than if you put your money in a savings account.
You are buying shares of a company. So does the company do society much go od? Do you think Texas Instruments does society much good? Anyway investing i n existing companies may not do society much good, but it certainly does no t do society much harm.
And consider there would be no new issues unless there was a market for th e shares of companies after the initial offering.
Sure inventing a new product, may be better for society, but realistically how many folks are going to do that. And just because you own stocks , doe s not mean you can not do something that helps society. I volunteer at a local museum and work at the friends of the library book sale.
Others, get rich by living on less than their income and investing the rest in the stock market and rental properties. When you have savings, there are great tax deductions you can use. SEP, IRA, 401K, HSA.
Well I did choose my parents wisely. They were not rich, but believed in g iving my sister and I a decent education. And my father and I built cryst al sets , and motors made of paper clips and other similar things. My fath er also made sure I had summer jobs every summer starting at age 16.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.