Republican WAR on women

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
if you work your ass off working for a corp only to be let go to stroke shareholders, what was the poor decision exactly?

sounds like your answer to ending the corporate (gop) war on women is for people to decide not to be a woman, so they can make good decisions like a ceo.

Got it.

Where do I ever imply that? You seem to take offense to the possibility that a person can have a hand in their own misery and ultimately don't have a big bad ceo to blame for everything that goes wrong.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Where do I ever imply that?
just following your lead in the discussion.

Didn't you imply that I can't make "sound personal decisions"? And that my intelligence is marred by the use of coffee?

Where did I say people must blame ceo for everything that goes wrong in an individuals life?

I take offense with corp leaders that put greed of profits far above the workers well being and ignore environmental sustaina bility -especially when they hapily take corporate wellfare, while donating billions to elect politicians that want to cut support for needy people( like poor mothers).


A ceo should work for his employees first and foremost, not wall street.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I wouldn't trust an average joe whose personal finances were in a mess to make financial decisions that affected the lives of thousands.

It might be very interesting for you to do some investigating concerning the personal finances of many of our politicians both past and present! I would be even less likely to vote into office an SOB who screwed people every way he could in order to gain a profit! Do you actually HAVE a definition in your thinking for G R E E D???
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
It might be very interesting for you to do some investigating concerning the personal finances of many of our politicians both past and present! I would be even less likely to vote into office an SOB who screwed people every way he could in order to gain a profit! Do you actually HAVE a definition in your thinking for G R E E D???

Politicians by and large don't make decisions for anyone outside themselves - their votes are bought through the lobbying and campaign financing process. I would expect them to be greedy, narcissistic, and more ego than competent. Hence, they and their personal finances are outside the scope of my argument.

Furthermore, the argument at hand was me refuting someone's claim that any average joe could make better business decisions than a Fortune 500 CEO. I was pointing out most peoples' inability (yes most) to manage their own personal business is a solid example of why the premise of said argument was flawed. Some people may take my refuting of that argument as an implicit support of the counter to that argument - that CEO's make better decisions than average joes. But again, the premise of that assumption is false - CEO's in general display the same level of aptitude at their jobs as most average joes do at theirs...average.

Hopefully that clears things up.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
just following your lead in the discussion.

Didn't you imply that I can't make "sound personal decisions"? And that my intelligence is marred by the use of coffee?

Where did I say people must blame ceo for everything that goes wrong in an individuals life?

I take offense with corp leaders that put greed of profits far above the workers well being and ignore environmental sustaina bility -especially when they hapily take corporate wellfare, while donating billions to elect politicians that want to cut support for needy people( like poor mothers).


A ceo should work for his employees first and foremost, not wall street.

A CEO's job is literally to work for the company and the owners of the company. The CEO - particularly the Fortune 500 CEOs that you are targeting - is normally not the overlord you make him/her out to be, but an employee with a specific job. It is a normative assumption that a "good" CEO works for the "welfare" of the employees. However, CEO's are graded by their bosses (stockholders, board of directors, and consumers of their company's product), and their grades are normally based on things like profits and stock price. This isn't to say that a happy balance couldn't be struck between providing maximum benefits to employees and keeping the company in the black. In my post above this I mention that most CEOs are about as average at their jobs as an average joe is. So an average CEO just doesn't have the intellect to do both - so they'll do what they're paid to do first (or at least play at it). Anything else is a bonus.

But here is where I say that the average joe is complicit in this whole scheme: consumers have power over the CEO as much as shareholders do. If you stop buying Coke or Pepsi, or iPads, those companies stop making profits. You can compel these average CEOs to be more responsive to average joes by voicing your displeasure through consumer choice. But, as the average joe doesn't have their act together attempts at this (see Occupy Wall Street) are largely ill prepared and woefully inadequate.

If you don't like the world as it is, be the change you seek and start your own company. Just seems rather pointless to get mad at people for not sharing your value system.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
If you don't like the world as it is, be the change you seek and start your own company. Just seems rather pointless to get mad at people for not sharing your value system.

Way ahead of you there.

And always avoid any big corp purchases. Love to barter and trade as much as possible. Dumped wall street portfolio 15 years ago. Stick it to the man, whenever you can!
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Way ahead of you there.

And always avoid any big corp purchases. Love to barter and trade as much as possible. Dumped wall street portfolio 15 years ago. Stick it to the man, whenever you can!

I relish the fact that I have CEOs working to make my retirement comfortable so that I don't have to. An average joe with a pair of balls and a good head for math can pretty much take care of himself no matter what :smile:
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
608
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
A week ago a fellow cheesehead brought up the idea that "pay is a private contract between an employee and an employer" I've been thinking about this and I'm wondering what sort of contract would this be? Back in the 80's I was a union employee. I once helped negotiate a contract with the owner. That was a good experience. Taught me owners basically think in percentages all the time. Also have worked for non-unionized companies and I always signed a form saying I'd read the employee handbook which had the line buried somewhere stating I was not under a contract to work for the company. I was free to leave as I saw fit and I could be let go as they saw fit. So who really is working under a contact? CEO's come to mind. Really, if you go to court and there isn't a contact. Good luck! Employers want maximum flexibility so in a way this thread isn't just about women, but I guess they take the brunt of it when it comes to pay. I suppose in the future female property owners will have to pay an additional 18% in property tax for being female. Might as well play this tape all the way through.
 
Last edited:

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
A week ago a fellow cheesehead brought up the idea that "pay is a private contract between an employee and an employer" I've been thinking about this and I'm wondering what sort of contract would this be? Back in the 80's I was a union employee. I once helped negotiate a contract with the owner. That was a good experience. Taught me owners basically think in percentages all the time. Also have worked for non-unionized companies and I always signed a form saying I'd read the employee handbook which had the line buried somewhere stating I was not under a contract to work for the company. I was free to leave as I saw fit and I could be let go as they saw fit. So who really is working under a contact? CEO's come to mind. Really, if you go to court and there isn't a contact. Good luck! Employers want maximum flexibility so in a way this thread isn't just about women, but I guess they take the brunt of it when it comes to pay. I suppose in the future female property owners will have to pay an additional 18% in property tax for being female. Might as well play this tape all the way through.

Cheesehead = someone from Wisconsin?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I think this thread would be more appropriately titled as Republican war on [middle class] women. Because really, if you can afford to self-pay medical expenses of any kind, none of this debate applies to you at all.

You could also be facetious and say that its actually just a War on Poverty, where the GOP is trying to remove all "incentives" for being poor :wink:
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I think this thread would be more appropriately titled as Republican war on [middle class] women. Because really, if you can afford to self-pay medical expenses of any kind, none of this debate applies to you at all.

You could also be facetious and say that its actually just a War on Poverty, where the GOP is trying to remove all "incentives" for being poor :wink:

much more accurate to say,

The republican war on non-republicans.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
much more accurate to say,

The republican war on non-republicans.

Did you not see the poor, uninsured republicans on TV protesting Obamacare? More class warfare than party clashing for sure.