Better capitalism?

Sorry, I'll get it right next time. I didn't mean for your "t" string to get all twisted up down there sweetie. Hockles, hockles everywhere. :D
 
Last edited:
TreeLogic and jim454, I'd be happy to sign your posters, everyone has heroes.

TreeLogic, Your feminization of my name as an insult, and your implied language of a male wearing female undergarments as an added insult reveals you as the prejudiced homophobic bigot that you are.
 
popcorn.gif


There ya go, Mac.
 
twig said:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/how-much-does/much-money-barack-obama-make-2013/

here Glenny!!!
Click to expand...
Twig- Glens got you on this the richest people in the world aren't politicians they are business owners of some fashion. The article you referenced even mentioned that his income has dropped because of book sales-his primary cash windfall. Most politicians have money before they go into politics. Many go into politics to protect their wealth or the wealth of their friends. This may sound ridiculous but 20 million is nothing compared to bill gates or warren Buffett whose net worth is in the billions. Also 250k a year isn't really that much anymore it may seem it when your making 50-60k a year. I have friends that own tree companies that make more than that. There are a lot of successfully tree co owners that make 250k a year. It interesting that you mentioned Barack because there is a guy from humble beginnings that is now a millionaire.

It's really easy to sit around and complain that the country is corrupt and their isn't opportunity. In the amount of time that we have all spent bitching we could have been working on our strategy to increase our wealth. It's easier to complain and blame someone else than do the work.
 
That's the income your only seeing on paper. There is alot there your not seeing. That's alot of money to make especially when taxpayers are paying all your living expenses,vacations,ect. Your right maybe saying they are the most wealthy is off but they are doing better than most. Don't think they are not getting a kick backs from the big corps they protect. There is more than meets the eye.
 
Twig, just to clarify. While they are often rich to begin with (think Mitt Romney), they are compensated no better than the average executive in the US. Given their responsibilities that isn't out of line. But to call them the wealthiest is far, far from the truth.

Federally elected officials' incomes

Average salary of CEOs in the US Please note this is only the salary, not total compensation. The average is somewhere around $10.5 million.

How about the executive vps in corporations? Look at this

The lowest 10% of CEOs make in salary alone almost as much as the president. Executive vps earn around the same as the elected officials.

As for campaigning initially those running for office put up a significant chunk of money to in essence, "have some skin in the game". They continue to provide money but much of it does come from outside sources. Does this skew the game? Sure, we all contribute if we see someone we think will push things in our direction. The campaign financing laws need to be reformed as there is too much influence flowing into the hands of the wealthiest. This doesn't represent the people's wishes but only those with the most power in society.
 
As for that last paragraph I'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly TH. Not saying I disagree with anything else but that part hit home for me.
 
I think the candidates should have to wear who there sponsors are all over there suits. That way we know who is who. Kinda like how nascar has sponsors all over their cars. But on a serious note both parties are backed by the same entities. We must also destroy the federal reserve!!!!
 
TreeLogic said:
As for that last paragraph I'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly TH. Not saying I disagree with anything else but that part hit home for me.
Click to expand...
Still, I must say, if it's being suggested that the richest are conservatives, and that their money is somehow skewing the votes, I would have to say that the proof is not in the pudding.

Maybe it's because the liberal media has tipped the balance in favor of their agenda, as it certainly rules supreme today. My point being, don't look at the money and think that only it rules the world. I'm willing to confidently say that whoever controls the media will eventually control everything.
 
Last edited:
And that information the census provides is a valuable tool used by market researchers and businesses to better determine the potential market for their products. You freely give your data over and over again to companies without batting an eye.
When you look at media, liberal or otherwise it is also in the control of some very, very large corporations. They push an agenda that will benefit their shareholders, plain and simple.

What is sad is the huge amounts of money spent prevent improvements in health and the environment, working conditions, or living conditions, etc... All of it is spent in the name of sustaining shareholder value.
 
Valuable to many, big and small companies. (Good for tree services looking at markets to enter). non-profits, etc....
Should you be forced? I'm on the same side of the fence as you on that. At least the basic info as it relates to the original intent. For much of the other info that isn't then no.
 
Couple of things come to mind.

First, the existing wage structures for laboring trades (e.g., tree worker) have been long established in the market. Most groundworkers will make somewhere between $10-17 an hour I guess. Tree work is difficult work and it is this wage--almost double minimum wage--that has been an attraction for workers. Where there is no financial incentive to do tree work above work typically paid minimum wage ("flipping burgers"), tree services may have a harder time finding personnel for even groundworker jobs.

Because of this, we would expect upward pressure on the market. Tree services will have to change their pay structures accordingly. Climbers and all personnel will have to be paid more, so that they will have an incentive to do the complex, hard, nasty, dangerous work that is tree work (you know what I mean). Because of the insurance rates and taxes, the tree services will have to pay significantly more than the mere raises. They will, therefore, have to charge more to the customer. In short, tree work is going to get very expensive in Seattle. I predict that because all of the other costs for citizens of Seattle will correspondingly rise, there will be less disposable income to throw at tree work (unless you are senior admin at Microsoft). The work will be there, but will there be money for this?

I am open to any comments, suggestions, or criticisms.
 
I'd say the best thing about the minimum wage change is that it will force certain tree care co's to charge more for their work... and eventually, we may get paid what we're worth for this highly dangerous and wonderful profession we've chosen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom