WinePusher wrote:The truth is that this is a non-issue. The makeup of the top 1% is always changing, individuals are always entering and leaving this quintile because income changes. And the problem with statistics is that they only sample income at one given moment in time without taking into account the changes and fluctuations among income quintiles. The top 1% isn't an exclusive, permanent class of individuals, it's a heterogeneous group made up of different people at different times.
nygreenguy wrote:This isnt true at all. The higher to the top one is, the more likely they, and their children will stay there. The same is true for the lowest. Those from the lowest are most likely to go lower, as with their children.
You can be at the very top of the top 1% or at the very bottom of the bottom 1%.
Fact-Your income will change over time. The popular argument from people like you rests upon the premise that the top 1% have some sort of absolute monopoly on income and the truth is they don't. The more experience you have in the labor market the more income you get, which is why the very poor are people who don't have jobs at all or work in positions that literally anybody could do and why the very rich are people who have vast experience in the market and work in positions that require specialization.
WinePusher wrote:And it's funny how people villify the earnings corporate executives yet say nothing when it comes to earnings television and movie personalities.
nygreenguy wrote:Corporations have more power than even singular rich individuals. Another issue is how the ceo's get rich and that off the labor of those beneath them. People work FOR the ceo's in the corporations, so they see it as an injustice their executive wages increase while labor wages decrease.
And corporations do more good for society than single rich individuals. They employ hundreds, if not thousands, of more people. They provide essential services and products that are in demand and they drive the economy through investments, savings and production. So it's understandable that criticism of socialists like Michael Moore is directed primarily at Corporations, since they are such a plague on society. And executives don't get
rich of the labor of those beneath them. They get paid corresponding amounts of money to their performance. Steve Jobs was worth billions of dollars because of his high quality performance in business, and if a company wants his performance and insight they offer him a sum of money proportionate to his record of performance and net worth. This is what I mean when I say that a competitive market exists around corporate executives.
WinePusher wrote:Yes, there is a huge quantitative difference between average executive compensation and average wages, but they are also qualitatively different. Wages are determined by productivity, executive compensation is determined by performance.
nygreenguy wrote:When will we stop this libertarian nonsense. These concepts have been empirically falsified for decades. Compensation has nothing to do with productivity. That has been a big issue for years. We see these CEO's bankrupting companies while their wages INCREASE. Now, I have no problem with executives getting higher pay, I think they should. I do, however, think there is a limit to what is reasonable.
What you think doesn't matter. You don't sit on the board of directors of every single corporation out there, you don't understand the internal finances and operations of every single corporation out there. The reasonable amount of pay is determined by people who do actually understand these things, and these people don't include Congress or incoherent, violent and destructive Wall Street Protestors.
WinePusher wrote:The decisions made by corporate executives can either bring in millions and billions of new dollars into the company, or cost the company millions and billions of dollars thus increasing or decreasing their net worth. People forget that there is a competitive market surrounding corporate executives, which justifies companies offering large compensation packages to executives who perform well. If you don't you drive talented executives out of the market.
nygreenguy wrote:A paper by Anderson and Batemann Journal of Organizational Behavior Volume 18, Issue 5, pages 449"469, September 1997 showed that higher executive pay actually led to DECREASED performance.
Either you mis stated the title, or the people who did this study don't know what they're talking about. Executives are offered pay after their performance as been evaluated. The pay doesn't lead to a particular type of performance, the performance leads to a particular amount of pay.
WinePusher wrote:I agree with the ruling because it struck down prohibitions on speech that existed prior to the case. The ruling essentially gurantees the free expression of political speech regardless of who the speaker actually is, whether it's one individual or a group of individuals. And the criticisms leveled against the ruling are pretty absurd. It does nothing to harm democracy nor does it give corporations unlimited influence in D.C. In any case, you're bound to get a situation that Bryan Caplan refers to as the miracle of aggregation. Since there are a large pool of profit and non-profit insitutions, donations and advertisement will be evenly split among the two parties and discredit one another. Thus, elections will be decided ultimately by the people, no corporations. The amount of influence money and advertisement has among the electorate is questionable anyways.
nursebenjamin wrote:Weve been lead to believe that the Citizens United Case is about the First Amendment right of free speech. But its not; this case is about money. Money is not speech. If you think otherwise, the next time you fill up the gas tank in your car, try paying for the gas with a witty quip instead of cash.
You're wrong. Money is considered an expression of speech because the
use of money is speech. If I donate money to my Church, I am expressing support for them and their projects and ministries. nursebenjamin, you are under the false impression that political speech only means words coming out of someone's mouth. That is not true, political speech takes variety of different forms including. And the ruling dealt specifically with advertisements run by corporations, not monetary donations.
nursebenjamin wrote:It is a fallacy of immense proportion to equate free spending with free speech. This problem predates the Citizens United ruling. Free speech is a corner stone of our Constitutional rights; however, money is the equivalent of volume, not speech. When it comes to determining the political course of the country, a few voices should not be allowed to YELL LOUDER and drown out the voices of those who have no money.
This misconception has already been refuted. There are hundreds of profit and non-profit organizations, and each of them have their own seperate interests. Meaning the ads they run will be split evenly among the two parties and will essentially neutralize eachother. And no ones voice is being drowned out because when a corporation runs an ad or holds a fundraiser for a candidate, they are unknowingly representing a certain section of population. If the AFL-CIO runs ads in support of Obama's re-election, every single person in the country who is an Obama supporter is being represented through their advertisements.
nursbenjamin wrote:Corporations are an independent legal entity that is separate from the people who own, control and manage it, created for the purpose of limiting legal liabilities. If a corporation fails, shareholders may lose their investments, and employees may lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts to the corporation's creditors.
[1] Corporations do not care about the country or citizens. They dont care about justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, or the blessings of liberty. In fact, corporations have no opinion of any kind. This is because corporations are not people.
Did you know you can sue a corporation? Did you know you can even tax a corporation? Your argument is trivial and inconsistent, nursebenjamin. Yea, corporations aren't people they have many of the same rights people do have. If you were actualyl consistent, you would be in favor of insulating corporations against lawsuits and abolished all taxes on corporations.
nursebenjamin wrote:The corporation, however, is made up of shareholders, CEOs and employees who do have opinions. Individuals within the corporation have the right to free speech and to participate within the political process. But this free speech should not come by way of donations from a corporate account. Corporations do not vote, and should not participate in the political process, period. The political process should tightly regulate corporate activity, but corporate activity should not be allowed to influence the political process.
You, just like John Paul Stevens, don't base your argument upon the constitution because nothing in the constitution supports your position. The first amendment is explicit, it says that no law shall be made prohibiting the free exercise of speech
period. It does make distinctions between different types of speakers.
nursebenjamin wrote:Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion says, [T]he distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.
Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
[2]
You see, this is a perfect example of activism, luckily he isn't on the court anymore. Steven's based his vote on his personal preferences rather than what the Constitution says. He thinks that the interests of corporations will conflict with the interests of eligible voters, and he is wrong. Give me one example of this, give me one example where corporate interests conflict with voter interests. They don't, they coincide with the interests of voters and it creates more liability for corporations because if a corporations has a reputation of supporting democrat candidates they will most likely alienate republican voters.
WinePusher wrote:The ruling essentially gurantees the free expression of political speech regardless of who the speaker actually is, whether it's one individual or a group of individuals.
nursebenjamin wrote:A corporation is not simply a group of individuals. Its a group of individuals with limited legal liabilities. The political contributions of the corporation dont necessarily represent the political views of all the shareholders. Some of the shareholders are not citizens, and should not even be participating in our political process. Political donations should come from individual citizens, not the corporate account.
This is nonsense. Who do you think will determine political contributions made by the corporation? The board of directors, the shareholders and the governing body. Your under the impression that this ruling forces corporations to participate in the political process and it doesn't. It
allows profit and non-profit institutions to run advertisments for candidates, if an institution doesn't want to they don't have to. And if participating in elections causes to much internal strife within the institution they probably won't. All the ruling does is leave the option on the table.
WinePusher wrote:And the criticisms leveled against the ruling are pretty absurd. It does nothing to harm democracy nor does it give corporations unlimited influence in D.C.
nursebenjamin wrote:I disagree. As I stated above, this ruling has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do is money. And if money doesnt influence our democracy and political process, then why are there so many lobbyists running around Washington? If the vast majority of Americans want taxes increased on millionaires and large corporations, then why cant our politicians achieve this? Why was the public option not allowed to even be apart of the debate on health insurance reform?
Do you know why a Public Option wasn't including in Obamacare? Because a few democrats, scared of being voted out of office by their constituents, fought against it. The thing politicians operate according to is not money, special interests, or their personal opinions, it's what their constituents want because if they go against the will of their constituents they get thrown out of office. You're just reinforcing my point that money and lobbyists have no real control in Politics.
WinePusher wrote:Thus, elections will be decided ultimately by the people, no corporations. The amount of influence money and advertisement has among the electorate is questionable anyways.
nursebenjamin wrote:I dont see how anyone could make such a statement with a straight face. The role money plays in American politics are an unfortunate reality. In modern elections, 9 out of 10 races are decided by who raises more campaign cash. In 2008, 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. In 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
[3]
It is clear that money plays an important role in who wins or who loses an election. However, I fear that the political influence that comes to those who have made large contributions is often far more important than the actual buying and selling of an election.
The amount of cash doesn't determine who wins an election, the amount of votes do. Let me ask you something, how many television adveretisments, billboard signs, bumper stickers and telephone calls would it take for you to vote for Michele Bachmann? No amount of campaigning, ads or signs will persuade me to vote for Barack Obama. And this is true for almost all informed, opinionated voters.
