<p>Certain government school unionized employees have posted several times here against California props 74, 75, and 76, arguing of the great detrimental effect they would have on government controlled K-12 education. A couple of local TV news crews happened to catch a few of their cronies in action at a rally recently. It’s worth a look at who’s receiving your tax dollars and how they comport themselves when they think no one’s looking. Be sure to view the video–maybe you’ll see someone you know.
<p>Violence is of course wrong, whether it is fighting with a person who disagrees with you or attacking a country because they have oil. I certainly don’t condone this type of action and would hope that all cc’s would agree.</p>
<p>One reason I would argue with those people who are in the photo is because some misguided people will use that one act of violence to justify their belief that the school children of California should be continued to be short changed by the b movie star who acts on based on a script given to him by his business directors who contribute so much to his campaigns for fame.</p>
<p>AS for the props. Nurses, school boards, the firefighters all oppose these bad ideas. Most of the states newspapers, even those who traditionally oppose unions think these props are bad politics.
Like so much of what the Republican Party has put out in the past few decades it is just lie after lie.<br>
For example:
</p>
<p>Wal-Mart Employees have the same types of problems, the leadership in its quest for profit, puts worker health and safety at the bottom of their concerns, and then it is primarily based upon lawsuit concerns. Perhaps if Wal-Mart would pay its employees a decent wage and provide for them decent health coverage the citizens of California would not have to spend so much money subsidizing the company and more money would be available for schools.</p>
<p>When a person is paid a decent wage for their work, so they can afford to house and feed their families it is not overcharging. Overcharging is when a Corporate executive collects 400 times the income of the workers. or when someone makes a 300% profit on the sale of their second home and wonders why there is homelessness in America.</p>
<p>Overcharging is when a drug manufacturer uses American tax dollars to supplement the development of a drug and then sells it cheaper in Canada.</p>
<p>Overcharging is when an oil company has record profits and gasoline prices jump a dollar a gallon.</p>
<p>Paying a person a decent living wage is not overcharging.</p>
<p>Sure, the free enterprise system stinks. When I am busy I charge more for more work than when times are slow. Nobody seems to complain. That is the way our system works. You pay a person based on what they contribute and the cost of getting someone to do similar work. Most Wal-Marts are overwhelmed with applicants–even when they open in California.
You are advocating a controlled economy that would be the death of economic growth and prosperity in the US. Our gas prices are down $.30 a gallon already and probably will continue to fall as supplies improve. In the interim we can feel free to drive less, use transit, or get a more efficient car. That’s what we have done.</p>
<p>The wealthy get wealthier by manipulating the laws and process. I would not have a problem if there was an extra tax on the oil companies when their profits jumped. I personally believe the natural resources should be shared by all of the people. Not just the wealthy and the educated.</p>
<p>You can share in the natural resources quite easily–I believe most of the oil companies and other natural resource companies sell stock.
So do those nasty drug companies.</p>
<p>Good suggestion, I’ll share it with the $7 an hour workers at Wal-Mart, after they are done paying for housing, healthcare, food, and transportation, I will suggest they roll the rest of thier money into the stock market. Watch out Dow Jones…here they come.</p>
<p>Your suggestion reflects your understanding of the situation very clearly.</p>
<p>That was the best laugh I had all day-
when you are literally counting pennies from the couch to buy a gallon of milk- how much money are you going to have to buy bleeping stock shares?</p>
<p>The average Wal-Mart hourly worker makes over $10/hour. The comment regarding stocks was specifically it was directed to (you) Mr. B although it would apply to most posting here.</p>
<p>Now that you have given me an hourly wage at Wal-Mart (which I think is inflated). How much does the CEO and Chief Financial Officer make at Wal-Mart? How many times larger are their salaries, 20 times as large, 40 times as large, 200 times?</p>
<p>Who cares?? They pay the market rate to get someone of the quality they require. People with the ability to run a large corporation today are far more rare and in demand than people who can stock shelves. Same goes for professional athletes and entertainers many of whom make much more than CEOs at major corporations.</p>
<p>It’s called a market based economy–like it or lump it.</p>
<p>but why is it that some companies like REI and Costco have as value liveable wages and benefits?
Your worth isn’t determined by your salary
Our previous school district superientendent who moved up from the CFO position was paid more than our state governor
Not only that but under the supes watch $34 million dollars was lost.
Did he earn his salary?
No, but he recieved a nice golden parachute</p>
<p>And your salary does not determine your worth. It only reflects some choices you made during your life and what type of job you want.
Wal-Mart employees are free to apply to REI and Costco as a step up. Wal-Mart would not be as large as they are using the Costco model and REI is a non-profit niche retailer.</p>
<p>I think it was confirmed long ago that European and Japanese executives are astounded by the level of compensation that their CEO bretheren receive in the U.S.A. Obviously, the heads of Sony, British Telecom, Siemens, etc are highly compensated for their own work but they do not believe that you can justifiy American corporate CEO pay that’s hundreds of times higher than that of the average (not lowest) employee wage.</p>
<p>And I would argue that American CEO pay is not altogether a matter of market forces. There are many more junior executives and senior non-CEO executives than there are CEO jobs, but still we have the excessive compensation. And it when the pay is tied to performance, often it is short-lived or a quick fix that turns out to be a phantom. Remember ‘Chainsaw Al’ Dunlap of Scott paper? As I recall he’s still paying back Scott Paper shareholders part of the salary he received (court settlement).</p>
<p>The CEO of Wal-Mart makes about the same as a top film star does on one movie or an NBA star in one season. Which is overpaid?? I don’t know and really it’s not for me or you to say. If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t go there. If enough people stop going they will hire a new CEO.</p>
<p>I think they are both overpaid, barrons. Anyone who thinks we are operating in a free market isn’t paying very close attention to the influence of money on government. I think you are trying to justify poor behavior. There are no bargains in a non union shop!</p>
<p>Barrons, you missed my point entirely. And what’s with the absolutes? “Don’t like it, then don’t shop there.” We’d never get anything solved in this country if we always utilized that kind of strategy. Increasingly, few of our “choices” are untethered.</p>
<p>As the poster following you noted, the free market is not completely free. There are external forces that compromise complete freedom of choice. I don’t like sports analogies, but remember that the salaries of pro sports players do not conform to market forces alone. If sports leagues were a true free market, you wouldn’t have several teams on the brink of financial failure. Now here’s a good segway: pro teams today owe their financial health in great part to public subsidies. Well, this is true of Wal-Mart today also; Tax subsidies, free infrastructure improvements, etc., and the well documented facts about Wal-Mart employees receiving income assistance. Hey, Wal-Mart is smart to take advantage of legal incentives that are offereed to them, like other businesses (ever hear of Enterprize Zones?). However, let’s not fool ourselves. The classical democratic theory of the free market and the subjective notion of value isn’t practiced in the contemporary business and political world. Maybe it never has been.</p>
<p>What was your point then–that things are different in other countries–probably, but that has little impact on the US does things.
The subsidies to pro sports by the public are not something I support but they are a fact and often supported by the democratic process so the fact that it benefits the athletes too is like complaining that having good airports, schools and roads benefits businesses. OTOH the entertainment industry receives little direct aid in the US but still pays huge salaries to the top stars. Who is more valuable?</p>
<p>Let me point out a couple of significant instances where, by vote, the public clearly opposed subsidies for pro sports. Their will was ignored, and some say violated, by legislators or government executives.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Voters of King County [Seattle, WA] resoundingly rejected extending public money to a proposed new professional football stadium. Billionaire Paul Allen and his supporters in government subsequently got the state legislature to do an end-around (pardon the pun), authorizing state money for construction of the new stadium.</p></li>
<li><p>Anticipating great public opposition to subsidies for a new Yankee Stadium in Manhattan, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani used a little known technical proceedure to remove the referendum (sponsored by stadium opponents) from the ballot.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It seems then, that when it comes to the inter-play of “free market forces” the government often has the final word. That is, businesses like Wal-Mart and the pro sports leagues can manipulate the market by enlisting the government to lower their business costs.</p>