Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Fox News is OUTRAGED that executives make ten times more than workers   (foxnews.com) divider line 26
    More: Ironic, Fox News, labourers, Randi Weingarten, Mackinac Center, Great Officer of State, National Education Association, stipends, Dennis Van Roekel  
•       •       •

5400 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jul 2012 at 12:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-14 12:59:50 PM  
4 votes:
money is like manure.

Spread it around, and it helps things grow.

Put it in one place, and you just have a big ol' pile of shiat.
2012-07-14 10:59:16 AM  
4 votes:
Are they outraged that it's only 10 times more?
2012-07-14 11:31:04 PM  
1 votes:

Friction8r: I gave up on posting substantive, fact-filled arguments to counter the banal, overly-emotional and misguided assertions of whiny liberals a long time ago. My sole purpose these days is to ridicule them. And yes, I have the perfect name for my new handle on Fark. Stay tuned, FLCJC!


Why would you need a new Fark handle? Aren't you proud of who you are? Are you implying that your idiotic statements over the months have eliminated any credibility you have with smart people?
2012-07-14 11:27:44 PM  
1 votes:

Friction8r: I gave up on posting substantive, fact-filled arguments


There was a time you did that?

For some reason I have you farkied as "doesn't know what landlocked means" so I'm quite skeptical of that.
2012-07-14 10:36:31 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: He doesn't but in a just and fair society, he should be paid as much as the guy who builds the sets, puts on makeup, works security at the studio or schleps around a camera. The argument is that an individuals talent, knowledge or market demand should not set the price of their wage.


Is that the argument the left is making, or is that the argument the left that exists only in your head is making? There is an important difference between the two, you know. I suppose the brain-in-the-box conundrum really can't help you distinguish since delusions and empirical observations of the outside world would invariably seem the same, but rest assured, there's an entire world outside that box, and it's not as scary as you think -- all the people you're imagining running around saying shiat like that proverbially died when the Soviets instituted the Nomenklatura class and then literally died some time later because that shiat happened a long farking time again, in a country far, far away.
2012-07-14 09:54:43 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: parkthebus: Enjoy the unicorns and rainbows. Is there a company in the world that sets wage based on value? Ha, farking ha.

I'm not saying I agree with the argument but if the left is to be outraged that a CEO makes more money than a stock boy, they should be equally outraged that Lebron james makes more money than the dude selling programs. By the way, CEOs dont own the companies, they are hired by the shareholders and board to run the companies.

my company pays me a valuable wage consistent with the market price for labor for someone with my experience and skills. If they wanted to cut my pay by $20k on monday morning, I'd simply walk to a competitor.


I have to ask.... are you mentally retarded? Because if you are (and there's nothing wrong with that, good for you for participating in society!), then I will phrase my response to you in a different way.

I would like to try to explain to you the difference between a CEO making 10 times more than his employees and a CEO making 600 times more than his employees, but before I do, I really need to know, are you mentally retarded? Because I have to know the level to which I should direct this explanation. Do you have bonus chromosomes? Simple "yes or no" question.
2012-07-14 09:02:04 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Still waiting for the left to start railing on George Clooney for being paid more than the guy who scoops popcorn at the theater


In your mind George Clooney owns a theater chain. Alright then.
2012-07-14 06:34:19 PM  
1 votes:

HighOnCraic: Spare Me: Pardon my n00bness but this thread looks like lefties defending rich people. I'm going to go make sure I didn't eat some kind of mold or something because this is bizzarroland.

We're defending the two people named in the article and the unnamed staffers at the NEA and AFT are raking in six-figure salaries, and giggling at the fact that Fox is trying to spin their salaries as being way beyond the range of teachers' salaries, when just a few months ago they were claiming that it was the teachers who were making too much:

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/03/04/average-milwaukee-teache r -paid-100000-year-summers


cdn.theatlantic.com
2012-07-14 05:12:38 PM  
1 votes:

Mantour: The article is about Union Bosses making a lot of money, not Wall Street executive.


*thatsthejoke.jpg*
2012-07-14 04:12:10 PM  
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: BravadoGT: because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary

The employee could choose not to be an employee.
The teacher could choose not be a teacher.

Why do you hate the free market?


Seriously. Anyone who becomes a teacher knows going in that they will receive below-private market pay for their talents and will have to deal with a world of hassle. If teachers were so smart, they would all become investment bankers and come up with the next financial instrument that sinks the economy.
2012-07-14 03:08:33 PM  
1 votes:
Here's the funny thing about this: the union works for the teachers. Not the other way around.

That is a fact that is often lost on folks. Those "union bosses" aren't the teachers' employers. They are an organization that the teachers belong to. In the same way that the RIAA work for recording artists and their production houses, or the MPAA work for the film industry. In the same way that SAG works for actors.

Union bosses don't employ teachers, any more than SAG employs actors. They are a labor organization, and their members employ the services of the union, not the other way around. So, really when you talk about unions and teachers, when you come down on teachers, why are folks down on job creators like that?
2012-07-14 02:41:37 PM  
1 votes:

Poison Appleseeds: I noticed Fox nixed their comment boards.


Probably tired of having to answer mail from the Secret Service.
2012-07-14 02:31:33 PM  
1 votes:

Stile4aly: But I thought all the lazy teachers make six figure incomes while only working 7 months out of the year.


Pretty much...
i49.tinypic.com
2012-07-14 02:29:29 PM  
1 votes:

salvador.hardin: gimmegimme: salvador.hardin: randomjsa: And the fact that liberals are not having a fit about this tells me a lot about them.

The problem here is that these are public sector unions. Meaning tax payers support everything they do no matter what and while some people, particularly liberals, bemoan and complain that teachers don't get paid enough, or that schools don't get enough money... The teachers union bosses are making 500,000? If you are one of the people who thinks we need to 'spend more on education' then perhaps you should suggest cutting back on what the union boss gets.

Unless of course the only reason you want teachers to get paid more is so they can kick more towards Democrat candidates in elections.

Since taxpayers pay for teacher's salaries, we have a right to tell teachers how to spend that money. Dropping $500,000 in to the nation's schools is like a silver bullet for all that ailes us. There's two union bosses, so we can drop an entire $1,000,000 back into the system and divvy it up among the 8 or 9 schools that comprise the US education system.

Does Coca-Cola have the right to tell its employees how to spend their paychecks?

From your last reply to me I really thought you'd gotten on the trolley here.
Goddamn Poe and his goodfernutin law.


Isn't it sad that crazy stupid people and smart people deliberately saying stupid things can sound exactly the same?
2012-07-14 02:22:30 PM  
1 votes:

doyner: randomjsa: Unless of course the only reason you want teachers to get paid more is so they can kick more towards Democrat candidates in elections.

Ah yes.
Policies that favor folks that funnel billions to GOP SuperPacs=GOOD
Policies that favor folks that funnel millions to Democratic SuperPacs=BAD


Four homes GOOD! Two mortgages BAD!

www.michaelspornanimation.com
2012-07-14 02:22:03 PM  
1 votes:

randomjsa: And the fact that liberals are not having a fit about this tells me a lot about them.

The problem here is that these are public sector unions. Meaning tax payers support everything they do no matter what and while some people, particularly liberals, bemoan and complain that teachers don't get paid enough, or that schools don't get enough money... The teachers union bosses are making 500,000? If you are one of the people who thinks we need to 'spend more on education' then perhaps you should suggest cutting back on what the union boss gets.

Unless of course the only reason you want teachers to get paid more is so they can kick more towards Democrat candidates in elections.


Since taxpayers pay for teacher's salaries, we have a right to tell teachers how to spend that money. Dropping $500,000 in to the nation's schools is like a silver bullet for all that ailes us. There's two union bosses, so we can drop an entire $1,000,000 back into the system and divvy it up among the 8 or 9 schools that comprise the US education system.
2012-07-14 02:16:13 PM  
1 votes:

randomjsa: And the fact that liberals are not having a fit about this tells me a lot about them.

The problem here is that these are public sector unions. Meaning tax payers support everything they do no matter what and while some people, particularly liberals, bemoan and complain that teachers don't get paid enough, or that schools don't get enough money... The teachers union bosses are making 500,000? If you are one of the people who thinks we need to 'spend more on education' then perhaps you should suggest cutting back on what the union boss gets.

Unless of course the only reason you want teachers to get paid more is so they can kick more towards Democrat candidates in elections.


Agreed. Teachers, firefighters, judges and everyone else who works in the public sector should make as little as possible. It doesn't matter that teachers have an advanced degree and years of experience. They should make 15K/year with no benefits. This strategy will also help us get the best and brightest to become teachers, firefighters and cops.
2012-07-14 02:04:09 PM  
1 votes:

salvador.hardin: gimmegimme: salvador.hardin: Fire the Union boss and credit every teacher their share of the salary. There's only what, 20 or so teachers in each union, so that means like a 50% increase in their salary (multiply by 10 for the boss then divide by 20 for the number of union members). The teachers might experience slashes in benefits or compensation without the union to bargain in their interest, but they will have that extra 50% salary to compensate for the loss. Really a huge win for the teachers if you do the math this way.

LOLWUT?

Lemme guess. You're not a job creator and you never will be.

Maybe there's more people in the union, who knows. That's paper pusher talk.

Teachers aren't historically pushovers who are so dedicated to the calling of their career path that they routinely put the needs of their students ahead of their own welfare. They don't need talented negotiators to look out for their interests, they are capable of bargaining for their own individual fair compensation.

The fact remains there'd have to be hundreds (if not thousands) of people in the union, all receiving some benefit from collective bargaining power (or maybe experiencing some kind of assault on the contractually guaranteed benefits they've already obtained), to justify paying competitive compensation to the talented people running the union.

The smart move is to dissolve the union, go at it on their own, and use those fat union dues they recoup to invest in numismatic gold coins.


dealbreaker.com

I agree wholeheartedly, old chap. Workers went at it on their own in my day and made out like bandits! Can you believe I had to pay nine-year-olds three cents an hour with no benefits? They really put me over a barrel.
2012-07-14 01:58:16 PM  
1 votes:

gimmegimme: salvador.hardin: Fire the Union boss and credit every teacher their share of the salary. There's only what, 20 or so teachers in each union, so that means like a 50% increase in their salary (multiply by 10 for the boss then divide by 20 for the number of union members). The teachers might experience slashes in benefits or compensation without the union to bargain in their interest, but they will have that extra 50% salary to compensate for the loss. Really a huge win for the teachers if you do the math this way.

LOLWUT?

Lemme guess. You're not a job creator and you never will be.


Maybe there's more people in the union, who knows. That's paper pusher talk.

Teachers aren't historically pushovers who are so dedicated to the calling of their career path that they routinely put the needs of their students ahead of their own welfare. They don't need talented negotiators to look out for their interests, they are capable of bargaining for their own individual fair compensation.

The fact remains there'd have to be hundreds (if not thousands) of people in the union, all receiving some benefit from collective bargaining power (or maybe experiencing some kind of assault on the contractually guaranteed benefits they've already obtained), to justify paying competitive compensation to the talented people running the union.

The smart move is to dissolve the union, go at it on their own, and use those fat union dues they recoup to invest in numismatic gold coins.
2012-07-14 01:57:22 PM  
1 votes:

rewind2846: TsukasaK:
So how was one man jumping through loopholes in the law to stack away lots of cash somehow wrong or bad for society? I'm honestly curious.

When they are loopholes you bought and paid for, along with the politicians that wrote said loopholes, that is bad for society. In an ideal world (like the one we don't live in) the citizens that politician is supposed to represent and the politician's own experience, knowledge and conscience are what are supposed to determine what laws get written, passed, or altered.

When the rich and powerful use their money to influence such decisions, this is wrong and always has been. However... it's "legal" because someone paid enough money to the right person to make it so for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the society the politician is supposed to be working for.

Yes I know, people are greedy and corrupt, and always will be. But we should all have to play by the same rules.


talkingpointsmemo.com

Tax loopholes are people, my friend. My bank in the Cayman Islands is run by people. My accountants are people who file the tax documents that allow me to pay a lower rate than you do. These are people and people make America great.
2012-07-14 01:48:03 PM  
1 votes:

Great_Milenko: This is a rather transparent attempt to foment class warfare, isn't it?


Only DemocRATS do that. Sean Hannity has told me that just about every night for the past three years.
2012-07-14 01:32:47 PM  
1 votes:

elchip: rubi_con_man: Speaking of Dodging taxes: did you hear about Mill Romney's 401k ?

As CEO he made contributions to his 401k, which were managed by ... Bain. This allowed him to buy a special class of stock from ... Bain. This stock had the very special property that it paid huge dividends regularly and almost immediately based on the profits of ... Bain ...

So now his 401k has over 10 million in it. Wow. That's big.

It's especially big considering that the maximum allowed contribution into your 401k is $17,000 in 2011, meaning that it would take over 580 years for anyone else to get that balance in just contributions. This seems to be tax evasion to me.

As much as I loathe to defend him, if I put $17000 into my 401(k) this year and it does really well, and at the end of the year there's $20,000 in my 401(k), I didn't evade taxes. My 401(k) just increased.

Granted, most people don't have access to a type of fund with that kind of growth rate.


Seriously. All of these poor people complain, but it's their own choice not to take advantage of the same tax shelters as guys like Romney. What's stopping them from making financially beneficial choices such as these?
2012-07-14 12:49:08 PM  
1 votes:

TsukasaK: rubi_con_man: This seems to be tax evasion to me.

Not if it's all legal. The worst thing you can say about Rmoney is that he possibly lied on his disclosure forms (hopefully it'll disqualify the fark). It's not tax evasion if you're within the confines of the law.

Honestly? I can get on board with that. If I had that kind of cash, i'd be using every possible loophole and law to my advantage too. So would anyone else in that position.

/doesn't hate the rich
//hates douchebags
///unfortunately there's a lot of overlap


What are you talking about? They couldn't even disqualify Obama, and he's a gay, Muslim, Kenyan, baby-killing, socialist, fascist.
2012-07-14 12:42:57 PM  
1 votes:

St_Francis_P: Wait; isn't complaining about executive compensation...socialism?


yes. you cannot point out that CEOs make over 300 times more than the average worker because that's socialisms. you can, however, complain about unions. I think its even on that 'warning signs of fascism' list, which is basically the GOP talking points for this year. unions are always wrong everywhere at all times. unions unions unions. Oh...my gawd...unions. did you SEE what the unions were wearing this year? soooo tacky! plus, they're slutty.
MBK [TotalFark]
2012-07-14 11:43:19 AM  
1 votes:
As I said before, only in this country can the GOP make rich businessmen the victims and teachers the criminals.
2012-07-14 11:22:00 AM  
1 votes:
Right...because working for a business where an executive happens to be is highly paid and FORCING teachers to join a union and pay the salary of its highly paid execs out of their own checks--that's the same thing.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report