AIG - Page 30

classicman · 05-15-2009, 01:16 PM

When did this become a discussion about the minimum wage? I thought we were talking about the Gov't regulating the pay of financial CEO's. You brought up the minimum wage. The two are separate.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate the minimum wage?

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 01:23 PM

No, I'm asking you to tell me why you think one is OK and not the other. What do you think is OK to regulate and what is not? The two are not separate; though I might find an angle you wouldn't have thought of, it is still very relevant and your arguments for one and against the other confuse me. Explain it to me again? Is it hard for you when anything other than the exact point at (your) hand is related to something else? Does this extrapolation dilute your argument (whatever that is, we're working on figuring that out) or just generally confuse you?

By the way, I'm not suggesting anything. Please re-read my first post on the matter.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?

First off, I never made an argument. (see above) Just a statement. I am not so comfortable with the Gov't setting limits on how much people can make. One issue is that setting this precedent at this time, signing it into law and making it a permanent thing is not something I think should happen. I opened that for discussion.

You brought the minimum wage into it. Then got insulting. I guess I'm just dense.

FWIW, I am fine with a minimum wage. You are saying that a maximum wage is the same (conceptually)as a minimum and on that we disagree.

I quoted my first post so you can see there was no argument - just a statement.

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 01:47 PM

Never mind. Forget it. Brick walls are so boring after a while, and my head hurts.

I could present a timeline with a "you said" then "I said" but it's moot when you dance around things as you do.

But thanks for the enlightened debate. I learned so much about your side.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 02:03 PM

I don't have a side - thats your misconception. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a position that doesn't exist. I stated my initial reaction/opinion.

I agree about brick walls and closed minds, they get very tiresome. See there is some common ground.

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 02:12 PM

You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself.

All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle.

I see why debates here turn into flame wars.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself.

uh ok, see pigeonhole comment.

Quote:

I am not so comfortable with the Gov't setting limits on how much people can make.
One issue is that setting this precedent at this time, signing it into law and making it a permanent thing is not something I think should happen. I opened that for discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle.

What angle? And don't you dare mention the (minimum wage) again or I'll come to Ohiooooooo and make more idle threats!

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 02:34 PM

C-man, you won't need to come to Ohio because I'm about to walk to PA and kick your ass.

Pigeonhole? You're kidding, right? I couldn't have cut and pasted more precisely. OK, for entertainment value, exact quotes from you:

Quote:

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.

Quote:

Without this turning into another "minimum wage" or "living wage" discussion, the restriction on maximum pay is not something I think our Gov't should be getting into

Quote:

But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't

Quote:

I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.

Quote:

My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.

Don't think outside the box, your brain might explode.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Nope, what is the relevance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Government regulates the "lowest" wage *(MINIMUM WAGE)* a company can pay a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Without this turning into another "minimum wage" or "living wage" discussion,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Why was a minimum wage implemented? Why is this 'realignment of compensation' being considered?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

regulation is not real high on my list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Bullshit: you want it one-way but not another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Additionally, I did not change my argument at all. Bruce quoted specific text and I responded to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

But minimum wage is OK.

Who is talkin minimum wage? :p

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 03:18 PM

Goddammit classic. I asked you very simply: if the government shouldn't control wages how do you justify a minimum wage?

BITE ME.

Oh, and I never DENIED talking about the min wage, ya bonehead. I also made the connection in parts you did not quote.

It's pretty much the basis for my point that I will never get through your thick skull.

Oh fuggit, I'm going to say it: NO WONDER TW GETS ON YOUR CASE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicnon-listenin'man

My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.

Wait, what? I thought you didn't have an argument.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classic manly man

The minimum is fine to suit its purpose, but restricting the maximum? The correlation isn't there for me in a free market society.

Remember this?

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 03:33 PM

Remember this:

Quote:

Both concepts are designed to protect the person who is NOT making 50 katrillion dollars a year and don't have a 40 katrillion nest egg to fall back on: the former by not letting a company getting away with paying a buck fifty an hour, the latter by ensuring that the top pay scales do not jeopardize the viability of the company and therefore protecting the lowest paid employees from paying for the extravagance of the top paid employees who, let's face it, don't really give a shit if the company crumbles...there are more to be had.

Your free market society didn't self-regulate very well by the way. Your boys fucked it all up. Sadly, the concept of free market society was conceived with a certain level of belief that people are basically ethical and not evil fucking bastards.

My point again, the purpose of imposing restrictions (jebus h cripes I can't believe I have to go through this again) is to ensure the VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY, SO PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS DON'T RUN INSTITUTION AFTER INSTITUTION INTO THE GROUND WHILE THE PEOPLE IN THE TRENCHES LOSE JOB AFTER JOB AND PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS SAIL AWAY ON THEIR YACHT.

Don't give me your argument about "they worked harder they deserve to ruin companies" crap, either. Most of those guys are numnuts.

You really are being obtuse, and you're shit-stirring because you think it's funny and you can't say a damn thing about your point except "Yeah HUH."

You're lucky I like you.

classicman · 05-15-2009, 03:43 PM

Yes I do and my response - - -

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps their pay should be tied to what profits their companies make - that I agree with. But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't. A free market will correct the imbalances if the Gov't didn't bail them out.

Perhaps it is the congress who stepped in and bailed them out who as you so aptly put it "fucked it all up."

classicman · 05-15-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Don't give me your argument about "they worked harder they deserve to ruin companies" crap, either. Most of those guys are numb-nuts.

And when did I EVER say that?

Shawnee123 · 05-15-2009, 03:47 PM

Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh, and bullshit.

It'll be hard to self-regulate or free market anything when we are all living in a ditch hoping the planes will come over and drop loads of rations.

Nope, the greedy fucking bastards fucked it up, the feds have to go in and re-regulate federally regulated business. Tried free rein, they'd rather ruin our country and fuck the rest of us. Feds just finally had to play the card, before your big finance boys fucked it up even worse.

Quote:

And when did I EVER say that?

That might have been another of the rampant right wing(nuts)ers. My apologies if by "stay out of their business" you don't mean let them run willy-nilly in waves of destruction.

05-15-2009, 01:16 PM	#436
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	When did this become a discussion about the minimum wage? I thought we were talking about the Gov't regulating the pay of financial CEO's. You brought up the minimum wage. The two are separate. Are you suggesting that we eliminate the minimum wage? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

05-15-2009, 01:23 PM	#437
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	No, I'm asking you to tell me why you think one is OK and not the other. What do you think is OK to regulate and what is not? The two are not separate; though I might find an angle you wouldn't have thought of, it is still very relevant and your arguments for one and against the other confuse me. Explain it to me again? Is it hard for you when anything other than the exact point at (your) hand is related to something else? Does this extrapolation dilute your argument (whatever that is, we're working on figuring that out) or just generally confuse you? By the way, I'm not suggesting anything. Please re-read my first post on the matter. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

05-15-2009, 01:47 PM	#439
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Never mind. Forget it. Brick walls are so boring after a while, and my head hurts. I could present a timeline with a "you said" then "I said" but it's moot when you dance around things as you do. But thanks for the enlightened debate. I learned so much about your side. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

05-15-2009, 02:03 PM	#440
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	I don't have a side - thats your misconception. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a position that doesn't exist. I stated my initial reaction/opinion. I agree about brick walls and closed minds, they get very tiresome. See there is some common ground. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

05-15-2009, 02:12 PM	#441
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself. All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle. I see why debates here turn into flame wars. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)