General Political Thread

[NoJ]

Any port in a storm, baby!

[tinnitus photography]

pith helmet >>> snark helmet

[KevinG]

I've seen and heard similar thoughts elsewhere and I think it's unfortunate and demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it means to run a private business.

 

I posted this article before and I think it got lost in your quest on how to respond to me.  But I really am interested in how what you think here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/crazy-data-point-of-the-day-how-much-ceo-vs-worker-pay-has-grown/2012/05/11/gIQArUISIU_blog.html

 

And to summarize worker wages has gone up 5.8 % form 1978 to 2011, whereas CEO pay has gone up 726%.  Now, I am not saying CEO's or small business owners should be paid the same as their workers.  Running a business is extremely demanding and business owners should be fairly compensated for the jobs they do.  But I am not sure how a business owner can justify a pay increase for themselves but yet cut benefits and wages for workers.  The market for CEO's is inflated.   

 

Or economy is such that jobs are scarce.  Wages are low because of it.  But CEO pay is higher than it has ever been.  But it is the workers who should be thankful for having a job.  Whereas the owners don't seem to be thankful for their employees.    

 

I always like to look at Costco.  This Article is an interesting read http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world.  The CEO makes 52K a year (I first read that as 520K which I still though was low).  The average employee makes around 20 bucks an hour with benefits.  Compare that to Walmart CEO who makes 20 million and the average worker makes 8.75.  Ask a person where they would rather shop, ask a person where they would rather work.  

 

Now I am not saying every CEO should make 52K a year.  But really shouldn't there be more value placed upon workers and work environment?  Pay your workers fairly, treat them fairly they will do a better job, the more business you will receive.

[bleedorange]

I posted this article before and I think it got lost in your quest on how to respond to me.  But I really am interested in how what you think here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/crazy-data-point-of-the-day-how-much-ceo-vs-worker-pay-has-grown/2012/05/11/gIQArUISIU_blog.html

 

And to summarize worker wages has gone up 5.8 % form 1978 to 2011, whereas CEO pay has gone up 726%.  Now, I am not saying CEO's or small business owners should be paid the same as their workers.  Running a business is extremely demanding and business owners should be fairly compensated for the jobs they do.  But I am not sure how a business owner can justify a pay increase for themselves but yet cut benefits and wages for workers.  The market for CEO's is inflated.   

 

Or economy is such that jobs are scarce.  Wages are low because of it.  But CEO pay is higher than it has ever been.  But it is the workers who should be thankful for having a job.  Whereas the owners don't seem to be thankful for their employees.    

 

I always like to look at Costco.  This Article is an interesting read http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world.  The CEO makes 52K a year (I first read that as 520K which I still though was low).  The average employee makes around 20 bucks an hour with benefits.  Compare that to Walmart CEO who makes 20 million and the average worker makes 8.75.  Ask a person where they would rather shop, ask a person where they would rather work.  

 

Now I am not saying every CEO should make 52K a year.  But really shouldn't there be more value placed upon workers and work environment?  Pay your workers fairly, treat them fairly they will do a better job, the more business you will receive.

 

I love Costco. A well-run business. Plus, anything that starts in Kirkland/Seattle has to be good.

 

I didn't read your article, just your summary. Where do those figures come from? What is a CEO according to that report? I wouldn't think that a small business owner's compensation would come anywhere near a CEO's.

[Doug C]

I read the linked Costco article and it doesn't mention CEO Craig Jelinek's salary or compensation. In the first paragraph it mentions 26 year employee Joe Carcello and his $52,700 salary plus his sizable 401K that his employer has matched. Where did you get the CEO making 52K info from?

 

edit- I found the below. Still low and Costco rocks but not 52K

Originally published Monday, November 28, 2011 at 1:29 PM

• Costco sets pay for incoming CEO

New Costco CEO Craig Jelinek gets a pay raise.

By Melissa Allison

Seattle Times business reporter

 

Craig Jelinek, who is set to become CEO of Costco Wholesale on January 1, will be paid an annual salary of $650,000 plus a bonus of up to $200,000, according to a securities filing Monday.

[Guest Jules]

I posted this article before and I think it got lost in your quest on how to respond to me.  But I really am interested in how what you think here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/crazy-data-point-of-the-day-how-much-ceo-vs-worker-pay-has-grown/2012/05/11/gIQArUISIU_blog.html

 

And to summarize worker wages has gone up 5.8 % form 1978 to 2011, whereas CEO pay has gone up 726%.  Now, I am not saying CEO's or small business owners should be paid the same as their workers.  Running a business is extremely demanding and business owners should be fairly compensated for the jobs they do.  But I am not sure how a business owner can justify a pay increase for themselves but yet cut benefits and wages for workers.  The market for CEO's is inflated.   

 

Or economy is such that jobs are scarce.  Wages are low because of it.  But CEO pay is higher than it has ever been.  But it is the workers who should be thankful for having a job.  Whereas the owners don't seem to be thankful for their employees.    

 

I always like to look at Costco.  This Article is an interesting read http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world.  The CEO makes 52K a year (I first read that as 520K which I still though was low).  The average employee makes around 20 bucks an hour with benefits.  Compare that to Walmart CEO who makes 20 million and the average worker makes 8.75.  Ask a person where they would rather shop, ask a person where they would rather work.  

 

Now I am not saying every CEO should make 52K a year.  But really shouldn't there be more value placed upon workers and work environment?  Pay your workers fairly, treat them fairly they will do a better job, the more business you will receive.

 

- In some cases, of course, more value needs to be placed on workers and work environment, but I can't accept that as a blanket statement.  In manufacturing specifically, this has come a long way just in the past 15-20 years.  Much higher emphasis placed on cleanliness, work environment, etc.  My experience is somewhat limited, but I think this is generally accepted to be true nationwide.

 

- It's hard for me to just look at those numbers and take anything away.  Really depends on the company. The Costco article says Jelinek made $4million in 2012, including stock options. I think Costco's success has a lot more to do with the CEO's abiltiies (and those of their workforce) and his skill as a manager than it does with his perceived frugality by taking a lower base salary.  Another reason I can't just look at some numbers in an article and draw any real conclusions.

 

- We also really need to be careful lumping business owners (small, medium, whatever) in with large corporate CEOs. Two different discussions.  There is a delicate balance between how much direct employees should be paid vs. product pricing, volumes, changes in competition.  It's not that easy to just say "pay them more."

[Mr. Heartbreak]

The kind who asks politely not to be addressed by said person.

Add yourself to the list, sonny boy.

[caliber66]

Oh please no.

[lost highway]

My friend's ears have been fucked up his whole life.  He got some surgeries as a teen under his parents' insurance, and has been poor and uninsurable since he got off.  His ear stuff was pre-existing and he could only qualify for a very expensive plan.  He has health insurance for the first time in 10 years because of the ACA.

 

On the budget deal: neither party wanted another shutdown because they couldn't afford the public opinion fallout.  This congress has been rated the worst.  Also, some polls indicated the last shutdown was more damaging to the GOP's polling than the Dems.  I think fucking up the functioning of government was an out loud agenda for many TEA party congressmen.  That may have had something to do with it. 

[John Smith]

Jeez go out of town for a few days and return to this...not much.

[Guest Don Draper]

Posting this not necessarily for the commentary as much as the link to Boehner's words.  The idea that he was forced into defunding Obamacare or into the shutdown...does he honestly think that people can't follow or remember press from October, all the way in December?

 

Well, the answer is yes, because people don't, but it kills me that that's the case.

[uncool2pillow]

I live in Florida, where our asshole governor completely shunned the ACA. In spite of him and his minions, Florida has had one of the highest, if not the highest, number of people signing up for health insurance through the ACA website. I believe the number is in excess of 300,000.

 

Although I'm not thrilled to see my own rates go up a dime, my point was not to complain: it was to note that 1) the amount mine went up was manageable, at $24/month, since I make an above average income; and 2) it's important to remember that just because someone's contribution amount went up, it doesn't mean the rate went up more than that. Knowing my wonderful employers (who made a point of letting people here know they were voting for Romney), I strongly suspect that any rate increase we got was passed along entirely to the employees. Meanwhile, they got a new Jaguar, just bought their 22-year-old kid a house, complete with granite countertops in the kitchen, etc. etc.

 

Not only are the employing you, they've helped create jobs in the auto and housing industries.  Not to mention that they're wonderful enough to pay you an above average income.

[Guest Don Draper]

Wait, catching up on this one.  Is Mr. Heartbreak complaining that the cost of his healthcare plan increase was passed onto him?  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Not really complaining. I'm grateful that it wasn't higher.

 

Most employers supposedly pay 50% of your health insurance, while you pay the other 50. If it goes up, presumably, they will continue that. Knowing what a douche the owner is, I would not be surprised if he passed all of the increase on...thereby not really paying 50% anymore... Does that make sense?

 

As for my employer helping create jobs in the auto and housing industries...where does that come from? Because people have to commute and live in residences? Kind of a stretch...

The reason I have an above average income is related to the industry, not the employer. I have a Master's degree in my field and 12 years of experience. Former colleagues have told me that this company does not deserve someone of my caliber, and believe it or not, that is accurate. I am slumming there, and will get out as soon as I have a better offer that is more commensurate with my education and experience.

[uncool2pillow]

A 22 year old kid would, in most cases, live in an apartment and buy a used car. He got a new house and car. Jobs.

[Guest Jules]

I hope Mr. H doesn't pull something patting himself on the back.

 

If companies absorbed every increase 100%, be it insurance costs or something else, they wouldn't be in business very long.

 

I, for one, would rather my employer drive a nice car and have a nice house than otherwise. That would seem to indicate the company is at least somewhat profitable, which it seems would better ensure the future employment of his poor downtrodden employees.

 

Also, for the record, marble is commonly used in kitchens.

 

[Guest Jules]

If I quote myself, can my buddy see it?

[Guest Jules]

That doesn't quite work.

[Tweedling]

Is it really "ignoring" if you make references about the "ignoring" of the people you are "ignoring"? Hahaha

Cracks me up. Like the kid who covers his ears and says loudly, " I can't hear you. I can't hear you. I can't hear you."

[Sir Stewart]

Yeah, exactly. Puerile behavior. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Is it really "ignoring" if you make references about the "ignoring" of the people you are "ignoring"? Hahaha

Cracks me up. Like the kid who covers his ears and says loudly, " I can't hear you. I can't hear you. I can't hear you."

That's me. But I don't have you permanently on ignore. You're all right.

 

I love the feature, and wish more people used it. In fact, I never realized how many people I had on ignore until this morning! I would imagine there is a circle jerk of snarky remarks above your comment, and couldn't care less what they say. Some people enjoy being annoying, but I really prefer this thread for honest discussion, not firing off obnoxious comments. Life is too short for all that negativity.

 

By way of contrast, Hixter - with whom I disagree on just about any issue under the sun - is almost studiously polite on here, and although I may have inadvertently offended him with a comment here and there, I feel like if I met him, and we debated something, I would end up shaking his hand and walking away, saying, You're all right. In fact, although our world views are worlds apart, I think we could have a debate without it devolving into name calling or sarcasm. Sadly, that's not true for everyone, and I'm not innocent either. It's ironic that my getting angry with being attacked is viewed by some as puerile, while the snark and name calling is not called out.

 

I do find it alarming that there are so many people on a Wilco board who seem impervious to the issues of income inequality, and who apparently find it fun to view employees as if they should all be grateful just to have a job. Do these people know who Woody Guthrie is? Well, we have had that discussion before, and it's a waste of time, but I will be the first to admit that I take being employed somewhat for granted. I know that everyone is blessed to have work, to have food, etc., but I have never had a hard time finding work, due to my advanced degree, my experience, and, frankly, my work ethic. I have often been willing to take on humble jobs because I had rent and bills to pay. I never thought a particular job was "beneath me"...or if I did think it, it didn't stop me from working hard. I have had work consistently since 1994.

 

I've been on this board a long time, and have made some friends here. Some of them are now Facebook friends, and I've even had the privilege of getting together with someone before a Wilco show and hanging out. If someone disagrees with something I say, I have no problem with that. But once it devolves into something negative, I'm out. In my real life, as in the internet world, if someone wants to be rude to me, I'm having none of it. Peace to all.

[Guest Don Draper]

"Once it devolves into negativity, I'm out."

 

No you're not. You call people names and threaten to put people on ignore and brag that you have. I hear "I'm out" to mean "I choose not to engage," and you have to admit that's patently false.

 

It's okay to acknowledge that you join in the fray. The fray is half the fun of the internet. Call people pricks and even imply that they suck them, but don't try to act like you're above everyone else when you do that.

 

Relax. Ignore people the old-fashioned way by not responding to things you disagree with or don't like. When someone disproves one of my points here I disappear for a day or two and come back when the subject's changed.

 

Woody Guthrie would want you to get riled up about income inequality, not guys on a message board.

[LouieB]

Do these people know who Woody Guthrie is?

Sure, he is that guy who influenced Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Jeff Tweedy among others. But what he actually wrote and felt really isn't important because all he was, was a musician so he was basically an entertainer, not really any different than a minstrel show.

 

LouieB

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Sure, he is that guy who influenced Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and Jeff Tweedy among others. But what he actually wrote and felt really isn't important because all he was, was a musician so he was basically an entertainer, not really any different than a minstrel show.

 

LouieB

That explains a lot. I am beginning to see the light!

[Guest Jules]

 

Make It Stop: The Worst of the Week of 12.13.13 — Special Selfie Edition!

BY Drew Magary

 

Time once more for Make It Stop, in which we count down the selfie-related things this week that must stop.

1. The Obama selfie controversy. First of all, to all you treehuggin' liberal folk out there: Don't pretend like you wouldn't have raked one of the Bushes over the coals if they pulled the same shit in the same spot. We live in an era of planned outrage, so I promise you that a picture of Ted Cruz taking a selfie prior to the funeral of a world statesmen would have gotten the full WHAT AN ASSHOLE treatment from most liberal corners of the Internet. (Cruz is an asshole, but that's beside the point here.) This controversy was so annoying that it spawned a dozen sub-controversies. Did Obama want to bang that Danish lady? Is a selfie with two people really a selfie? And how dare Obummer shake hands with a Cuban! It's like the perfect outrage factory, so let's address the issues one by one:

• You can laugh at a funeral. Funerals are sad and terrible, but they give you a chance to see old friends you haven't seen in a long time, and many people laugh and crack jokes as a way of cutting through the sadness. There's plenty of frowning and crying to be had as well, but a few laughs are a healthy way of dealing with grief, and they serve as a kind of reaffirmation that life goes on and still has a lot of happiness to offer. You can take a photo, just so long as it you don't do it during the chorus of "Ave Maria".

• If Obama wanted to nail the Danish Prime Minister, he's not gonna be that obvious about it. Give the man some credit. He's not gonna be that brazen. He'd call up Hamlet's mom on the sly, using the special POTUS phone that isn't tapped by the NSA, and THEN he'd make his move. He's not gonna do it right in front of the wifey. UNLESS HE'S JUST THAT DAMN GOOD.

• It's not a real selfie unless you're makin' the duck face. If you're just taking a photo with yourself and a friend to commemorate the occasion, you're not getting into the purely narcissistic aspects of the selfie tradition. You gotta be alone, in booty shorts, making the duck face, and letting the world know YOU BE FINE. That's the kind of selfie that would be extremely distasteful at an open casket funeral. But before a memorial in a stadium? Not so much. That said, Obama's gotta know that the selfie panel is out there, waiting to judge him.

• When someone offers you a handshake, you shake it. What are you gonna do, spit in his fucking hand? This isn't SEC football. There are manners here.

• I don't know how every President doesn't end up divorced. You work late hours. You get an obscene amount of shit thrown at both you and your family. You're in the spotlight constantly. You have to bomb people. If it weren't for the political ramifications, I bet every Presidency would end up with the First Lady storming out of the White House with the kids and moving to a town in Idaho with no electricity. No marriage can survive that kind of strain. No wonder Michelle looks like she wants to beat her husband with a rolling pin.

• There is no inappropriate time to play Toto's "Africa". Don't you dare bash CBS for playing that song in honor of Mandela. It's a damn masterpiece and I'll fight you if you say otherwise