Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Billionaire CEO's Are 'Exploited Workers' Facing 'Bigotry'" video.

Karly Noel Socialism does that as well. With capitalism you have a chance to be successful yourself. And with capitalism when you become successful so does everyone else. With socialism only a select few are successful, usually politicians, and everyone else suffers. Socialism is pure greed.
2
Yusuke Urameshi A billionaire? No. I don't inspire to. But I do inspire to own land, a nice home, retire early, and live a better life than my parents and be well off.
2
The worse politician to talk to about the economy is Bernie Sanders. Sanders is an economic illiterate.
1
***** We have that already, the federal reserve. It caused the Great Depression.
1
IllPhl01 Compared to the entire workforce they don't. If they were to all earn $0/hr the workforce will earn less than $1 per hour extra if they were working 20 hours a week. So you can gripe about how much CEOs make but if they made less everyone else won't benefit.
1
2snoopys It is called math, something you along with other liberals seem to be scared of.
1
Phil Gramm has a point. CEOs earn as much as they do because they generate a lot of wealth in our society. It was something that for every dollar the earn society earns $5, or around there. But if you look at CEO pay and compare it to worker pay you will see that CEOs don't earn a lot compared to what they produce. I guess we can continue to attack, but when they decide to work less who is going to produce the wealth in this country?
1
If the CEO of Walmart or the CEO of McDonalds were to make $0 their workers will earn less than $0.01 per hour. The pure fact is that compared to the rest of the workforce CEOs don't earn much.
1
Terri Tate The CEO of walmart earned $23.5 million last year. There are 1.3 million workers at Walmart. One third work less than 28 hours a week. So for simple argument say the average hours of those employees is 28 hours. Now take that $23.5 million and spread it around the workers it comes out to an extra $0.64/hr. My less than a cent number comes from I believe a forbes site or something similar (with more time I can find it). I can't find it at this time but they crunch the numbers. There are other sights that crunch the numbers as well for other businesses. But in all CEOs compared to all the workers don't earn that much money.
1
Ylze Tyr It is called math. Multiplication and division, what you learn in elementary school. Crunch the numbers. Even averaging at 20 hours a week (which is low) if the CEO were to earn $0 and give all the money to the workers that is less than a dollar an hour.
1
Jason King Last year the CEO of Walmart earned $25.3 million. There are 1.3 million workers for Walmart. Even at 20 hours a week that is less than a dollar per employee per hour. My less than cent number comes from a site that I can't find (but if rather large, like Forbes for example). But compared to the entire work force the CEO earns little. "The Waltons made 33 billion in new wealth last year." Wealth does not equal income. The Waltons have so much wealth because of all the shares of stock they own of Walmart. Now you may say that stocks are bad for the economy or something similar. But Walmart is as massive as it is due to stocks. And due to that they can afford to have multiple stores at convenient locations, and convenient hours (24 hours) with a wide variety of goods and services at a low price. That highly benefits the consumer. " If the Walton family can make 33 billion a year, Wal-Mart can easily afford to pay all of its workers." They do pay all their workers. " If the investors are not happy with billions pouring in (even after the pay increase), then that is their own fault." So it is investors fault to want to see their investment grow? Damn those greedy bastards wanting to see their investment grow. So are you saying that you don't want to see your investment grow? And as I said, it is because of them prices are low and the employees can receive discounts. The pure fact is that retail workers don't generate much revenue. Walmart works off of thin profit margins. They earn as much as they do due to investors. Without them Walmart will at best a Target, limited locations, limited hours, higher prices and similar wages.
1
Ylze Tyr I see that you don't respond to me much. Maybe because I just showed how you can't even do simple 3rd grade math?
1
Jason King Wealth does not equal income. You need to learn that quickly. " Wal-Mart can grow to a bigger size, which can increase wealth. " Walmart is growing which creates more jobs and more convenience for shoppers. "Also, cheap goods does not necessarily help a consumer. If you buy a microwave for $200 and it lasts for 10 years, compared to a $40 microwave that lasts 1 year. Cheap goods can actually lead to lower quality of items, thus making people spend more money over a longer time." You push for cheap goods that last longer. Walmart does that. Walmart will sell that microwave that lasts for 10 year for $150 where other businesses will sell it for $200. Walmart doesn't sell any different products that other businesses sell beside Great Value, which is food, which all food has short shelf lives. "Nice twisting the meaning of a sentence. That is a sign of a troll. You obviously knew that sentence meant that Wal-Mart can afford to pay their workers well, rather than paying them, period." I don't troll. I know there are some people that compare Walmart to slave drivers. Just making sure you are not one of them. Walmart pays competitive wages compared to other retail employers. I hear constant rant on Walmart when I never hear rants on Raley's or Hy Vee or Safeway or other smaller companies. They pay comparable wages, while having higher prices, less selection, limited hours and locations. But no complaints on them, but some how Walmart can afford higher wages because they are Walmart, nothing else. ".Investors of Wal-Mart should be happy with the fact the company is already worth as much as it is." Investors bought shares, thus they want Walmart to grow. If not they wouldn't have invested in it. So are you saying they should invest in stocks and be happy with how much they are worth? " even though it is fully within Wal-Mart's power to be able to pay the workers decently. " What is "decently"? That is a subjective word you just used. They are paid competitive wages for retail. "Wal-Mart is rich because it gives low prices for cheap goods that last a short time" They sell refund plans that last 2 years, and every appliance I bought at Walmart were sold at other stores and last a long time. Plus, as I said, they sell cheap food as well that people buy with the intent of eating quickly. "and pays its employees as little as possible" They pay competitive wages, that average above the min. wage. "Then they pay off politicians" That is a separate issue, but even with what they give it still is small compared to what all the employees earn. "The pure fact is that Wal-Mart is a sleezy business." According to you based off of nothing. ". If they have to rely on investors, rather than the products, to be able to be everywhere and have low prices, they shouldn't be as large as they are. Let them die so businesses can take their place and provide a decent product and pay workers decently." There are other retail businesses, they pay similar wages as well but have higher prices.
1
Ylze Tyr "it takes you over an hour to respond to me, but you're gonna talk shit when i don't respond immediately?" I have a life
1
Ylze Tyr I didn't say right away. I am talking about on other videos. I write on those enough but you are avoiding me.
1
Ylze Tyr I was showing that CEOs earn little compare to the entire work force. People want them to earn less, ok, and then what? What to do with the extra money? When I say earn $0 I mean take the money they have now, spread it across the workers to where CEOs earn zero and the workers earn his salary instead. Workers simply won't get paid that much.
1
Ylze Tyr The CEO of walmart earned 23.5 million dollars. There are 1.3 million workers for walmart. Take 1.3 million and times it by 20 thousand, you find a number higher than 23.5 million. That is why I said when compared to all workers.
1
Ylze Tyr "so you're trying to compare the earnings of one person to the earnings of 1.3 million people?" Yes, because look at how much that CEO is responsible for. Also it begs the question, if they earn less then what? What to do with the extra money?
1
Ylze Tyr You don't improve society by bringing people down.
1
Ylze Tyr "this is what happens when i reply right away and you try to also. i make you look like a fucking idiot" Not really.
1
Ylze Tyr "and you still have not justified trying to compare the earnings of one person to that of 1.3 million people." And you haven't justified why I can't. I showed you have mathematically how CEOs bringing in less money doesn't mean more money will go to the workers. So why do you want to reduce the pay of CEOs? The pure answer for you is jealousy. Reducing their pay is not going to solve anything. Bringing people down is not going to solve anything or better the economy. So if the CEO of Walmart were to earn $1 million dollars, then what? What happens? You never answer that at all. I tell you what will happen though, there will be less jobs offered by Walmart thus unemployment will go up. Why do you support that?
1
Ylze Tyr Several people, including you are supporting a min. wage around $15/hr. I just showed you that is not possible. A $9.50/hr min. wage is not possible either unless prices are raised or hours are cut. Because even if the CEO were to take his money and pass it around to the workers they still won't be making $9.50/hr. Also the term "living wage" is subjective. You have yet to clearly define it show you know nothing.
1
Ylze Tyr "i have justified how you can't just by pointing it out. it is absolutely ridiculous to compare the anything of one person with the anything of over one million people." When those 1.3 million people's job depend on that one person you can. I am not comparing the CEO to 1.3 million random people but 1.3 million people he employs. A reason why CEOs earn as much as they do is because they are responsible for that much. The Walmart worker is responsible in making sure the shelves are stocked, the CEO is responsible for over a million jobs. You see the difference? I doubt it.
1
Ylze Tyr "no, you have NEVER shown anybody that a higher min wage is not possible." Where is the money going to come from? It is obvious that it isn't from the CEO now.
1
THE MOTHER FLICKERS So you are not greedy for wanting them to earn less?
1
AEIIIStraigon And socialism isn't greed? Wanting to prevent people from being successful isn't greed?
1
Yusuke Urameshi The justification? They do a lot. And when they do well others do well. Yeah someone who is rich may own a few nice cars, but I own a nice car as well because of it. Same with a nice home. When they get better so does everyone else.
1
***** In capitalism in order for someone to get money they have to generate a good or service someone demands. So when Samsung makes a smart phone I buy it. Yeah the CEO of Samsung is better off than me, but I know own a smart phone. "There is only so much money to go around" Not true, it is pretty much infinite, especially considering it is no more than numbers on a screen. "Is it that you work for a rich guy" Yeah, a rich guy who is running a business that people demand. "Can't they spare a little fucking more of their millions or billions to give us a liveable wage?" Mathematically no.
1
lostchild2003 One, trickle down economics is a political term. Next, we have seen trickle down economics at work. People have better cars, TVs, cell phones, more disposable income etc. than in the past. People have it better now than in the past. And when I say people I mean everyone.
1
Celrador Question 1. Goods and services just don't exist, they have to be created. And those with the most skills that society demands gets compensated the most. That isn't bad because they can better their skills and improve society more. But with socialism you have the government going up to successful people and take what they earned and give to those that do nothing. Where is the incentive to work hard anymore? And those who are successful get brought down. I showed mathematically how CEO pay isn't that high when compared to all the workers they are responsible for. But people want to take their money. Ok, and then do want with it? There isn't much there in the big picture. All you have done is bring people down. If you were to tax the top 1% or something like that 100% our country will still be in a deficit. But people want to tax them more just to purely bring them down. Question 2. In socialism the government is controlling resources. If people have control of the government that isn't bad. But at the large scale, like the government the size of the federal government, you don't have control of the government, thus the become rich. Look how many millionaires are in congress? Five of the top 10 richest counties in the US are around DC. There is a reason why. Socialism can be successful at smaller more local government, that is because you control the government. But at the large scale you don't have control, and thus you get the problems we have now, rich politicians are politically connected businesses. "Tough luck... You probably won't live a better life than your parents in our current state of the capitalist system. Also... What about socialism is preventing you from doing that if you were to live in a socialist society?" I do live a better life than them, same with you and your parents. If not then you messed up. People drive better cars. I own a smart phone, my parents never had one when they were my age (in the 80s). I have 4 computers in my home (6 if you count the phones). People as a whole have it better. I am statistically more likely to live longer, same wit others in my generation when compared to my parents. To answer that question. I am pursuing a career that pays around $120,000/yr. With socialism I will get taxed more where I wouldn't be able to afford land. If I did I will pay higher property taxes meaning I will own less land. Socialism will prevent me from doing that. ""In capitalism in order for someone to get money they have to generate a good or service someone demands." How is that different in socialism?!" Completely different. In socialism people get something for nothing. Thus things get created on a volunteer basis at times out of the pure kindness of one's heart. In capitalism if one wants something they have to create it. It is completely different. "So you are too stupid to even understand that money is just the quantification of wealth... Alright. So yeah... Money is based on our limited resources. (i.e. actual material resources or time) You might be able to create money out of thin air, but it loses its value, if you do it. Ever heard of inflation?! If you only have 100$ to go around and then suddenly print 900$ more, the things that previously cost 1$ will now cost 10$... The only way to actually CREATE wealth is by transforming lifetime into labourtime." I agree with what you said. The problem is that in socialism you do just that, you give people $100 for doing nothing. That is what influences inflation. So you are correct on what money is, you just are failing to connect the dots of how socialism is causing the exact problem you just mentioned. "After all the other nonsense I had to read from you, I doubt that you are even intelligent enough for a simple single-digit addition..." I have a math minor and I tutor math for a living. Look up the Oxford dictionary of socialism and get back to me........or better yet here it is. "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Completely different then what you just said. I don't even see your definition anywhere. And you call me a "fucking idiot"? Man, you need to learn how to read the Oxford dictionary. Socialism isn't "a factory is owned by the employees working in that factory and the management of that factory is democratically decided" Socialism involves government action and force. You got the definition of capitalism right, so I know there is potential. "that the Capitalist system will just lead to a Master-Slave relationship between Capitalists and Human Capital," You get that with socialism where the government is the masters and we are the slaves. That happens when you have socialism without control of the government. In capitalism all a business can do is offer you a job and a products. They can't force you do do anything, but government does.
1
lostchild2003 Look up the Learn Liberty video entitled "The Real 'Truth About the Economy:' Have Wages Stagnated?" and the article "Donald Bourdreaux and Max Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class" from WSJ
1
Yusuke Urameshi Yes there are people in poverty, but those in poverty are better off today than in the past. "while there are people with far more wealth and political influence than is due to one person." And that is a problem, but that can be prevented with smaller more local government (as in state rights) and limited federal government. With more technology you have greater access to several things. A reason why income inequality has gotten worse is due to the federal government having too much power. I agree the rich are buying out politicians, and you prevent that with less government, not more.
1
Celrador Productivity is up due to technology. Technology is up due to people having an incentive to develop it and get better. And thus things are cheaper. So why the hatred of Reagan? When he too office after Carter inflation was out of control and the economy was tanking. But I guess you choose to ignore that. And after him we have seen 4 different presidents. Wages have gone up, that is the fact.
1
dffykvn Local governments are easier to control. Plus you can move and remain a US citizen with local governments. If a local society wants to act like thugs then they can dig their own grave.
1
dffykvn Actually they do demand that CEOs earn that much.
1
Celrador Let us start with your inability to properly define socialism. Until you properly define it you have little to no credibility. Highlighting a few points where you are wrong "If you have a proper constitution" We do have one, we just need to follow it. "There are only so many millionaires in congress in the first place, because of Capitalism." No, because of socialism. To get rich in capitalism you have to actually generate something society demands. Society doesn't demand politics and bureaucrats. That is actually inefficient. So no, capitalism does not create rich politicians. You are now showing your lack of understanding of capitalism. Please re-read your definition of capitalism as that was the only thing you got right in your last comment. " Due to the GROWING WEALTH INEQUALITY" There has always been wealth inequality, even some of the most liberal researches realize this. Wealth does not equal income, or resources. You need to learn what wealth is as well before you gain credibility. My generation is wealthier than the previous, and that has always been the trend. "Most people advocating Socialism or social policies in general are in favor of paying people for their work " Which you are in capitalism. In socialism people want a paycheck, they don't want to work. "I don't need the Oxford dictionary for that. " Really? " I used my own words to describe Socialism." Really? I guess I can say that socialism means rape. Simple, if we can define something as we want. "Socialism has nothing to do whatsoever with taxation." Really? Wow, you are not bright.
1