Bonuses in the billions, hungry kids in the millions

http://www.suntimes.com/news/quicktakes/658852,CST-NWS-qt20.article

November 20, 2007
BY ZAY N. SMITH Sun-Times Columnist

QT Trickle-On Economics Update:

The top five Wall Street securities firms will pay $38 billion in employee bonuses this year while the U.S. government reports that 35 million Americans, including 12 million children, are going hungry.

So the top five Wall Street securities firms paid out 38 billion for employee bonuses. How does this even remotely connect to how many people are going hungry in America?

they have nothing to do with eachother, but imagine that instead of two ideas they are two pictures. put the pictures side by side and say "this is america"

The cost of goods and services and the price?
If the cost of a bag of beans is $2.00 then some of that cost goes to pay the bonuses of ADMs CEO. So it is a tax on the consumer.

you do not calculate bonuses into the price of a good or service. You calculate how many goods you need to sell at a certain price to make costs then anything you sell over those projections become a bonus.

The idea that a bonus paid to an executive is equivalent to making a poor kid go hungry is treasured, regardless of its basis in fact.

The appropriate response is "well, those getting bonuses should be required to give the money to poor kids".

Anything less makes you a freeper.

It is right up there with "An Arab Sheik buying a large airplane for himself hurts the poverty stricken"

Than the lowest 40% of the people what do you think?
Is that cause for amazement and do you see them as some sort of kings that have by divine right amassed that fortune for the good of us all?
It does not seem obscene to you at all?
And the next question is where are we going with this, because the divide will only get wider if nothing is done. And soon all the we;th and property will be owned by a few families and the rest will be feudal serfs that work at their pleasure.
History has shown this to not be a sustainable society.

I think they must have done something effective. Notice i did not say "did something right". Whether or not what they did was right is subjective. In a purely economic sense, the Wal-Mart business plan has been an extraordinary success. From a social perspective, it borders on criminal. The fact is, there is NOTHING stopping YOU from being the next Sam Walton. Nothing. Better yet, be the next James Sinegal.

Do i see them as "some sort of kings that have by divine right amassed that fortune for the good of us all?"

Don't be ridiculous. They aren't Kings. They are the heirs of a retail fortune. So what? Remember Sears? Remember JC Penney? Remember Woolworth's? Retailers come and go, fall in and out of favor, rise, dominate and fade away in this country.

I save my truly pointless ire for sports figures that are paid astronomical sums to "entertain" us. If someone is successful in business, they became successful because they were good at what they do or did. I don't begrudge ANYONE'S success, no matter how "obscene" others might perceive it to be. If i have a problem with the way they do business, i don't patronize them.

As far as where we are going with this and whether or not it is sustainable, that is a much larger and more complex question than the Walton family, although i agree they have a hand in it.

So what should be done? Personally, i don't pay the likes of the Walton's or those receiving bonuses in New York any mind. I do what i see needs to be done for my own success. When i succeed, my charitable generosity will increase. I see no point whatsoever in lamenting how others are compensated.

Hitler was effective...he did not get around to killing all the jews and misfits because he was stopped, but he made a big dent in there population. And I don't think that you would have any problem judging it evil. But those that followed him were able to overlook that part because of all the "good" he did for Germany.
But Kingdoms in the past rose simply out of military power. If you could raise an Army big enough you simply declared yourself King and all the land belonged to you. And then you would parcel it out to your loyal followers who would then make surfs out of the people, who had no land and no place to go.

Our new kingdom is coming in a much different way but no less effective.
It is coming through the miracle of compound interest. The Walton's 100 billion dollar fortune can only grow larger and in face will double to 200 billion probably in less than 10 years.

Just add that all up among the richest 100 and see where it goes in 20 or 30 years from now. 1% will have 99% of all the money. And of course that will not really work but what it will mean in practical terms is that the 1% will own all the land and property and the rest of us will be surfs working at there pleasure.
But it can be made to work...if the surfs are all happy and lobotomized into accepting there position in life and learn to love big brother.

How much Land Does A Man Need? asked Kafka, and at what point does a man go from bing wonderfully rich to a monster that devourers and destroys the civilization that he lives in.

So what should be done?

What is your proposal to fix this? Strip the Walton's of their wealth? Distribute it to everyone else that makes less than a specific amount?

What is your solution?

And BTW, bringing Hitler up seriously stretches any credulity in your arguments. Comparing the effectiveness of the Walton's to Hitler is absurd. And for the record, i don't care for what Wal-Mart stands for and as a result i have not shopped in a Wal-Mart for probably 10 years. It is interesting that i am not forced to either and the chances of my EVER being forced to are slim and none. Of course, the news is full of stories about people being rounded up and taken to a local Wal-Mart and being forced to shop. Happens all the time.

In themselves they are neutral, neither good or bad.
What this is about is a fatal flaw in our economic system that allows and even mandates a concentration of wealth in the hands or fewer and fewer people.
And at it's heart is usury, the compounding of interest on money loaned out for profit.
It is interesting to note that the only economic system attributed to god, the one used by Israel when they came out of Egypt, made usury illegal for one, and made farm able land the sole property of individual people. But for those two things it was a free market capitalist economic system. Well there was one more thing, all debts were forgiven after 49 years.
But we have came to this crisis before in history, during the time of the robber barons, and the fix then just bought us time, was to have a progressive tax.
And that kept the lid on it for a while until Reagan blew it off and put us once again in a crises that now effects the very foundations of our democracy.

But I will never apologize for the use of Hitler as an example of anything because he represents the greatest failure of mankind to recognize a problem in the making. Too forget the past is to ignore the present.

Some people may admire that. I find it less than impressive.

If you control all te beans you can raise the price every year and give your self a big bonus....a tax on the consumer.

resource controlled by a small group but generally with most goods there is more than enough competition to keep the prices in check with the market.

put up pictures of fat kids in America, saying they were the "poor" in America. If anyone has any links or pics of starving children in America, I'd appreciate them.

... are poor. Their excess weight comes from eating foods that are high in calories, but low in nutrition.

And the reason for that is (or should be) obvious: a diet of fresh produce is MUCH more expensive than a diet of things like Ramen noodles, which can make a hungry child feel 'full', but lend little of the nutrition they need.

Of course, it is useless trying to point this out to a Freeper. To them, "fat" means over-fed.

They see photos of starving kids in Third World countries whose stomachs are distended due to malnutrition, and think, "Look at that kid! His stomach is sticking out because he's had too much to eat!"

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You can't argue with stupid.

the $38 billion in bonuses there could be a lot more than 35 million Americans going hungry. When I was younger and worked for a company that paid Christmas bonuses it was really great because that little extra money really helped me and my family.

Apparently the Van Goghs haven't been going for as much as they use to. Poor babies. :eyes:

This makes me sick and sad.

Someone should pass a law that makes this sort of thing illegal.

$38 Billion in bonuses??? While 12 million go hungry?

It just isn't right.