To your final point. $0. GM pays the highest wages in the industry. So $0 of these record profits is due to layoffs and gutting benefits/wages.

What part of $63/hour doesn't click with you? There really is just this growing philosophy that businesses should not be earning the profits they do, and they should be obligated to share more of these profits.

You continue to bring up over and over and over all these concessions the workers had to make for the Great Recession, yet continue to (unsurprisingly) ignore that the shareholders lost EVERYTHING. The workers are not the only damn people impacted by this company's profit (or lack thereof).

Being that people get pissy when somebody makes $1/hr more than them, I'm led to believe that nothing will ever result in happiness when it comes to an employee/owner relationship on the grand scale (there are obviously cases where people are happy, but overall, it seems like the majority are not).

And can we just stop with the "who cares about the shareholders" philosophy.

Despite all these facts that show the majority of stocks are owned by the wealthy, they are also very much so owned by the general population. Your 401, your pension, your IRA, your 403(b). What the hell exactly do you think those investments are made of? Fairy dust?

I'm sorry, but I want to earn 8% on my investments, not 3% because you don't think companies should be making as money as they are.

I think you replied to the wrong person.

Fuck the shareholders. :P

Individuals making millions of times more than what their employees are making...could you point that one out for me? If a full time Walmart employee makes $25,000...you do realize that would mean somebody would have to make $25B per year right?

I have a question for you. A person makes $50,000 per year, but their boss/owner makes $100,000. The owner is able to improve profitability of their company, and the original person gets a raise that (after inflation adjustments) amounts to $55,000. The boss/owner, however, makes $200,000 that year.

In the first year, the boss made 2* as much. In the second scenario, the boss made nearly 4* as much, but the original employee was actually better off.

In VERY simplistic terms, this is why I cannot stand when people bring up wage differentials between their bosses/owners and themselves.

I'm somebody who is ok with being content with my earnings, completely regardless of what other people make. I can determine on my own, regardless of what my boss or co-workers make whether I am happy with my pay. For that matter, my boss probably makes twice as much as I do...and quite frankly, his staff are what makes him look like he is good. But I don't really care, because I think I'm well compensated for what I do.

It kills many people, however, to know that other people are making more money than them. That is where the heart of this problem lies. People will always be jealous that somebody makes more than them, especially when they perceive them to be doing less or easier work than what they do.

Imagine shilling for CEOs and corporations that don't give a damn whether you live or die lmao

Just thought I'd chip in to say that I'm really enjoying this debate - interesting and compelling points on both sides. It's amazing how spritely a debate can be when one or two certain posters aren't stymying things with deliberately obtuse positions.

On the point about everyone being a winner if the employee goes from 50 to 55K & the boss from 100 to 200K - I think it's also important to say that this principle being applied across the world economy does create problems especially when taking into account things that are of finite supply. Take property for instance - if all of the big-wigs decide to invest their ballooning earnings into property (and they do) then it causes house prices to rise dramatically to an extent that Mr 55K is in the same place or even worse off than he was before due to spiralling rent or property prices...

Obviously I'm only in one small market, but the above post about inflating property prices makes me curious on something.

I think it is quite clear to everybody the rich are MUCH richer than they were in about 1980, while the average person is, for arguments sake, approximately the same.

I did some quick calculations the other day, and at least in the countryside around here, while land prices appear absurd (after all, my parents purchased 10 wooded acres plus a large house with unfinished basement for $80,000 in 1987. The same would run around say $450,000 today...only 32 years later), many seem to completely ignore the interest rates.

So while the house now costs 5.6 times more, you will likely be able to lock in at about 4% interest now, vs the approximately 10.75% rates in 1987.

So what does that actually mean for somebody who puts say 10% down on a house?

1987 equals a 72,000 mortgage with a monthly payment of $672. Total home cost of $249,920.

2019 equals a 405,000 mortgage with a monthly payment of $1,934. Total home cost of $741,240.

So really, in 32 years, the home costs 2.96 times as much.

This equates to approximately 3% inflation per year.

Is this higher than the inflation figures used to determine the average person is about the same now as 30 years ago? Yea, a little. But it also ignores all of the improvements in a home now compared to one built in 1987. The $450k will get you beautiful wood floors, granite counter tops, etc etc etc.

It got my parents vinyl floors, fake counter top, etc.

Like I said...this is in MY area or Minnesota so may not be applicable to all, I just found it interesting.

They'd die for the side that just wants to exploit them just so that they can feel like they agree with the more powerful side. It's like they want to feel like winners by proxy even as they aren't protected or represented by the side they're trying to defend, and just participate in their own exploitation and losing. I can't imagine having that little sense of dignity.

Man what a terrible world you live in that every single human being above and around you cannot possibly have any human emotion and cares about nothing except their corporations profitability and being able to exploit their workers.

So at what point do people reach this status and no longer become emotional humans to you? Is it the owner of a small local business? Is it only the owner/CEO of extremely large businesses? Is it the entire HR department that hires you, lives in your neighborhood? Is it the coworkers you go to the bar with and play darts with?

I've got news for you, a lot of people in this world are selfish pricks who don't give a rats ass about anybody else. It isn't just owners of businesses. Personally, I've quit the jobs where I felt that way, and have opted to work for places where I can have an actual conversation with my leaders.

Am I still expected to make money for them? Absolutely. That's why they are paying me. I also make sure I get paid what I'm worth, which contrary to what others seem to think, has absolutely nothing to do with what your peers are making, but rather how much value YOU bring to the company.

This isn't slavery for crying out loud. I get a pretty damn good life for the relatively easy 40 hours a week I put in.