I didn't. I said a good swath of them lost their livelihoods due to reasons beyond their control.
Personal responsibility is very much a pertinent thing that caused people to live beyond their means. However, the system allowed for it. There were no restrictions, no warnings, no red flags - as long as the rules were wide open, banks had no problem letting the abuse continue. I believe this has already been beaten to death with the keyboard stick in this thread already.
I think that's a good point, if you're going to let corporations off the hook for simply exploiting the opportunities given to them it's kind of hard to also turn around and blame people for doing the same. The difference is that one side had the expertise and ability to succeed while the other typically did not. To make it worse when corporations failed many of them held such a crucial role that the government was left with virtually no choice but to come to their rescue, which obviously isn't the case for the average citizen.
People were certainly stupid, and that can't be left out of the conversation, but there's a point where government needs to protect its citizens, because let's be honest, most of them are kind of stupid.
I didn't. I said a good swath of them lost their livelihoods due to reasons beyond their control.
Personal responsibility is very much a pertinent thing that caused people to live beyond their means. However, the system allowed for it. There were no restrictions, no warnings, no red flags - as long as the rules were wide open, banks had no problem letting the abuse continue. I believe this has already been beaten to death with the keyboard stick in this thread already.
Unfortunately, the system with all the flags, controls, and warnings is much much worse.
If people can't control themselves then we can't expect the government to either.
I didn't. I said a good swath of them lost their livelihoods due to reasons beyond their control.
Personal responsibility is very much a pertinent thing that caused people to live beyond their means. However, the system allowed for it. There were no restrictions, no warnings, no red flags - as long as the rules were wide open, banks had no problem letting the abuse continue. I believe this has already been beaten to death with the keyboard stick in this thread already.
Not to pound on you Ozzy, but its not a businesses job to be the financial concience of their client.
Most organizations go simply by credit reports or credit scores, its not their responsibility to budget for these people or tell them what they can and can't afford to do.
Plus and lets be honest, if a company told you that you couldn't afford a house, most people would stomp down the street to the next mortgage broker. And plus where are the red flags on the consumer side shouldn't people be applying common sense when they whip out the credit card?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I haven't had my three martini lunch yet so I'm a little shaky.
While I don't strongly disagree with the above, I do disagree with the above. For the most part and I've said the most part, CEO's and executives get to that level because at some point they've proven that they can do that job. For the most part CEO's and Executives get paid more because they have the skills, knowledge or Corporate Behavior that dictates large dollar pay checks in the market place. But Captain, some will argue, what about the CEO's that are running companies that are losing money, or doing bad business. Well the system while flawed will eventually take out those executives. Also for the most part salaries aren't set based on the success of the organization as much as their based on the fierce competition to find, hire and retain very high level people. I think if you want to blame companies or corporations etc, you have to get beyond the CEO focus and go right to the Board of Directors level because those are the guys that approve the golden parachutes and high salaries.
At the end of the day, in a Capatalist society you will get paid what the market dictates you will get paid, and its great to have the notion that a guy who digs toilets should get paid on a closer level to a guy that runs a multibillion or million dollar company its just not realistic.
But we've always lived in capitalist society (probably more so in the past than now even), but the divide between rich and poor has been much lower in the past than it is now. Just using the US as an example, from the 40s to the 70s, the top 20% of earners made about 6 to 7 times what the bottom 20% of earners did on average. Since 1980 that's risen dramatically and now it's closer the 15 times more. Canada's divide is less dramatic, but it's headed in the same direction.
And we're not talking about CEOs vs. janitors here, we're talking about 40% of the adult population being compared. Some of this is due to external factors like globalization (it's harder for unskilled workers to make as much now when their jobs can be outsourced) there's no question about that. But a large part of it is also based on things as simple as tax rates. The greatest eras of income inequality have been in eras with extremely low marginal tax rates for upper income earners (1920s and 1980 to present). Whereas the richest Americans were paying marginal tax rates in the 70-90% region through the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, there is now a huge controversy about raising marginal rates back up to 36%. Here's a chart that shows those marginal rates over time:
Now I'm not suggesting that tax rates should be hiked way up for the upper income earners, but it's important to remember that government policy has a huge effect on income distribution. It's not simply a matter of the free market determining this.
I think the issue is that banks likely knew the consequences of their actions and knew what would happen at some point down the road... but chose to ignore it.
From a PR perspective, that's a terrible strategy. But good on them in the short term, I suppose. Stepping on the collective well-being and lack of financial kjnow-how of Americans in order to pad their wallets even more.
I guess because it was legal, it was right and should have been allowed to continue.
I understand, and good points made, but why can't banks provide those red flags? Are they happy to have people default on house payments? I guess they'll do whatever earns them the buck, throwing ethics and social responsibility to the wayside.
I've said that earlier in this thread, and people took issue with that. But again I stress that just because someone is legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean they should. And people will continually prey on others to get ahead. After all, it's human nature.
I have a question for those who want all tax loop holes closed.
Do you consider the charitable tax credit to be a loop hole? What about a tax break that encourages a company to move to an area of high unemployment? The northern living allowance that helps offset the high cost of transporting goods and people to the far north? One of my favorite loop holes is the RRSP and TFSA programs.
I love the idea of a tax code that could fit on a single sheet of paper but in reality, most of the so called loop holes have been created to solve a problem.
I understand, and good points made, but why can't banks provide those red flags? Are they happy to have people default on house payments? I guess they'll do whatever earns them the buck, throwing ethics and social responsibility to the wayside.
They don't care because at least in Canada, the government has backed those loans with CMHC insurance. In fact they love giving those loans out because they're guaranteed.
The problem isn't necessarily the banks, it's the government which allows and encourages this to happen.
I understand, and good points made, but why can't banks provide those red flags? Are they happy to have people default on house payments? I guess they'll do whatever earns them the buck, throwing ethics and social responsibility to the wayside.
I've said that earlier in this thread, and people took issue with that. But again I stress that just because someone is legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean they should. And people will continually prey on others to get ahead. After all, it's human nature.
Because that's not their role. They have a mandate to operate in the best interests of their shareholders, not to look out for potential issues that may befall the consumer. You could argue that looking out for the consumer will benefit shareholders in the long run, and there's some merit in that position, but to argue it from a ethics and social responsibility angle simply doesn't make sense.
I haven't had my three martini lunch yet so I'm a little shaky.
While I don't strongly disagree with the above, I do disagree with the above. For the most part and I've said the most part, CEO's and executives get to that level because at some point they've proven that they can do that job. For the most part CEO's and Executives get paid more because they have the skills, knowledge or Corporate Behavior that dictates large dollar pay checks in the market place. But Captain, some will argue, what about the CEO's that are running companies that are losing money, or doing bad business. Well the system while flawed will eventually take out those executives. Also for the most part salaries aren't set based on the success of the organization as much as their based on the fierce competition to find, hire and retain very high level people. I think if you want to blame companies or corporations etc, you have to get beyond the CEO focus and go right to the Board of Directors level because those are the guys that approve the golden parachutes and high salaries.
At the end of the day, in a Capatalist society you will get paid what the market dictates you will get paid, and its great to have the notion that a guy who digs toilets should get paid on a closer level to a guy that runs a multibillion or million dollar company its just not realistic.
I've always agreed that the government should be in the business of closing loopholes and making the tax code easier to follow. If you actually cut all the loop holes, you would literally be able to lower tax rates because everyone would pay their proper share.
I absolutely agree that GE has to pay more taxes, but don't you need to balance that against the nearly 300,000 people that they employ in the U.S.? How do you balance that off and encourage companies like GE to continue to grow and employ Americans?
And instead of blaming GE for taking advantage of the tax code, shouldn't we be angry at the American Government and the IRS? And don't you think that we should be wary that Obama received a corporate contribution from GE to the tune of $570,000.
sorry, not as knowledgeable about parsing quotes as you...
the irony of the executive compensation is that they are no longer called performance bonuses, as the meltdown shows, 'performance' has nothing to do with it..."retention bonuses" are simply semantics might to hide the issue. While I agree that there is a hierarchy based on ability, I think the question is more about whether that multiplier is more than what it ought to be.
Once upon a time, the level of executive compensation vs employee salaries was not as high as it is now. Check out this link http://heritageinstitute.com/governa...mpensation.htm and scroll down to the CEO compensation as a multiplier of employee salaries... seems like one country alone is the statistical outlier.
a capitalist society has to have "haves" and "have nots", I am not that naive to believe otherwise. However, when you have lobbyists that essentially "rig the game", it's pretty easy to understand why people are frustrated.
socialism is anathema...unless of course, you qualify as being "too big to fail"...
People have lost their savings. Their homes. Their livelihoods. And a good swath of them didn't have a say in the matter.
But I guess they're just complainers.
People sure love to focus on the suburban 'iPod aficionados' in the Occupy crowd, but they also love to ignore the thousands upon thousands of people who took a beating economically. People who are in poverty and lost everything because of a broken system.
Is there no sympathy for these people? At all? Or is it all their fault as it appears the right-leaning crowd around here is suggesting? And is this conversation going to go in circles again?
Sigh.
They are complainers. Where are the thousands upon thousands of people you're referring to? Probably out there trying to make some sort of start, taking a lower level job maybe, figuring out ways to scrimp and save. Staying meaningful, if not only for themselves or their families. They are taking ownership over their own lives and setting an example for the listless complainers that would rather defer responsibility to some nameless entity like "Wall Street" or "capitalism" or "the system" or anything blame-worthy. That's why this thing has no focus. It's all about the noise not the content. "Got something picking your butt that you can blame on the fat cats? Come on down with a witty sign and a chip on your shoulder!"
And a good swath did have a say. Nobody invested their money without them knowing, took out a big mortgage without them knowing, signed up for student loans without them knowing... The problem is they only thought of the upside and none of the downside. Risk didn't enter into the equation. And with the government legislating risk tolerance on behalf of mortgage agencies (most of them government- or bank-operated), it sure was easy to kid oneself into extending beyond one's means. But they still had a say.
I'll save my sympathy for the ones trying to lift themselves off the curb.
I have a question for those who want all tax loop holes closed.
Do you consider the charitable tax credit to be a loop hole? What about a tax break that encourages a company to move to an area of high unemployment? The northern living allowance that helps offset the high cost of transporting goods and people to the far north? One of my favorite loop holes is the RRSP and TFSA programs.
I love the idea of a tax code that could fit on a single sheet of paper but in reality, most of the so called loop holes have been created to solve a problem.
I think the question is what is considered a loop hole. The two instances you cite are not loopholes, but rather tax benefits that are legislated to encourage a particular behavior.
Loopholes are holes in the legislation that people take advantage of, never designed to be part of the system. They are not illegal, but again, corporations like GE getting away with paying zero corporate tax? No government would ever intend that.
corporations that provide their employees with personal development stipends, which weren't counted as 'income' and therefore was not taxable...even though it is clearly income provided by the company. That's a loophole.
A great article on why the OWS have a point (even if they SUCK at making it)
In other words, in the struggle between "labor" and "capital," capital has basically won.
And so, in conclusion, we'll end with another look at the "money shot"—the one overarching reason the Wall Street protesters are so upset: Wages as a percent of the economy. Again, it's basically the lowest it has ever been.
But we've always lived in capitalist society (probably more so in the past than now even), but the divide between rich and poor has been much lower in the past than it is now. Just using the US as an example, from the 40s to the 70s, the top 20% of earners made about 6 to 7 times what the bottom 20% of earners did on average. Since 1980 that's risen dramatically and now it's closer the 15 times more. Canada's divide is less dramatic, but it's headed in the same direction.
And we're not talking about CEOs vs. janitors here, we're talking about 40% of the adult population being compared. Some of this is due to external factors like globalization (it's harder for unskilled workers to make as much now when their jobs can be outsourced) there's no question about that. But a large part of it is also based on things as simple as tax rates. The greatest eras of income inequality have been in eras with extremely low marginal tax rates for upper income earners (1920s and 1980 to present). Whereas the richest Americans were paying marginal tax rates in the 70-90% region through the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, there is now a huge controversy about raising marginal rates back up to 36%. Here's a chart that shows those marginal rates over time:
Now I'm not suggesting that tax rates should be hiked way up for the upper income earners, but it's important to remember that government policy has a huge effect on income distribution. It's not simply a matter of the free market determining this.
I don't understand the facination of the gap between the 'rich' and 'poor'. The poorest 5% of Americans are richer today than almost any other time in history. The living standards of the poorest 5% of Americans are better than any other group in the past. And the ability to find mobility between economic classes is unparalled in history.
If anything, it seems allowing a large gap in income in a democratic and capiltalist country may be the way to bring the poverty level up and also provide incentive for labour.
Would you be willing to give up your car in order to make sure your neighbor can't drive a ferrari? It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't understand the facination of the gap between the 'rich' and 'poor'. The poorest 5% of Americans are richer today than almost any other time in history. The living standards of the poorest 5% of Americans are better than any other group in the past. And the ability to find mobility between economic classes is unparalled in history.
If anything, it seems allowing a large gap in income in a democratic and capiltalist country may be the way to bring the poverty level up and also provide incentive for labour.
Would you be willing to give up your car in order to make sure your neighbor can't drive a ferrari? It doesn't make sense to me.
LOL, I'm not doing that. The fact is you posted a chart which is basically made up to try to prove a point.
If you can't afford a house then don't buy one. There is more to life than owning property though; you can always rent if that is the best option.
I'm not that much older than these disaffected 20 somethings. I'm not getting into the details of my upbringing, but it was far from being born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I whole-heartedly agree with pylons post early which basically says if you want something than go work for it. Its funny because I'm one of the posters on this board who would be considered "bleeding heart"....so if I have a strong feeling about that I can only imagine how strongly some of the others feel about this!
Well I see you pulled out pretty quickly and gave up the ghost after Resolute's post.
In future, if you wish to critique, try providing some supporting evidence (if you think my evidence in bunk, then please provide your own, instead of trying to shout it down like a 3 year old trying to get his mother to buy the Fruit Loops instead of the Wheaties). Saying the chart is "basically made up" is a complete pile of garbage and you know it.
Just because "you really don't think this is the case", doesn't make it true.
Now, you just look like a loon because housing prices are increasing at a faster rate than average salary.
Hell, I don't even blame these people for protesting. There's a lot ####ed up things going on in this world, but misinformed and misguided protesting is a waste of time and really just makes everyone laugh at you.
Kid could have even partially quoted THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS...
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Well I see you pulled out pretty quickly and gave up the ghost after Resolute's post.
In future, if you wish to critique, try providing some supporting evidence (if you think my evidence in bunk, then please provide your own, instead of trying to shout it down like a 3 year old trying to get his mother to buy the Fruit Loops instead of the Wheaties). Saying the chart is "basically made up" is a complete pile of garbage and you know it.
Just because "you really don't think this is the case", doesn't make it true.
Now, you just look like a loon because housing prices are increasing at a faster rate than average salary.
nm
Last edited by longsuffering; 10-12-2011 at 05:53 PM.
Housing costs rise because there are more people competing for less real estate. Salaries drop because there are more people competing for fewer jobs and there is always someone else who is willing to do the same job for less than you make.
Why should you expect those to be tied together or why would corporations be inclined to tie what they pay to rising housing costs?
I agree with your point as we all would like more pay and cheaper housing, but it just doesn't coincide with reality unless a protest can galvanize government intervention...to start killing off the weak and infirm and deporting the visible minorities.
Is it not unreasonable to expect that cost of living should be at a decent % of your gross income? Or that by working in a professional environment, I should be able to afford a place to live?
The fact that your parents had a 20 year mortgage and I have a 35 year mortgage and a crappier place to live is fair... how? If the 2008 financial crisis didn't happen, I might be able to look at getting a cross generational mortgage, where I could lock my children in too all at a 1% variable rate, which is only good for 6 months.
Is there really less real estate available?
Not quite sure I understand the last bit. As we currently need a significant amount of immigrants in Canada or we will face a dire labour shortage.
