Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: This needs to be said, Anti-OWS or not.

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 5:52 p.m. EST by HeavySigh (227)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am not a supporter. I am not a troll. I'm a 99%

This really needs to be said and I don't mean it in a negative way, but I just want to bring it up. I hear a lot of people upset with the "corporate greed" of these huge profits, high bonuses for ceos, and lack of distribution to the worker. All of that is agreeable, I think we could all say. BUT! Let's think about it this way. Let's take, for instance, a scenario where there is one single "biggest" corporation in America. They decide to give the CEO a huge bonus. At this point, someone steps in and says "NO! that's not fair" and distributes the wealth to the employees. This is a VIOLATION of rights. Do I disagree that the employees deserve some of it? No I do not disagree. But where does it stop? What bonus is "too much" and keeps your rights from being violated? Let's say, again a scenario, that you the reader, have a hugely successful year. You've just released the iCar and its selling like crazy. You are about to get a 30million bonus. A government official steps in and says "nope, employees get it, not you". Is that fair? The most clear example for me is that crazy church that protests military funerals. They are nuts and wrong. Regardless of how much I disagree, or how much they are obviously wrong, they still have a RIGHT to protest. I think we need to be careful when we are quick to tax people and redistribute wealth of people that aren't ourselves. Just a thought. I just feel like sometimes we are quick to infringe on the rights of others. It's important to note that the rights that give you the opportunity to protest, also give people the right to be successful as they see fit.

I'm also seeing this in the attitude about the park. The rest of the public couldn't use it cleanly and safely, hence violating their rights. But OWS is mad that they aren't having their "rights" upheld. Who is more important?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 11 years ago

This is the wall street way. If the CEO and employees all got the same bonus structure then it might change. Why should there be a difference. If the 99% slowed down production 1% then it would stop the ability for the CEO to achieve his bonus. They work together yet the CEO would cut pay to everyone below to meet expectations and fully fund his bonus.

I have been told to do that many times as the boss. Cut payroll to get bonus. When my plant set record profit they informed me that I was to not give cost of living raises of 1.5% to achieve full bonus. I gave 10% minimum raises. Next The plant profit set a new record. I gave all employees $1,000 bonus taxed up. I was told that if I told any other mgr I gave that bonus I would be terminated. That plant bonus cut my personal bonus by $3000.

Even with record profit results I was informed to cut pay scale. My success was due to the people reporting to me doing a great job. Not due to payroll reductions.

Greed is the driving force in corporate direction. It always starts with payroll reductions. It is the easiest expense to reduce.

[-] 1 points by madcat (47) 12 years ago

You make a good point. But I think it's important to consider where this $30 million dollar bonus is coming from. If you invented the iCar, and people are choosing it over Ford and Toyota, then sure, you deserve your money. On the other hand if your $30 million comes from lobbying and eroding government, so that tax dollars are spent on products and services you provide when they are completely unnecessary, or your products and services are priced way higher than any other competitor, but your friends in the government give you the contract anyway, then I don't know if you deserve the $30 million dollars quite so much. For profit prisons is the best example of this. Prisons are supposed to rehabilitate their inmates, but if they're after profit, it's in their best interest to keep as many inmates as possible incarcerated for as long as possible.


[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 12 years ago

Cool comment, but you base that big bonus on SUCCESS. The banks were not successful, yet they still got the bonuses. THAT is the unfair part. And the fact was, those bonuses were paid with taxpayer money. So we all paid unsuccessful bankers for gambling money away. That is not capitalism, which is not on trial here. It is just plain wrong.


[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You have a thought, more than most posters seem to have. Expect to get slapped down by all the comments that follows by those that believe that we, the people, only have rights and NO responsibilities.

My life time experience has shown me that those who cry RIGHTS the loudest really mean "My rights, your responsibilities".

Thanks for posting the world as it is, right or wrong.

[-] 0 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

Oh I know. Believe me I know lol

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

Bottom italics is an addition, a further thought.

[-] 1 points by OWSequalsleadersofangrysheeple (18) 12 years ago

Exactly... for the OWS, it isn't about the 99%... just about themselves.

[-] 1 points by madcat (47) 12 years ago

I don't know of anybody who camps out in the cold, risking being tear gassed and arrested, who is just in it for themselves. The only thing I can think of is that some might be in it to make a name for themselves, but I truly believe the real motive behind Occupy is for a better world.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 11 years ago

And when the question arises about taking the next step and doing something real it's always just "no we are a movement for everyone. Let's occupy more stuff". Protestors love protesting. It's getting old.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

Too bad the responses are probably going to be insane.

[-] 1 points by OWSequalsleadersofangrysheeple (18) 12 years ago

I wonder if most OWS supporters would like what the Zimbabwe government has done with respect to redistribution of land / wealth. I wonder how many of them even know about it.

[-] 2 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

I agree.

[-] 0 points by onepeople (49) 12 years ago

One thing though, stipulations for federal loans could demand 0 bonuses, or limited bonuses, in return for receiving funds.

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by onepeople (49) 12 years ago

Just saying, It wouldn't really be a violation of rights if it's a stipulation for receiving something.

[-] 0 points by DudleyE (94) 12 years ago

You're a thought criminal!!!

[-] 2 points by HeavySigh (227) 12 years ago

Oh noes!

[-] 1 points by HeavySigh (227) 11 years ago

apparently I am