I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

Funny Games

Free Samples

Oddee

Funny Stuff

123 Games

Crazy Games

Wow Funny Jokes

Viva La Games

I hate retail

Chaostrophic

CityRag

Comics Alliance

Funny Videos

Funny Videos

FreeGame Heaven

Caykeyfi Games

Crazy News

Lastminute Auct

All Trivia Game

Hot Games

Not Healthy



Back to Listing

Swiss Ffair Ppay [Pic]

Hits: 7674 | Rating: (3.0) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: McDuff73
Page: 1 24 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 6:47:49 AM


NOW IN LIGHT SPREAD..ing of wealth!!

jbwhite
Male, 18-29, Canada
 1210 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 6:39:24 AM
@kvetcher

Myanmar.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 6:36:00 AM
Sounds like loophole city to me like I said below. Also does this account for bonuses and stock bonuses?

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 6:33:55 AM
Money isn't always the deciding factor when it comes to where you want to live.


When running a massive corp it's a huge factor of deciding where to setup your HQ. Now what to stop something like that from moving it HQ to another place and just keeping it's money makers stores or whatever there. How would you cap that executive salary then?

Reebo
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 9 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 6:12:31 AM
I find it sadly humorous that the naive people supporting this thing it would change a thing. Instead of the CEO and the mailroom clerk being in the same company they will simply break the company up into several smaller companies owned by the parent company. The folks at the top will still be outrageously paid, but everyone in that parent company will be outrageously paid so it'll still be legal.

Hamfisted solutions never work.

Zeegrr60
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1978 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 5:50:26 AM
We DO understand.That's why we're America.

kvetcher
Male, 50-59, Europe
 179 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 5:19:55 AM
@Musuko42
The "socialist" countries were indeed not to blame for the current crisis. This is because Burma, Cuba and North Korea ~(plus a couple of African basket-cases) are barely part of the world economy.
If you want to tone down "socialist" to just plain "left-wing", though, then in Europe the "left-wing" governments in the Club Med countries kept on borrowing because they gambled that Germany/the ECB would bail them out; Labour in the UK just thought they had abolished boom and bust and just kept on borrowing regardless. That's where Europe's crisis came from.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17310 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 5:17:35 AM
Musuko: "Money isn't always the deciding factor when it comes to where you want to live."

Tell that to the entrepreneurs leaving Italy for places like Poland. Link

Even Ferrari moved part of it's factory to Poland.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 3:16:22 AM
It's also worth pointing out that nobody is any doubt that the recent economic crisis initially sparked off in America, with the housing crisis.

Regardless of *what* it was in America that started it off, or whose policies allowed it, the fact remains that it wasn't a "socialist" nation that brought the world's economy teetering and crashing. It was America.

Something to keep in mind when criticising "socialist" countries.

MrOrange
Male, 30-39, Europe
 2348 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 2:59:21 AM
You're right soundman. Other countries have their share of left-wing $#!+-for-brains socialist f**tards, too.

really? so you don't see that the current economic crisis is largely due to the fact that the money doesn't roll, and it can't roll becuase it's in the hands of a few large corps and a bunch of rich people who wont spend it? or are you just to busy pointing your finger and screaming stupid! Moron! there's a concept you might want to look up called pyramid schemes..


Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12748 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 2:59:07 AM
You forget that rich people are able to make all their own rules and choose the jurisdictions that apply.

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12748 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM
"Why is it people focus on the limit of higher salaries?
The method promotes educating your lower wage workforce and in turn enabling higher "lower" wage limits which in turn raises your own (CEO) salary?"

If I were a scheming CEO under such a regime, I'd have a plan: Let's outsource all the poor people's jobs to poorer people in other countries. We contract out all the menial tasks and fire the little people. We then set the minimum wage at whatever we want to get paid, divided by 12. If that's too high then you'll hire me, my wife, brother and my three kids barely out of school, all at 12x minimum wage.

Bakcagain21
Male, 18-29, Europe
 553 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 2:40:32 AM
People saying they won't move. Look at what happened in France when they were attempting (and still are) the Super Tax. There was a big exodus to Belgium, Netherlands and London. How do we know this, real estate buyers and recruitment agencies told us. With it they take their money and investment and business acumen. As Dave Cameron said "we'll roll out the Red Carpet for them"

The people who will stay are the ones with kids in school and a wife in the country. They'll put up with it. When you remove those factors, or have the next generation of skilled employees who are not linked tot he country, they will go to other Business and Financial hubs. London, Shanghai, Singapore Hong Kong etc

Another great example is Premiership in UK. Arguable the toughest and most competitive league. Only 30% of it's players are British, most is foreign talent. Why because pay restrictions were removed and they can pay for whatever it takes to get the best players, playing h

Essersmith
Male, 18-29, Europe
 275 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 1:33:12 AM
Why is it people focus on the limit of higher salaries?
The method promotes educating your lower wage workforce and in turn enabling higher "lower" wage limits which in turn raises your own (CEO) salary?

Its remarkable how many people refuse to see past their own hands in this matter and see at least a degree of wisdom in this solution. Sure it might not work in the US, or even in other countries than Switzerland.

@Oldollie This has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, its about solving a wider financial problem.

banjolegs
Male, 30-39, Europe
 176 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 1:17:27 AM
If you are a self made head of business, I don't see a problem with you reaping the rewards of your success. If your company is that successful can't you afford to pay your lowest paid workers more?
What I do resent is people who have just worked their way through the ranks of large business by dint of outliving everyone else and getting paid a sh8t-ton of money for it. That isn't talent that's a parasite.
From the look of the Swiss, they believe that this will raise standards by promoting better pay for low end workers rather than causing the CEO to leave.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 12:57:59 AM
@AmishHacker

Not every nation believes in the same personal/social balance that your nation does. And that's fine.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 12:54:28 AM
Also, did you not stop to consider that perhaps as a people they have elected leaders who will create laws like this because they would rather have business leaders who work for reasons that aren't solely personal financial gain?

They'll lose the business leaders who are in it for the money, sure. That doesn't mean that the people they get instead are inherently worse, for their own definition of what they want, if that's what they're wanting.

Many of you here seem to be under the illusion that the Swiss haven't thought about the potential consequences. I'm sure they are smart enough to have done so and chosen to do this anyway. If so, then their conclusions on the likelihood of that outcome, and the degree of unwelcomeness of it, may very well be extremely different to your own conclusion.

TL:DR, just because you think losing the money-seeking CEOs is a bad thing, doesn't necessarily mean the Swiss agree.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 12:48:55 AM
@McGovern1981

"Fact: If you limit how much a person or corp. can make they will pack up and leave to a place that doesn't."

Money isn't always the deciding factor when it comes to where you want to live.

AmishHacker
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 63 Posts
Friday, October 11, 2013 12:17:03 AM
Does anyone here own a business? Has anyone here taken the risks? Has anyone here made negative take home money for the month after working 80+ hours a week. Has anyone here felt the rewards of it paying off... even for just a moment and having the government tax your more because of it. I have. The day the government tells me how much I can profit from my life's work is a dark day indeed.

minigeko
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 150 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:29:56 PM
People are paid based on how valuable they are to a company. A single cashier at Wal-Mart isn't that valuable. The store manager is far more valuable and that doesn't even leave the store. The executives that make all the important decisions or the people that make the great value brand products are both far more valuable than some old woman that's been a cashier for 10 years

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17310 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:26:00 PM
So the owner of a company, the person that risked his capital, isn't entitled to the profits?

This is pure socialist bullsh|t.

Modwain
Male, 30-39, Europe
 304 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:39:58 PM
so, yeah, if it may work in Europe, why do you fear that it will not work state side? I guess i know though, i mean, the politics in the usa is divided, and not between democrat and republican but between haves and havenots. and the haves have somehow conviced some of the havenots that it is in their best intrest to protect the haves and what ever the haves deem important. And when the haves drat up and lose it all, it is often still blamed on the havenots.

So yeah, worry about ceo's leaving a country because limits are set on their earnings. They will be mighty happy that you do.

But, when you find that you are more or less unable to get simple things cause you dont make the money for it, see how many of the haves are willing to go on teh baricades for you

Modwain
Male, 30-39, Europe
 304 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:36:35 PM
i am so amazed by people defending the exesses of capitalism and attack any suggestion to lower its impact as left wing.
I cant think of anything as threathening to a society as an increasing gap between the most wealthy and the most poor. and yet, those on the lower brackets, leaning towards the poor are defending the most wealthy it seems. As soon as steps are percieved to close teh gap, it is being belittled as left wing, socialism or dangerous.
But seriously, where do you think those "disgruntled" ceo's will move to? From swiss to.. i dunno, the usa? where there is a big problem too? Again, it has been proven a few times in the past, salery isnt the only thing that makes -people want to go to work, lowering it within reason will not make top ceo's leave compenies, let alone countries.
just one of the many

DuckBoy87
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2736 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:35:51 PM
@McDuff73 "I don't see how limiting executive pay will hire fewer people, ..."

Hypothetically, you are an executive and want to earn as much money as possible (as most do; it's ingrained in our nature to succeed).

Do, A) hire 100 people at 30,000 a year, or B) hire 50 people at 60,000 a year, and make them do the same amount of work as 100?

The answer is B) as you, personally will make more money.


Now, an entirely DIFFERENT question is, which is better for a nations economy?

More people spending money, or fewer people spending more money?

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12748 Posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:35:11 PM
This is madness. It's an arbitrary and irrelevant observation that does not reflect reality. Furthermore, it caps performance of the best and brightest in proportion to the worst and dullest.

Page: 1 24 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.