Cisco Doubles CEO’s Pay as Profits Soar

[jimmyb]

Both the CEO and a low-level employee are they may get fired for performing badly (or some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.

 

[jimmyb]

Missing square bracket; let me try again:

Joe Blow in accounting has 1/100th of the risk, responsibility, pressure, and exposure that the CEO has. If Joe Blow quits, nothing happens to the company. If Joe Blow makes a decimal mistake error, the next guy up the line catches it and nothing happens to the company.

Both the CEO and a low-level employee may get fired for performing badly (or for some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.

 

[NKDietrich]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

 

[Arcygenical]

Cisco has had close to 15k layoffs since 2009. That takes real leadership, and only a qualified CEO that deserves millions for his leadership could make those kind of smart decisions.

You do know that the CEO's pay "raise" was highly dependant on stock prices correct? Prices which soared since their company was doing better?

Also, the 8m raise he received, would work out to ~500$ a person, spread amongst those 15k workers that were laid off. No offense, but giving every person in the company a paltry 200$/yr raise - isn't going to do shit.

The man helped turn a company around - no matter how little a part he actually had in it, in the grand scheme of the company's finances - his raise is a drop in the bucket.

 

[hellokeith]

I don't understand how Obama could allow such a thing to happen with double-digit unemployment and record poverty levels.

 

[Fendrix]

Both the CEO and a low-level employee may get fired for performing badly (or for some other reason). The low-level employee is orders of magnitude more likely to end up homeless and hungry as a result, so he incurs much more risk.

If the CEO performs badly, tens of thousands of low-level employees may end up homeless and hungry as a result.

Not good enough, huh? It's still not fair to the little guy, huh? Then let's pay the people at the bottom of the corporate ladder more money, and as you get promoted to higher positions where more responsibility, accountability, and management are required, you earn less.

Or no wait, that still wouldn't be fair. Let's pay everyone the same amount of money within the company.

You people ripping on this guy have absolutely no idea what it's like running a multi-billion dollar business, and your comments are laughable at best. It takes a certain kind of person to turn a company around and earn millions if not billions more than it normally would. Doubling his salary his fine by me, and as many people have pointed out, it's not like he gets a check for double every year. A lot of that money is through stock-options.

 

[computerpro3]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

You hit it on the head. Especially the bolded.

 

[jimmyb]

If the CEO performs badly, tens of thousands of low-level employees may end up homeless and hungry as a result.

I was responding to claim that the "risk, responsibility, pressure" of a CEO was much greater than for lower-level employees. It's a pretty fascicle claim to suggest so that the employee who is at risk of losing access to food, shelter, and health care, undergoes "1/100th the risk, responsibility, pressure".

In fact, I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around.

Not good enough, huh? It's still not fair to the little guy, huh?

I didn't say anything about it not being fair. I was just pointing out typically the risk to low-level employees for doing a bad job is much greater than for CEOs.

 

[ryken]

Chambers' salary rose 1.9 percent from last year, to $382,212

In fiscal 2010, Cisco's sales rose 10.9 percent, and net income increased 26.6 percent, from fiscal 2009

Read the article. All of this money is tied to stock and performance. How many hard working Americans are willing to wage 98% of their income on the overall sales of an entire company?

 

[computerpro3]

I was responding to claim that the "risk, responsibility, pressure" of a CEO was much greater than for lower-level employees. It's a pretty fascicle claim to suggest so that the employee who is at risk of losing access to food, shelter, and health care, undergoes "1/100th the risk, responsibility, pressure".

In fact, I'm inclined to believe it's the other way around.




I didn't say anything about it not being fair. I was just pointing out typically the risk to low-level employees for doing a bad job is much greater than for CEOs.

Perhaps you want to look up health incidents such as heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart attacks in CEO's vs. the rest of the population?

Yeah, that's what I thought. My father is the COO and EVP of a medical technology corporation and I think he's spent a grand total of 9 days at home in the last two months. It's an incredibly stressful lifestyle, and he has adult onset diabetes, is overweight, and is under incredible stress as a result. Do you have any idea what it's like having 3 meetings a day where millions upon millions of dollars ride on your shoulders?

Further than that, in the medical technology field like my father's, do you have any idea what it's like having patient's lives ride directly on the performance of your company's product?

Keep believing that Joe Blow accountant has similar stress, responsibility, and risk compared to a C level executive. The only thing you're doing is making it painfully obvious that you have no experience at that level.

 

[jimmyb]

Perhaps you want to look up health incidents such as heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart attacks in CEO's vs. the rest of the population?

Perhaps you want to look up all the studies which positively correlate income and general health?

I trust these correlative studies are normalized against all other factors which cause those afflictions. Also I would rather you just provide a link to stuff like this, since you're apparently aware that it exists, and presumably know where it is. Additionally, if I can't find for the reason it doesn't exist, you would be able to claim that I wasn't looking hard enough. Generally if you're going to cite studies you're obligated to provide a reference (although your citation was pretty nebulous so I'm not surprised you didn't).

Both levels of positions come with their own unique stresses and various life-quality correlations. These sorts of one-off examples do little to further the discussion.

It's ludicrous to suggest that someone at risk of losing their income, necessary for the basic requirements of life, is under "1/100th" the pressure who is at risk of maybe not being as wealthy as they once were.

Further than that, in the medical technology field like my father's, do you have any idea what it's like having patient's lives ride directly on the performance of your company's product?

Yes I do. My designs end up in medical equipment among many other things which can kill people. Why do you think his conscience over a creating faulty product which kills people is any more stressful than mine?

 

[jimmyb]

Do you have any idea what it's like having 3 meetings a day where millions upon millions of dollars ride on your shoulders?

Do you have any idea what it's like to know that you are going to lose your house and potentially starve to death as a result of losing your job? You really think the risk of losing someone else's money is 100 times more stressful than the risk of entering absolute poverty where you may not be able to provide basic life needs for yourself or family? That seems delusional to me.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

It used to be that a CEO only made about 40 times what a regular employee made, but nowadays, it's 500 times. Corporate profits and CEO pay have ballooned in the last 30 years, but employee wage growth has stagnated ever since.

We really need to get rid of this bullshit notion that everyone can be a CEO/executive if only they just keep trying. It's no coincidence that 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 95%. That's the way they want it, and the corporations and the rich people who run them have no intention of sharing any of that wealth with the rest of us.

Seriously, the income disparity in America is rivaling that of Brazil.

 

[OkToBeR[hocp]]

Cisco is overpriced. In short, Cisco is the Monster of network hardware. Ride the advertisement and product name placement train till its over.

 

[Oeleo]

Perhaps you want to look up health incidents such as heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart attacks in CEO's vs. the rest of the population?

Perhaps that's because most CEO's are older men and thus more prone to "heart attacks, high blood pressure and cholesterol".

 

[Cyrilix]

I think jimmyb is right. When a CEO stumbles, it's not like they take 20 million away from him. The way risk/reward typically works is, the higher the risk, the higher the possible gain, but also the higher the chance of going into the red. For instance, you can be a common worker and make 60K a year every year, or you can be a CEO and make millions one year but lose millions the next for poor performance. The problem is that CEOs never lose millions. They keep on making millions no matter what they do, and that's where the risk/reward breaks down.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

+1

Cisco is overpriced. In short, Cisco is the Monster of network hardware. Ride the advertisement and product name placement train till its over.

So very true, this day in age there are products that can do what Cisco products do and don't take 10 years of courses that cost a fortune to get.

 

[Rizen]

There are an awful lot of butthurt people on this forum.

 

[IRSmurf]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

This should be stuck under the original post.

 

[computerpro3]

Do you have any idea what it's like to know that you are going to lose your house and potentially starve to death as a result of losing your job? You really think the risk of losing someone else's money is 100 times more stressful than the risk of entering absolute poverty where you may not be able to provide basic life needs for yourself or family? That seems delusional to me.

Yup. My family had to rely on donations for food for a period after my father's first two businesses went under. Lost our home twice. Which is yet another reason why CEO's have more risk.

We really need to get rid of this bullshit notion that everyone can be a CEO/executive if only they just keep trying. It's no coincidence that 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 95%. That's the way they want it, and the corporations and the rich people who run them have no intention of sharing any of that wealth with the rest of us.

Everyman can't be a CEO, but it has nothing to do with the top opressing the bottom. It has to do with the fact that most people like the intelligence, drive, vision, and ability to be a successful CEO.

Now for those people that do have the intelligence and drive, you absolutely can be a CEO. Go start a company that society needs and you've just made yourself one. My father has no college degree and came from a poor family yet is the COO and EVP of the worlds largest medical imaging storage company. It took a shitload of hard work, intelligence, perseverance, and support from the entire family, but he did it.

No reason you can't. Unless of course, you lack the intelligence ,drive, ambition, and ability to become a successful CEO. In which case your entire argument about CEO's not deserving to be paid significantly higher than an average worker completely falls apart.

 

[Adidas4275]

good for me..... since i own stock in Cisco

 

[heatlesssun]

Let's face it, a lot of the bile here is jealousy. This guy makes millions and most of you probably don't even break 40k. He has a better quality of life than you, access to better health care, freedom to do what he wants, and a list of other things.

You can try and make yourself feel better by pretending the guy is some kind of asshole, or that he doesn't deserve to get paid, but the bottom line is that you could have been this guy if you had the intelligence and ambition, but you didn't, so you're here on a hardware forum trying to shave a couple hundred bucks off your next PC build.

This guys actions led to his company making billions more than they otherwise would have. A few million more in compensation is chump change.

I won't make anything like this but lets just say I'll break 40k and I don't have a problem with his compenation. BUT if the middle class in this country and the West continues to see its earnings erode I do wonder how future CEOs of Cisco or any company is going to double profits.

 

[jimmyb]

Yup. My family had to rely on donations for food for a period after my father's first two businesses went under.

That's not what I asked. I asked if "you have any idea what it's like to know that you are going to lose your house and potentially starve to death as a result of losing your job?". And it sounds like you haven't.

You tried to, as part of your argument, suggest that I couldn't understand the stress of a CEO because I hadn't never been in those uniquely stressful situations.

In a hilariously ironic twist, if I apply this argument to you, it means you can't possibly understand the stresses of being a CEO either, since you've never been one. Additionally, you can't comment on the stress of losing your job and subsequently your house and your means of supporting yourself, since that's never happened to you either. So really, per your own argument, you have no basis for assessing the stress level of either scenario.

And yet, you somehow thought it was logically coherent to apply this argument against me.

Mind you, I don't think it's necessary to actually be in those situations to consider the relative stress levels, but then I never progressed it as an argument outside of pointing out how ridiculous it was for you to use it.

 

[jimmyb]

Actually to be fair I don't know that you're not a CEO of a large company, but then you don't know I'm not either.

 

[computerpro3]

I personally haven't, but my father has and my entire life has been growing up with him as an entrepreneur - first a failed one, and then a highly successful C level executive. I have grown up in every situation you described above.

So I'd say I have significantly more experience than you do when it comes to understanding the stresses being a C level executive has on not just the person, but the family as well.

 

[jimmyb]

Maybe you do have a better understanding, but alleging that I couldn't understand the situation having not been in it, when your own involvement is peripheral at best, is pretty atrocious reasoning.

Note that I haven't made any comment on whether CEO compensation is fair or not. I've only objected to your claim that the higher pay is in part justified by higher stress levels 100 times greater.

I stand by my objection that a 100 times greater stress level is absolutely absurd given that:
1) Well paid CEOs risk on failure is limited to probably not getting richer - basic living considerations are a non-issue in the worst case scenario. In fact life will probably be far more comfortable than the vast majority of the people.
2) A low-level worker may literally be losing what society considers basic life necessities, such as shelter, food, clothing, etc. They may additionally be losing their ability to provide these things to family dependents.

Therefore it is unreasonable to suggest low-level workers feel "1/100th" the stress that CEOs feel. I think any reasonable analysis of these factors would show they are at least in the same order of magnitude, if not higher stress for the low-level worker.

 

[computerpro3]

Maybe you do have a better understanding, but alleging that I couldn't understand the situation having not been in it, when your own involvement is peripheral at best, is pretty atrocious reasoning.

Note that I haven't made any comment on whether CEO compensation is fair or not. I've only objected to your claim that the higher pay is in part justified by higher stress levels 100 times greater.

I stand by my objection that a 100 times greater stress level is absolutely absurd given that:
1) Well paid CEOs risk on failure is limited to probably not getting richer - basic living considerations are a non-issue in the worst case scenario. In fact life will probably be far more comfortable than the vast majority of the people.
2) A low-level worker may literally be losing what society considers basic life necessities, such as shelter, food, clothing, etc. They may additionally be losing their ability to provide these things to family dependents.

Therefore it is unreasonable to suggest low-level workers feel "1/100th" the stress that CEOs feel. I think any reasonable analysis of these factors would show they are at least in the same order of magnitude, if not higher stress for the low-level worker.

I think living for 20 years with my father, whom I have an excellent relationship with, counts as a bit more than peripheral experience. I've sat in on countless meetings, been to countless tradeshows, etc. Hell, I remember sitting in a freezing garage in the middle of winter (since we couldn't afford to rent an office building) helping him pack advertising calendars to ship to potential clients 10 years ago when the company was first started. Further, while I'm not technically the CEO (we are too small to have official C level executives), I do own a fledgling startup company. I didn't mention this before because technically I'm not the CEO, but I have essentially the same responsibilities and duties that one would have.

So again, it's a bit more than peripheral experience.

Aside from that point, you're literally making stuff up. The vast majority of CEO's in the country are not rich. Further, there are plenty of CEO's that have to worry about basic living conditions - startups don't just magically run in the black on day 1.

Guys like the Cisco CEO are exceptions - the Alex Rodriguez's of the business world.

The single biggest reason I know you're not a CEO and don't personally know any is because you have this ridiculous fantasy of what being a C level executive is like.

 

[BoogerBomb]

And to add to that, THAT is why he is worth the most. Joe Blow in accounting has 1/100th of the risk, responsibility, pressure, and exposure that the CEO has. If Joe Blow quits, nothing happens to the company. If Joe Blow makes a decimal mistake error, the next guy up the line catches it and nothing happens to the company.

When a CEO fucks up, that is not the case. Millions of dollars are lost, and thus millions of employees livelihoods are at risk as well. Just sleeping every night knowing thousands of people's livelihoods are riding on your performance is grounds enough for being the highest paid employee in the company.

CEO's for the most part are immune to cutbacks when the company starts going bad. They eliminate all hourly workers they possibly can first thing intead of eliminating the execs standing around talking to each other all day making 4 or 5 times what them hourly workers did.

The people at the bottom pay for price for the decisions of those at the top while the top execs are usually immune to their bad decisions.

 

[BoogerBomb]

Just wanted to add that they eliminated 15,000 jobs and what did they do with their paychecks? Gave every single dime to the CEO to put in his personal bank account while telling those that they laid off to go fuck themselves cause they don't have the money to pay them. Sounds like a great company to work for.

 

[computerpro3]

CEO's for the most part are immune to cutbacks when the company starts going bad. They eliminate all hourly workers they possibly can first thing intead of eliminating the execs standing around talking to each other all day making 4 or 5 times what them hourly workers did.

The people at the bottom pay for price for the decisions of those at the top while the top execs are usually immune to their bad decisions.

If the hourly workers should not have been eliminated (thus were producing value for the company) and the CEO made the wrong decision, he will be penalized.

If it's a public company, the company's bottom line will be hurt and he will lose tons of money in stock. If it's a private company and the company starts losing money, he will likely be replaced.

If, on the other hand, the company is better off, then good on that CEO!

Also keep in mind CEO's can't just unilaterally do anything. Both Investors and the board (often the same people) has power over the CEO.

 

[computerpro3]

Just wanted to add that they eliminated 15,000 jobs and what did they do with their paychecks? Gave every single dime to the CEO to put in his personal bank account while telling those that they laid off to go fuck themselves cause they don't have the money to pay them. Sounds like a great company to work for.

Except they didn't do that? I'll paypal you $1000 if you can link me to the money trail where you can prove that.

 

[computerpro3]

Just wanted to add that they eliminated 15,000 jobs and what did they do with their paychecks? Gave every single dime to the CEO to put in his personal bank account while telling those that they laid off to go fuck themselves cause they don't have the money to pay them. Sounds like a great company to work for.

And just to point out how fucking retarded this statement is, the CEO made his money in STOCK, not cash.

So in other words, those 15,000 workers were not adding sufficient value to the company and thus the CEO did the right thing eliminating them. He profited because the company profited. He didn't get a dime of their paychecks in cash.

It's amazing how resentful of success some people are.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

Yup. My family had to rely on donations for food for a period after my father's first two businesses went under. Lost our home twice. Which is yet another reason why CEO's have more risk.



Everyman can't be a CEO, but it has nothing to do with the top opressing the bottom. It has to do with the fact that most people like the intelligence, drive, vision, and ability to be a successful CEO.

Now for those people that do have the intelligence and drive, you absolutely can be a CEO. Go start a company that society needs and you've just made yourself one. My father has no college degree and came from a poor family yet is the COO and EVP of the worlds largest medical imaging storage company. It took a shitload of hard work, intelligence, perseverance, and support from the entire family, but he did it.

No reason you can't. Unless of course, you lack the intelligence ,drive, ambition, and ability to become a successful CEO. In which case your entire argument about CEO's not deserving to be paid significantly higher than an average worker completely falls apart.

First of all, I never said that a CEO doesn't deserve a higher pay rate, so that's a strawman. I said that it's ridiculous that CEO pay has ballooned while the wages of regular workers have stagnated.

Your father's story is quite touching, but most wealth in this country is not earned, it's inherited. There are people like your father who come from modest beginnings and become wealthy, but that's the exception, not the rule. For everyone who does, like your dad, there are countless others who don't get anywhere near that far, and the reason is that everyone doesn't have the same starting point. The rich control everything in this country, and as such things are set up to keep them rich without giving anyone else a chance to get a piece of the pie. I realize that this is going off on another tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

The point that I'm really trying to make, and I'll stress it again, is that CEO's do deserve a higher pay rate, but it certainly shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else never seeing a real pay raise. I don't see where there's any question about it being ridiculous that a few are paid enough to afford four mansions and a car for every day of the week while everyone else is getting just enough to get by, and sometimes not even that.

If there's enough money to pay a CEO such a large amount, then there's enough to give everyone else a fair share as well.

 

[BoogerBomb]

Ill cut the guy some slack as he seems to be spreading the wealth just a bit by saying they intend to hire on around 3000 workers this year. The massive layoff rumors turned out to be like 2% of the workforce not the 10% he said he would do if he ever did layoffs.

 

[computerpro3]

First of all, I never said that a CEO doesn't deserve a higher pay rate, so that's a strawman. I said that it's ridiculous that CEO pay has ballooned while the wages of regular workers have stagnated.

Your father's story is quite touching, but most wealth in this country is not earned, it's inherited. There are people like your father who come from modest beginnings and become wealthy, but that's the exception, not the rule. For everyone who does, like your dad, there are countless others who don't get anywhere near that far, and the reason is that everyone doesn't have the same starting point. The rich control everything in this country, and as such things are set up to keep them rich without giving anyone else a chance to get a piece of the pie. I realize that this is going off on another tangent, so I'll leave it at that.

The point that I'm really trying to make, and I'll stress it again, is that CEO's do deserve a higher pay rate, but it certainly shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else never seeing a real pay raise. I don't see where there's any question about it being ridiculous that a few are paid enough to afford four mansions and a car for every day of the week while everyone else is getting just enough to get by, and sometimes not even that.

If there's enough money to pay a CEO such a large amount, then there's enough to give everyone else a fair share as well.

I'm about to blow your mind.

Your entire argument falls down because only 6% of wealthy people inherited it, where as 69% made it through strictly business (no inheritance) and 25% made it through investing a modest inheritance in business.

So people like my father are the rule, not the exception. People don't believe it because they don't like looking in the mirror and taking responsibility for their place in life, but that's just the cold hard facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/04/11/earners-vs-heirs/

 

[computerpro3]

In short, stop blaming others for your place in life. Get up and do something about it.

 

[computerpro3]

And an article linked in the above article for those who I know won't click and read it:

My Krugman post brought a lot of emails asking about my assertion that “the vast majority of today’s rich didn’t inherit their money, but made it themselves.”

For the sake of brevity, I didn’t cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.

So no, the rich aren't preventing you from grabbing a slice of the pie. Sure make a convenient scapegoat though, don't they?

 

[heatlesssun]

So no, the rich aren't preventing you from grabbing a slice of the pie. Sure make a convenient scapegoat though, don't they?

Sure they do, at least rich corporations and the people that run then tend to be rich themselves. Manipulative business practices like those that got Microsoft into trouble, off shoring of labor to low cost countries, ridiculous patents, etc.

Not saying that the rich are evil or anything but like anyone they protect their interests and they have the means to do it effectively and at the expense of others.

It's called life and it's never been fair.

 

[computerpro3]

Sure they do, at least rich corporations and the people that run then tend to be rich themselves. Manipulative business practices like those that got Microsoft into trouble, off shoring of labor to low cost countries, ridiculous patents, etc.

Not saying that the rich are evil or anything but like anyone they protect their interests and they have the means to do it effectively and at the expense of others.

It's called life and it's never been fair.

Of course. But my point was that using the rich as a scapegoat for why you are not wealthy or successful is a bunch of crap. There's nobody actively holding you down, or actively holding he working class down, for that matter. Well, except welfare pork barrel programs.

 

[heatlesssun]

Of course. But my point was that using the rich as a scapegoat for why you are not wealthy or successful is a bunch of crap. There's nobody actively holding you down, or actively holding he working class down, for that matter. Well, except welfare pork barrel programs.

Everyone is their own worst enemy so basically I agree. However the strong invariably dominate the weak. Not realizing that AND not doing something about it, it's not enough to simply complain, is how one becomes a victim.