Time Warner CEO To Get $80M For Six Weeks

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

I almost think we need to start thinking about this. I'm not talking communism or socialism or any scary -ism. But we're seeing automation (and globalization) really come to the forefront in our lifetime (late Gen-Xer). Sure we may need a few robot repairment and coders, but honestly, is everyone intelligent enough to do that? Many of those insulting those "takers" also want to cut education spending. At the end of the day, do we want to allow the few owners of all of these companies to take more and more of the income? (In the past ten years, something like 90% of all gains in income went to the top 1%. The "bottom" 93% of Americans income actually lost income.)

Before any major world-wide reform could take place, there is the elephant in the room that would need to be dealt with first... namely the fact that the world population is already too high, and it is growing at a rate that will be impossible to sustain...

In the 1920s we hit 2 billion. That doubled to 4 billion by the 70s. We've been adding roughly a billion per decade since, and are now estimated to hit around 10 billion by the halfway point of the century.

The max "carrying capacity" off this planet has been worked out to be 5 billion people, and an "ideal" number for higher quality of life is even less at around 3-4.

As automation and technology continue to take over everything that people once did, there simply will not be enough jobs, let alone resources, to support the human race.

The population issue is already a huge part of the growing wealth gap and disappearing middle class, but no one wants to talk about it because it is such a taboo issue.

Ironically so-called "backwards" countries like China and Iran have been on top of this problem for some time, but in the West we haven't really even brought it up since the 70s and 80s.

 

[fdiaz78]

because 80 million dollars is alot of fucking money,why not take half of that and put the other half into paying your employees more or getting better infrastructure? People get mad because there are a lot of Mr Burns type ceo's that run a shitty company and still make more money than anyone could dream of. How much money is enough? Hell i could live the rest of life with 40 million in my account.

That's not how life works regardless how much you watch MSNBC. His salary is between him and Comcast/shareholders. What a person makes is none of our business. You also have the option to not support them.

 

[drommel]

Actually, CEO compensation is public info if they are the CEO of a publicly traded company.

 

[Phoenix333]

The problem isn't the qualifications. 99% of CEOs and top executives are idiots. The few that are actually smart deserve their money. The rest should die in a fire.

Hey, I die in a fire! I don't want to have anything in common with these sleaze balls!

 

[requiem99]

America, fuck yeah.

 

[Ducman69]

Before any major world-wide reform could take place, there is the elephant in the room that would need to be dealt with first... namely the fact that the world population is already too high, and it is growing at a rate that will be impossible to sustain...

In the 1920s we hit 2 billion. That doubled to 4 billion by the 70s. We've been adding roughly a billion per decade since, and are now estimated to hit around 10 billion by the halfway point of the century.

The max "carrying capacity" off this planet has been worked out to be 5 billion people, and an "ideal" number for higher quality of life is even less at around 3-4.

As automation and technology continue to take over everything that people once did, there simply will not be enough jobs, let alone resources, to support the human race.

The population issue is already a huge part of the growing wealth gap and disappearing middle class, but no one wants to talk about it because it is such a taboo issue.

Ironically so-called "backwards" countries like China and Iran have been on top of this problem for some time, but in the West we haven't really even brought it up since the 70s and 80s.

I agree, but do bring it up... problem is in the West politicians have to kiss babies and promise handouts to "struggling" families, which in essence is subsidizing breeding, when in fact having too many children should be discouraged and taxed. After all, the more children you have, the more community services you are using and thus should be required to contribute. Moreover, generally the DUMBEST people are having the most children.

Remember that guy that worked at Subway when he's not making gangster rap music, busted for DUI and fleeing the scene before, kidnapping charges, trespassing, and various other crimes despite being only 21 years old and then ran from the cops in Austin crashing into a whole bunch of stuff until finally crashing through a barricade and mowing down a bunch of people (who died or ended up with serious injuries in the hospital) in Austin recently?

SIX kids. Nope, you read that right. 21 years old and SIX kids.

But don't worry, it looks like he has amassed about $185 life savings from the picture above, so he will be able to care for them no problem.

Meanwhile the most intelligent women in the US tend to have no kids and may end up adopting some child from India.

Regarding China being on the ball though, not really. The rural areas were never properly regulated, and they only responded after massive overpopulation issues in the first place:

 

[kac77]

SIX kids. Nope, you read that right. 21 years old and SIX kids.

That's more of a function of the environment and what the societal norm is for the region. Texas spends very little on sexual education and so you get crap like this.

Most people in other states know how to put on a condom and know the type of life one would lead if they have tons of kids at a young age.

That being said, even when you look at states with low teen pregnancy the outcomes don't change the picture on the lack of upward mobility in the US. The problem and the reason why it's everyone's business on what people make at the top is because it affects the economy for everyone.

When people create (intentionally) tax breaks for the people at the top and for people at the bottom who do you think pays for it? If you are in the middle find a mirror because it's you.

 

[Ducman69]

From what I read, they don't get the federal sex ed funds because of their strict anti-abortion legislation... which is retarded IMO and I'm all with Planned Parenthood on that. Abstinence only programs are also quite idiotic, but its a cultural issue.

Its not like there are kids there that have condoms available but just can't figure out the science... is this a party balloon? Do I put it over my head?

And really nearly all of it is a cultural problem, but not just ONE culture, as we have a huge group of Catholic Hispanic immigrants for example, and we've all seen the old Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch and its pretty much true.

As you can see from the official Texas websites statistics, the Hispanic fertility rate is, well, retarded high to put it plainly:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/uploadedImages/Content/Chief_Operating_Officer/chs/vstat/vs07/figb.gif

You're not going to change someone's religious and cultural beliefs overnight with a couple extra bucks thrown at sex-ed, as the kids parents, upbringing, friends, etc have a much larger influence. Nor is that going to fix the alarming statistic of 72% of black children being raised in a single parent home not knowing where daddy is, listening to highly sexualized money/hoes hip-hop, and repeating the same pattern for the next generation.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

That's more of a function of the environment and what the societal norm is for the region. Texas spends very little on sexual education and so you get crap like this.

Most people in other states know how to put on a condom and know the type of life one would lead if they have tons of kids at a young age.

That being said, even when you look at states with low teen pregnancy the outcomes don't change the picture on the lack of upward mobility in the US. The problem and the reason why it's everyone's business on what people make at the top is because it affects the economy for everyone.

When people create (intentionally) tax breaks for the people at the top and for people at the bottom who do you think pays for it? If you are in the middle find a mirror because it's you.

OMG we all knew the south was pretty backwards, but why won't people do something to HELP them instead of letting them keep doing dumb stuff like buying pickup trucks and inbreeding with their teenage siblings? We really need to advocate plans to stop that kind of 15th century backwards thinking. I know a lot of it has to do with an overall demographically less intelligent population because of environmental conditions and genetic predisposition to have lower raw intellect in the southern US, but those people need help. I feel so awful when this comes up because the much more progressive and prosperous northern and central US should really be doing something. Instead we exploit those people and then we incite anit-government fear in them and treat them like stupid post apocaplyse tribals when we should be helping them get out of their trailer courts, out of debt for their dumb pickup truck and at least into apartments and able to access goods and services. I think a lot of it is due to the need to have a lower rung on the social ladder to take advantage of to drive economic growth, but seriously, people there really can't help it that they are what they are. Have you ever heard them talk? They don't even have the letter "g" at the end of -ing words and they use a lot of tobacco products.

 

[steal]

So you'd rather live in a communist government or in mud huts then let some guy not connected to you strike it rich for easy?

lol i like how the only alternative to this corrupt form of crony capitalism is living in mud huts

get out of here with your straw mans

 

[McFry]

The reason why you wont see any kind of "reform" done, whatever that means, when it comes to these income gaps is because a significant portion of the population believes they are only temporarily poor. By that I mean the kind of people who vote against their own best interests in support of a system that enables millionaires to stay millionaires. A lot of conservative/republicans think that they too will become rich one day, so they dont want to do anything to interfere with the system. They view their current income status as a sort of temporary inconvenience, but by golly they'll get there eventually. So they will vote for tax increases on themselves to give tax breaks for the rich, because they'll need it when they finally get there.

 

[McFry]

Sure, lets take 40 million and divide it between the 51,600 employees. That would amount to a $64 per month raise for 1 year.

While it sounds like peanuts, strength comes in numbers. That $64 is 100% guaranteed to be spent, and almost certainly within our country. It will go back into the economy to make widgets and doodads. The $80m for this CEO will just sit in a bank account. Maybe he'll buy a new yacht or helicopter or something, but he's definitely not going to light the whole thing on fire. So it's wasted.