AikiRooster
PainMaster.
TDWoj
The same can be said the other way around. You and other welfare people wish to not be labeled lazy but it seems ok if CEO's are labeled as the wealthy trying to get wealthier or whatever similar titles you seem to feel free to sling at them? However, at the same time, its inapprpriate for them to think of welfare persons as lazy? What's fair about that?
The truth of the matter is that any business big or small is in business for itself. That's why people go into business. If you had a business, I bet you would live off the profit, which also means your in busniess for yourself or you would be anyway. Cutting staff at every opportunity? I doubt business would consider that an opportunity. If you were in business for yourself, you too would cut off come staff to keep your way of life you built for yourself as long as you could. If you had a way of life you have gotten used to and your family likes it too, guess what? if production was slacking because of the economy and money coming in slowed down, I bet you wouldn't take away from your family to make sure those huge amounts of employees were able to keep there lives going as is. Thats not the way it works TD. Your bisness you keep your way of life as long as possible, the man at the bottom gets cut first, as the old saying goes, s h i t roles downhill.
I cannot comment much on what the CEO's decided to do as I have never been one. I do not know what is entailed in the decision making process or the strategizing involved that they utilize for each individual company. As a police officer, we too are understaffed and over worked. 11 Sept 01 we worked 13 to 20 hrs a day, 6 days a week for about a year and a half. That problem is in the government as well. Fair, I don't think so but to the characters sitting cozy offices making the decisions it seems to be as long as there not the ones on the streets doing the BS. Again you seem to think like these big business people are going to make themsleves and there families suffer before the lower man on the totum pole just baffles me that you think it works like that. If you were in business, my bet is you would do the same thing. I doubt you would make your family suffer while your employees are all kept at the same pay rate while your life style changes because in order to make sure your employees salaries and lives go unchanged, you have to make yours decline. I don't think so TD, at least not for very long. For a month or so I can see that maybe, but for it to be the way it is permanent until things get better years down the road, I don't think if you knew it would take that long to bring the numbers up that you would put your family through that as a companies CEO.
In this section you claim to applaud me for my belief but it appears to me that if you meant that the rest of what you wrote would not have followed.
Again, it appears to me that it is ok for you to label CEO's as greedy, corrupt or whatever else but yet they are not suppose to think of you or label you as lazy for needing there wealth to bail you out of your personal situation that you wish to not be in. It is ok for them to work and make a good living for themselves and want it for themselves but because you are not in as positive of a situation as they are they are to be punished then and have the government steal it from them to help you? The more I read of your posts TD, the more it appears extremely hypocritical to me of your logic.
TDWoj said:
The same can be said the other way around. You and other welfare people wish to not be labeled lazy but it seems ok if CEO's are labeled as the wealthy trying to get wealthier or whatever similar titles you seem to feel free to sling at them? However, at the same time, its inapprpriate for them to think of welfare persons as lazy? What's fair about that?
TDWoj said:
The truth of the matter is that any business big or small is in business for itself. That's why people go into business. If you had a business, I bet you would live off the profit, which also means your in busniess for yourself or you would be anyway. Cutting staff at every opportunity? I doubt business would consider that an opportunity. If you were in business for yourself, you too would cut off come staff to keep your way of life you built for yourself as long as you could. If you had a way of life you have gotten used to and your family likes it too, guess what? if production was slacking because of the economy and money coming in slowed down, I bet you wouldn't take away from your family to make sure those huge amounts of employees were able to keep there lives going as is. Thats not the way it works TD. Your bisness you keep your way of life as long as possible, the man at the bottom gets cut first, as the old saying goes, s h i t roles downhill.
TDWoj said:
I cannot comment much on what the CEO's decided to do as I have never been one. I do not know what is entailed in the decision making process or the strategizing involved that they utilize for each individual company. As a police officer, we too are understaffed and over worked. 11 Sept 01 we worked 13 to 20 hrs a day, 6 days a week for about a year and a half. That problem is in the government as well. Fair, I don't think so but to the characters sitting cozy offices making the decisions it seems to be as long as there not the ones on the streets doing the BS. Again you seem to think like these big business people are going to make themsleves and there families suffer before the lower man on the totum pole just baffles me that you think it works like that. If you were in business, my bet is you would do the same thing. I doubt you would make your family suffer while your employees are all kept at the same pay rate while your life style changes because in order to make sure your employees salaries and lives go unchanged, you have to make yours decline. I don't think so TD, at least not for very long. For a month or so I can see that maybe, but for it to be the way it is permanent until things get better years down the road, I don't think if you knew it would take that long to bring the numbers up that you would put your family through that as a companies CEO.
TDWoj said:
In this section you claim to applaud me for my belief but it appears to me that if you meant that the rest of what you wrote would not have followed.
Again, it appears to me that it is ok for you to label CEO's as greedy, corrupt or whatever else but yet they are not suppose to think of you or label you as lazy for needing there wealth to bail you out of your personal situation that you wish to not be in. It is ok for them to work and make a good living for themselves and want it for themselves but because you are not in as positive of a situation as they are they are to be punished then and have the government steal it from them to help you? The more I read of your posts TD, the more it appears extremely hypocritical to me of your logic.
