Where have all those "greedy bastards" gone?
I have been reading about how California is going bust and New York is having revenue probems and one thing leaps out. How much the so-called "greedy Wall Street bastards" and their investors were subsidizing these places. For example, in this tidbit linked on Drudge about Ca. needing to defer tax refunds, we find:
Or in New York:
So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours.
Chiang says his office must continue education and debt payments but will defer money for tax refunds, student aid, social services and mental health programs.
A severe drop in revenue has left the state's main bank account depleted. The state had been relying on borrowing from special funds and Wall Street investors; those options are no longer available.
Or in New York:
In past years, Wall Street accounted for as much as 12 percent of city tax revenue, the comptroller said. This year, most financial firms reported losses that the mayor has said they may carry forward, allowing them to avoid paying city tax for several years. By the comptroller’s estimate, city taxes from Wall Street-related activities could drop by $2 billion, or more than 40 percent, over two fiscal years.
So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours.
posted by Helen at 11:13 AM
57 Comments:
Actually, if you look at the tax structure, the broad middle class makes the big contribution - just because there are so many people in that class.
There just aren't all that many "greedy bastards" to match the millions and millions of people in the broad middle class.
That's also why a small increase in the hourly wages of rank and file employees will have a bigger effect on the company's personnel costs than a fairly large increase in the CEO's salary.
Second point:
Back in the 1980's, I thought the "greed is good" speech in Wall Street was great. I wanted to be a greedy bastard and blow cigar smoke in other's people's faces. All with the quiet knowledge that I was the engine of society and I was paying huge taxes (well, I would be if my accountant weren't so good).
Now, I'm not so sure. Not all greedy bastards are heroes to be worshipped and not all "little people" are useless pieces of crap.
I realize a response of "that's not how I think at all" will come up - from people who kind of think that way, but my answer would be: "Yeah, there's a whiff of that in your language and thus your thinking".
But I sure do respect that Bernie Madoff.
Most of these guys obtained their money through their government connections.
JG,
Well, then you must call those on Wall Street the middle class since they accounted for 12% and I have read even up to 20% of the tax revenue. And not many middle class people stay in NYC--they mostly leave due to the high taxes and high cost of living.
"Most of these guys obtained their money through their government connections."
-------------------
I think that some have earned it and pushed their way up and some haven't. What I always wonder about is people who seem to worship them indiscriminately. Why?
Further, usually the people worshipping are very, very far away from BEING that person. So how the hell do they know what it is like? Why are they worshipping them?
"Well, then you must call those on Wall Street the middle class since they accounted for 12% ..."
--------
Is 12% all that high?
Anyway, isn't it GOOD if government expenditures are forced to be cut down a bit? I think so. Pulling the belt tighter will cut out waste.
My bigger point, though, is that I just don't worship greedy bastards anymore. Some have earned it, some haven't, and I don't really care who is who.
JG,
In another article I found, it says that Wall Street bonuses account for 30% of NYC revenue--and yes, that is high. I agree that it would be good if government will be forced to cut down but I don't think that will happen--they will just come after someone else such as property owners etc.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/20/business/NA-US-Wall-Street-Bonuses.php
After reading this paragraph:
-----------------------------
"So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours."
---------------------
I started wondering, "what is the motivation behind this desire to stand up for, or to be on the side of, the 'rich bastards' " ?
Some are probably OK people, some aren't, but I don't get the strong desire to "be on their side".
I wrote above about how I felt in the 1980s, that's the closest I can come to an explanation.
If Bernie Madoff (let's say, as an example) was paying a ton of taxes, and now he isn't, I'd say: So what. So there is less tax money being taken in. Less to redistribute to people who didn't earn it.
The overall point: I'm not going to be reminding anyone that Madoff - or even someone who is a square shooter - is now in short supply. THEY ARE NO LONGER EARNING A BONUS - that's why they are in short supply.
You know, someone at another blog that I follow once made an interesting observation. Throughout the years, our governments have become less and less responsible and responsive to the average person. At the same time, the average person has paid an ever-shrinking share of the total government expenses (as compared to the wealthier people). Is it any wonder, then, that as the average person has become less and less responsible for financing the governments' operations that those same people have lost more and more control over them?
There's an old Star Trek episode (the original version from the 1960s) called "Errand of Mercy" that sums up some of my thoughts about worshipping the rich and powerful and taking things at face value.
There may also be a gender difference here: Boys usually look up to some competent older boy, or when they are in college some figure who represents what they want to become, but as men get older they sometimes lose the motivation to turn a human being into a God-like object of worhship. To be a bit sarcastic.
Women on the other hand, either because of genetics or upbringing, are trained to look for the "alpha male". So they want to sniff out the rich guys. A lot of women get pretty good at cutting through the BS the men come up with in bars. That is the mission of women to sniff out the money (and take it away from the mark). So maybe "worship" is the wrong word to use with women (that's more like what young boys do).
I started wondering, "what is the motivation behind this desire to stand up for, or to be on the side of, the 'rich bastards' " ?
Because we're tired of them being trashed in the press all the time.
JG, you say "he broad middle class makes the big contribution - just because there are so many people in that class."
People in the top quintile paid 85.3 percent of income taxes in 2004. The bottom two quintiles payed nothing. So if you call the "broad middle class" the middle three quintiles, then they only payed 15%
It looks like - from a quick Google - that the top quintile (total HOUSEHOLD income) starts at around $88,000.
Maybe I'm a spoiled brat, but I think a household with two kids (for instance) and total income of $88,000 today is not rich. And the big mass of people in the top quintile is down around that number. The really big earners - the Wall Street bonus boys - are a very small percentage of that.
The higher-earning middle class people are shouldering most of the taxes.
Just to clarify: I'm not a left-wing liberal type.
I also don't have anything against earning money. I just see quite a few people in society thinking that EVERYONE with money must have earned it - that's really not the case.
I also see this kind of worshipping that goes on and it's unwarranted. I see the same thing (mostly among women) for different groups in society. It's clear that some people worship rock stars ("groupies"). There are also women who have to have a cop - and some women try to bully others with the cop that they bagged. Some women worship professions like physicians; those women vicariously assume their husband's role (and wealth).
To put it briefly: Lots of people worship others, and it's kind of stupid.
I've said this before: The majority, in fact the vast majority, of people with money haven't earned it.
If you start with the fact that for every Mr. Got-Rocks (who may or may not have earned it), there is usually a Mrs. Got-Rocks, and that money is going to flake off on her. Spouses normally inherit everything when the other spouse dies, and men usually die before their wives.
So there you're already at 50% of people not earning their money.
Throw in children inheriting money, trust fund babies, nepotism in companies at the executive level, schemes that generate money but aren't what they purport to be, and maybe the odd lottery winner, and you're quite a bit above 50% ("vast majority").
And I won't get started on whether the CEO who took a bonus of $10 million although his company is sliding towards bankruptcy EARNED that money. A five-year-old girl could bankrupt the company the same as him, maybe slower.
I guess that's a discussion for another day.
Not all rich people inherit their money. While I don't know the exact percentage, and don't know where most draw the line that begins "the rich", I would say most successful people do it themselves.
You know, there are 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week, 52 weeks in a year. Every single person on this planet has the same allotment of hours, days, and weeks in a year for the time they roam this planet. What do individuals do with their time? I've read the average individual has 4 to 5 killer ideas a year. Basically, most of us never do a freaking thing with those ideas - or if we even KNOW we have a killer idea inside our heads. You have Warren Buffet - who started with nothing, and look where he is.
There are levels in between top and bottom. Most of us buy into the raising we receive and become 40 hours per week worker bees. That's what we were taught in school, what our parents before us were taught; and we inhaled it and now breathe it out. Public school doesn't create Buffets, Gates, Jobs or anyone in Forbes or Fortune. That train of thought comes from somewhere else.
Sure, there are greedy people on the one end, just like there are leeches on the other. And the majority lies in between. It's what's between the ears.
Those who insist in living beyond their means are only imprisoned by everything they "own."
It's easy to "hate" (meaning be jealous of) the rich. And it takes so little effort.
"It's easy to "hate" (meaning be jealous of) the rich. And it takes so little effort."
----------------
And the other side of it is just as easy - identifying with the "rich" even if you aren't personally.
Probably the trick - and the thing that DOES take some effort - is to see reality.
I fully agree that if you put work and motivation and drive into something you will most likely do better in that area. On the other hand, luck also exists without a doubt.
I've been around people, though, where the anxiety about being rich or getting rich is tangible. Stress central. They have to talk about rich people they know. They have to suggest that they are going to be rich.
Who ... friggin' ... cares.
I forget the author (Ernst Hemingway, maybe?), but the saying was: "The rich ARE different than you and I ... they have more money."
Otherwise, I don't attribute any superhero or God-like characteristics to them. Sometimes you hit a niche with some luck and then naturally ride the wave and work hard because it's fun and you know the hard work will produce a lot. Sometimes you get hit by a beer truck when you least expect it.
Well, my point wasn't about identifying with the rich. It was about what it takes to be who one is.
How is it in 52 or 54 years, however old he is, that Gates is worth 50 or 60 billion, or whatever the amount is now, while many live in a trailer. Weighing for mental or physical afflictions, it's what's between an individual's ears. We all become something in this life.
Simple enough, if we make more than we spend, we can over time, be in pretty good shape. Even though the unexpected does rear its ugly head every now and then.
I can certainly vouch for that happening.
I don't know, after 13 posts by someone who doesn't care, I'd say you're pissed about something.
"... I'd say you're pissed about something."
-------------
I'm interested in this topic, or maybe a more philosophical topic that is related to this one.
If you want to get into personal motives, though, I live in my parent's basement and lost my job at the local Curly Loops restaurant. I dropped out of high school and have failed at everything I've done.
Now that my personal motives are clear, I'd be interested in hearing some more philosophical views (i.e. removed from personalities) on this topic.
I just see quite a few people in society thinking that EVERYONE with money must have earned it - that's really not the case.
I think you miss the point most of us are making, which is that it's irrelevant whether or not your money was a windfall, it's still immoral to take it away from you.
The overwhelming attitude on the left seems to be that nobody with money really earned it so it's ok to steal it from them.
JG - what you say only applies to the above-average looking females who once they sniff the money are willing to spread their legs to keep getting it. They are whores, nothing less.
To be fair, the males that are willing to pay for these women are legal "johns". No more, no less. They are willing participants in this unofficial prostitution game.
Randian sez:
"I think you miss the point most of us are making, which is that it's irrelevant whether or not your money was a windfall, it's still immoral to take it away from you."
-----------
No, I don't miss that point, it wasn't what I was arguing (see below).
As far as the taxation point goes, my point of view is:
1) No taxes
2) If you have to have taxes (and, cynically, I think there always will be taxes), then don't tax the people who EARN their money, tax the people who don't. Concretely, that means NO income tax at all, a 100% inheritance tax and a 90% "greedy whore" tax on Heather Mills.
But, oddly, people who say that it's immoral for the government to take it away from you seem to favor the income tax over the inheritance tax. Odd. But you get busy on the cessation of taxes, because I'm paying too much.
---
What I was arguing was the whiff of indignation found in paragraphs like this:
"So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours."
-
I find this "siding with" rich people to be a bit bizarre, because Helen by all accounts is not a rich person and will never be one except through inheritance / family laws, so what is the driving factor there.
I don't know why some people have that desire to put themselves in an almost self-righteous way on that side. It makes "rich people" sound like the heroes in a comic book.
Side note / last note: I'm a bit amazed that everything I'm writing on this is being misconstrued / misunderstood.
If your goal is to destroy families and make all wealth de facto owned by the state, then a 100% inheritance tax is the perfect way to go. Why work so hard if your children won't benefit from it and the state is the real owner of your labors?
I don't side with the rich to be anybody's hero, I do so because it's right. Somebody needs to defend them, because they can't do it themselves in today's political environment. The rhetoric these days is that the rich can't have legitimately earned it (cue various fallacious zero-sum arguments) so financially slaughtering them like cattle is A-OK. Apparently standard moral reasoning, such as "it's wrong to steal", doesn't apply. Stealing is ok if it's for a good cause (alleviating envy).
"If your goal is to destroy families and make all wealth de facto owned by the state, then a 100% inheritance tax is the perfect way to go."
---------
Yeah, 'cuz who would want to be part of a family if you don't get millions or billions when dad croaks? I know I wouldn't.
I've seen a few "rich guys" say, though, that they are only going to pass a million or so onto each of their kids - with the rest going to charity - because the kids should earn money on their own if they want it and not be spoiled by a huge windfall. I've actually seen more than one in public say that, and there are probably more in private who don't announce it.
On the topic of "worshipping":
Around 20 years ago (?), some time in the 1980s, Donald Trump divorced Ivanna. She wrote a book called "Standing on my own two feet" or something like that and had a mini book tour.
A woman I know met her and was shaking afterwards as if she had been abducted by aliens. She was in the presence of a Goddess. A true rich woman.
I personally think she's a dumb c#nt who is really lucky that family law is the way it is right now. And I guess that's the difference in perception.
JG -- There seems to be a theme on your part of assigning people motivation. I side with those with money whom socialists wish to strip of it because it is the morally correct position in my opinion. Do I identify with the rich? No. It's completely unnecessary to identify with someone to defend them.
"Yeah, 'cuz who would want to be part of a family if you don't get millions or billions when dad croaks?"
It would ruin all the families all the way down. One hundred percent taken of very little is even less. Besides, you didn't address his point, which was that the workers in the family (not the kids) would be demotivated.
"Besides, you didn't address his point, which was that the workers in the family (not the kids) would be demotivated."
---------
I guess I didn't address it because I don't believe it.
Is that why most people work hard? To have a big estate when they die?
I can think of lots of things motivating people to work hard, or to be innovative, and that seems to be further on down the list.
"One hundred percent taken of very little is even less."
--------
So have a cut-off figure. Each kid gets all the schooling, medical attention etc. he wants or needs and gets a good chunk of money.
I'm in favor of NO taxes, but if taxes have to exist, and you have to choose between an income tax (earned income) and a full inheritance tax (unearned income) above some level, I would be in favor of the latter. Precisely BECAUSE I am in favor of people keeping their money when they earn it. And in a perfect world even if they don't earn it, but until the world is perfect and until taxes disappear, at least take the money from the least morally objectable place.
I find it MORE morally repugnant, actually, to take money away from the exact people who earned it, but to let people who didn't earn it keep it.
If you want an argument based on morals.
A hard-working father of three has a good chunk taken out of his paycheck, while Heather Mills enjoys her windfall with no taxes at all. And you find that moral?
Wall Street guys are middlemen; what they know is how to get capital to where it is needed from where it is not needed.
Even after they take their cut, everybody comes out ahead.
The traditional story is of a priest who was a prisoner in a German POW camp, who would trade the contents of Red Cross packages and wind up with the equivalent of two Red Cross packages after he was done; yet everybody he bartered with was better off as well. Everybody got what they preferred to what they had.
The priest's contribution was trading skill.
my parents were married for over 60 years when my Mom died. dad always figured he'd go first. he busted his behind working to leave something for her and us. He would never have worked so hard and saved money if not for her. Should the government have taken half of what he had? Should the government take family farms and businesses when the owner dies? The money he made is his to do with as he pleases. Not yours not the feds.His. The same applies to everyone that works. Trump may have started with 10 million, but he earned the rest of it. even useless trash like the Kennedy's manage to work to add to their family trust. BTW, most rich families go with the trust which means there is no "inheritance". for the past several years I've been fighting to help my ex keep land for the kids that's been in her family since 1867. So anyone who wants a 100% inheritance tax is cordially invited to the theological place of eternal punishment.
Dr. Hellen's point is correct. I bet a good % of NYC tax revenue came from its wage tax. I think the agre tax is about 7%. If you had 10,000 Wall Street types making $1 Million, that is a lot of lost tax revenue when deals dry up.
$70,000 x 10,000 = $700 million. That is why Mayor Bloomberg is crying the blues.
Sorry for the typo. "agre tax" should read "wage tax".
I have to agree with JG. The rights worship of the rich and its eager defense of them is pretty peculiar. Because when you pay close attention to what's going on, those "rich bastards" ARE the left.
The right is stil trapped in a time-warp where they're defending struggling small businessmen from the evil communists.
Madoff, to pick just one typical example, was a big funder of the left. So the right are worshipping their bitterest enemies.
Wake up, people. Wall Street voted for Obama.
I figure Mrs. Gotrocks earned her money. Grandma used to say "Those who marry for money earn it three times over."
Helen,
Like the book "Great Expectations", the story here isn't the "greedy bastards". It's the "drunken sailor" states of NY and CA and those citizens and leaders that are hooked on entitlements. The "greedy bastards" are gone from the scene. They paid for the dreams while they could; but now what does the future hold for NY and CA?
The state politicians have taken for granted the wealth flowing from Wall Street and the California coastal cities while neglecting the solid, honest citizens that form the backbone of those states. As a result, no goal was too lofty, no plan too grandiose, no mandate too expensive, no pay raise unwarranted; and if the "little people" complained; well, "They're just whiners. Look at all we're doing for them."
Would the leaders of Tennessee or West Virginia get away with this kind of extravagance?
Years ago I worked as an engineer at a GE factory. We were constantly beaten over the head because we could deliver no more than 4 to 5% return on capital investments. Management was always reminding us that GE Capital could return 3 times as much on any given day. This continued until the plant was sold to the Chinese. Now GE Capital's ready to join the tin-cup brigade and GE's CEO is having second thoughts about dumping Appliances and Lighting.
Same-Same. The income from GE Capital, like the income from Wall Street, should've been treated like the windfall it was; not taken for granted or used to pay for existence on some "higher plane". It should've been used to build up infrastructure and manufacturing in preparation for the day when it ceases. But instead it was largely squandered on lofty expectations and dreams.
As a resident of upstate NY, I'm hoping this financial shock will bring Albany back to reality. Patterson is making some of the right noises; but he can't do it alone. Those who feel entitled at every level are loudly making their displeasure known.
As a psychologist, don't you find an entire class of citizens (in this case, teachers & public servants) succumbing to delusions of grandeur to be somewhat interesting?
We must thank Bernie for the suggestion that any bill governing taxation or economic stimulus be called a Made Off Bill for surely the government has done that with our cash, and, by extension, our economic freedom.
Reznor: "I've found you can find happiness in slavery."
Dudley Do-right said... "Like the book "Great Expectations", the story here isn't the "greedy bastards". It's the "drunken sailor" states of NY and CA and those citizens and leaders that are hooked on entitlements."
I do find it interesting that the Republican Party is painted often as 'the party of greed' and the Democratic Party is more commonly painted the party for the poor or the party of compassion. Republicans generally donate a much higher percentage of their money willinging to charity, whereas the Democrats are much better at donating other people's money to their pet projects.
That said, it is not universally true. There are greedy Republicans and generous Democrats. But the stats continuously show, when it comes to willingly giving from ones own pocket, conservatives give a higher percentage.
If someone merely refuses to prejudge a member of a commonly despised group, it is automatically assumed by those who do that the non-prejudiced person must therefore love -- or in this case "worship" -- the target of disdain.
This echoes the cries of "ABCD-lover!" often lobbed by anti-ABCD bigots at those who merely refuse to prejudge ABCD people.
The paragraph JG is going on about, is a reproach against such altruistic haters of the rich. It does not say anything at all about "worshipping" the rich at all; JG is the one operating on that assumption, apparently without being aware of it.
That's a measure of just how pervasive the anti-capitalist bigotry is; most people don't recognize it as such. So they assume that those lacking that prejudice must be lovers, "worshippers" or even bootlickers of businessmen.
Someone must have filtered out a lot of what was written by Dr. Helen above. I do not see anything about worshiping, or making to be God-like, anyone.
Really! I am so worried about what is happening to us.
It won't help to remind your liberal friends, they still believe top-hatted plutocrats are sucking all the money out of the system and stashing it somewhere, Switzerland or under the mattress I suppose. Facts don't matter when you have "hope and change". Sigh.
I thank JG for bravely demonstrating that claims beginning with the word 'actually' are often weak - even incoherent.
Getting back to the topic of left-liberals who dissed "Wall Street guys" as "greedy" now discovering that "they were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs" the leftists loved so much, New Yorkers addicted to OPM (other people's money) may discover that the good times that have so recently passed may not return when the current economic troubles recede. Back office work is already being relocated to lower-cost locales in the region that are beyond the reach of the NYC and NY state tax takers. The Internet will allow those who made the really huge incomes to re-locate to... anywhere.
California had a foretaste of NYC's experience when the dot-com bubble burst. That state's relatively high and steeply punitive tax rates raked in the money when times were good. The resulting falloff of tax revenues led to quick-fix tax hikes by the Democrat controlled legislature which, added to his electricity-crisis missteps of the year before, led to the recall of Democrat governor Gray Davis.
Shortly after his recall, Gray Davis pointed to California's steeply progressive tax rates and dependence on a relatively small percentage of very high income earners from whom tax takings rose sharply during booms and shrank even faster in a bust. Davis also noted to the press that a far greater proportion of those super-high earners than of more typical California residents and tax payers can move away, moving all that delicious tax revenue with them too.
Coveting thy neighbor's goods using the tax collector as ones cutout in order to avoid guilt is both unprincipled and impractical. Sigh. But so many voters and the politicians they elect never learn.
Wow, JG, you sure have a fair bit of time on your hands!
I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that "The majority, in fact the vast majority, of people with money haven't earned it," but this is unequivocally wrong.
If you look at the Forbes 400, who are rich beyond the wettest possible dreams of any would-be Gordon Gecko, two-thirds of the members of The Forbes 400 have fortunes that are entirely self-made, while only 19 percent of the group inherited their entire fortunes.
The reasons they gained wealth of this magnitude include good ideas, hard work, and the "luck" that arises from that.
As far as who pays income taxes, 70% , or the vast majority comes from the top 10% of taxpayers. The top 1% pay almost 40%. Those are real numbers from the IRS, and you are welcome to wade through them at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inalcr.pdf if you have them time to do so.
"There just aren't all that many "greedy bastards" to match the millions and millions of people in the broad middle class."
True, but most of them live in NY and California, which is why they are so hard hit.
I would also note that our steep taxes on earned/employment income on one hand, and lower or no taxes on long term investments like muni bonds, means that the working rich pay a sh*tload, while the inheriting rich pay a lot less.
I've seen a few "rich guys" say, though, that they are only going to pass a million or so onto each of their kids - with the rest going to charity - because the kids should earn money on their own if they want it and not be spoiled by a huge windfall.
If that's what they want to do, more power to them, but what they want for their families should have no impact on what others want for their families.
Around 20 years ago (?), some time in the 1980s, Donald Trump divorced Ivanna. She wrote a book called "Standing on my own two feet" or something like that and had a mini book tour.
I always find it amusing when people who marry into their fortunes describe divorce as "standing on their own two feet". This attitude is not confined to the rich; I've seen welfare moms describe themselves as "independent women".
I do find it interesting that the Republican Party is painted often as 'the party of greed' and the Democratic Party is more commonly painted the party for the poor or the party of compassion.
I find it even more interesting that even as the Democrats portray themselves as the "party of the poor", it is obvious when you look that the Democrat leadership is much, much wealthier than the Republican leadership.
Let it never be said that a good deed went unpunished.
In that spirit, let me predict that the cash-strapped states which have been borrowing from Wall Street will turn on those very Wall Street Funds make them scapegoats.
Hell, there might even be a few "eternal jew" taunts before it's all over.
Remember, the USA has only one truly criminal class, it's politicans.
Making more money than you spend over the long term presupposes having a career that pays a living wage relative to the cost of living where you are situated. And ooohhh, I know Bootstraps549 will jump on the personal responsibility bandwagon with megaphones.
My parents were members of the 'Greatest Generation' (marka registrada) Dad worked at the Aluminum Company of America. He and his peers enjoyed a pension at retirement. A pension as some of you may recognize is not a golden parachute but a little money set aside for each worker by the company in a fund. It is not invested in Long Term Capital or anything of the like but [at that time at least] kept safe from the whims of the market. The captains of industry in that day did not altruistically 'give' concessions to workers. The system would not 'give' you anything. Anything--the eight hour day; worker safety; child labor laws; vacations; employer-funded health care; etc. had to be TAKEN inch by inch out of the teeth of capitalism.
Pensions today, like a living wage and affordable health care, are about as prevalent as the Great Auk...or Coelocanth. Take your pick.
Poor little Lord Fauntleroy is not endangered by the incoming Heinz Fifty-Seven administration.
When the aristocracy has valid reason to fear a return to the guillotine I will stand up for their human rights. But their actions and omissions for as long as I have been paying attention have not engendered great love or affection for their station in life.
Ｖ看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA
会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理網頁設計探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング治験
会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理網頁設計探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング治験
mens clothing men's sweate, cheapcolumbia jackets, lacoste sweater, ralph lauren polo shirts,ski clothing. Free Shipping, PayPal Payment. Enjoy your shopping experience on mensclothingstore.Usnike max shoes, one of the world's three major brands of Puma shoes, will build its factory in Lanshan county next year, Hunan province. Taiwan Diamond Group of Footwear production chooses its base in Lanshan county, which is one of top 500
聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室交友聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室ut聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080
Post a Comment
<< Home