Soma next day. Soma sun pilates. Crushing muscle relaxer soma. Soma half ironman. Soma cannabis. Prescription medication side effects for soma….

Buy cialis….

"You don't care how many "normal people" exist or how they might acquire the skills allegedly demanded or whether or not they can. You're just making a lot of assumptions based on your own politically motivated theory."

You're right, I don't care, but my assumptions are not politically motivated. I have no interest whatsoever in applying political solutions to personal problems.

"If I'm a statesman and want to consume more with the rents I raise from you, I simply post lots of job openings for which no qualified applicants appear and then give myself a bonus with rents instead."

Sounds a bit "conspiracy theory" don't you think? Occam's razor, dude. The jobs are posted because the employers have jobs that they want done.

It doesn't take Einstein's, Martin. All it takes is normal people willing to apply themselves towards learning the skills that employers actually want.

These are just words you write. You don't care how many "normal people" exist or how they might acquire the skills allegedly demanded or whether or not they can. You're just making a lot of assumptions based on your own politically motivated theory.

I just did a quick job search on Monster for my city of half a million. The result was 529 pages of jobs posted within the last 10 days.

No one denies the existence of job openings. This fact is absurdly irrelevant. The issue is a real median income that doesn't rise for 35 years while real per capita GDP doubles along with incomes at higher percentiles as well as Federal employee incomes generally. You already know what's happening at GM, as current workers impose rents on future workers, but this fact in no way alters your assumption that every case you don't observe fits your theory.

Is there a shortage of opportunities? No.

Everyone has the opportunity to dig his lunch out of nearby garbage disposal. The particular opportunities at issue here are opportunities better than a job at WalMart for the 7500 people standing in line for 350 openings in Atlanta. You generalize only to obfuscate.

Is there a shortage of high paying opportunities for people who don't want to apply themselves to learning a needed skill? Yes. Absolutely. And there always will be.

More words asserting your blind faith in your theory (which is tautologically true) and ignoring every specific fact cited. If I'm a statesman and want to consume more with the rents I raise from you, I simply post lots of job openings for which no qualified applicants appear and then give myself a bonus with rents instead. Or I give myself a $140,000 buyout bonus which I've borrowed against the future earnings of my productive organization before hiring you to replace me. It's all fair, and kings rule by divine right too.

"Why is the gap declining?"

Great question. I'll start by saying that my opinion of high CEO pay is that its not my problem because I'm not paying them. If the people who pay the CEO think that he or she is worth $xxx million dollars a year, then so be it. Consequently, my belief as to why CEO pay is declining is that the people who are paying CEOs are reevaluating. Given the list of high profile CEO screwups in the last decade or so, I'd sure as hell be reevaluating if I was the one doing the paying.

Again, my theory is that the reason they don't solve the problem is because they don't really want to solve it. What's your theory?

Your theory is that Muirgeo's people give the money to themselves instead, and you're right. Your theory is also that it's all completely fair, right, just, proper and noble, and you're right about that too.

If the gap is other than stock/options then would certainly welcome hearing alternative views.

btw, by some assessments the gap is declining:

525:1 in 2000
411:1 in 2005
270:1 in 2007

who knows, in another decade it may even be back to 1989 levels.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/economy/ceo_pay_workers/index.htm

Why is the gap declining?

well… duh. isn't that what "ignore" means?

"The point is that while real median income hasn't risen in 35 years, real per capita GDP has risen, and incomes at higher incomes have also risen."

ok, but this still doesn't change the fact that with the same income 35 years ago and today, one can buy a far superior automobile in today's market.
and, again, don't assume that the same people make the same income throughout their lives. people make more as they get older. even if the median income doesn't ever change, different (younger) folks are the ones in lower brackets at any point. on average. so there.

Is there a shortage of opportunities? No.

Is there a shortage of high paying opportunities for people who don't want to apply themselves to learning a needed skill? Yes. Absolutely. And there always will be.

Sorry, but I don't think your dad bought a new car in the U.S. forty years ago for anything near $300. When Ford Mustangs were introduced in 1964 as an economical sports car, the lowest price was $2,320. With pretty standard options, most sold for about $2,700. Adjusted for inflation, $2,320 to $2,700 would be about $15,800 to $18,300 today. Certainly that's a little lower than current Mustangs sell for. But if you had ridden in a 1964 Mustang in 1964, and ridden in a 2007 Mustang in 2007, you would know theses are truly not comparable automobiles at all. Mustangs of today have hundreds of standard features unavailable on any mass-produced U.S. automobile from the early 1960's.

"The point is that 7500 people standing in line (not just emailing applications) for 350 jobs at this level indicates a scarcity of other opportunities."

I disagree. I think it indicates that Walmart offers better opportunities for these particular 7,500 people than their current situation offers them.

You say you disagree, and then you repeat what I said in different words.

Meanwhile, thousands of jobs go unfilled because no one with the right qualifications can be found to fill them.

These aren't jobs. They're wishful thinking. Declaring six billion openings for Einstein doesn't create six billion Einsteins.

What we have is not a scarcity of opportunities, but a scarcity of people willing to put forth the effort necessary to prepare themselves for the opportunities that exist.

That's just your own political apologetics. All's fair. We've already agreed on this truism. It explains precisely nothing.

who cares if income hasn't changed in 30 or even 300 years. income means nothing.

Income means something, and the point is not simply that real median income hasn't risen in 35 years. The point is that while real median income hasn't risen in 35 years, real per capita GDP has risen, and incomes at higher incomes have also risen. The income of Federal employees reflects the rise in per capita GDP that median income does not reflect. Federal income and private sector income has diverged, and the divergence is accelerating. Ignoring this fact doesn't address it. Titling it "fair" doesn't address it either. It's fair. It's right, just, proper and noble too. It couldn't be anything else. because statesmen define these terms.

"In the 40's through the 70's the income gap was more like 40:1 rather then the present 350:1 for CEO wage to average worker wage."

You're missing the point. Your people have have been given enough money to give every poor single person in America $30,000/yr. That would be $60,000/yr for a couple, or $120,000/yr for a family of four. They've been given enough money to do this, but they haven't done it. So why should I take the chatter about "inequality of income and wealth" seriously? Its clear that your people want more money, but they have given no reason for anyone to believe that they will use it to solve the problem they claim they need it for. They've been in power for over a century now and they haven't solved it yet. And I'll bet you a dollar against a dog turd that even if all your best people hold all the major offices that they won't solve it then either. Again, my theory is that the reason they don't solve the problem is because they don't really want to solve it. What's your theory?

"The point is that 7500 people standing in line (not just emailing applications) for 350 jobs at this level indicates a scarcity of other opportunities."

I disagree. I think it indicates that Walmart offers better opportunities for these particular 7,500 people than their current situation offers them. Meanwhile, thousands of jobs go unfilled because no one with the right qualifications can be found to fill them. What we have is not a scarcity of opportunities, but a scarcity of people willing to put forth the effort necessary to prepare themselves for the opportunities that exist.

Posted by: Randy

I must have missed the question. Bottom line is history and their actions show that democratic policies in the past have been much more equitable. In the 40's through the 70's the income gap was more like 40:1 rather then the present 350:1 for CEO wage to average worker wage. And guess what the economy was as strong as ever relative of the rest of the world at those times.
Even during Bill Clintons 8 years we saw reversals of wage gap while the economy boomed.