ForsbergTheGreat
-
Posts
12,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat
-
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
Alberta just announced they are closing, partially closing or handing over control to "3rd party management" of dozens of parks in Alberta due to cuts.
But at the same time has pledged to increase tourism funding to nearly $20 billion by 2030.
Congrats on the onward privatization
That’s a good thing. Many of the parks are run down and quite pathetic to be honest. They don’t make money and there seems to be no interest in investing in them. I’m surprised A few more weren’t permanently closed.
chain lakes. Camping at its finest. Haha. Good fishing spot though.
A few were leased out over the last few years and have seem big revitalization’s making them much more attractive and even become pretty lucrative.
They did announce the privation will be available non profits, aboriginals and municipalities. Which does limit the amount of investments they will see input.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Duodenum said:
ooook?
Wage fixing now? It goes like this: lobbying group has mandates that they lobby for or against. Businesses join/give money to these groups to see out their wishes. How you get from this to wherever you're going is beyond me.
I thought I was making emotional claims? You've legit took a quantified emotional feeling (confidence) and used it for your own purposes lol. Not surprised to see confidence falling. You have an employee health tax, CPP increasing, carbon taxes, payroll increases, and left of center parties in power both provincially and federally. It's why I sometimes vote Liberal and other times Conservative. Minimum wage can be increased, but small businesses should be helped in other ways so it's less of a burden. So far, BC's unemployment is the lowest it's been since forever and small business grew 11% from 2014-2018 with minimum wage increasing in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
All good things. Alberta has a lower rate for young workers (13 vs 15$ per hour). Some have lower rates for restaurants/liquor serving where you get tips. If it helps, it should be looked as an option. Small business tax was lowered in BC from 2.5 to 2% to help offset some of the profit loss from increased payroll costs. Other things do need to be adjusted, I agree that simply increasing the minimum wage without also helping in other areas has ill effects as well, you assume too much. The largest block of minimum wagers are 15-19 and their liveable wage is a lot lower than adults.
You just finished saying raising min wage doesn’t impact small businesses.......now you’re agreeing that the govt had to go out of there way to help out small businesses due to the negative effects that raising min wage has on them. Haha you better stick to the conspiracy theories.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, gurn said:
So people will make what they can negotiate with the boss. All good. But then the boss gets the government to let foreign folk into the equation, who work for less than the people already here. This screws up the balancing act that was previously established.
Boss wins
Employee loses.
Government loses as they get less tax.
Rinse/repeat.
Yep, and Raising min wages increases the rate at that happening,
it raises the employee expense and forces the boss to look for cheaper alternatives than paying a entry level job so much. The two methods they look to is a foreign workforce (much of IT is already doing this) and the other option is for the “boss” to introduce more automation. Both result in less taxes for the govt.
It’s why people should purchase and support local. Costs a bit more on your bill but it circulates back into our country.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Should there be a minimum at all?
Norway and Sweden don’t have a min wage. It’s based on the industry, McDonald’s cashiers, hotel and bartenders have a much lower starting wage than other industries.
I’m fine with a min wage but think there needs to be consideration for what is deemed a wage for someone to survive vs what it a wage from someone just entering the workforce.
Statscan recent reports stated the 59.8% of min wage earners were between 15-24, 40% of all min wage earners were between 15-24 and still living at home.
this would indicate that Min wage is truly acting in place for entry level jobs.
also Out of the percentage of people not living eith there parent only 15% We’re the sole or top earners on the household. We’re talking about 157k people in Canada who are trying to solely survive off min wage.https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2018001/article/54974-eng.htm
3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:If so, how do you calculate how much?
You can set a limit but for the most part let the market decide. There’s a reason why McDonald cashiers in fort McMurray make more then McDonald’s cashiers in Lethbridge.
-
1
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Duodenum said:
Are you actually arguing that big business doesn't lobby against worker rights or am I dreaming right now. This has to be a bad joke of some sort. The battle between Big Business and Big Labor traverses generations. The tin foil is squarely on the person that doesn't think (or ignores) all the history of lobbying. Three big groups in America include ALEC, US Chamber of Commerce, and the Right to Work Committee Lobby groups. ALEC is made up of 3 million businesses and lobbies on behalf of them in part to weaken worker's rights. Your conspiracy insinuations are just bizarre.
That’s straight from page one of the conspiracy theory dictionary. Haha. It’s all part of some backdoor meeting where McDonalds and Wendy’s meets up with the king (burger king) and queen (dairy queen) to discuss how they are going to screw over the low income people and remove there worker rights. Unfortunately chik fil a couldn’t be there because it was held on a Sunday, they missed the memo and decided to pay their employee’s more screwing up the whole plan. Lol. Unfortunately none of the companies mentioned are corporations involved with ALEC, welp looks like that fast food industry is out. But thanks for the laugh.
The funny part is if there was a wage fix amongst companies, not only it is illegal, but if the gov’t is helping enforce and regulate that price fix that’s not capitalism, that’s wait for it…socialism, in a free market, all it would take is one competitor to increase there wages to attract and retain more competent talent and they immediately gain a huge competitive advantage over their industry.
12 hours ago, Duodenum said:BC has had multiple wage increases and small business hasn't gone anywhere. Canada has had regular min wage increases and unemployment hasn't budged. I'm well aware living wage can differ municipality to municipality, that's why I said 'averages'. Many provinces have indexed their minimum wage to the CPI and have already increased their minimum wages (and continue to do so annually). Others are increasing their minimum rate at a faster pace, like BC and Manitoba.
Oh good, more anecdotal opinion where facts don’t support. For example The Business Barometer for BC small businesses shows that confidence as been consistently dropping and BC sits with the second lowest score in the country slightly ahead of Sask as of December of 2019. .
In addition, 69.1 per cent of BC business owners in July said taxes and regulatory costs are causing major challenges for their business, representing a 1.1 point increase over the previous month.
“July marks the two-year anniversary of BC’s current government. Over that time, small business concerns over taxes and regulatory costs has risen by more than 10 points,” says Richard Truscott, Vice-President, BC and Alberta. “This is clearly a red flag and should come as no surprise to provincial policy makers. Business owners face a multitude of new costs from the BC government, including imposition of the new Employer Health Tax and the rapidly rising minimum wage.”
https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en/media/business-barometerr-bc
This was also reflected in the BC Chamber of Commerce in the annual Collective Perspective survey that showed that the province’s small and medium-sized businesses feel left behind by current government policies.
http://www.bcchamber.org/collective-perspective-2018-2019-survey-report-0
Because of these concerns and businesses that have been struggling MLA Bruce Ralston Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, was put in charge to create the Small Business Task Force. This was to come up with special interest ways to help support small business, from lowering taxes, to reducing the Property Transfer Tax rate to support small business succession, to introduce a lower minimum training wage to offset the high costs of training and lower productivity of those just entering the workforce, implement a training tax credit for inexperienced new hires and Ensure future minimum wage increases are predictable and tied to the Consumer Price Index or other economic indicators for British Columbia to accommodate inflation, as recommended by the Fair Wages Commission.
http://bbot.ca/file/BC-Small-Business-TaskForce-Final-Report.pdf
So in conclusion that this myth that raising min wage doesn’t hinder small business well, it was determined, that was a lie. Here’s a interview from a while ago with democratic nominee Andrew Yang who really got the short end of the stick and his views on raising min wage. It’s funny listening to him and Dave Rubin discuss the mind boggling logic of how people like yourself just can’t seem connect the dots.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Duodenum said:
I don't think you get it. These businesses haven't been fighting each other over employee pay, rights, etc. They've been working towards a common goal of keeping workers pay, rights etc weak across the board. Lobbying. Ie. A politician either not increasing or (like Ford just did in Ontario) cancelling a scheduled increase.
Tin foil hat stuff right there. How much does WestJet/Air Canada/Forzani pay trudeau to keep min wage low? Speaking of Ford, Henry ford doubled his employees wage and found that he was able to dramatically increase his profit, productivity increased and he was able to retain his best talent. When you have a competitive advantage over your competitors you make more profits, that includes your labour force..
1 minute ago, Duodenum said:Don't need to pay more if nobody else is for entry level jobs. It's like you are talking about something completely different.
Yep, i'm speaking basic economics, you're making emotional claims with out logic. I'm starting to doubt your background on business.
1 minute ago, Duodenum said:Living wage? That is found easily online. Differs from country to country. Canada averages to around 16$ per hour I think full-time. Currently, the min federal is $11 per.
Actually no it's not, living wage is not a fact, it's an opinion, you can't define a set basic need for every individual as everyone is vastly different.. The living wage in downtown Vancouver is vastly different than the living wage in Weyburn Sask. Raising min wage to $16 an hour across canada kills small business, increases the rate of automation and ends up putting more people in the unemployment.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Toews said:
Increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses, startups making it easier for big business to corner the market, it seems no matter what capitalism takes its pound of flesh from the little guy. Capitalism isn't perfect, pretending like these problems don't exist when they are affecting the average Joe is what leads to people becoming more susceptible to political propaganda from fascists/communists. We all pay the price for the greed of the few.
i've never claimed capitalism is perfect but it allows freedom of choice, it allows personal growth and rewards those who are able to supply what society demands. This creates competition which creates efficiency which improves quality of life. It's why you see a "socialist" country like Sweden embrace privatisation of so many industries from Education to health care to pensions.
You are bang on about how raising min wage hurts the small business, that's why I'm not totally against a freedom dividend of sort. Automation is coming, it's going to dramatically reduce jobs at a pace that creation of jobs will not be able to keep up with.
-
31 minutes ago, Duodenum said:
It's not a conspiracy, it's a part of the system. I get why they do it. I could easily increase my own earnings as well with a few changes. If I had a bunch of shareholders up my ass to increase their share price, along with those same share prices being able to easily increase my net worth, it would be very enticing.
What are you born in the 30's, that's terrible business strategy. No one, especially the CEO's making 10+ million are that dumb to think like that. You can't drop cost without losing quality. Dropping quality reduced profits, no one, the share holders and the CEO do not win in that situation. That's basic economics 101, Supply, demand, and market equilibrium. Don't believe me, try opening up a business, then trying paying them less than your competition is paying them, see how long you are able to retain your employees and see how much profit you are able to make.
31 minutes ago, Duodenum said:Is it so generic? The minimum wage is worth less now than it was decades ago. At least that seems to have been rectified a bit, but it still lags. It'd be bad business to not get the most out of your workers at the best price you can possibly get.
IF you don't think it's generic what is that salary? What is living wage? The problem is people trying to live off entery level jobs and not improving their skillset that would demand a higher wage.
-
1
-
-
Just now, inane said:
way to go personal right away? my innocuous post piss you off that much?
maybe reflect on that for awhile.
Right away?. You have proven over time and time again, you are not worth anyone’s time. You bring nothing to contribute to any discussion on this board.
-
1
-
-
Just now, inane said:
No one is out to screw Joe average individually, but collectively, of course they are. That's capitalism. The growing disparity between rich and poor is hardly a conspiracy theory...
Hahaha is that what you tell yourself as to why you are poor? It’s the mean rich person looking to keep you in poverty, you never stood a chance.. Yeah no, you have no one to blame but yourself for that one.
and no that’s not capitalism as all. Free trade. Learn what that means before you start shouting for communism.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Duodenum said:
Nope, took that into account and it's exactly what I'm talking about. The more profit = more money for the top by way of stock increases, not by annual salary. One of the ways they do that is to keep expenses down by giving workers as little as they can and actively fighting against worker's rights, benefits, minimum wage increases, etc. It wasn't until recently in the states when big business finally gave in and stopped lobbying against minimum wage increases in the states? Then, almost overnight, they all bumped it up to over 11 per and a lot of them over 13 per. Even big business (especially retailers) and starting to see the benefits of higher wages for low earners. CEOs and owners might see a decrease in their renumeration/stock payouts/profits in the short-term but the increase in disposable income of consumers will make up for it in the long run.
You are on to some conspiracy level stuff. No one is out to screw over the lower end people. I just finished pointing out that ceo’s a could take $1 and it would result in less than a dollar per hour raise. I’m not against raising wage but thinking the CEO are part of this plan to keep them low so they themselves can make more is just not realistic.
Do you not think financial advisors have not considered the impact of raising wages. Not just on profit but employee productivity, moral and retaining higher talent employees. There’s a reason why fast food companies vary in entry level jobs. The higher you pay, the more supply, the more picky you can be when selecting.
QuoteIMO, everybody who works has the right to a liveable wage and that, in itself, will reduce the ratio.
I hate this statement. It’s so generic. A living wage has so much variance between individuals, locations and personal expectations. It also implies everyone has the right to services just by being born. This entitlement does not keep pushing society forward. it’s an emotional statement the doesn’t take into fact any sort logic. I’m curious as to what yearly salary you think is an average living wage. -
1 minute ago, Duodenum said:
I sit at around a 13:1 ratio myself., the numbers aren't as foreign as you think.
I understand why the ratio is increasing but you're only looking at the top end. CEO pay is increasing because company values are increasing of course, but an increase in CEO pay is not the only reason the ratio and class divide is increasing. It's also because the same people at the top are keeping workers' pay and benefits down, the world over. Ie. if minimum wage kept up with inflation, then the ratio would probably be sliced in half. So, my answer whether CEO's deserve a 300:1? Absolutely not. I don't doubt that CEO's deserve to be well rewarded, I am a Director myself, but it's the ratio I'm arguing about, not their workload. My beef is with the haves on top that actively work to keep the have-nots with as little as possible, which is a bigger cause of the ballooning ratio.
You seemed to glaze over everything I just said. You're not comparing base pay of the workers to base pay of a CEO. Stock options make up the majority of their salary. The better the company does the more the CEO makes, in a similar manner to what an owner of a business makes. The more profitable a business is the more the owner takes home. You should become more friendly with the CFO as he will talk you about how profits. The idea that CEO's are keeping more for themselves all part of this elaborate plan to keep the lower end with as little is complete and utter nonsense. That an extremely poor business model and will hinder them from from acquiring needed talent to grow (aka hurting the stock and hurting his own pay). The goals of companies is to grow, take profits invest back into the business and see the ROI.
People seem to try and simplify everything. Iger made 50 million, if he only took $1 in pay gave that equally to his 201k employees, that equates to a whopping $250 annual raise for everyone or less than 15 cent raise. So when people realize the math of the CEO doesn't compute, they move on to the companies yearly profits...and well they fail to realize that companies typically hand out bonuses to reward strong years. Disney just finished giving out a $1000 bonus to over half of their employees last week. WestJet, southwest airlines, Ford and many others have what's called as profit share, which gives back the exceeded profits to employees.
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
Funny.
I've used this exact methodology to explain to rig workers why they got turfed so quickly or replaced by machines. No skills, easily replaced as the value they bring to society is very low. That the scale of pay for the level of skill needed in their work is incredibly over inflated.
You're not wrong. The difference is while the skill level is low, the working environment isn't for everyone. Long hours, cold weather, physically demanding and long stretches away from home, that also has to be considered in pay which is why the pay is so high. If the work life was more appealing, everyone would be applying to make 6 figures doing that type of work. But because it's not, the pay must be high to attract people.....Supply and Demand economics
-
2 hours ago, Duodenum said:
CEO pay was at 20:1 in 1978 and 50:1 in 1989. Why are they worth 300:1 today?
I like this question and I also already answered it. But i like it so much because people see this and they apply an emotional response to justify their opinion. Just because you can't imagine that type of money, you have a hard time understanding the why someone makes that much. It seems foreign so people just assume it's incorrect and it doesn't help that media has convinced people that making more is wrong. Equal opportunity has been trumped by the focus of equal outcome. When somethings doesn't have an equal outcome it's inherently viewed as evil, immoral needed to be fixed....
But enough with my ranting and back to the question. i've already answered part of the question, Stock options. In 1978, CEO were getting a base pay as their full salary. With the stock boom in the 90's, the structure for CEO's pay has changed. Today, more than 50% of a CEO's total compensation is based on stock options. CEO's pay are more closely tied to performance. You can see this as you compare the ratio over the years. In 2000 the ratio boomed to 368:1, but following that year you probably remember the stock market bubble burst in 2001. CEO's compensation dropped 50% and the ratio was only at 168:1 by the end of 2001. The same thing happened again after the 2007 financial crisis CEO's compensation again lost 44%. You can start to see how tied the CEO pay is in relation to bringing up the company profits. As these companies are publicly traded Investors demand that CEO's pay should be more closely tied to performance, the good CEO's make the most and the bad CEO's don't. You are also starting to see companies apply the stock option rule to all employees with ESPP (employee stock purchase plan).
Bob Iger was getting paid 37 of his 50 million (74%) in stock options as Disney was killing it, Disney stock has rose over 400% since he took over, but in the last 6 months Disney has struggled and has had a 19% drop in 2019... guess what happened last Tuesday, Iger is no longer the CEO of Disney.
The second part to that question is overall growth of industry, Companies now act on a global stage, CEO's come from all over the world, Canada's own WestJet CEO Ed Sims is from South Wales, the talent level for CEO's has risen from 23 million domestically (canada in 1978) to 7.8 billion globally. Not only is there more competing talent more, the competing companies are global. Corporations are much, much more complicated that they were 50 years ago. The ask of a CEO is rising daily and has become extremely more difficult. Meanwhile the ask on the bottomline hasn't. In fact, automation has reduced the ask, and it will continue to eventually reach the point where automation is able to replace that bottomline.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, spur1 said:
Lol I understand perfectly. I worked in their system for years
Yeah just because you’ve worked doesn’t mean you understand it.
Quoteand have met and tipped a few with hockey players, a couple CEO’s and even a premier.
haha wow you met a few hockey players, cool story, must feel special.
QuoteI can assure you none of them were worth what they were getting paid.
You’ve made that conclusion all based on having an interaction with them?
...you clearly don’t understand how supply and demand works. Let me let you in on a little secret. Typically half of a CEO’s salaries is made up from stock options, hence they only make a lot when they are able to make the company a lot. In other words they have to prove their value. But you’ve met one before so you must know best. Hahaha, yeah there’s no debate here. All you have is the opinion you’ve came to based on your experiences in your own little bubble. And you say I have my head in the horses rear end.
if your looking for a good laugh that will also help put this into perspective. Boom
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, spur1 said:
So let me see...you are saying no one working burger world or cleans rooms at the local motel brings any value to society.
I'm saying the value they bring to society is very low. Their skill set is easily replaceable, you can't seem to grasp and concept of how supply and demand works. This is basic understanding.
7 minutes ago, spur1 said:Is a CEO making 300 times the bottom worker 300 times more valuable to society?
YES. 1000 over yes and this is where you show your lack of understanding. There's a reason why CEO get to where they are and they don't just hire unqualified bums of the street. The problem, you're projecting your own understanding and you have zero idea of the sacrifice and hard work it takes to become a CEO of a major company. You compare flipping a burger stress, to managing a company with over 10k people, where one decision could cost everyone their jobs and destroy the incomes their families count on to survive. How many people depend on the bottom persons decision to survive? At most his/her immediate family. Where as, thousands of people depend on that CEO's decisions.
Since you clearly don't have any concept on understanding that i'll try to explain it in a viewpoint for you. The average ECHL player makes 550/week or 28,600 a year (it's technically even less since they don't get paid for summer months). Now Connor Mcdavid makes over 425 times more than that player. Are you going to tell me that you don't believe McDavid doesn't bring over 300x more value than your average ECHL player? How many jerseys and ticket sales are those ECHL players generating? Exactly..
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:
well the nucks are a much better offensive team then buffalo so that makes even less sense
(unlike Buffalo we don't have a good top 6)
It makes a lot of sense. The better a teams top 6 foward core is, the more points a defense is able to get. Does victor Hedman not benefit from playing on a top PP unit that has Stamkos, kucherov and point? Yes he does there’s no way to argue that. And playing along side higher talent helps inflate his numbers, over defensemen that don’t get to play along side the same quality.
canucks top 6 forward core is much better than buffalos. Canucks have 5 forwards with 42 points or higher. Buffalo has 2.3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:and i never said hughes got more ice time then edler
i said he gets more ice time then dahlin because he warrants it and has earned it
his ice time has increase steadily since the start of the season
and go ahead
be silly with stats
to distort what i said
i never said hughes got the most ice time in the league
the comparison was only between hughes and dahlin
you claimed that because Hughes gets more ice time than Dahlin, it validateS the claim the Hughes is better than Dahlin. Now that I showed you the major flaw in that logic you’re back tracking.
How come your TOI theory only applies to Hughes and Dahlin....cough cough because it suited your sad narrative.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, coastal.view said:
hard to know what to make of this post
to me it is so much nonsense
let's make things a tad simpler and more common sense
you reference buf has a better top 6 (meaning d??) - really? yet nucks have allowed less goals then buffalo, so how do you arrive at your conclusion??
he’s talking about top 6 in forwards. The better top 6 a team has the more goals the team scores, the more points a D man is able to obtain. This is why 8 of the top 10 scoring defensemen also happen to play on 8 of the top 10 scoring teams in the league.
2 minutes ago, coastal.view said:you know why hughes gets more ice time then dahlin
because he has earned it
he is clearly the best dman on the canucks roster
if dahlin was as good as hughes is
he would warrant and get more ice time, but he is not clearly as good
you do not need stats or analytics to arrive at this obvious conclusion
Umm not sure if I should inform you but Elder gets more ice time than Hughes.
edler average TOI = 22:40hughes average TOI = 21:44
chabot league highest TOI = 25:58
I guess common sense has settled it. Chabot is the best D in the league. Oscar klefbom is the 5th best d in the league too. -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:Are you trying to say something.. Say it.....
All Canadians are allowed to protest ... if you don't like the rules here move to China.....
Umm derp.....They aren’t Canadians, hence the post.
-
2
-
3
-
14 hours ago, spur1 said:
What you are talking about is only for an elite few. Get on down off your high horse and come on down to where I have friends in low places. They sure were not offering anything like that to the sawmill workers on the island that were on strike for months.
No that’s not just for an elite few, that’s for anyone who brings value to society. Anyone that is able to fill a supply that has a demand.
Nothing is stopping anyone from remaining at a job, Nothing. Every single person has the freedom to make that choice and almost every single person has the freedom to improve their own skill set to improve their value in society. The helps society grow and now just become stagnant and complacent.
instead of actually making smart choices in life, people have now resorted to blaming others for their wo’s. There’s only a select few that are valid in their calls for help and society should do a better job at supporting them but again that’s a select few.
This is not me being out of touch, this is me sharing life lessons that people need to understand, I donate 10% to charities, I volunteer at non profit, my wife was raised by a single mother and grew up living between low income housing and a fly in native reserve. I understand poverty and I also understand that’s its not easy break when you become relient on the handout of others.
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, spur1 said:
The thing is the employers control the markets and a lot of the political policies.
You may want to up your level and look at the bigger picture.They don’t, if I’m one of the best in my industry I will have multiple companies offering me contracts.
If I didn’t think I was getting paid my value I’m completely free to look else where for employment. Which I have down so 3 times in my career.
But even more so I’m noticing the working environment has been changing. Companies are offering so much more outside of pay to entice people to stay. An friend of my is a director for a major Canadian company and he’s been telling how hard it is to retain quality employees. They’ve introduced optional days to work remote, half day fridays, and even has considered reducing the work days from 8 hours to 6. This is capitalism. competition for good resources means they need to enhance there offering.
-
Just now, spur1 said:
Only in theory my friend. Wish the real world was that simple.
It really is. Have you ever been forced to sign a letter of employment against your will? If so, we should probably report them.
-
13 minutes ago, spur1 said:
Really...how many companies do you know that are a true co-op? I am thinking most would starve to death finding one. Do we really have a choice or is that just the right wing rhetoric?
You get paid for the value you bring. If you don’t think you are getting paid properly, increase your individual value or go find another job. It’s really and truly that simple.
Capitalism is a free market enterprise which involves a willing exchange in a transaction.
That doesn’t mean the control is always going to be completely equal. It’s a pendulum that swings based on supply and demand. The more valuable you are, the more you get to control your demands aka Tavares in UFA.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, spur1 said:
One example is the work place. Is it democratic? No it is my way or the highway.
yes because you can choose not to work for that company and choose to find employee that meets your needs.
seems like a whole bunch of people here need to go back to grade 8 social studies. Free market
The DumbBrexit / #Wexit thread
in Off-Topic General
Posted
It’s funny I see your reply but all I can hear is