I pass.
.........

__________________
A "Commuter" not an AdvTourer.
Currently Commuting On: 06 Harley XL1200C, 06 DL1000, 07 GS500F, 2 mopeds, and a pair of sneakers.

I have to say I'm pretty comfortable with the words I selected in that post.

jeal·ous /ˈjeləs/ Adjective: Feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages.

en·vy /ˈenvē/ Noun: A feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck.

Looking at those definitions I believe the capture exactly what I've been reading over the course of this thread. The stating of a person's high salary and how many times greater it is than another person's lower salary is done to foment envy (resentful longing). Except for the shareholders of the corporation in question, these numbers mean absolutely nothing to anyone, except to fan the flames faux outrage.

Contrary to your theory, I have no love for an aristocratic class. I do however, have a very high respect for people who take chances, have a vision, execute their dreams, delay gratification, and make sacrifices in order to achieve a goal. If in the process of doing that they end up extraordinarily wealthy, I don't resent them.

In the case of Hostess or any other company for that matter, it is none of my concern if the executives were overpaid, underpaid, angel, or devil. It has absolutely no impact on my life, nor any impact on the price I pay for a product. Did your life become more expensive because Sam Walton started Wal-Mart and became the wealthiest man in the world?

If a CEO is paid $.90 of every $1.00 the company makes why should I be upset? If they produced a competitively priced product, that generates demand in a crowded market place how am I losing? If his employees feel he is not paying market value for their labor they should leave the company and take their talents to a company that is paying market value. If they cannot find another company paying what they think they are worth, then the market has spoken. Either work for the market rate, or start your own market.

If you believe I'm grouchy about this topic, I'll plead guilty. I have just reached my limit of hearing that people who have more than me are bad, and they should "pay their fair share," even though they are already paying hundreds of times more than me.

I'm sure if you and I sit down and have that beer (we'll split the tab) we could have a fine evening discussing topics on which we agree. I have little interesting in drinking and arguing. But threads like this can bring out my grouchy side.

Cheers.

__________________

2012 XT1200Z Blue, 2012 XT1200Z Black

.
Grouchy, DirtDad ?
I could never believe that of you. Hot-headed, yes . . . grouchy, never.

Grouchy is more descriptive of me.
I would much rather be considered grouchy than pedantic . . . and pedantic is something that I never am . . . well, hardly ever.
I prefer to shelter in the delusion that I resemble an 80-year-old craftsman who possesses a 10,000-piece toolkit and who carefully maintains & cherishes each tool ~ which he would never ever use inappropriately ~ and who is meanwhile bemoaning the younger generation of workers that try to turn out good work using just a sharpened screwdriver.
But pedantic ~ not at all.
Nor am I guilty of being verbose.

Although I am unlikely to get to your neck of the woods, I am sure I would enjoy that evening's discussion over a beer or two. Body language, tone of voice, and the capability of immediately correcting misunderstandings and working around any difference of opinion on the meaning of words . . . all would lead to vastly better & more enjoyable discussions [than the internet].
But I hope we would not limit ourselves just to topics we agree on . . . where's the fun (and growth potential) in that ?

Returning to Twinkies & workers & bosses :
Please accept my sincere assurances of my friendly attitude towards you, and of my lack of intention to "diss" you. ["Diss", an excellent American words, sadly missing from my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.]

However, as you have seen, I am not above enjoying a friendly jab [given, or taken] and the occasional irony or leg-pulling ~ all of which I hope can be accepted with a tranquil mind and a preparedness to be entertained or amused by it. Or even enlightened !!

In that spirit, I can mention post #104 and those fateful words Jealousy & Envy . . . which usage I had originally assigned to an overly-rapid top-of-the-head outburst.
But now I see that the fault lies with the dictionary you use, which . . . ahem . . . seems to prefer brevity over nuance . . . and is probably one of those Texan dictionaries used by the Previous Prez.

In re-reading my earlier post, you will see that I have not actually suggested that you love [or are in] the aristocracy. It was more a humorous exaggeration, drawing the metaphor of the "Two Nations" existing in pre-Revolutionary France [hence those several French-derived words] and the subsequent period through Victor-Hugo-esque times up to Karl Marx / Fabian Society.
But it contains uncomfortable parallels to modern times, if you are prepared to think about that.

The rest was little more than pointing out the fallacy of "bigger peanuts will obtain a better monkey" theory.
I quite agree with you that a man & his wealth (provided honestly come-by) should not be "dissed" or hated simply on their own account ~ but I am disappointed that you seem not to recognise that there are moral dimensions which [ought to] add complexity to each case . . . and also can touch on the overall long-term health & stability of society.
And you seem dangerously close to advocating a Darwinian "Law of the Jungle" attitude towards your neighbours. Even the hard-nosed Machiavelli advised against going that far !
Can you not discover some Middle Way in your philosophy ?

Regards, from the non-verbose Mid.
.

.
Since Electrojake again passes . . . . [ does he find the oil thread more interesting than this soci-oilogy thread? ] . . .

Pondering on DirtDad's past few posts, I find I haven't sufficiently addressed the two particular areas that seem to be causing him worry & ire [ angst? ].

(a) The first is the question of the "Deserving Rich".

Back in the time of Dickens (plus or minus a century) there was much talk about the "Deserving Poor" ~ the widows & orphans & other unfortunates who had been struck down by the random blows of fate.
In essence, the "Poor" were being categorized into two boxes : the "Deserving" who ought to receive sympathy and assistance . . . and the "Undeserving" : layabouts, drunks, trailer-trash & so on, who ought not receive anything at all.

In its own simplistic way, it wasn't a bad concept, for those times.
But in reality of course, there's no clear division between the two categories ~ poor people occupy a position (or different positions during their lifetime) on a continuous spectrum between one extreme of worthiness and the other extreme of unworthiness.

* These days we could draw the parallel of : the Deserving Rich, who get DirtDad's approval [rightly, I think] for their courage, hard work & astuteness . . . . and the Undeserving Rich ~ no I don't mean the aristocratic & hereditary Rich, but that other extreme : the Drug Lords, Mafia mobsters, Embezzlers, and so on.

I very much agree with DirtDad's powerful assertion that the Deserving Rich should not be attacked or "envied" [ in the "envy" sense of spiteful covetous resentment ~ rather than the other end of the envy spectrum : the benevolent admiring "envy" regarding a Hollywood star who possesses good looks & wealth ].

Unfortunately, while praising the Deserving Rich, post #104 strongly implies [by omission !!] that the category "Undeserving Rich" does not exist or is insignificant in extent.
And thus that any adverse criticism of the Middling- to Mega-Rich does only apply unfairly against the Deserving Rich . . . and too must necessarily originate in the most mean & despicable motives [ however defined !! ].

In reality, the "Rich" range a spectrum, including :-
* the GOOD ~ say, Warren Buffett, who I daresay has never sought to harm anyone, let alone sack 1000 employees,
* the BAD ~ say, mega-fraudster Bernard Madoff,
* & the UGLY ~ say, Mexican Drug Lords.
And a lot in-between, who engage in gouging or sharp practice . . . though not illegally.

As the Festivus season [excuse Seinfeld joke] approaches, the "Restofus" should be discriminating the differences, when we consider these social issues and Twinkiedom topics.


With best wishes to all, for the Xmas / Festivus / Christmas season,
. . . and a prosperous new year [may you all succeed in joining the Deserving Rich],

Mid
.

I tend to rationalize this argument as how one group sees the other group.

The RICH look at the POOR and say "My gosh, how can someone live with so little"

The POOR look at the RICH and say "My gosh, why does someone need so much"

The debate will never end. The rich and the poor probably both enjoyed Twinkies at some point, but they just ate them in different surroundings.

To each their own...

__________________
2009 DL650 'Prime Mover'

"It is better to live alone in the desert than with a nagging wife" - Proverbs 21:19

Looking out the door I see the rain fall upon the funeral mourners.
Parading in a wake of sad relations as their shoes fill up with water. - Jeff Buckley, 1994

http://photobucket.com/mid-life-crisis-tour

Glad to see the Twinkie thread is still alive!
My two cents worth...
Need? Why does someone Need so much?
No, it's not a matter of need.
It's a matter of earn, gift, or steal. For most people of the free world, those are the three methods of obtaining wealth.

I have what I have because I earned it.
Some get to great wealth by stealing it, and some others are gifted or born into wealth.
Or as example, this lottery ticket winner...
Holly Lahti of Rathdrum, Idaho, won a Mega Millions lottery on Jan. 4 of $380 million. She's a single mother that reportedly quit her job as a customer service representative at a bank and then went into hiding.
Holly is now rich beyond her own understanding and it doesn't change "my" life one bit. She certainly doesn't NEED $380 million but it is certainly hers after taxes to do as she wishes.

Need?
I don't need anything and I'm hardly what you would call rich.
As a matter of fact, I'm in debt up to my poorly educated, blue collar ears.
But I don't need things, I earn them, and I don't envy wealth, I admire it.
Oh, wait: I "need" to mention Twinkies here so I'm not officially off-topic.
-Ej-

__________________
A "Commuter" not an AdvTourer.
Currently Commuting On: 06 Harley XL1200C, 06 DL1000, 07 GS500F, 2 mopeds, and a pair of sneakers.

Executive parachute bonuses

Admittedly the bonuses are paltry in comparison to what we normally see in the news. 7.4k-130k each for 19 executives for a grand total of 1.75 million.

__________________

It seems to me that there are two common assumptions which -- quite apart from any ethical issues -- underlay the argument made by the let-the-rich-get richer faction.

One is merely tactical, that those who decry bloated executive salaries and disproportionate claim to the country's bounty are "envious" of the more successful. Somehow the image of Warren Buffet and/or Bill Gates wishing like anything they could trade places with Mitt Romney seems kind of silly. Ditto for people who have had great success in areas other than wealth acquisition, such as Nobel Prize winners or astronauts. To suggest that any persons who call for economic justice do so from envy of the empty suits occupying corporate suites is completely ridiculous. This "envy" argument is just a cheap rhetorical device intended to circumvent real issues in favor of ad hominem denigration of the opponent and his motivations.

And the second assumption is that there is no ethical dimension to this debate -- that there is nothing wrong with getting rich. In the abstract that may be true (Jesus notwithstanding) but the economic reality is that transfer of wealth -- even in a growing economy -- is a zero-sum game. Wealth amassed by the elite necessarily comes from the pockets of fellow citizens who consume goods and services provided by business. If there were no poverty or economic distress in society, if every kid had a shot at a college education, if everyone who needed medical attention got it, if homes were not being repossessed and nobody lived in crime-ridden ghettos -- sure, redistribution of wealth would have no ethical component. But the reality is that some people go without bread while the chairman of General Mills gets fatter; and some die of untreated diseases while the CEO of Merck shops for another Mercedes. How in the world can anyone claim that transferring wealth from those who don't have enough to those who have a ridiculous surplus is not inherently evil on its face?

__________________
2007 DL650
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" -- Harry M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927

In reference to the above mentioned news clip...
Paul Carroll, a former mechanic, drove from Kentucky to testify at the hearing.
He said the company should meet its pension obligations to its employees and said it was management that “brought us down further.” End Quote.

I can't help but wonder if "Paul Carroll" received a check for $1.75 million from Judge Robert Drain, if he would distribute it amongst his union brothers... or promptly hit the road to paradise.

__________________
A "Commuter" not an AdvTourer.
Currently Commuting On: 06 Harley XL1200C, 06 DL1000, 07 GS500F, 2 mopeds, and a pair of sneakers.

Kind of a ridiculous question isn't it? What he is saying is that the company should meet the pension obligations that they agreed to in contractual negotiations.
I find it very interesting that people think that the top management and owners should not be castigated for their wealth. As it happens I don't either, they worked for it, earned it, its theirs no problem.
Where we differ is that I also believe that when you choose to work at a place that is union part of that is contract negotiations for wage and benefits. It seems to me that a lot of people think that is somewhere close to evil incarnate. In my view its just another way of doing things and a choice we make in our employment.
As an aside I was talking with a young woman whose father formerly worked for Intel in Hillsboro Oregon. Seems that one day after 23 years with them they just decided to lay him off. Only reason he could see was that his wages were higher than newer people. Naturally, in this job environment a man in his early fifties has trouble finding work. It is the perogative of a non union company to hire and fire as they wish, thats part of the deal when you work for one of them. Certainly makes me glad I do not work for one.

__________________
Joe S.
'12 Concours
'11 DL650
'10 Tiger1050
'01 HD FXD
'09 HD XR1200
'79 BMW R100