CEO to Workers: I May Fire You if Obama Wins....

[Zundfolge]

I'm not saying he should redistribute his wealth.

Yes you are ... its HIS goddamn money, if he decides he doesn't want to do business anymore it doesn't have to be because his back is against the wall, it can be because he's not going to be making as much money or it can be because his favorite TV show got canceled, it doesn't matter, its not your place to tell him he can't.

He can take his money and go home anytime he wants, anything less is tyranny.

Businesses exist to provide profit for the owners NOT as some sort of privatized jobs program.

Morality does not hinge upon level of income.

That is the opposite of what you've said this entire thread.

So if a valued employee wants to leave a company you would never interfere with that right no matter what damage it does to the company. But when the rich guy is the one making the decisions that might not be good for others, he's a bad guy?

[Teufelhund]

Yes you are ... its HIS goddamn money, if he decides he doesn't want to do business anymore it doesn't have to be because his back is against the wall, it can be because he's not going to be making as much money or it can be because his favorite TV show got canceled, it doesn't matter, its not your place to tell him he can't.

He can take his money and go home anytime he wants, anything less is tyranny.

Businesses exist to provide profit for the owners NOT as some sort of privatized jobs program.

I know, reading is hard. If I'm going to take the time to type this shit out, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading it before you spew some unfounded rant.

I didn't say it's my place, or anyone else's place to tell him what to do with his money; in fact, I said the opposite. HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS with his money. If he would rather maintain his current salary and fire everyone, that's his prerogative. He lacks moral fiber for doing so.

In other news: Natural Law is a myth. One wins at life by fucking over as many people as he can to collect as much material wealth as possible. We now return you to your regularly scheduled back-stabbing.

[Teufelhund]

That is the opposite of what you've said this entire thread.

So if a valued employee wants to leave a company you would never interfere with that right no matter what damage it does to the company. But when the rich guy is the one making the decisions that might not be good for others, he's a bad guy?

No it isn't. Let me rephrase for the intellectually-challenged: Morality SHOULD NOT depend upon level of income.

I would never interfere with either of their rights. Yes, if you fuck someone over to maximize your own profitability, you're the bad guy.

[dwalker460]

No it isn't. Let me rephrase for the intellectually-challenged: Morality SHOULD NOT depend upon level of income.

I would never interfere with either of their rights. Yes, if you fuck someone over to maximize your own profitability, you're the bad guy.

BTW, you sound an awful lot like Obaloney-

It wont hurt the RICH to give a little more, they can afford it.

Like its morally wrong to hold on to what hes earned.

I think maybe you should ponder morals a bit. It seems a lot more morally wrong to condemn someone who is protecting what they have earned because they dont want to just "do without the elevator" in the house they fought to keep so that the government can soak them and cost them more money every time they turn around. Not sure this is hard to understand, but your really basically saying that it is wrong of him to enjoy the things he has earned, instead he should take the money and keep his business open, no matter what the burden is.

Why, exactly, is that more moral than protecting what he earned and livign out his life the way he wants using the moneys he earned?

Why do you hate the rich so much?

[Ronin13]

I think we have some basic misunderstandings as to wealth, so maybe this will help clarify-

No matter how much you have, its yours. Its not yours and the governments, or yours and your neighbors, its yours. Now some people, they hit a comfort zone and could care less about making more, but threaten to pull them out of that comfort zone and they circle the wagons and cut costs and may even try harder to increase income.
Others never get enough. A single dime loss on their balance sheet is a cause for alarm. Now, a socialist will say, its morally wrong to have all that wealth and not want to help people out, or lose a little bit for the greater good. Eff that. Its morally wrong to ask me to hurt myself to help you, and I am the one who gets to define what hurt is.

Personally I trade currency a lot, so I am very aware of movement in the markets. Some days I can bank $10K, just by clicking a few keys and risking a little money. Some days I lose. And no matter how small that loss is, No matter how much I bank- literally I could make 5k on one trade and turn around and lose $200 and it would bug me all day- I hate it. Its part of the process, but I hate it and do everything I can to avoid it. If it ever got to the point I felt I was going to lose more than win, I would get out.

No difference with the resort king in the article or any other business man, if the costs outweigh the benefits, if the risk is too great, its time to get out. Doesnt matter if he has 100billion sitting in the bank and could support the business and the employees for the rest of his life, if it puts him out of his comfort level, that that.

I concur!

BTW, you sound an awful lot like Obaloney-

It wont hurt the RICH to give a little more, they can afford it.

Like its morally wrong to hold on to what hes earned.

I think maybe you should ponder morals a bit. It seems a lot more morally wrong to condemn someone who is protecting what they have earned because they dont want to just "do without the elevator" in the house they fought to keep so that the government can soak them and cost them more money every time they turn around. Not sure this is hard to understand, but your really basically saying that it is wrong of him to enjoy the things he has earned, instead he should take the money and keep his business open, no matter what the burden is.

Why, exactly, is that more moral than protecting what he earned and livign out his life the way he wants using the moneys he earned?

Why do you hate the rich so much?

Can I buy you a beer? Well put!

Teufelhund- I echo this, as I'm friends with a lot of business owners (family included). Why do you hate the wealthy so much? Saying that because they make cuts to maintain their living makes them a "bad guy." Really? Do you hold a grudge or something? You were fired by someone who was successful in business weren't you? And may I point you to the philosophical learning of Ayn Rand. She said the virtue of selfishness is helping yourself and voluntary help of other when you are not at risk of hurting your own position, but it is wholly wrong to be forced to help others (this is a stab at welfare) even if it only slightly hurts you.