And how much pay would you get if there were no executives, investors or others' that you despise keeping that company you work for afloat?

Also, with all your grievances, how many times have you seen a co-worker wasting time on the clock, pilphering company supplies or equipment, calling in sick when they aren't... etc?

Contrary to popular belief, Rich people do not stuff their mattress with the money.  The money they do not spend on goods (like yachts - which employs people so they can earn a living) they invest.  The invested money then is used to buy infrastructure so that companies can expand - and guess what?  Hire more people!

Your attitude is what is going to kill the golden goose.  But go ahead.  At least then the rich can suffer along with everyone else, right?  Misery does love company, and the liberals sure are in the misery business.

Right! I should have seen the truth in your statement!  Poor people hire workers!  Such simplicity in the truth, and such power!  Kill the greedy rich people!  And dont worry about your job, a poor person will hire you!

Just as many times as I have seen management, its pretty equal.  Cant count the number of times that management gets a nice catered meal that costs the company wads of cash and then takes extended lunchs.  Were all people so generally its pretty equal.

Poor people who make more money and have some help spend more money, thus creating more jobs as more goods are needed, and giving rich people(i.e.business owners)more profits and more money.  Then on top of that with rich people with more money they can do what you said by spending more as well.  But if that money, for the most part, never makes it to the bottom then the system doesnt work.  Look at FDR he knew it.  He tried it your way first and it failed terribly.  Then he went back and started from the bottom up and it worked.

I am so glad you failed economics.

Just for your education, poor people cannot buy if there is nothing to buy.  IN order to make things to buy, you have to have capital.  That does not come from Poor people.  SO in your upside down world, the wealth flows from the bottom up.  it does in a feudal society, not in a capitalistic one.  I would suggest you put down Karl Marx and pick up Adam Smith.

And then when you have understood it, come back and correct your statement.

We already have the infastructure to build and/or deliver the goods correct?  At this point it would simply be a matter of supply and demand.  If middle class and poorer people have more money and spend more money then business' will have to make more items thus putting people to work.  Also this can create new business as well.  People take out loans all the time to start business.  If the market and demand is there then if thye run a smart business they will flourish.  I understand rich people need money to do these things, what I am saying is there needs to be much more balance.  I am not saying punish the rich till they cant stand anymore.  But dont do the same to the poor either.  Right now the pendulum(spelling) has swung too far the other way.  Your Economics should have taught you that you cant have a society with just rich and poor and a small middle class right? 

Did the tooth fairy create it?  Think man!  And the infrastructure requires upkeep (you have heard of the roads, right? Although they are government, the same applies to private companies and assets).

Do the banks print the money?  Again you are not thinking.  Now where does the money come from?

Balance?  There is Balance.  Gates was not born a billionaire.  And yes, anyone can do it! Just check out the Pursuit of Happiness for another tale of woe.  yea right.  Why shoul YOU decide what everyone can and cannot make.  That is communism.  The sad fact is that you have no clue on what you are talking about.  There is no mass division of society.  Most of the poor dont stay that way all their lives.  Most of the rich EARNED their money.  And most are still in the middle class.

Would it suprise you to know that the percent in the middle class has not changed by 1% since the 1960s?  It is nto rocket science.  it is an arbitray division the government assigns.  Which means how poor are the poor?  yea, like they are starving (sure you can find exceptions - there are always people that drop out of society).  But this class warfare is stupid.  The rich invest.  That makes money to borrow.  They spend on extravagant stuff, sure.  That makes jobs (like for yacht makers).

And the kicker?  The poor represent 12.5% of the population, and pay NO federal Income taxes.  The rich 1% pay 40%, and the top 50% pay 98%.  SO how much more do you want to milk them?  Instead of just spouting stupid idiocies left over from grammar school, do the research and learn the lies you have been told.  The reality is we can tax them 100%.  They wont pay, but they wont be here to invest and spend either.  Kill the golden goose, and then bitch about "fair shares".

But do you file a grievance against your co-workers when you see it?  Or should complaints only be made against management?

no thats not my job, but I certainly dont encourage any sort of complete goofing off.  I think that everyone even management should get some time to goof off but it has to be within reason.  I can tell you this though as a former union steward if I go into a situation where an employee has a horrible attendence record, my job is to fight for them but in our private meeting before going in with management I let them have it so to speak.  I tell them straight out they need to clean up their act or I cant represent them because there is nothing I can do.

So are you saying that every factory/workplace we have in our country is either in disrepair and/or operating to full capacity?  I can tell you that mine isn't.  We have plenty of room at this point to move more commerce.

No but it has flucuated usually higher during rebuplican administrations up to 15% during Reagan and Bush 1.  My bigger question to you would be how come we as a country were able to bring that rate down during Kennedy/Johnsons "Great Society" years from about 22-23% to about 12% in the late 60's but have remained stagnant on it since then?  Are you saying, well you need to have poor people so just let them wallow in their situations?  Why is it that we cant cut that number down to single didgets at least?  Why do we have to settle?  I thought all conservatives were true patriots, at least that is what they all say. Well then why not get patriotic about this rather then just say their will always be poor people.  I say if we believe that we can eliminate poverty in the US then I think we can.  Unfortunately for rich folks that may mean having one less yacht or a couple less houses or whatever.  To me(and this is just my thought)you are saying that it is ok for us to have all these rich folks indulge themselves while we have people like the lady I saw while delivering packages the other day who lives in a piece of junk apt., who is mentally disabled, who answered the door with her belt holding up part of her shirt exposing part of undergarments because no one was there to help her.  Imagine is she opened the door for the wrong person.  I am sorry to be so explicit but I see people like this all the time, and I simply know its not fair because they never had a chance and they need help.  And no I dont mean just mentally disabled people, all sorts never had a chance.

This statement is being made about the poverty class not the middle class, I should have made that part clear, my apologies.

Mooseplow:

So it is your job to make formal complaints about management, but never about your co-workers.  Your co-workers can steal all they want and you will look the other way everytime, but if management pisses you off, then heads should roll?

Hypocrit!

much, much more = gorges hisself on the raw flesh of christian infants while using acrobat to alter his e-boarding passe so tsa won't discover--until it's too late--he's really a 33rd degree al-quaeda shriner shotcaller AND triple-secret supreme chief of the kenyan mau mau (da worst kind) muslim crips?