Are you a union member?

[BawanaRik]

Serfs and slaves were fed and housed.

If this is how you see yourself that's your choice.

I see myself as the hero of the epic that is my life!

To each his own!

 

[BawanaRik]

Again, not my number. It's published by a reputable source. At least read the link if you doubt the veracity.

I see no link.

 

[Immigrant]

I see no link.

You quoted and responded to it in post #333.

 

[Unrepresented]

If this is how you see yourself that's your choice.

I see myself as the hero of the epic that is my life!

To each his own!

I see myself as middle class, I am comfortable where I currently am but would like to be the hero to the others who are less fortunate.

 

[BawanaRik]

Again, not my number. It's published by a reputable source. At least read the link if you doubt the veracity.

I can't see a reputable source using 322 of the top COEs in the nation and calling it typical.

It's using blatantly false data like this to create discord and unrest that is one of the reasons we have so much discord and unrest.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The equivalent would be to use this welfare mother as typical and state that the "typical" welfare mother make 700K per year.

That would be false and I wouldn't do it. I do not sow discord.

Creating discord and unhappiness is hardly a goal I would want for my life.

I wonder about those that do.

 

[DerHoggz]

LOL

 

[BawanaRik]

I see myself as middle class, I am comfortable where I currently am but would like to be the hero to the others who are less fortunate.

I am a hero to others by the example of my life.

 

[Unrepresented]

I can't see a reputable source using 322 of the top COEs in the nation and calling it typical.

It's using blatantly false data like this to create discord and unrest that is one of the reasons we have so much discord and unrest.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The equivalent would be to use this welfare mother as typical and state that the "typical" welfare mother make 700K per year.

That would be false and I wouldn't do it. I do not sow discord.

Creating discord and unhappiness is hardly a goal I would want for my life.

I wonder about those that do.

We'd be happier in ignorance. Got it.

 

[fmoore200]

Invalid Link Removed

There are others who feel like I do

Starving to death is not the only measure of hunger. I am speaking from experience bawa, and when I get to my PC I'll link a source for you.

Hopefully they will be reputable enough for you.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I seem to be able to dispute your figure. Imagine that!

Of course, it's different. You are confusing two different measurements. Unrepresented's source considers stock ownership as part of CEO's income. Your link only considers salary.

I can't see a reputable source using 322 of the top COEs in the nation and calling it typical.

The sample was taken from corporations in the S&P 500. Depending on the complexity of the statistical computations, an n of 322 should be sufficient to make generalizations to that population (i.e., the S&P 500) with confidence in the study's external validity. Again, your citation is going to be different than Unrepresented's, not because it's a more "accurate" number, but because it's looking at a completely different population - one that probably takes into account every CEO's salary, from publically-traded, multi-national Fortune 500 companies to guys who own their own computer repair shop and decided to organize it as an S-corporation instead of a sole proprietorship. Of course, all things equal, your cited number, being from a different population, is going to be lower since it's going to consider a wider range of incomes when the median is used as the measurement of central tendency. But before you engage in some semantic gymnastics about how I proved your point (and sampling from a population is different than "picking the top 10 CEOs"), I think it's pretty safe to say that Unrepresented is mainly interested in the former type of CEO rather than the latter type of CEO; so therefore, the AP study is probably a pretty good citation to back his position.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Invalid Link Removed

There are others who feel like I do

You're criticizing the credibility of other people's citations and you cited an wiki answer page that doesn't even have secondary citations in it to back up its claims?

LMAO! Now I would have gotten a failing grade in college if I had cited that.

 

[Unrepresented]

Of course, it's different. You are confusing two different measurements. Unrepresented's source considers stock ownership as part of CEO's income. Your link only considers salary.



The sample was taken from corporations in the S&P 500. Depending on the complexity of the statistical computations, an n of 322 should be sufficient to make generalizations to that population (i.e., the S&P 500) with confidence in the study's external validity. Again, your citation is going to be different than Unrepresented's, not because it's a more "accurate" number, but because it's looking at a completely different population - one that probably takes into account every CEO's salary, from publically-traded, multi-national Fortune 500 companies to guys who own their own computer repair shop and decided to organize it as an S-corporation instead of a sole proprietorship. Of course, all things equal, your cited number, being from a different population, is going to be lower since it's going to consider a wider range of incomes when the median is used as the measurement of central tendency. But before you engage in some semantic gymnastics about how I proved your point (and sampling from a population is different than "picking the top 10 CEOs"), I think it's pretty safe to say that Unrepresented is mainly interested in the former type of CEO rather than the latter type of CEO; so therefore, the AP study is probably a pretty good citation to back his position.

Thanks. Smartphones are handy for quick posts but my thumbs would have fallen off before I would've cobbled together something far less coherent than that.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

I'm trying to find a point here and I can't. This post seems like an attempt to sow discord and upset me with an overly edited series of "Quotes" that have been edited to the point where they do not reflect my original meaning.

It's my opinion this is wrong.

Please go back and edit this post to include a complete quote of my entire posts, not snippets meant to sow discord.

Anything less is misleading.

You wouldn't want to do that now, would you?

The point is that you often state "it is my opinion" or some variation of it when it comes to something that is ultimately empirically verifiable or falsifiable, and then do not provide any evidence or logic to lend credibility to your position.

And keep in mind, when a claim is made, the onus is on the one making a claim to support his or her position.

 

[BawanaRik]

Of course, it's different. You are confusing two different measurements. Unrepresented's source considers stock ownership as part of CEO's income. Your link only considers salary.



The sample was taken from corporations in the S&P 500. Depending on the complexity of the statistical computations, an n of 322 should be sufficient to make generalizations to that population (i.e., the S&P 500) with confidence in the study's external validity. Again, your citation is going to be different than Unrepresented's, not because it's a more "accurate" number, but because it's looking at a completely different population - one that probably takes into account every CEO's salary, from publically-traded, multi-national Fortune 500 companies to guys who own their own computer repair shop and decided to organize it as an S-corporation instead of a sole proprietorship. Of course, all things equal, your cited number, being from a different population, is going to be lower since it's going to consider a wider range of incomes when the median is used as the measurement of central tendency. But before you engage in some semantic gymnastics about how I proved your point (and sampling from a population is different than "picking the top 10 CEOs"), I think it's pretty safe to say that Unrepresented is mainly interested in the former type of CEO rather than the latter type of CEO; so therefore, the AP study is probably a pretty good citation to back his position.

To use 322 of the top paid CEOs to represent all CEOs is foolish. Period.

To create falsehoods to divide people and create hatred is just so wrong.

 

[BawanaRik]

The point is that you often state "it is my opinion" or some variation of it when it comes to something that is ultimately empirically verifiable or falsifiable, and then do not provide any evidence or logic to lend credibility to your position.

And keep in mind, when a claim is made, the onus is on the one making a claim to support his or her position.

That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

Imagine the irony

 

[BawanaRik]

Of course, it's different. You are confusing two different measurements. Unrepresented's source considers stock ownership as part of CEO's income. Your link only considers salary.



The sample was taken from corporations in the S&P 500. Depending on the complexity of the statistical computations, an n of 322 should be sufficient to make generalizations to that population (i.e., the S&P 500) with confidence in the study's external validity. Again, your citation is going to be different than Unrepresented's, not because it's a more "accurate" number, but because it's looking at a completely different population - one that probably takes into account every CEO's salary, from publically-traded, multi-national Fortune 500 companies to guys who own their own computer repair shop and decided to organize it as an S-corporation instead of a sole proprietorship. Of course, all things equal, your cited number, being from a different population, is going to be lower since it's going to consider a wider range of incomes when the median is used as the measurement of central tendency. But before you engage in some semantic gymnastics about how I proved your point (and sampling from a population is different than "picking the top 10 CEOs"), I think it's pretty safe to say that Unrepresented is mainly interested in the former type of CEO rather than the latter type of CEO; so therefore, the AP study is probably a pretty good citation to back his position.

Stock ownership isn't part of salary. In my experience the stocks are bought.

You can buy stocks.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Stock ownership isn't part of salary. In my experience the stocks are bought.

You can buy stocks.

No, it's not part of salary. It's part of income. That's what I said.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

Imagine the irony

I'm not arguing something that is empirical or falsifiable. That's the difference.

 

[Unrepresented]

To use 322 of the top paid CEOs to represent all CEOs is foolish. Period.

To create falsehoods to divide people and create hatred is just so wrong.

In a thread filled with anecdotal experience and opinion (the majority posted by you) I find it interesting that this is the data you find offensive.

 

[BawanaRik]

We'd be happier in ignorance. Got it.

I never said that.