Are you people really claiming that Chavez was an OK guy? That he was "good" for the poor? Simple facts: There are more poor people in Venezuela now than there were before he took over. And they are poorer. And oil production is a fraction of what it used to be (i.e. they have less capacity to generate wealth). Yeah, he was great for the poor.
Pfeifer - the problem is that it's not lucrative. It's the world's busiest airport, yet it looses money. The losses are due to horrific mismanagement. Management and contracting at ATL is nothing but a political patronage system for the city's administration. (But I will say that Reed is far, far better than the previous crooks.)
You people realize that the "Georgia Solar Energy Association" is a lobbying organization for the solar panel producers, and is no less evil than Southern Company's lobbyists, right?
Secondly, those panel lessors that operate in other states are subsidized by those states. Georgia's "backwards corrupt stupid" politicians aren't turning down solar propositions just because they like Southern Company largess (though that certainly plays a role). They are choosing to not spend tax payer money on a ridiculously inefficient technology that wouldn't possibly exist without subsidies and mandates.
Steve Osborne: You're either lying, don't understand the concept of "effective tax rate," or you make a ton, ton of money. You claim you pay 34%. To pay the MARGINAL rate of 34% in 2011, you'd have to make over 171,000 dollars. And that's the MARGINAL rate, meaning only dollars above that are actually taxed at that rate. So please - back up your claim that you pay "Romny's plus Obama's rate."
What on earth does the CEO's compensation have to do with anything? They cut these jobs because they don't need them. They pay the CEO what they pay him because he has the skills and talent to demand every penny that the market will bear in compensation. Don't every one of you do the same?
Have any of you leftists ever run a business? A business is absolutely NOT in business in order to hire people. In fact, as a business owner, the very last thing you want is to hire more people. They are usually your biggest cost and highest risk. you don't hire them until you absolutely have to. And you only keep them as long as they are creating value.
The job of management is to wring out every penny of value. Creative destruction. Deal with it.
So AT&T doesn't need these employees in order to run it's business any more. But in the eyes of Occupy Atlanta, they should just keep paying them? To do what, exactly? In what universe is it reasonable to say that a company should continue to pay people for a job that is no longer needed. Should AT&T also still be employing those operators who you used to have to talk to to route your call?
And what does the CEO's pay have to do with anything? AT&T isn't laying off these people because the company is broke and they have to cut costs. As noted in the above comment, they are net hiring. These are simply jobs that are no longer relevant. But these occupy idiots who have probably never had a real job in the first place just don't comprehend the real world.
Please please continue trying to get a copy of the indictment and post it when you do. It's got to be some great reading, right up there with "Client 9."
All Comments »
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation