But it's like in a movie. If the director wants Marlon Brando but Marlon Brando want some ridiculous amount of money, the studio doesn't lay off a thousand people, the just don't hire Marlon Brando. When the studio system was pulling that kind of shit under people like Jon Peters they were losing tons of jobs and tons of money despite supposedly A list actors being in movies. Why doesn't the same apply to radio? Rush should price himself into the market instead of the market breaking it's back under Rush's demands (and fat ass).
Originally posted by Robtard
You're not being fair to his question, he's asking if Rush deserves such high pay when a 1,000 other people have to lose their job now to support his bankroll?It's not just 'Rush is a fat, racist slob, he shouldn't get paid.'
You have to ask why did Clear Channel make this choice? Rush Limbaugh can ask for as much money as he likes. That does not mean that Clear Channel has to pay him. There must be more to it. Maybe, Rush Limbaugh is the goose that layed the golden egg for Clear Channel.
Also, why is there a connection between lay offs and Rush Limbaugh. This sounds like propaganda to me. I suspect the only connection is Clear Channel. You would have to ask them.
However, I don't think the thread is about the question. I think it is just a bash the conservative thread.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There must be more to it. Maybe, Rush Limbaugh is the goose that layed the golden egg for Clear Channel.
I'm sure he is.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I don't think the thread is about the question. I think it is just a bash the conservative thread.
I fail to see the problem.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
But it's like in a movie. If the director wants Marlon Brando but Marlon Brando want some ridiculous amount of money, the studio doesn't lay off a thousand people, the just don't hire Marlon Brando. When the studio system was pulling that kind of shit under people like Jon Peters they were losing tons of jobs and tons of money despite supposedly A list actors being in movies. Why doesn't the same apply to radio? Rush should price himself into the market instead of the market breaking it's back under Rush's demands (and fat ass).
Companies, or a studio, will do whatever yields them the most money. If that meant firing everyone (and as long as that meant the company can still operate efficiently obviously) would make them more money, I guarantee you they would more then likely do that.
Originally posted by KidRock
Companies, or a studio, will do whatever yields them the most money. If that meant firing everyone (and as long as that meant the company can still operate efficiently obviously) would make them more money, I guarantee you they would more then likely do that.
Actually they do whatever they think will get them the most money. The fun part is when that doesn't match up with reality because either, they're pansies or they're just wrong.
Re: Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise
Originally posted by Darth Jello
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905050007Basically, Rush Limbaugh hammered out a $400 million 8 year contract with annual bonuses contract with Clear Channel, something they can't afford and now they are melting down and firing people left and right without scruples just to keep Limbaugh. Not just talk show hosts but programers, interns, engineers, DJ's...so much for caring about American values.
My personal feelings on Rush Limbaugh aside, this shouldn't suprise anyone. Clear Channel is basing their actions on the bottom line. That bottom line indicates to them that Limbaugh is a bankable investment that is worth it to them.
However, it's Mr. America-first and the little guy must work his fingers to the bones to get a sliver of the American fantasy that is the real hypocrit. If Mr. Limbaugh is aware of this, which I'm sure he is since he prides himself on how well-informed he is, he surely justifies this by saying that he's working his fingers to the bone to get what he's getting and the little guy should have worked harder and been better at what he does.
This scenario is playing out in many American companies. One thing that I would criticize the Obama administration over is that they're pumping billions of dollars into a system that is taking the money and still firing it's employees so they can pocket even more of the profits. The idea is a nobel one, but it's severly ignoring the reality that the people who's practices helped cause this problem aren't suddenly going to develop scruples simply because others are in jeopardy; if they cared about those people, they wouldn't have spent the last 2 decades screwing them over in the first place.
Originally posted by KidRock
Companies, or a studio, will do whatever yields them the most money. If that meant firing everyone (and as long as that meant the company can still operate efficiently obviously) would make them more money, I guarantee you they would more then likely do that.
Re: Re: Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
This scenario is playing out in many American companies. One thing that I would criticize the Obama administration over is that they're pumping billions of dollars into a system that is taking the money and still firing it's employees so they can pocket even more of the profits. The idea is a nobel one, but it's severly ignoring the reality that the people who's practices helped cause this problem aren't suddenly going to develop scruples simply because others are in jeopardy; if they cared about those people, they wouldn't have spent the last 2 decades screwing them over in the first place.
ie the bailouts were a HUGE ****ing mistake. If the Gov'ment was going to hand out the tax payers' hard earned money to bandage the economy, it should have giving that money back to the taxpayers and let us pay out our credit card debts, buy McDonald's, that new shiny car or that 60" LCD, that would have helped the economy. But no, Citi****ingbank gets billions to save itself from massive [criminal] mismanagement, and they still get to arbitrarily raise my interest rate, just cuz.
/end rant
P.S. when the government owns the controlling share of GM (and it will), you can expect the shitty cars/trucks that GM has been pumping out to get even shittier.
Originally posted by KidRock
No
Here, let me give you the tools you need: Amazing new invention <--- click here
Re: Re: Re: Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise
Originally posted by Robtard
P.S. when the government owns the controlling share of GM (and it will), you can expect the shitty cars/trucks that GM has been pumping out to get even shittier.
That depends greatly on how comitted a president Mr. Obama will be. If the buck stops there, then it's up to him to buck the trend and fulfill his promise to create jobs in a green economy. Many times I see the news reporting how his own party is contradicting him and making his job more difficult. I see this as an indication that his actions and policy are affecting members of his own party that supported him during the election because they thought he would offer us lip service while actually supporting their goals. I'm not cultist of personality, but I certainly intend to give him a chance before I call my vote a waste. However, Mr. Obama is in a difficult position. He has a voting public that expects (demands) results, but is in the very early days of his first administration. These expectations are a result of his own campaign, though. However, if we expect him to deliver on many of his promises, save the economy and world relations, then he must be elected to a second term. It sounds very one-sided, but if we look back over the last several administrations we see that Republican presidents see their second term as an oppertunity to further the goals of their first term and Democrat presidents see their second term as an oppertunity to deliver on their legacy; a chance to effect the country that elected them. Hopefully, President Obama learned something from the last administration and will follow their example by stacking the supreme court with justices who are just as blatant with their beliefs as Bush's appointees were with their own. What better way to feed the same old arguments? It's funny how constitutional judges are called activists, while neo-con judges are called constitutional patriots by the supposedly completely left-wing media.
Originally posted by Robtard
Here, let me give you the tools you need: Amazing new invention <--- click here
I would like to hear it told to me by someone that must really understand it.
But, sure, continue on with your passive aggressive bullshit..mommy didnt hug you enough retard?
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Even if one is unwilling to look up something, the terms 'downsizing' and 'anorexia' are pretty self-explainatory.
It probley means they cut down so much that they pretty much collapse.
But that goes against what I said:
Originally posted by KidRock
Companies, or a studio, will do whatever yields them the most money. If that meant firing everyone [B](and as long as that meant the company can still operate efficiently obviously) would make them more money, I guarantee you they would more then likely do that. [/B]
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No. Resources can't be created; there is a very limited amount of energy and resources upon the face of the planet, and we ultimately depend upon it in order to satisfy our needs.
Resources are created. Everyday, resources are created. Of course it's matter is finite. I find it rather absurd that it was mentioned in the first place. However, what is considered a resource is very much organic. A nonexistent energy now, could exist later, etc. Resources, economically, have multiple definitions. It isn't just bullshit like iron-ore and wood.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
We cannot continue to over-indulge in material resources upon the logic that the planet will always have more for us- it will eventually deplete, leading to an environmental apocalypse of sorts.
This, I agree on, however, it isn't even remotely close to being related to my posts. (Okay, it is....but it is extremely tangential.)
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Consider the following analogy: say, we have, in supply, 10 gConsider the following analogy: say, we have, in supply, 10 gallons of water. Now, Rush Limbaugh already has 8 of them- and Unnamed Person has 2. Naturally, it is fair, going on the sheer proportion of the job, but the fact of the matter is that Limbaugh has far more than he needs for the purposes of survival; Unnamed Person has barely enough. And in order to live a life of greater luxury and material indulgence, Limbaugh commands to have 9 gallons of water- leading Unnamed Person to have only 1 gallon at hand, which is below his basic survivalist needs. This is not fair.
No, it is fair. Since when did humans cease to be living organisms? What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? Obviously, Rush is playing the game of "life" better than others. He happens to have a, gasp, "resource" that the extreme vast majority do not. He also plays the contemporary social games that allow him to maximize the use of the "resource" as much as possible.
Of course, the flip-side is, "We, as intelligent beings, should know when to throw aside 'survival of the fittest' ideals and simply share what is not 'needed'." Unfortunately AND fortunately, that is solely up to the individual. These two ideals are not necessarily polar, but the former can quite quickly exceed the precepts of the latter.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The amount of resources we have are limited- if somebody gets more, then somebody else must get less. It's impossible otherwise.
No, that's not always true. Your scenario is only true if no physical resources are added to the system, no processes are improved/made more cost effective, and no new technologies or services are invented. Now, you would be correct if every last ounce of the planet was already being employed to act as the computing substrate for the singularity. Also, who says we have to settle for just the Earth?
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And outside of that specific scenario, it's the problem of overpopulation- limited resources must be met with the demand. Naturally, when demand lessens (less people), the goods are cheaper and everybody is capable of affording a higher standard of living- the reverse happens when there are too many people. And when the supplies cannot sustain the populace, starvation, excessive poverty, and war ensue. We therefore must conclude that the variable we must focus upon are the amount of people- by preventing excess reproduction, we create a better functioning society that adheres to quality over quantity.
No, that's not always true either. Humans are greedy mother ****ers and even if the world's population were reduced to 1 billion overnight, people would still need and starve to death. There would still be killing. etc.
We are very very far from reaching the state you allude to. People are not fighting to survive off of the scarce resources left...they still fight out of greed (and other things like stupid religions. 😐 )
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
And the director also contributes more to society. But I have a problem when people get more they do not need in order to buy material goods for the sake of buying material goods, and that leads to innocent children living in a state of poverty and suffering.
That's rather naive of you to think. It's not that simple by any stretch. Because I buy a $100,000 car, a child dies of starvation? You do know that throwing money at problems is far and away not the best solution, don't you? It isn't as simple as buying an electric moped and giving the other $98500 to a Burmese family. Sure, money is part of the solution, but it is NOT the solution.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Well, yeah, it's the 'fault' of the people for making Limbaugh anything more than the absurd joke he really is. But it is the fault of Limbaugh for whining about values and subsequently leading to the unemployment of, apparently, a thousand people- all in order to feed his gluttonous lifestyle.
But idiots feed the troll. 😐 It's their damn fault, too.
And, those Thousand people will either be recycled back into the system, sharpen their skills and then be recycled, relegated to lesser paying jobs, or just become bums.