The Rich get a little less RichFollow

Thats because you still live with mom.

Seriously Pensive do you not see the hypocrisy in being lectured on economics from a guy who has yet to be out in the real world?



Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 9:28pm by ThiefX

Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 9:42pm by ThiefX

Happy?

The fuck? Self-righteous: maybe. Naive: getting there. Unrealistic: possibly. Hypocritical: what in hell are you smoking?



If bob has 101 dollars, and I take 100 dollars from bob and then give 10 of it to steve, who gives bob and nine other people 1 dollar each, I'm still exploiting basically everyone, even though I didn't take anything from steve, and even though I paid bob.

Basically, you just want money from the rich, and wouldn't lift a finger to help those poorer than you.




Um, just because there are people more successful than you doesn't mean you've been robbed. If I sound like an unenlightened serf, you sound like the epitome of greed.

It's more of a structural issue than having me be "greedy" and not giving money to the poor. We have been affected as a country by switching from a manufacturing economy with well-paid, organized workforce to a much more poorly paid, isolated and disempowered service oriented workforce. Whenever people talk about putting in measures to equalize things--many that used to exist in other parts of this century--the right goes on and on about the small business owner, whereas in reality, it would affect the overclass, who are becoming wealthier and wealthier by exploiting human capital and benefiting disproportionately from the infrastructure that the middle class is disproportionately funding. We have a tendency to blame the poor for being a burden on the economy--social welfare programs constituting a small amount of the budget-- and acting like they have some major affect on the economy. The whole drive to dismantle the welfare state is a massive diversion from who is really ******* us over--the increasingly wealthy overclass who needs to take a hit.

We end up with most workers making less---people on average make less than they did in 1979--except for the top 1% who make significantly more. We can act like the middle class were greedy and lazy by becoming part of the debt driven society but really, the middle class has been essentially robbed of our rightful wages by the greedy rich. You can act like somehow I can give to the poor--but really, the economy is alot more affected by a corporation like Walmart, worth billions with the family having personal fortunes in the billions and paying their workers so low, that many qualify for medicaid (and forcing many companies to manufacture overseas so they can be allowed to sell their wears at Walmart and keep their prices down to the required levels).

We've been @#%^ed over and still many people cling to some notion that the rich has somehow earned their fortunes and dehumanized those whose labor is devalued. It's great to live in a country where people are being deprived of healthcare all because the richest people in power don't want to give up a small part of their oversized fortune.



Edited, Aug 22nd 2009 11:28pm by Annabella

You could be like Scrooge!

That sounds like a ludicrous proposition Kavekk, so much so that I might have to start calling you Kavekk the Ludicrous.

This thread failed to deliver.

... and bankruptcy, for the less fortunate. Most people only see the successful ones and their eyes go all red.

Why would that entitle you to more profits? Under what ethic does that mean that you get more stuff? It certainly isn't the one we were talking about before, in which people are paid according to the market desire of their role. It certainly isn't the other one we were talking about before, in which people are paid according to the esoteric nature (or lack thereof) of their skills. Where is the justification?



I've often made this accusation in the past but I think I might have to take them all back, because I've never actually seen such a stunning example as this quote here of someone slobbering over the **** of Horatio Alger. I can't honestly believe that you are forming your opinion of the economic landscape and justice of America by willingly making yourself be suckered in to compliance by reading stories that are designed for the sole purpose of manipulating you into doing something.



No one "deserves" to be rich like that. There is no job in the entire world that should create an income disparity where One dude has as much money as 1000 other dudes.

The idea is that the guy earning 1,000 times as much money as the average guy (who the **** earns that much anyway?) has control of a company that probably employs several thousand people. He's basically responsible for their paychecks; if his company folds, those people under him all lose their jobs, and he probably loses everything because all his shares will be in his company. That's the idea, anyway. I don't know the numbers to say if that's right or wrong. Nor do I honestly care to argue it, since this topic is the most beaten of all dead horses.

But really, 1,000? Average salary of 50,000 goes to...fifty million? Seriously? How many people earn fifty million dollars a year?

You continue to be deluded in the idea that so and so job pays this much, but why should that other job pay that much. These group of extremely rich people don't work like you and I do. They don't get paid by anybody. They don't earn a salary. They are the ones paying other people salaries. These are the people that look for business opportunities in the society and fill that gap, making their fortune through creative thinking and business management skills.

So the idea that their 'job' pays well is inaccurate. It is not a traditional job like most people do. Nobody pays him. He looks for his own business opportunities and expand on it.




There are many many examples of this. Let's take one individual that us computer people are all familiar with - Bill Gates. While he didn't start out as destitute, but he was by no means wealthy. Now there's a man with a vision. He has always been looking out for something lacking in the world that he will be able to provide, thus making his fortune. When he identified his opportunity, he didn't even wait to finish uni (or was it college?), quit his study and jumped right into it. This is just the beginning for him, not only did he succeed at first, he was able to continue his success till he retires, because he is always thinking, always monitoring the market and adjusting his strategies.

That is why he is rich, while others like me who goto work 8am to 5pm repeating the same jobs everyday, then going home to eat/sleep/play, are not rich. Do my useless bum deserve to be rich like Bill Gates? No. But I at least deserve to live comfortably for getting my *** out there to repeat brainless jobs everyday.




No job pays that well. True. You have to go above a 'paying job' to make your fortune.