Wealth Inequality in America [Archive] - Bogley Outdoor Community

DiscGo

03-04-2013, 11:45 AM

Not only do I not mind the fact that the 1% make so much more than I do, but I am grateful to most of them for their contribution. My boss makes way more each year than I ever will in my life and I applaud him for it. I'm grateful to have a job. I am grateful that my job is part of my life, but is not the primary focus of it. Even when my boss is on "vacation" he is still working 8+ hours a day and is constantly attached to his phone and fielding calls 24/7.

I came from a fairly poor family. My parents literally made no income for 6 years and lived off of my Grandpa's social security money until he died in 1989 and my the company my Dad was trying to build failed. My Dad then went back to school (on loans) and then made less than $30,000 for most of my childhood and used that money to support a family of 5 boys. To the best of my knowledge my parents never took Government welfare or any other social program (neither church, nor governmental).

My parents never once game me 10 cents for my own education. I in fact took a job at 13 and have paid for all of my clothing, educational (including high school books and tuituion, recreational, etc. expenses since I was 13). I worked through college and paid for my own education, car, etc.. I do not feel like I received a leg up over the average American but I do feel like I have had more than my fair amount of opportunity to be wealthy. I am not someone that anyone here would likely consider "wealthy", but I sometimes can't believe how much I have. I feel VERY blessed and I don't feel like those at the top owe me anything. I have opportunities offered to me where I could have made more money than I do now, but they would have required me to spend a lot more time away from my family so it wasn't worth it to me. Not to mention that as an American I have start my own company whenever I want and try and strike it out rich on my own.

Warren Buffet said that he won the genetic lottery by being born here in the U.S., and I completely agree. I have friends who did not graduate high school who currently are making 6 figures. Several of the riches people I know that are my age all come from poorer families.

If you don't feel like you have a large enough share of the wealth, then the solution is for you to work harder for it. Not to take it away from those who have already achieved it.

DiscGo

03-04-2013, 11:45 AM

If you don't feel like you have a large enough share of the wealth, then the solution is for you to work harder for it. Not to take it away from those who have already achieved it.

I totally agree :)

tomertim

03-04-2013, 12:40 PM

My boss makes more than 100 times what I make, and I say good for him. I sleep in my own bed at night, and he is constantly traveling to clients over the whole world. I think it comes down to the "How Bad Do you Want it Video from the Spartan race". Most of the wealthy (not the hollywood / celebrity millionaires but the business owners) just want it more than the rest of us. This isn't India where we live in a caste system. If you work hard, you can succeed.

http://vimeo.com/58479997

I 10,000% agree with this statement.

On a practical note, I have been able to experience both the extreme poor and the extreme wealth. My first five years of my life I was raised in a single wide trailer and we were as poor as all get up. We were on the far left side of this graph, barely getting by on a single mom's salary as she was raising two kids on $3.30 an hour. But as time went on my mom busted her butt and end up making around $50,000 year by the time she retired. We felt pretty wealth by this time.

When I was 25 I was in Seattle for a job interview and on the plane ride home I sat next to the girl who I'm now married to (how I ended up in SLC). She came from a middle class family here in Utah but was born in Orange county. She then took me back to where she was orginally from. Her family in Orange county who had taken a 100 year old construction business and turned it in a multi-million dollar jaugernat.

To put the wealth into perspective; Weddings at the Ritz in Laguna Niguel, Bentleys, race horses at Santa Anita, personal assistant to drive the limo, yadayada. All of this and I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't trade places with them for the world. My wife says anytime we want to move down to Orange county I could have a job living that life and I know for a fact there is no way I would do it. It's just not what I want out this life.

I absolutely love my local government job, hiking and fishing on the weekends, reading to my daughter every night, enjoying a Uinta Cutthroat while watching Duck Dynasty, making sure my kids are well situated to go to great schools, making my family breakfast on the weekends, and overall just enjoying life.

For those that truly want to be wealthy by getting the prestigous MBA, keeping a Wall Street Journal tucked under your arm, and working day and night, I say go for it. It's there for the taking. I prefer to make a modest salary while truly making a difference in the world. It really is to each their own.

03-04-2013, 12:45 PM

My boss makes more than 100 times what I make, and I say good for him
:2thumbs:
Jealousy from some that thinks the rich don't deserve to be. Sure they should. Stop being that little pansy-ass in the sandbox that whines all the time.

Socialism always fails.

hank moon

03-04-2013, 12:50 PM

Iceaxe

03-04-2013, 12:54 PM

After watching the video my thought was "so, what is your solution?"

I believe the top 10% might be skewed a little unfairly, but I don't trust the government to redistribute the wealth in any fashion....

As for the bottom 20%, most of them are receiving exactly what they worked for their entire life. You can't be a high school drop out, meth head, dope smoker, and expect to have money fall into your lap.

I would like to see a portion of the top 10% of the wealth redistributed into the middle of the curve, but I have no clue how to do it. Outside of taxing the crap out of the super rich and relaxing the tax on the middle class. But the government wants to tax the crap out of the super rich and give it to the bottom 20%, who for the most part are a waste of good air and contribute nothing to society.

:soapbox:

hank moon

03-04-2013, 01:16 PM

I believe the top 10% might be skewed a little unfairly, but I don't trust the government to redistribute the wealth in any fashion...

But...that is exactly what is happening right now. Great wealth is not simply the result of "hard work" - it is primarily the result of being in control of how wealth is generated, regulated, etc. Currently, a tiny minority is in control of that (including the government). The laws and regulations of this country are skewed to kick money up that tiny minority, while draining it from you and me. You can see it in any essential industry, most notably the food and energy sectors.

There are many ways short of "socialism" that can help mitigate the ongoing re-distribution of wealth, among them:

- reducing the influence of corporations and their lobbyists on our gov't
- increasing our personal participation in government

I'm all for hard work being properly rewarded, meaning, as long as that work does not undermine our principles of government and unduly take away from the fruits of my own hard work.

rockgremlin

03-04-2013, 01:21 PM

I totally agree :)

Quoting yourself in favor of yourself...priceless. I've done that a few times b4, so I understand the humor. :mrgreen:

rockgremlin

03-04-2013, 01:22 PM

Quoting yourself in favor of yourself...priceless. I've done that a few times b4, so I understand the humor. :mrgreen:

Excellent post. :nod:

DiscGo

03-04-2013, 01:22 PM

hank moon-
I don't blame the rich for the bailouts but the Government. And that is not the free market. The free market says if you fail, then you fail. The Government says if you fail and you have donated enough funds to the right people then the American people fail and you still succeed. I'm VERY against that.

But most of the 1% are people that you can name for what they have accomplished (like founding Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Facebook, etc. being an oil tycoon, etc.). Warren Buffet is the only billionaire of which I know who made a killing on the bailouts and his company wasn't bailed out. He invested money in the companies which had already "failed" banking on the Government bailing them out which they did.

I am not in favor of the work of the people funding extravagance in Government. Shady finances should have penalties and not be rewarded by the Government. But most people who are millionaires are business owners who have worked hard for they have, and not the Wall Street Elite.

I also think it is kind of funny that people point their fingers at Wall Street for "ruining things" but some how nobody gives them credit for what they have built up. Like Iceaxe, I too believe that most of the 20% at the bottom receiving exactly what they deserve. And many are receiving a lot more than they have earned.

When you look at how much better the poor are in this country than the poor of so many other countries, we are still very blessed. I believe the problem is that people don't look at how blessed they are for what they have, they look at what their neighbor has and they feel like they don't have enough. You look at the poor in South America (where I have lived) and they are on a whole nother playing field than the majority of our "poor" here. Happiness isn't about getting what you want, but wanting what you go (Sheryl Crow doctrine there). I believe if you were to equally distribute all the wealth in the world today, it would all end up back in the hand of the rich eventually because of their work ethics, spending habits, and business tactics.

Having worked in tourism for 7 years, I have a lot of friends from a lot of different backgrounds. Some of those friends left very successful jobs at prestigious firms in Chicago and New York because they hated the work environment. Now they drive buses, work for REI, and travel around the world doing odd jobs. You look at someone worth a billion dollars and believe they were rewarded too much, but I know plenty of people who believe the lives they live are more rewarding.

I believe our financial problems lie in Washington and not on Wall Street.

rockgremlin

03-04-2013, 01:27 PM

DiscGo

03-04-2013, 01:27 PM

As I said before my boss is not one of the 1% but he is very wealthy. His travel expenses for a week are often on par with what I make in the year. I do not feel entitled to more money than I receive. His success is in no way a reflection of some form of failure in me. If he can get his clients to pay him to travel first class, good for him. I think the difference comes down to education as well. My boss may not work 200 times harder than the average worker, but less than 1 in 200 can do what he does.

DiscGo

03-04-2013, 01:43 PM

Along the same vein, Nevada one of the states that DOES NOT tax personal income. This is made possible by the generous donations from the gambling and prostitution industries. Is this "right?"

Nevada has higher taxes than 8 other states, most of which do not allow gambling.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/28/state-taxes-states-highest-lowest/1654071/

So I don't believe the answer is as cut as dry and legalizing gambling. That said, I have no problem with a state allowing gambling, prostitution, alcohol, etc.. I much prefer a situation where prostitution is legalized, and taxed heavily than a system in which underage girls are exploited.

I have known wealthy people during my life, but only recently have my eyes been opened to how much wealth there really is in the world. I believe the more we rely on the Government to extend humanity, the less we will extend of ourselves to humanity. You can't allow the Government to determine morality, and the majority cannot determine morality either. The more we depend on the Government, the less we depend on each other.

Iceaxe

03-04-2013, 02:09 PM

But...that is exactly what is happening right now. Great wealth is not simply the result of "hard work" - it is primarily the result of being in control of how wealth is generated,

If you have followed my posts before you will know I often state.... People are not poor because they have no money, they are poor because the don't know how to manage (generate) money.

Yes, I do have a problem with the Super Rich being able to buy their way into government handouts and tax breaks... but I think I also stated earlier I don't trust the government to handle the distribution of wealth... Yup, it would be great if we had an honest government... but we don't... it's just not nearly as crooked as most others...

Until the middle class rises up and says... enough... it will not change.

:cool2:

Iceaxe

03-04-2013, 02:12 PM

Until the middle class rises up and says... enough... it will not change.

Awesome post. :2thumbs:

Byron

03-04-2013, 02:55 PM

I'm sure if you were to ask Mr. Socialist Video Producer up there who should be in charge of "making it right" the answer would surely be the government...like DiscGo said, they actually constitute a great deal of the problem. Ahhh...those multi-colored farts smell so wonderful!

Deathcricket

03-04-2013, 03:38 PM

Dayamm! I came into this thread to deliver some justice but I see it has already been handed out. Stop being such jealous sad people, get off your butts, and quit asking for handouts. :2thumbs:

hank moon

03-04-2013, 03:46 PM

Until the middle class rises up and says... enough... it will not change.

This is key. When we assign blame to the gov't, we sometimes forget who is ultimately responsible for the gov't (us).

Byron

03-04-2013, 04:25 PM

Was it Obama that was supposed to fix all this? :lol8: More like the fox guarding the hen house.

witt

03-04-2013, 04:55 PM

I hope I copied this correctly. Maybe I should post this on the favorite quote thread, but I think it fits here.

"It is a great pity there is so much strife between capital and labor...Workingmen should not regard capitalists as their enemies. Workingmen should take the view that it is the miser, he who hoards his gold in an old stocking-those are the who should be despised by the workingmen. In this country, with the wages paid, the workingman by denying himself of what he would otherwise spend, can become a capitalist himself, the same as I did... A capitalist is a man who lives on less then he earns"

Robert Dunsmuir
Indentured to the Hudson

Byron

03-04-2013, 05:13 PM

Nice post, witt...I have several very wealthy clients, and the richest of them all ( a man who's worth tens, if not hundreds of millions) told me he has very little of his net worth in cash...most is tied up in investments, doing good things for many people. Very few of these folks have giant wads of cash stashed in a vault somewhere, collecting dust until they pay a visit to grab a few hand fulls for the next high dollar materialist purchase.

Last May I was on a houseboat trip with some friends. It was just starting to get busy on the lake and at one point the yacht cruised by...man, that thing was off the hook! It was three times the size of our houseboat, and looked to be absolutely top end. I considered the scores, probably hundreds of people involved in the construction of that thing, and it would all come to naught if that man hadn't made the purchase.

Same thing goes for someone selling high end bedding, or expensive shoes...I own a skateboard that's worth $250, should I feel bad about that? Who defines what's "fair" and what's not? Yacht, no good...skateboard OK? Mind your own damn business and get your ass to work, I like to say.

03-05-2013, 05:54 AM

Discgo, how do you feel about the rich getting rich from shady finances, helping cause a worldwide financial crisis, getting bailed out by "the gov't" (that means your tax dollars), then getting appointed to gov't positions that help ensure they can continue to do more of the same? This is the rich getting richer, while taking away from you and yours. Do you support that?
Hank, you sound like the kid in the sandbox. Don't be mad you haven't found the key to unlock the riches :haha: Some have whether it was some "shady deals" or honest way of making it. Money makes money, once you hit that vein, you're in. I don't feel their money should be redistributed, it's theirs. You made it, you own it. You want it, I'll give you a job. To think here in America someone else deserves your money is asinine. Even if you didn't work hard for it, it's yours. How is this not a socialist idea?

Sombeech

03-05-2013, 07:21 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j_rDDBf_xQ4/UPLwgnobyDI/AAAAAAAAC3I/sVQuA_Bc268/s320/JC+Oh+Boy.jpg

hank moon

03-05-2013, 11:20 AM

To think here in America someone else deserves your money is asinine. Even if you didn't work hard for it, it's yours. How is this not a socialist idea?

JP, I agree completely. Folks who first fleeced* us with shady finances (aka subprime mortgages), then double fleeced* us by taking our tax dollars in the form of bailouts, then triple fleeced* us by taking bailout funds that were meant to generate (less shady) new lending to the public and instead paying themselves massive bonuses.

*That is some serious redistribution. But no, it's not socialism. Maybe sociopathism.

03-05-2013, 11:26 AM

then triple fleeced* us by taking bailout funds that were meant to generate (less shady) new lending to the public and instead paying themselves massive bonuses.
Simple, get the government out of businesses they have no business being in. It's all about power grabs and control. They show us time and time again, they cannot run what they already have. How's that Post Office doing? I won't even get into social security and the rest :haha:

Iceaxe

03-05-2013, 11:50 AM

Simple, get the government out of businesses they have no business being in.

^^^THIS^^^

The government did a great job of redistributing the wealth.... They just went in a different direction then most of us were hoping for.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

03-06-2013, 11:49 AM

Success is uncommon, therefore not to be enjoyed by the common man... Life goes on. Everybody has an opportunity whether they know it or not.

reverse_dyno

03-06-2013, 01:36 PM

03-06-2013, 02:24 PM

Good for her. That's the advantages of being a boss. I'm taking it that Yahoo is not unionized, probably a good thing or they wouldn't be around anymore. You don't see Yahoo employees going around saying they're not being treated fairly.

double moo

03-06-2013, 04:10 PM

Marissa Mayer, the new Yahoo CEO will get more than 35 million over 5 years. That amounts to $798 per hour, if she were to work 24 hours a day. Is there anyone in the world who can produce $798 per hour of value? No there is not. Companies are socialist organizations that redistribute wealth from the people that produce it, the programmers, laborers, etc and they redistribute to those that do not, mainly upper managers. What would yahoo be without a CEO? Simply a company without a CEO, what would it be without programmer? Certainly not an IT company.

So Steve Jobs was just a CEO... and all those engineers and such that made millions riding on his coat tails could have done it without him? Surely you must get that the CEOs set the tone, direct the vision, and bust their ass for what they get - just go read Discgo's description of what his boss works like.

So Brad Pitt gets $25m to act in a movie, this has a filming duration of 2 to 6 months... and we had over all our spare cash to watch him - and his kind - pretend to be somebody else. Let's examine that last note... pretend to be somebody else. The people these actors pretend to be typically made nothing, or next to it, and to pretend to be them one gets paid quite possibly more than the original person made in 10 lifetimes. Seems fair - but we can say that they generate huge revenues to the studios so they are paid whatever the traffic will bear.

Same can be said for most of our professional athletes, recording artists, etc...

Yet Marrissa Mayer probably is working 12 hrs a day 350 days a year... and phone accessible the other 12 hrs a day and 365 days a year for a mere $7m. I'd say she's getting bent over and plowed. If she turns the company huge profits for her efforts then they should pay her whatever it takes... if she bombs they'll find a way to bail on her.

Companies aren't these massive evil empires, they are simply made up of people working to make as much as they can while taking risks and providing jobs to many others. Engineers change positions to make more money... so they must be even more evil as they leave the company spending more to hire and retrain... and add burden to those that remain. Maybe we need an Evil, Greedy, Bastard Engineer thread - then we can add one for the programmers, IT boys, and plumbers that screw their companies to look out for themselves.

Byron

03-06-2013, 04:55 PM

Outstanding double moo...now that's how ya do it! Epic dude!

Byron

03-06-2013, 04:58 PM

Not only in America but also in some other countries there is inequallity of wealth. Infect most people are unable to live a comfortable and luxuries life even after serving and giving theri whole life to their country adn organiztion where the work and retired.Hey, welcome to the group, Boom! I gotta ask though...do they have spell check in Paradise? I read your post and just though...Wha?

Scott Card

03-06-2013, 05:31 PM

So Steve Jobs was just a CEO.... Please leave Steve Jobs out of the discussion. He was with Apple therefore exempt from any negativity. Subaru, Starbucks and hemp clothing companies should also be exempt from this discussion. Thank you, that is all. Carry on.

Iceaxe

03-06-2013, 05:55 PM

Marissa Mayer, the new Yahoo CEO will get more than 35 million over 5 years. That amounts to $798 per hour, if she were to work 24 hours a day. Is there anyone in the world who can produce $798 per hour of value? No there is not.

:lol8:

Hahaha.... you have obviously never spent any time in a corporate board room or negotiated million dollar deals... a top CEO is worth every penny.

A good CEO doesn't make their money grinding, a good CEO will make their pay for the year in 10 minutes in negotiations.... the trick is to know which 10 minutes are the important 10 minutes, and that is what you are paying for.

And the proof to what I'm saying is top companies are always headhunting top CEO's.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

cchoc

03-07-2013, 06:55 AM

The funny thing is that the 'government' is financed by you, but your elected officials are financed by the 1%. :lol8: And I have been in a few board meetings; it's all about connections, not necessarily hard work or how you got there. Sure, a lot of them are very bright, but it's the network of other C level folks that have been cultivated that determine their real value.

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 07:32 AM

And I have been in a few board meetings; it's all about connections, not necessarily hard work or how you got there. Sure, a lot of them are very bright, but it's the network of other C level folks that have been cultivated that determine their real value.

Bright and brilliant people surround themselves with bright and brilliant people. And the best of the best can manage that group and get paid well to do so. If you think you are underpaid you should find a new job that appreciates your talents, or maybe what you are being paid is all your worth. A top CEO would not be afraid to take the risk.

As the owner of a company I can tell you my employees are paid what they are worth, if I don't pay them well the good ones are soon gone and I have to fire the deadwood. And its pretty easy to know what an employee is worth. I just look at how much they make the company. A companies C tiered employees are some of the very easist to evaluate.

If you don't like the current situation it might be time to start your own company. If you are really good at what you do there is always a market and the owner of a good company will make some nice coin (and deal with a lot of headaches).

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

cchoc

03-07-2013, 09:13 AM

I retired when I was 55, so I don't need or want to start my own company. :cool2: My point was simply that above a certain level it's all about your network.

I've done my share of evaluations and hiring and firing, so I know how that works. I also know how to get to C level and that once someone puts you there, as long as that person is still around, you are golden since they will never admit they screwed up by putting you there. :lol8:

I have worked at several private companies that went public. Typically the investors appoint most of the board and, after the consummation generally bring in their own 'C' team as the former owner gradually steps aside and moves one. The new 'C' team is there because of 80% networking and 20% talent.

hank moon

03-07-2013, 10:11 AM

Typically the investors appoint most of the board and, after the consummation generally bring in their own 'C' team as the former owner gradually steps aside and moves one. The new 'C' team is there because of 80% networking and 20% talent.

hmmm. how then is private enterprise so different from our gov't? :)

Shane, most CEOs (and politicians) of a certain level don't really take risks with their own lives - they take risks exclusively with others' lives.

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 10:28 AM

My point was simply that above a certain level it's all about your network.

So you are saying networking is a valuable skill. I have no disagreement. In your evaluation it appears networking is a highly valuable skill that a person would be wise to develop and improve.... again, I have no problem with that. Networking is certainly very valuable, but I don't place the priority on it you do. My number one priority has always been to be the best, and after that things have a habit of working out. But I have always run a private company and not a public one, so that is all I really know. My only experience with public companies is sitting on the other side of the negotiating table numerous times.

I've done my share of evaluations and hiring and firing, so I know how that works. I also know how to get to C level and that once someone puts you there, as long as that person is still around, you are golden since they will never admit they screwed up by putting you there.

I guess I never looked at it that way... In every job I have ever taken my first goal was to surpass everyone in front of me, including the guy that hired me.

Good luck is when opportunity meets preparation. :cool2:

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 10:32 AM

Shane, most CEOs (and politicians) of a certain level don't really take risks with their own lives - they take risks exclusively with others' lives.

My point is none of these guys were just handed these positions.... they all had to work to get there. I consider networking part of the job... bottomline... you get paid for what you know... I fail to see a problem with that.

CEO's earn the right to take the risks you mention, and if they screw up they will not last long.

Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer.

cchoc

03-07-2013, 10:56 AM

My point is none of these guys were just handed these positions.... they all had to work to get there.

Well, George W Bush was. :lol8: But more to the point, sadly, private companies priorities are customer and product oriented, public companies answer to shareholders. That makes a real difference on how products are developed and maintained - I've been there. Having a boss who is the owner means they have skin in the game, CEOs have contracts that protect them no matter what. Sure, CEOs own stock in their companies, but they buy the stock with interest free loans from the company and the loans are almost always forgiven if the stock goes down, so they really have no skin in the game. The first thing a public company does when times get tough is get rid of people, and/or send jobs offshore. That has contributed to the lack of loyalty among workers, particularly in high tech fields. And it's in those fields where companies have to go outside the US to hire since there aren't enough qualified workers born and educated here.

I'm not a socialist, though, so I don't expect a solution from our elected officials. Our companies need to wise up and realize that paying a decent wage is good for everyone. Look at the difference between the productivity of Costco workers vs Wal-Mart workers. Only if that happens will we see our middle class come back strong.

hank moon

03-07-2013, 11:05 AM

CEO's earn the right to take the risks you mention, and if they screw up they will not last long.

A few CEOs achieve mostly through merit*, but many, probably most, coast to fatland on their network of friends.

*see especially tech and startup CEOs who start with little more than brains, guts, and the American system and exploit it fully. e.g. Jobs, Gates, etc. These guys are the exception, though.

hank moon

03-07-2013, 11:09 AM

Our companies need to wise up and realize that paying a decent wage is good for everyone.

True that. Look no further than the Ford model. He knew that to succeed (i.e. sell his cars), others had to have the money to buy them (and perhaps the leisure to enjoy them). Win-win

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 11:21 AM

A few CEOs achieve mostly through merit*, but many, probably most, coast to fatland on their network of friends.

*see especially tech and startup CEOs who start with little more than brains, guts, and the American system and exploit it fully. e.g. Jobs, Gates, etc. These guys are the exception, though.

:roll:

Guts, brains, foresight are all talents to me that should be paid for.

We are obviously so far apart on our views it's pointless to continue... you are welcome to stand and wait for your ship to come in, I'll continue to bust my ass... maybe both methods will work, who knows...

:cool2:

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 11:35 AM

Well, George W Bush was....
You must have missed this!

"Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer..."

And both Bush and Obama were elected to a second term, that tells me all I need to know about the average American's intellegence. :roll:

Look at the difference between the productivity of Costco workers vs Wal-Mart workers.

So Costco pays more and gets the best workers, and Wal-Mart pays crap and gets the bottom of the barrel... I see nothing wrong with that. Employee's reap what they sow.

For the record, I have never met a Wal-Mart employee I would hire. And I have hired a lot of guys right off the street form completely different fields. It's not unusual for me to met a complete stranger and hire them, even if they know nothing about what I do. If I meet someone that is extremely intellegent, street smart, a hard charger, and good personality I will often offer them a job. Because a guy like that I can make a lot of money with.

Bottomline... if you are talented you can bank major coin (if that is your ambition).... and if you are not banking coin you might need to head in a new direction, or perhaps you are not nearly as talented as you think you are and need to do a little self evaluation.

:cool2:

hank moon

03-07-2013, 11:36 AM

Guts, brains, foresight are all talents to me that should be paid for.

Yes, I agree - hence the word "merit". I think you might have misjudged me...or perhaps I have mis-communicated. Anyway, yeah. REAL hard work and REAL risk should be rewarded. No contention there!

Re: elected presidents and intelligence of american people

Nothing significant would have changed if Romney had been elected last year (or Gore in 2000). The president is little more than a smokescreen for corporate/moneyed interests. As you said before, nothing will change until the people themselves take action.

peakbaggers

03-07-2013, 11:46 AM

Coming in on this lively discussion late - but here's a few additional thoughts.
In watching the video, the same 'a priori" assumptions undergird it that undergird "progressive" thinking. " Wealth redistributiuon" is assumed as "fair." But as others have pointed out, what is " FAIR?" If all cash,assets, holdings, etc were distributed with absolute equality, (which seems to be an underlying premise) then everything would be FAIR? What then of those who really do work harder or who obtained a costlier education so they could excel and succeed, or who sacrificed family or leisure so they could get ahead. Is it FAIR that someone or govt. should step in and say that any extra you obtained should be redistributed so that everyone still has the same in wealth? You get the picture.

Second point: One way to begin to break up the power monopoly of govt. & big business is to implement what the founders of our constitution largely envisioned, which was a house and senate comprised of people who were not professional politicians but citizens and businessmen/women from all walks of life who would serve in the public interest and return to civilian work. In other words, TERM LIMITS would help greatly in reducing the power of government and influence that "big business" has over govt.

Third point: So many seem to assume that if someone in this country is classified as "below the poverty level," then they are destitue and hopeless and have virtually no possessions. Before discussing the issue of poverty in this country, everyone should take a hard look at this study: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
When I consider what this study says, I see that there are any number of people classified under the level of poverty that in terms of possessions, have more than I and my family! And if you compare that average poverty level person in this country to others around the world, most would be considered by the others as "wealthy!"

Iceaxe

03-07-2013, 11:48 AM

True that. Look no further than the Ford model. He knew that to succeed (i.e. sell his cars), others had to have the money to buy them (and perhaps the leisure to enjoy them). Win-win

You do know that Ford drove his employee's so hard that most didn't last at Ford Motor Company more then a couple of years didn't you?

A great book by the way....

FORD The Men and the Machine
http://www.amazon.com/FORD-The-Machine-Robert-Lacey/dp/0316511668

cchoc

03-07-2013, 12:13 PM

You must have missed this!

"Politicians are a different beast, they are hired by and work for the American public, and for the most part I'm not really impressed with the intelligence of the average person. The American public has no one to blame but themselves for a crappy product, as they are the employer..."

And both Bush and Obama were elected to a second term, that tells me all I need to know about the average American's intellegence. :roll:

So Costco pays more and gets the best workers, and Wal-Mart pays crap and gets the bottom of the barrel... I see nothing wrong with that. Employee's reap what they sow.

For the record, I have never met a Wal-Mart employee I would hire. And I have hired a lot of guys right off the street form completely different fields. It's not unusual for me to met a complete stranger and hire them, even if they know nothing about what I do. If I meet someone that is extremely intellegent, street smart, a hard charger, and good personality I will often offer them a job. Because a guy like that I can make a lot of money with.

Bottomline... if you are talented you can bank major coin (if that is your ambition).... and if you are not banking coin you might need to head in a new direction, or perhaps you are not nearly as talented as you think you are and need to do a little self evaluation.

:cool2:

I wasn't talking about Dubya getting elected, but the jobs he had before. The hardest he ever worked was when he said "thanks Dad" for each of them.

And I think you said it backwards, employers reap what they sew. If they pay low and offer no advancement path they will not get talented motivated workers.

peakbaggers

03-07-2013, 01:03 PM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/holder-admits-mega-banks-are-too-big-to-jail-2013-03-07?dist=afterbell

Here's an timely article related to the discussion.

accadacca

03-08-2013, 09:46 PM

:popcorn:

Iceaxe

03-08-2013, 09:50 PM

And I think you said it backwards, employers reap what they sew. If they pay low and offer no advancement path they will not get talented motivated workers.

I agree with that... you get what you pay for in life... which is why the shitty employees usually end up at the shitty companies.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

hank moon

03-09-2013, 02:35 PM

Excerpt:

Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?

---

An Unrepresentative Democracy

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/an_unrepresentative_democracy_20130308/

Posted on Mar 8, 2013

By David Sirota

Why are ideas widely supported in most of the country so often portrayed as controversial, polarizing and divisive once they are taken up by legislatures? Why does the professional political class seem like a wholly separate society that does not understand the constituents it is supposed to be representing? These are the existential questions at the root of America’s political dysfunction—and a new study marshaling reams of data finally provides some concrete answers.

Conducted by the University of California’s David Broockman and University of Michigan’s Christopher Skovron, the survey of nearly 2,000 legislators from across America documents politicians’ perceptions of their constituents’ views on hot-button issues like universal health care and same-sex marriage. It then compares those perceptions with constituents’ actual views.

The juxtaposition reveals a jarring truth: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers hugely overestimate the conservatism of the very people they are supposed to represent. In all, the report finds that “conservative politicians systematically believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are by over 20 percentage points, while liberal politicians also typically overestimate their constituents’ conservatism by several percentage points.” Ultimately, that has resulted in a political system inherently hostile to mainstream proposals and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion.

The first obvious question is why: Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities?

Broockman and Skovron argue that one answer has to do with the prevalence of right-leaning mythology. Citing “Richard Nixon’s pronouncement that a ‘silent majority’ of Americans backed his policies” and “Sarah Palin’s suggestion that a latent ‘real America’ supported her,” the researchers correctly note that there remains “a folk theory among conservative politicians that the American public is considerably more conservative than it seems at face value.” This theory is undoubtedly fueled by a Fox News-ified media that pushes such inaccurate fables.

That said, the persistence of fairy tales cannot explain the entire phenomenon. There is also the fact that in the age of money-dominated politics, many professional lawmakers do not come from the ranks of the commoner—instead, more and more are wealthy upper-crusters whose cloistered upbringing inside gated communities leaves them wholly unfamiliar with their constituencies.

Such isolation is then exacerbated during their time in office. Ensconced in a bubble of conservative-minded corporate lobbyists and mega-donors, they come to wrongly assume that what passes for a mainstream position in that bubble somehow represents a consensus position in the larger world.

The electoral process, of course, is supposed to be the panacea—it is supposed to pop that bubble and force a connection between the representative and the represented. However, because getting elected to office is now less about town meetings than about buying expensive television ads, even the campaign process fails to familiarize politicians with rank-and-file voters. As the study data confirm, “politicians’ perceptions of public opinion after the campaign and the election itself look identical to their perceptions prior to these events, with little evidence that their misperceptions had been corrected.”

The result is an unrepresentative democracy, which raises the second question—the one about republican democracy itself. Can it truly exist under these conditions?

In name, it most certainly can. As evidenced by the constant references to the concept in political speeches, the venerable brand is indeed alive and well.

The trouble is that a brand alone is limited. It cannot on its own sustain such a radical notion as self-governance, especially at a moment when our representatives are so increasingly ignorant of—and hostile to—public will. If such ignorance and hostility continues, republican democracy will almost certainly become just a meaningless slogan—and America will likely become far less exceptional than we should ever allow it to be.

David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at ds@david (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=18835) sirota.com, follow him on Twitter @david (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=18835) sirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com (http://www.davidsirota.com).

2065toyota

03-12-2013, 09:56 AM

64049

Iceaxe

03-12-2013, 04:07 PM

:lol-lol:

hank moon

03-13-2013, 10:00 PM

If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/its_good_to_be_the_multinational_corporations_2013 0312/

Posted on Mar 12, 2013

By Robert Scheer

Go offshore young man and avoid paying taxes. Plunder at will in those foreign lands, and if you get in trouble, Uncle Sam will come rushing to your assistance, diplomatically, financially and militarily, even if you have managed to avoid paying for those government services. Just pretend you’re a multinational corporation.

That’s the honest instruction for business success provided by 60 of the largest U.S. corporations that, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, “parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year” shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from U.S. taxes. They all do it, including Microsoft, GE and pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Many, like GE, are so good at it that they have avoided taxes altogether in some recent years.

But they all still expect Uncle Sam to come to their aid with military firepower in case the natives abroad get restless and nationalize their company’s assets. We still have a blockade against Cuba because Fidel Castro more than a half century ago dared seize an American-owned telephone company. During that same period, we have consistently intervened to maintain the lock of U.S. corporations on the world’s resources, continuing to the present task of making Iraq and Libya safe for our oil companies.

America’s multinational corporations still need the Navy to protect shipping lanes and the Commerce Department to safeguard U.S. copyrights. They also expect the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to intervene to provide bailouts and cheap money when the corporate financial swindlers get into trouble, like GE, which almost went aground when its GE Capital financial wing got caught in the great banking meltdown.

They want a huge U.S. government to finance scientific breakthroughs, educate the future workforce, sustain the infrastructure and provide for law and order on the home front, but they just don’t feel they should have to pay for a system of governance, even though it primarily serves their corporate interests. The U.S. government exists primarily to make the world safe for multinational corporations, but those firms feel no obligation to pay for that protection in return.

Think of that perfectly legal and widespread racket when you go to pay your taxes in the next weeks, and consider that you have to make up the gap left by the big boys’ antics. Also, when you contemplate the painful cuts coming because of the sequester that undoubtedly will further destabilize the economy, remember that, as the Wall Street Journal estimated, the tax savings of just 19 of those companies would more than cover the $85 billion in spending reductions triggered by the congressional budget impasse.

The most skilled at this con game are the health care and technology companies, which, as a Senate investigation last year revealed, have become quite expert at shifting marketing rights and patents offshore to low-tax countries. Microsoft boosted its foreign holdings by $16 billion last year, and by the end of the company’s fiscal year on June 30, 2012, had $60.8 billion stashed internationally. Through creative accounting, Microsoft was able to claim that only 7 percent of its pretax profit last year was domestically generated.

Oracle increased its foreign holdings by one-third, including new subsidiaries in low-tax Ireland, and thereby was able to add a cool $272 million to the company’s bottom line by avoiding U.S. taxes. Abbott estimates that it saved $1.6 billion in U.S. taxes through its operations in more than a dozen countries. By moving $8.1 billion of its profits overseas, Abbott was able to claim a pretax loss on its U.S. operations. Johnson & Johnson, another health industry giant, has almost all of its cash—$14.8 billion out of $14.9 billion—abroad, yet still claims to be a U.S. company.

One of the longtime leaders in offshore tax avoidance has been that once-American-as-apple-pie company GE, which in a more innocent time hired Ronald Reagan to advertise its wares. Now GE has nearly two-thirds of its jobs abroad, avoided U.S. taxes in the previous two years and has $108 billion stashed overseas.

Two years ago, President Obama appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Jobs Council, despite the fact that Immelt had cut his company’s U.S. workforce by a fifth. GE’s expertise is no longer in appliance manufacturing, a division Immelt has tried to shed, but rather in financial manipulation.

GE Capital was a leader in the financial scams that still haunt the U.S. economy, and Immelt has been most effective in lobbying Washington politicians to rig the tax laws to benefit his and other multinational corporations. He has created some jobs, but unfortunately, they are abroad, along with his company’s untaxed profits.

For all these multinational corporations, the love of profit trumps loyalty to country.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/AP070129059385-300.jpgAP/Mark Lennihan
Dancers stage the Microsoft logo against the side of a building in New York.

[TABLE="class: footer"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.

Scott P

03-14-2013, 09:36 AM

Democrats = Blaming the rich for all of society's problems.

Republicans = Blaming the poor for all society's problems.

True Middle Class = income of ~$27,000 to $70,000. If you are outside this bracket, you are not really Middle Class. Weird how most people (poor and rich) consider themselves Middle Class.

Iceaxe

03-14-2013, 10:56 AM

Just curious... where did that definition of middle class come from? And what are you called if you make more then 70k? While 70k is a comfortable income I would not call anyone making 70k rich.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Scott P

03-14-2013, 11:07 AM

Just curious... where did that definition of middle class come from?

It is exactly what it says. Middle Class = Middle of the Class.

I calculated it out using income percentiles.

~$27,000 = 33 1/3 percentile. ~$70,000 = 66 2/3 percentile.

This really should be the true definition, despite the fact that most people on either side still consider themselves Middle Class.

In reality (without any PR, PC, or BS):

0-33 1/3 percentile = less than ~$27,000 = Lower Class

33 1/3 percentile to 66 2/3 percetile = ~$27,000 to ~$70,000 = Middle Class

66 2/3 percentile to 100 percentile = more than ~$70,000 = Upper Class

While 70k is a comfortable income I would not call anyone making 70k rich.

Just because you are outside the Middle Class bracket doesn't always mean that you are rich or poor. As you know, there are people who make less than 27K per year that aren't poor and manage money wisely, while others making 70K a year are broke.

DiscGo

03-14-2013, 11:16 AM

Democrats = Blaming the rich for all of society's problems.
Republicans = Blaming the poor for all society's problems.

Normally the Republicans do not blame the poor, they blame the Government. The Government is responsible for mismanaging funds, and freedom.

Byron

03-14-2013, 12:34 PM

Republicans = Blaming the poor for all society's problems.

Wrong. DiscGo is right...that statement is a myth if there ever was one. I will, however, agree that the Dems blame the rich. So what you're saying is half true, really.

I was born dirt poor. I'm talking hardcore, welfare case, trailer trash, uneducated...I never went back to school after the 8th grade, parents that were mentally ill, alcoholics, dysfunctional, abusive step father...a great big bowl of the worst.

Despite all that, I'm worth more than a million. I guess I'm rich too, because my annual income exceeds 100K. No one, and I mean no one, ever did anything to help me along the way. I don't know what an unemployment check looks like, no one has ever bailed me out...because I never let myself get into such a position.

I vote Republican, straight down the line. It seems like I'm supposed to be this horrible, selfish person? I laugh at that, because when I see someone who has come up to success after having to scrape the bowl for so long, I think it's the greatest thing ever. That impresses me far more than some idiot coming to me with his hand out.

And ya want to know something? It's really not that hard to pull it off.

Iceaxe

03-14-2013, 12:37 PM

It is exactly what it says. Middle Class = Middle of the Class.

I calculated it out using income percentiles.

Gotcha :2thumbs:

For what it's worth... some Economist's consider the 50% in the middle to be "middle class", with the 25% above and below considered outside.

Sounds like defining middle class is more difficult than defining assault rifles. :lol8:

Iceaxe

03-14-2013, 12:45 PM

I was born dirt poor. I'm talking hardcore, welfare case, trailer trash, uneducated...I never went back to school after the 8th grade, parents that were mentally ill, alcoholics, dysfunctional, abusive step father...a great big bowl of the worst.

I bet Thanksgiving with your family is a fun time. :lol8:

For what it's worth, my wife comes from a similar background. I always ask her how she managed to dig herself out of such a hole and she just tells me "I knew there had to be a better life and I was determined to live it". I'm always very impressed when people from a dirt poor background are able to elevate themselves through determination and hard work.

:2thumbs:

cchoc

03-14-2013, 12:59 PM

Normally the Republicans do not blame the poor, they blame the Government. The Government is responsible for mismanaging funds, and freedom.

If republicans blame the government, why keep reelecting the same knuckleheads that make up the government? :mrgreen:

I live in a yellow dog republican district and there is rarely even a democrat on the ballot - even for congress. There are other districts that are just the reverse. It's this kind of district gerrymandering by whatever party controls the state legislature that deprives us of good choices and keeps sending the same losers (with good connections) to Washington. :angryfire: I have never been able to embrace the total platform of any party and would prefer to choose between good candidates, not just vote a straight party ticket, but that just isn't possible.

Deuce

03-14-2013, 01:12 PM

True Middle Class = income of ~$27,000 to $70,000. If you are outside this bracket, you are not really Middle Class. Weird how most people (poor and rich) consider themselves Middle Class.

Interesting numbers..... I have always had numbers closer to $75K-125K in my head. No real basis for that, just my myopic world, thinking that is a solid living, you're not rich....you're not poor....you're just comfortable, assuming you live within your means.

27K middle class......where, Nicaragua...... :haha:

DiscGo

03-14-2013, 02:31 PM

If republicans blame the government, why keep reelecting the same knuckleheads that make up the government? :mrgreen:

I am registered as a Republican because here in Utah the Republicans have all the clout. So I am technically a Republican, but I don't consider myself to be Republican. I agree with a lot of the Republican's platform, but I disagree with giving up my individual belief and handing the right to form my opinion over to a political group.

That said, I have never once voted for anyone who has been elected President, and seldom if ever do any of my preferred candidates get elected.

cchoc

03-14-2013, 02:42 PM

I am registered as a Republican because here in Utah the Republicans have all the clout.

In GA we have open primaries, but I vote in the republican one since whoever wins in the republican primary will get elected automatically in the general. The bad news is that usually the primary winner is the one anointed by the party hacks, so we rarely get anyone who can or will think for themselves. My pont being that our federal government problems are just an extension of who the state party wonks are sending there. The exception being grass roots groups like the tea baggers who get out the vote in the primary and knock off the party favorites, but they are getting push back from republican party. As long as we allow our country to be run by professional politicians we continue to get the government we deserve.

DiscGo

03-14-2013, 02:50 PM

In GA we have open primaries, but I vote in the republican one since whoever wins in the republican primary will get elected automatically in the general. The bad news is that usually the primary winner is the one anointed by the party hacks, so we rarely get anyone who can or will think for themselves.

We have the same problem here in Utah, but our primaries are not open.

Scott P

03-14-2013, 03:09 PM

Despite all that, I'm worth more than a million.

Somewhat similar backgrounds, but in very different ways.

My dad was unemployed much of the time growing up, I joined the military on my 17th birthday, and I was married as a teenager (to the same beautiful woman than I am now). When I was married I started out making $4.85 an hour ($7.73 in 2013 dollars). We are however different in that I do have a college education (which we did pay for ourselves, no student loans, grants; I worked full time, Kim worked two jobs, so it took 10+ years). No real abuse from parents, only others (lots of sexual abuse and physical abuse from certain individuals, but that’s not appropriate to discuss here). Got to still do hiking and stuff as a kid too.

Doing fine now, despite much of the rest of the family is not. I’d probably be worth over a million if I didn’t have kids (though it was my choice to have them-no complaints). So, yes, I know what you are saying.

I have no problem with the rich as long as the money was earned honestly. (I do have a big problem with the CEO’s that were bailed out getting a big bonus right after the bailout though).

I still believe in the “myth” I posted above though. I should also say that both parties will always blame each other and hardly ever take responsibilities for their own mistakes.

I am neither democrat nor republican and won’t be until they both change their tunes.

I agree that the opportunities are out there for those that want to work. I also believe that most (not all) people who are poor put themselves in that position. On the other hand, I don’t think you can punish a child for being born. Regardless of the parent’s social status, income, etc., I still believe a child has a right to an education. It’s not their fault they were born into a certain family and at a young age the child can’t do anything about it. I guess you can call me a socialist for that belief if you must. I will go as far (despite it not being PC) that people who can’t support a child probably shouldn’t have them (and this happens a lot even among people calling themselves Republicans). Call me a socialist in this regard, but I also believe in school uniforms and that the parent's social status has no place in our schools. If what you say about your background is true, then I'm sure you too were severely teased and harassed because of the clothes you wore to school.

I also believe that there are people out there who really do need help at times (which is why we try to help others when needed).

People still need to respect each other whether rich or poor. One of my first negative experiences with marriage was when one of my mother in laws (I've only had one wife; it wasn't from me getting married twice) told my wife that I could never support her because of the neighborhood my parents lived in (she came from a well off family). It's absolute BS to judge someone that way.

I also don’t believe that most corporations will do the right thing if there were no laws or regulations. For example, I see the clean air act as a good thing. For those that don’t believe in things like environmental regulations, I invite you to visit places that have lax environmental regulations. Try cities like Nairobi, Delhi, Jakarta, Moscow, etc. Go breath their air a while and come back and say that we don’t need any environmental regulations.

I will never be a Republican (unless the party changes). The same holds true about being a Democrat.

PS, laziness and entitlements are actually prominent in both parties.

The county I live in is as about republican as it gets and we are in Colorado. Still, I’ve worked in many cities/places in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, etc. and this republican county is by far the laziest place I have ever lived. We were recently named the second least healthy county in Colorado.

There are hardly any sidewalks and almost no one walks. The city actually went out last year and grinded off all the crosswalks. There is only one tiny bike path and people are always complaining if anyone does ride a bike. Hardly anyone hikes or does any kind of exercise. I’ve ran into only a few people in nine years hiking in the local area. If anyone will get outdoors, they do it in a pickup or ATV and seldom get out and walk. Most in this county think that they should be entitled to ride their ATV anywhere they want. Even for Church activities (I am LDS) most people just want to sit around and break the word or wisdom by eating too much and doing nothing.

Most people don’t want any public land. They want it to be given to them for free. They hate sidewalks, pedestrians, bikers, etc. Not only do they be lazy themselves here, but they try to prevent others from having any possible place to exersize (other than their own home). How does driving up the medical cost for everyone else fit into socialism?

You still have to love and respect them, but it's not always easy. Perhaps the above is quite disrespectful as well. It's not exactly all hugs and kisses and there is much frustration with the situation from my point of view.

Still, this is by far the laziest place I have ever lived. I used to like it here, but I no longer do. Of course, I have a good paying job and my family comes before any of my needs and wants.

Oh, and I really don’t get why Republicans claim to want small local control of government and yet take the opposite stance when it comes to foreign invasions, war and trying to control other countries that have nothing to do with our self defense. Don’t get me started how misguided it was to support the Iraq War (and most people that supported it seemed to be Republican). [PS, I support the troops, not the War itself. Also, I support helping countries that really need it, especially if they share our values.].

Neither party has any real accountability. Both have their own entitlements and both promote irresponsibility in different ways.

Of course all of that are completely different topics.