Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. We have not yet talked about comfort or contentment.

I might contend that if you are comfortable and content - you are indeed rich. By that measure, many of the obscenely "rich" are not rich, and some of the "poor" are pretty rich.

Keep in mind that happiness is better personal currency than anything else.

Being upset that someone has more...is the mark of an unworthy person. "Those guys have 34% of the wealth!"

And? So what? Are you happy? If you want more...are they preventing you from getting it? What entitles you to someone else's money? Any of it?

Yes, the needy should and must be taken care of - but the folks with their hand out and filled with existential jealousy...they can rot in their self-imposed misery.

Why do you assume that other people are entitled to the money they have?

Melissia wrote:
Manipulating wealth so that you can increase wealth isn't really work in my eyes, and doesn't really benefit society. In fact it's probably more of a drain.

It isn't really work in the eyes of anyone who actually works. This could be expanded to inheritance, land ownership, and all those other wonderful things that make our economic status difficult to discern from birthright nobility, but with a different name. You could go a step further and include trust fund babies who somehow deserve their cushy office jobs because they paid enough into the college system and become qualified to consider going to a meeting over lunch as actually working. Moving money around via investment portfolios, landlording property rights, international exchange rate fluctuations to exploit a system is not producing anything saleable. Nobody can be a real estate mogul without some means to enter the game in the first place, whether its inherited or being in the right place at the right time to buy things when they were actually cheap so as to turn them around for profit as the value increases as the availability decreases. This is not work, it is manipulation - but it will never go away because you will never convince the majority of the 'haves' that they don't deserve what they have. The few who may well actually deserve what they have can't possible be a majority.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you assume that other people are entitled to the money they have?

What other conceivable assumption is right?!

Call me a traditionalist, but taking something not yours is...there's a word for it....gimme a sec...'theft'? Yeah, that's it.

They have it. Why shall I assume they 'stole' it? What contortion of logic and morality should I apply to entitle myself to any portion of it?

I sense (hope) that you are asking from a philosophical perspective, so feel free to attempt to demonstrate that people do not deserve what they have honestly (or, at least legally) acquired.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mister robouteo wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Manipulating wealth so that you can increase wealth isn't really work in my eyes, and doesn't really benefit society. In fact it's probably more of a drain.

It isn't really work in the eyes of anyone who actually works. This could be expanded to inheritance, land ownership, and all those other wonderful things that make our economic status difficult to discern from birthright nobility, but with a different name. You could go a step further and include trust fund babies who somehow deserve their cushy office jobs because they paid enough into the college system and become qualified to consider going to a meeting over lunch as actually working. Moving money around via investment portfolios, landlording property rights, international exchange rate fluctuations to exploit a system is not producing anything saleable. Nobody can be a real estate mogul without some means to enter the game in the first place, whether its inherited or being in the right place at the right time to buy things when they were actually cheap so as to turn them around for profit as the value increases as the availability decreases. This is not work, it is manipulation - but it will never go away because you will never convince the majority of the 'haves' that they don't deserve what they have. The few who may well actually deserve what they have can't possible be a majority.

That original money came from somewhere. Why must you assume that makes those that hold it unworthy? If you invented toilet paper or hit the lottery - would your impulse not be to insulate your children and grandchildren and as many of your descendants as possible from the misery of poverty? Would you not want them to live in comfort and increase their fortunes so that they might guarantee their progeny the same? Is there something wrong with that?

He's probably referring to "old money", I'd imagine.

I don't know, I think there are some idiotic trust fund babies out there that probably don't really "deserve" all the money they have, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't "legally" have it, of course.

Getting a little OT with this though.

GOP drop EPA riders.

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan

"We don't want to shut down the government, we want to do what the American people sent us to do: achieve real savings for the taxpayers, and not have our tax dollars go toward abortions," Jordan said on a conference call with reporters.

"We've been clear about this from the start," said the Ohio Republican. "We are doing everything we can to achieve savings and protect and defend American family values."

Maximum freedom... except social issues we care about. /sigh, disgusting how the "moral" religious right holds such sway. Unwavering, uncompromising ideology ftw.

Oh yea, what ever happened to "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Y'know what they were elected to do.

VoidAngel wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why do you assume that other people are entitled to the money they have?

What other conceivable assumption is right?!

Call me a traditionalist, but taking something not yours is...there's a word for it....gimme a sec...'theft'? Yeah, that's it.

They have it. Why shall I assume they 'stole' it? What contortion of logic and morality should I apply to entitle myself to any portion of it?

I sense (hope) that you are asking from a philosophical perspective, so feel free to attempt to demonstrate that people do not deserve what they have honestly (or, at least legally) acquired.

I don't own my apartment, but it's my apartment. Did I steal it?

Sweet. Republicans say they want to fix the deficit.

Democrats put in a reasonable bill, that they offer to be fixed.

Republicans refuse, they are stubborn donkey-caves that put their party ties before the well being of the country.

Politics, I hate them.

"We've been clear about this from the start," said the Ohio Republican. "We are doing everything we can to achieve savings and protect and defend American family values."

Maximum freedom... except social issues we care about. /sigh, disgusting how the "moral" religious right holds such sway. Unwavering, uncompromising ideology ftw.

They are just hypocritical about everything then (what's new), since they always make noise about giving everyone maximum freedom and liberty, but at the same time, they want to put lock-and-key on women's pants in multiple ways.

Yea, I can tolerate their disgusting crap, but I hope I am allowed to point out the hypocrisy of it.

It is even more absurd since they ALREADY aren't allowed to use federal funds for abortion, so what is this all about? Tea party hates Planned Parenthood, so they try to devise a way to destroy it. I guess it seems simple enough.

I don't really like the existance of party lines but they exist. From an individual perspective, if you get voted into office to represent a party platform, that is your job. It has to do with representing the wishes of the people who you represent, not your own interest. To that end, the power of a party as a consolidated whole is more important than individual ideas. 6 more votes I believe are what is needed? There may be well more than 6 Republicans who would individually give ground about the planned parenthood issue that for some reason has become the primary concern of a government falling apart or not, but it would weaken the entire consolodated party platform on other things they may believe in supporting.

I strongly object to such a minor expense in a heated issue becoming the rallying point on either side, my own stance on abortion or contraception is irrelevant, but moral issues like this with planned parenthood, quite probably religiously skewed in many if not most cases have no place in an overall budget strategy and should save their individual special interests for the appropriate time.

We've already been through this, planned parenthood isn't about abortion. They only rarely cover it.

daedalus-templarius wrote:They are just hypocritical about everything then (what's new), since they always make noise about giving everyone maximum freedom and liberty, but at the same time, they want to put lock-and-key on women's pants in multiple ways.

Yea, I can tolerate their disgusting crap, but I hope I am allowed to point out the hypocrisy of it.

It is even more absurd since they ALREADY aren't allowed to use federal funds for abortion, so what is this all about? Tea party hates Planned Parenthood, so they try to devise a way to destroy it. I guess it seems simple enough.

Hypocrisy is rampant on both sides. To me, especially on the Left. But it's the bad actors on both sides that make it seem like it's the whole Party, or everyone self-identifying as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

Good plan.

hypocrisy is always annoying, regardless where it is coming from.

Check out voidnow.org if you want a better idea how to implement that plan.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

Good plan.

hypocrisy is always annoying, regardless where it is coming from.

Reducing term limits has the inherent function of making political institutions more directly beholden to the 9-5 political cycle, and thus more beholden to corporate, and media pressures. Short term political offices that are high profile are inherently inefficient and hyper political precisely because they aren't insulated from the typically idiotic and sheeplike electorate. We vote for representatives, not for issues when we vote for lawmakers. The concept of representative democracy is meant largely as a barrier between the popularity contest that is democracy and the actual job of governance. If the people ran the country themselves then run it off a cliff within months. Direct democracy doesn't work.

If all you want to do is just continuously vote out incumbents and thats it then you hold a pretty non sensical platform.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:
The real answer is to continually renew officeholders - so that politics as a "profession" - dies.

Good plan.

hypocrisy is always annoying, regardless where it is coming from.

Reducing term limits has the inherent function of making political institutions more directly beholden to the 9-5 political cycle, and thus more beholden to corporate, and media pressures. Short term political offices that are high profile are inherently inefficient and hyper political precisely because they aren't insulated from the typically idiotic and sheeplike electorate.

See? We told you monarchy was a good idea, but would you listen?

Term limits as in how many times an individual can be elected? or just how many years in office.

I think House terms are too short, they are always running for reelection, and I think senate terms may be too long. 4 years may be a good spot, and you can only be reelected twice, just like the presidency.

How about that?

I think when he said "career politician" we are talking about the members that have been reelected 4-5 times. However, that isn't always a bad thing either, as hopefully they would put their wisdom to work. Its really all about the person. But, I still think house terms might be a bit too short.

Constantly kicking people out and reelecting new ones isn't the answer either.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reducing term limits has the inherent function of making political institutions more directly beholden to the 9-5 political cycle, and thus more beholden to corporate, and media pressures. Short term political offices that are high profile are inherently inefficient and hyper political precisely because they aren't insulated from the typically idiotic and sheeplike electorate. We vote for representatives, not for issues when we vote for lawmakers. The concept of representative democracy is meant largely as a barrier between the popularity contest that is democracy and the actual job of governance. If the people ran the country themselves then run it off a cliff within months. Direct democracy doesn't work.

If all you want to do is just continuously vote out incumbents and thats it then you hold a pretty non sensical platform.

You misunderstand. Eliminating the "political class" via de facto term limits is intended to result in candidates motivated to get things done and go back to being accountants, farmers, or what have you. The knowledge that they have a term to do it in creates drive and (hopefully) efficiency and honesty about motivations and methods.

In no way is it meant to be "continual". Think of it as a bloodless purge.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Term limits as in how many times an individual can be elected? or just how many years in office.

I think House terms are too short, they are always running for reelection, and I think senate terms may be too long. 4 years may be a good spot, and you can only be reelected twice, just like the presidency.

How about that?

I think when he said "career politician" we are talking about the members that have been reelected 4-5 times. However, that isn't always a bad thing either, as hopefully they would put their wisdom to work. Its really all about the person. But, I still think house terms might be a bit too short.

Constantly kicking people out and reelecting new ones isn't the answer either.

What needs to be worked on is the post political workforce of ex congressional or senate lobbyists and corporate office holders. The unelected and profit driven but highly political bodies that surround american governance. Also the american populace needs to get some fething perspective on these issues. It's a hopeless cause judging from most of this thread and most people I've talked too.

You misunderstand. Eliminating the "political class" via de facto term limits is intended to result in candidates motivated to get things done and go back to being accountants, farmers, or what have you. The knowledge that they have a term to do it in creates drive and (hopefully) efficiency and honesty about motivations and methods.

It also doesn't work as it doesn't encourage political office holders to make risky or important decisions based on whats right, rather only based on what will sell in the media. Short terms mean small efforts, small gains, and a lot of pandering to the special interests of the day. If you think politics are hyperbolic now, you have no idea what they would be like with a rotating cast. The "political class" extends far far beyond elected office holders, and you're targeting a symptom of current yellow journalism and an ignorant electorate. Your plans bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Term limits as in how many times an individual can be elected? or just how many years in office.

I think House terms are too short, they are always running for reelection, and I think senate terms may be too long. 4 years may be a good spot, and you can only be reelected twice, just like the presidency.

How about that?

I think when he said "career politician" we are talking about the members that have been reelected 4-5 times. However, that isn't always a bad thing either, as hopefully they would put their wisdom to work. Its really all about the person. But, I still think house terms might be a bit too short.

Constantly kicking people out and reelecting new ones isn't the answer either.

What needs to be worked on is the post political workforce of ex congressional or senate lobbyists and corporate office holders. The unelected and profit driven but highly political bodies that surround american governance. Also the american populace needs to get some fething perspective on these issues. It's a hopeless cause judging from most of this thread and most people I've talked too.

I've always wondered if there should be a house for veteran politicians where election is no longer a worry. It seams that so many poloticians work just to get reelected that they don't really make the hard decisions that are required, but might cost them and election.

OK, now define "fair".

Citizen A makes $80,000 a year and pays 34% income tax (making up numbers here for the sake of discussion). That's $28,000

Citizen B makes 8,000,000 a year and pays 17% income tax. That's $1,360,000

So I ask you, define fair. The evil rich guy just contributed 48 times more than the noble middle classman. Is that fair enough for you? No?

Lets take that guy that earned $8mil and put him in the room with 48 poor people and no social contract and see what happens? Let's face it, the rich benefit greatly from the social contract. Also large corporations and rich people use/take advantage of the infrastructure much more than your average person. Those highways were not built for travel, they are built for commerce.

Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

Again it's not all evil rich. We all need to be more responsible with out purchases. Walmart exits for a reason. Its pretty awful for the economy (local anyway), but many people (especially the poor) shop there because they don't understand the long term effects.

It seams to me that it would be better to tax the poor less as they are the true consumers in a capitalist society. The more disposable income they have the more products they can buy from the rich. Again I'm not an economist, in sure someone will tell me why I am wrong here.

I've also heard postings of only 50% of people pay tax (which is untrue), well maybe if the rich who employ them would pay them enough then they would be paying taxes. Right now most people that aren't paying taxes can't afford it because they work for minimum wage, which isn't even enough to meet the poverty line.

Andrew1975 wrote:Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

IE, business as usual in corporate America?

Melissia wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

IE, business as usual in corporate America?

No that's BIG business in America. That's really a problem. Many many companies and corporations are just too big. The thrive by destroying the smaller companies. Small to medium businesses provide the greatest opportunities for your average working class joe as far as employment, and upward mobility goes. The mega corps crush this and leave soul sucking franchises in their wake that really are very destructive.

I used to work for AT&T as a sales person in the management trainee program. I was prematurely pressed into management because my sales were too high and they didn't want to pay me the commissions anymore. I ended up taking a net pay cut (higher base, but no direct commission) as now my commissions were based on what my team sold. At this point ATT was grossing it's highest profits in years and paying huge bonuses to its execs. At the same time they were attempting to cut benefits for the unionized workers. A strike followed, so the managers including myself had to take all the calls at no commission and since out teams were on strike, we got no commission from them either. The strike ended with the workers getting less benefits, but not getting the raping that corporate originally wanted. Execs got more bonuses. I didn't work there much longer after that.

It killed me though, the average union worker there was pretty illiterate, with no higher education. The job could be pretty stressful but the pay was really good considering most of the workers had no education and little work experience. The base pay was about 60k a year plus commissions, and most of them (no really most) were still on SSI and section 8 somehow! It used to kill me the way they would talk about taking from the system. ATT must have had the worst HR department ever, or they were getting some kind of welfare to work grant.

So again don't get me wrong, their are people on all spectums that are raping the system. The entire thing needs overhauled, but I don't see any politicians doing anything about it!

The saddest fact it this budget fight is not about the budget, its about grandstanding. No really budgetary issues are being discussed. No true long term effective strategies are even being discussed. The time, energy and money that have been and may continue to be wasted it more than the money that they are even fighting about. All these politicians are doing is showing that they are completely inept and have little or know understanding of the real issues. It's all a big waste. I hope the federal government does shut down, then people will see how little they really matter. ( I mean obviously they matter, but not the way they think they do.)

They finished grandstanding and passed the meaningless hyper political budget that cuts nothing meaningful and fixes nothing.

ShumaGorath wrote:They finished grandstanding and passed the meaningless hyper political budget that cuts nothing meaningful and fixes nothing.

business as usual

move along.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

Well, yeah. Who really cares about the less wealthy or wealthless? Not the middle class, and certainly not the other poor.

I'm absolutely certain that you exploit your own employees by the standard you have set out. I mean, you play Warhams, and probably indulge in other luxuries instead of paying them more.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Anytime a corporation cuts pay and or benefits because of costs, yet can still afford to pay their top employees millions while increasing their bonuses is exploiting the work force. The audacity that we have seen with the banks, getting bail outs, yet still giving billions in bonuses to the same people that created the problem in the first place shows complete and willful contempt.

Well, yeah. Who really cares about the less wealthy or wealthless? Not the middle class, and certainly not the other poor.

I'm absolutely certain that you exploit your own employees by the standard you have set out. I mean, you play Warhams, and probably indulge in other luxuries instead of paying them more.

Actually, I have not played warhams in years, if i did Id use all mu old stuff. I take good care of my employees actually, really I only have a few bartenders and they like working for me much more than at any other place they have worked. You know at alot of corporate bars they don't even let their bartenders drink? How do you get people to drink if you are not drinking. Obviously you can't get drunk, but you've got to be social. The ones that do let you drink charge full price! I charge cost, this allows them to comp drinks and build clients as the tip will usually cover the cost of the one drink. I've stolen some great bartenders from corporate establishments.

My web design business consists of myself really, I do broker alot of deals as a middleman, but the workers get paid well and my clients pay much less than from most any company with the same capabilities.

I've always been vary fair in my dealings. I grew up blue pride and maintain those sensibilities. I enjoy my work and that has always been the most important issue for me. I'm pretty simple with my needs. I bought a bar because I'm social and I like to drink and it's a good place to meet clients. I've got a 68 vespa I bought at a garage sale and rebuilt myself, same for a 93 toyota MR2.

I think the wealthy should have money, just not all of it. I never said they should be paupers, or give all their money away. They should just stop being predators. As the rich continue to get exponentially wealthier as they have over the past 20 years, I worry more about my clients.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually, I have not played warhams in years, if i did Id use all mu old stuff. I take good care of my employees actually, really I only have a few bartenders and they like working for me much more than at any other place they have worked.

Participated in miniature wargaming would have been a better statement, but the general idea is that even if you take care of your employees you still indulge in luxuries, which is roughly equivalent to granting bonuses.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You know at alot of corporate bars they don't even let their bartenders drink?

When I lived in Chicago that was basically the norm if you weren't at a corner dive, corporate or not.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How do you get people to drink if you are not drinking.

Be attractive and charismatic?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the wealthy should have money, just not all of it. I never said they should be paupers, or give all their money away. They should just stop being predators. As the rich continue to get exponentially wealthier as they have over the past 20 years, I worry more about my clients.

Sure, and I agree with that, I just disagree with the notion that bonuses are the real problem. In reality they make a small portion of any corporate budget. Getting rid of them might make you feel better, but doing so wouldn't really make anyone else all that much better off. Well, unless they only distribute it to a relatively small small set of people.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Actually, I have not played warhams in years, if i did Id use all mu old stuff. I take good care of my employees actually, really I only have a few bartenders and they like working for me much more than at any other place they have worked.

Participated in miniature wargaming would have been a better statement, but the general idea is that even if you take care of your employees you still indulge in luxuries, which is roughly equivalent to granting bonuses.

I don't really! I still paint now and then for some friends, but mostly we play with what we played in highschool. These bonuses aren't luxuries though, and they certainly don't seam performance based! How do you get bonuses while causing a global housing crisis? Plus why do you get bonuses while still trying to deprive your workers of essential "benefits"?

Andrew1975 wrote:
You know at alot of corporate bars they don't even let their bartenders drink?

When I lived in Chicago that was basically the norm if you weren't at a corner dive, corporate or not.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How do you get people to drink if you are not drinking.

Be attractive and charismatic?

I don't drink around people who don't drink. If I can't buy a good bartender a shot, I can't drink there. I know there have been plenty of times I turned down drinks so I could maintain sobriety, customers don't like that in a bars, clubs are different. That's my perspective anyway.

Andrew1975 wrote:These bonuses aren't luxuries though, and they certainly don't seam performance based! How do you get bonuses while causing a global housing crisis? Plus why do you get bonuses while still trying to deprive your workers of essential "benefits"?

I don't see how they aren't luxuries. And they are most definitely performance based, its simply that performance is not assessed according to conditions for workers.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't drink around people who don't drink. If I can't buy a good bartender a shot, I can't drink there. I know there have been plenty of times I turned down drinks so I could maintain sobriety, customers don't like that in a bars, clubs are different. That's my perspective anyway.

When I bounced the bartenders always preferred tips to shots, for reasons that should be obvious. My bet is that its just a regional thing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Bonuses for execs are a small set of people. I'm sure many execs earn their bonuses! I just cant see how you can take what were once basic benefits such as health insurance away from employees using the rational of cost cutting, then giving millions in bonuses to executives who already have their basics covered.

As I said, from a numbers perspective, health care is far larger than bonus incentives. Corporations could take bonuses away (provided they aren't contractual) and they would still probably have to do away with healthcare. In other countries corporations will make cuts to executive pay in order to express solidarity (Japan is famous for this) but that almost never happens in the US, its simply a cultural thing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Here is a staggering statistic

"In the '70s and '80s, CEO compensation was roughly 15-20 times the compensation of the average employee. But by the end of 2004, that ratio had spiked to roughly 300 times and some analysis shows a figure as high as 500 times"

That is ridiculous!

Oh yeah, no one doubts that the US wealth gap has increased massively (well, some people do, but they're idiots). Its basically a product of deregulation, and the cultural emphasis on wealth. All cultures emphasize wealth, of course, but the US does so to an egregious extent; its basically a test case for Habermas.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you really want to see predators take a minute and read this.

http://www.stedwards.edu/business/sites/default/files/perspectives/Perspectives_V3N2_02.pdf

I actually have fewer issues with those people than I do with the direct lenders that basically lies through their teeth when pitching mortgages to consumers. At least the CEOs of the world were merely looking at numbers.

Course, CEOs of the world individually have the power to destroy more lives than deceitful mortgage lenders. And they often do just that, in the name of pursuing profit above all else.

I don't necessarily see either one as moral... one might be worse than the other, but they're still both something I'd rather not see happen at all.