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.

People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did I say anything about wages?

I only said that if a businessman has the ability to grow his business, he will employ more people.

Of course getting more efficient equipment that reduces the employees you need is a problem. But not one anyone can change, or should. Nobody is doing anything wrong.

Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.

Yeah, than why are people trying to go after something that isn't causing the problem?

You have money avaliable, don't make less of it avaliable.

 RatBot wrote:

In the USofA... compared to the rest of the world... even the poorest of the poor is doing well.

citation needed.

Uh...wat? What specifically are you wanting?

Food stamps?
What can you get? Go here and if you read between the lines, you can get a lot.

Plus, our enormous, amazing bueracracy provide help for those in need:
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml

That's not included what the States can/may provide.

So the issue are usually an unfriendly beuracracy or will to find/use such services.

Then what can get the economy growing then?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then what can get the economy growing then?

Legalize prostitution.

Drill, baby! Drill!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then what can get the economy growing then?

Time.

What do you know? That destroys economies too!

Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

Generally people want to be comfortable. The "ideal" distribution of wealth, as suggested by that graphic doesn't leave the wealthy destitute. It has a clear differential between the "poor" and middle class and the richer.

The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

People are people. However, I don't think anyone other than the very rich would object to a slightly more level playing field. A fiscally fluid middle class and (in the case of the "ideal" distribution) a much less fiscally oppressed "poor" class creates a market for all sorts of goods and services. Now that generates wealth. And reduces the cost of welfare, incidentally

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.

I'm pretty sure time isn't the only factor at work....

Oh well, guess we're fine then, the magic time fairies will fix it all, in time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Actually, they aren't.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Then what can get the economy growing then?

Combination of things...

It seems that we can't stop the current government spending... because in the past, increased govt spending can help the economy...

But, more so, something must be done to "incentivise" more private investiment for job growth... how do you do that?
-Get out of the way for one (meaning relax some regulations).
-Targeted taxs cut

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Actually, they aren't.

Giving to charity doesn't make you not greedy.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.

I'm pretty sure time isn't the only factor at work....

Oh well, guess we're fine then, the magic time fairies will fix it all, in time.

Makes me wonder why those stupid economists don't realize that they could fix the economy (whatever context we're even referring to that by at this point) by just forecasting when it will be back up again, and then having congress sign a bill setting the current date to that date. Surely us Internet People can't be smarter than them, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The poor are no less greedy than the wealthy. And don't believe anyone that says they wouldn't do the same if they were in the same position, they are liars.

Actually, they aren't.

Giving to charity doesn't make you not greedy.

No, but giving a larger percentage of what you have than the next guy may make you less greedy. Unless we're going to do one of those things where we assume it's still out of some twisted sense of self-interest and redefine charity into being a personal vice.

double post

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.

Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.

That way it can still get lent out.

They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.

 Fafnir wrote:

 whembly wrote:

People earn exactly what they’re worth professionally and what they negotiated for with their employer...

Because no one's ever been screwed over by the system, or just on hard luck.

What? The Kardashian family are worth what they earn professionally?

This TED Talk by one of the 1% is pretty relevant to this discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bBx2Y5HhplI

As Hanauer points out - rich people and successful businesses don't create jobs except as an absolute last resort.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?

That a progressive rate of rewards for seniority in business should exist is not in question.

What is being criticized is that in the last 30 years, we have seen the gap increasingly widening and that the poverty being experienced at the other end worsening.

The vaulted defense of 'well, work harder' or 'anyone can rise to the top' is a fallacy, the established wealthy reinforce and close their ranks, wealth does not trickle down, the more the money remains at a higher and higher strata and smaller and smaller number of people, the less everyone else gets. Remember in that video, that there is less wealth for the middle class and even less wealth for the top 20 when it's locked up in the top 1% to the extend of being several fold what everyone else has.

*- The uppermost are not paying their fair share of taxes, not even the same percentage as someone on low wages.
*- It is more and more difficult to break into the upper echelons.
*- The gap is continuing to widen.
*- Trickledown does not work.
*- Wealth at higher levels is inherited, billionaires spawn billionaires, this further prevents competitive 'free market' true capitalism and instead creates a caste system.
*- These super rich elements increasing look to cut cost from wages, forcing lower and lower wages on the middle class or moving business abroad, without censure, profiting further and increasingly forcing from the middle class into the underclass.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?

Is that what I said?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
People are greedy. What can I say.

The people with the wealth want to keep it.

The people without the wealth want it.

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

I ... er... agree completely.

The facts are pretty clear. The rich have seen their wealth grow while the poor and middle class have seen theirs wiped out. CEOs get millions in bonuses by cutting benefits, hours, jobs and pay to their employees. The same scam happens with taxes. The wealthy control politics and make sure to take care of themselves, all the while cutting funding to everyone else. It's pretty disgusting. Seriously how much money do you need?

The Rich and more to the point the Super Rich, use lobbyists (professional bribery) to get whatever they want passed through the government. My favorite tactic, which is very strong right now is when they use the Media to spin the blame on the poor and brainwash the middle class into supporting the rich.

The system is set up to benefit the rich and they see no reason why they should pay for the system.

Makes me wonder why those stupid economists don't realize that they could fix the economy (whatever context we're even referring to that by at this point) by just forecasting when it will be back up again, and then having congress sign a bill setting the current date to that date. Surely us Internet People can't be smarter than them, right?

Even if economists could figure out the magic formula to fix the situation, the political power of the Rich would crush and such movements.

Because there are natural cycles. Up and down, right now we are down. We will go up again sometime.

Who's down? This has been a boom time for the Super Rich! Corporations claim poverty so that they can cut workers pay and benifits, all the while CEO pay and corporate profits are higher than they have ever been. There has definatly been a redistribution of wealth........it's all gone to the people who have plenty of it already.

Lack of available capital isn't really holding back our economy. We have a lack of demand, caused by recession and government cuts, while FTSE 100 companies have plenty of cash. Wealth is being redistributed in our economy - one shop shuts and another opens (even if it's virtual). But it's not growing, and that's not because of a lack of money to invest.

Lack of capitol is certainly a problem. Consumer spending is down, making it harder for businesses that actually produce goods to actually sell anything. Most of the wealth in this country doesn't buy or sell anything that is tangible in that way.

Well the rich might not keep their money in tax havens if we threatened to tax it excessivly.

Or at the very least get tax havens to move to the US itself so the money can still be lent out. Have reduced tax types of accounts that they can keep some of their money in.

That way it can still get lent out.

Yes that's always the Rich's solution. "Tax us less!" Has that ever worked? The ideal solution is to tax them more and cut the loopholes so that they are actually contributing to the system on an even basis.

The rich are always crying about the redistribution of wealth, I'm not sure why, it seams to be working very well for them.

 Andrew1975 wrote:



It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.

Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Why is it immoral for the person at the top to make more money?

Is that what I said?

Yes,

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?


Executives don't spend all their time sitting on their fat arses, smoking expensive cigars, drinking expensive liquor, and dreaming about how rich they are and will be.

They are making decisions that effect the entire company. They are playing the cutthroat game of corporate politics. Trying to make sure their competitors don't drive them out of business. Risking the company's money on if a new product will make them money or turn into a money pit.

I wouldn't accept anything less than what these guys make to do that job. And I still might not want it, that stuff is hard work.

 Grey Templar wrote:

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?

The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.

In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.

Chongara wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:



It's interesting peoples perception v the reality.

Sounds like this video was made by people who hate freedom.

What do you mean by this?

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

This is not about greed, its about social justice. It is simply immoral to have a situation where the CEO of a company can earn hundreds of times more a year than their frontline staff. 'Politics of envy' is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Did you want to add a qualifier in there maybe?

The qualifier is already in my previous statement. Even Frazzled noticed it.

What, social justice?


How is it justice to take money from someone, who by your opinion has not earned the money, and give it to someone that has most definitly NOT earned that money.

You're simply taking money from someone who may or may not have earned that money and giving it to someone that has beyond a shadow of a doubt not earned that money.

Its arbitrarily determining what a job is or isn't worth.


If a company(or executives of a company) are unable to determine what a fair wage is for a job they offer, who is the government to do it? Why would the government be in any way qualified to determine that?

The government can say "you may not pay anyone less than X",

they shouldn't say "if someone is doing Y, you must pay them at least X, and if someone else is doing 3Y you cannot pay them more than 3X"

In case you want it spelled out. I don't mind (overly) a payment of something like 10 times the average frontline salary, that is still a more than comfortable salary. What i do mind is the Victorian level of inequality that the current pay difference fosters, and its not as if the salaries at the top of the tree are even linked to success so the "its a really hard job" excuse doesn't cut much ice with me. In an ideal world everyone would be paid the same, unfortunately greed will always get in the way of that.

Again, why is such a wide gap between the salaries an issue?

I think the real issue is that the lower salary may be too low.


If I am making 20,000 and the CEO is making 2.2 million and I want more money. The issue isn't the CEO's pay, its my pay.

Ask for the low paying guy's salary to get raised, not for the CEO's pay to get cut.

And an executive's job is still hard, just in a different way. He may not have gotten the job because he was successful, he may have inherited the ownership of the company. But to keep it he still has to work at it.


If you want equal pay for everyone, go live in North Korea or join a Commune.