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.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Its also a complete myth that money in someones bank account just sits there. It doesn't, it gets used by the bank for loans. Thus driving the economy(which couldn't function without loans like that)
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Its also a complete myth that money in someones bank account just sits there. It doesn't, it gets used by the bank for loans. Thus driving the economy(which couldn't function without loans like that)
Also infrastructure that a lot of people benifits from.
But we should not just look at a wage gap and say its wrong. The fact there are people who are starving doesn't mean someone else making a ton of money is morally wrong.
People are starving for other reasons than money. People starve because sources of food are not equally distributed across the world. Evil warlords in Africa intercept food meant to be given to people as aid. Some areas just are not developed to where they can be self-sufficient, largely because of local economic collapse and cultural factors which prevent development.
Billionaires are not morally evil people just because someone else somewhere doesn't have their basic needs met.
I disagree. While issues in LEDCs are, as you say, more about political situations and scarcity of food, that's not what appalls me about the whole thing. What is is the fact that I can take a walk along the streets of any major city in the UK, a supposed world leader in democracy and freedom, and I can look at the pavement and see homeless people who have nothing. And then I can look up, at the buildings in which a handful of people are making enough money in a week to take these people off the streets, get them clothed and fed, and all the while living lives that are more comfortable, more satisfying and more complete than the dregs left for the homeless.
And that's before you get into the people who just scrape by enough to not show up on the figures, but still go from day to day living in economic hardship despite working honest jobs and being consistently screwed by those with the money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Ya know il probably get a lot of flak for it but i have to ask. How much is too much for some one to earn? and at what point should you stop trying? why work when you only get a 10th of what you should get?
You earn enough when you can live comforably, in a clean environment and have some disposable income. You earn too much when your wealth could help someone else improve their quality of life from nothing to something, without putting too much of a dent in your finances.
As for what you 'should get', that is a nebulous concept at best. You can have a person working on one floor of a building, for 9 hours a day, and earn a tenth of what the person on the floor above them earns for those same hours, just because he is higher in the company (but doesn't neccessarily do any more work).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 21:01:20
But we should not just look at a wage gap and say its wrong. The fact there are people who are starving doesn't mean someone else making a ton of money is morally wrong.
People are starving for other reasons than money. People starve because sources of food are not equally distributed across the world. Evil warlords in Africa intercept food meant to be given to people as aid. Some areas just are not developed to where they can be self-sufficient, largely because of local economic collapse and cultural factors which prevent development.
Billionaires are not morally evil people just because someone else somewhere doesn't have their basic needs met.
I disagree. While issues in LEDCs are, as you say, more about political situations and scarcity of food, that's not what appalls me about the whole thing. What is is the fact that I can take a walk along the streets of any major city in the UK, a supposed world leader in democracy and freedom, and I can look at the pavement and see homeless people who have nothing. And then I can look up, at the buildings in which a handful of people are making enough money in a week to take these people off the streets, get them clothed and fed, and all the while living lives that are more comfortable, more satisfying and more complete than the dregs left for the homeless.
And that's before you get into the people who just scrape by enough to not show up on the figures, but still go from day to day living in economic hardship despite working honest jobs and being consistently screwed by those with the money.
Again, just giving those people money isn't going to fix anything.
If you increase wages, prices increase to match and you end up with inflation. Then everybody is back where they started.
Ultimately, people need to be able to support themselves. Thats what gets people off the street or being able to do more than scrape by. Just taking money from rich people "because they don't need all that money" and redistributing it will accomplish nothing.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
But we should not just look at a wage gap and say its wrong. The fact there are people who are starving doesn't mean someone else making a ton of money is morally wrong.
People are starving for other reasons than money. People starve because sources of food are not equally distributed across the world. Evil warlords in Africa intercept food meant to be given to people as aid. Some areas just are not developed to where they can be self-sufficient, largely because of local economic collapse and cultural factors which prevent development.
Billionaires are not morally evil people just because someone else somewhere doesn't have their basic needs met.
I disagree. While issues in LEDCs are, as you say, more about political situations and scarcity of food, that's not what appalls me about the whole thing. What is is the fact that I can take a walk along the streets of any major city in the UK, a supposed world leader in democracy and freedom, and I can look at the pavement and see homeless people who have nothing. And then I can look up, at the buildings in which a handful of people are making enough money in a week to take these people off the streets, get them clothed and fed, and all the while living lives that are more comfortable, more satisfying and more complete than the dregs left for the homeless.
And that's before you get into the people who just scrape by enough to not show up on the figures, but still go from day to day living in economic hardship despite working honest jobs and being consistently screwed by those with the money.
Again, just giving those people money isn't going to fix anything.
If you increase wages, prices increase to match and you end up with inflation. Then everybody is back where they started.
Ultimately, people need to be able to support themselves. Thats what gets people off the street or being able to do more than scrape by. Just taking money from rich people "because they don't need all that money" and redistributing it will accomplish nothing.
It will give them something, from which they can build a life and improve it. If you have the power (in this case disposable money) to improve someone's quality of life to a level that is basic, human and decent, then I say you are obliged to, and you have a responsibility to.
I'm not saying that handing out some money from the rich to the poor is going to magically fix every issue in society, but it will go a hell of a long way to making every citizen able to live a happy, comforable and reasonable life. Maybe they won't 'earn' this money, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to food, to housing and to decent living.
Sometimes, it's not about what is 'fair', but what is right. Those are two different things, and providing funding from piles of idle cash to get the homeless off the streets, get the jobless able to eat and have a roof over their head, and to improve the quality of life of the majority without impeding that of the minority definitely falls into the latter category.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 21:09:13
The problem with these people... not the 1%, there's an even smaller element within that "group" (so broad as to be worthless) that have a disproportionate amount of wealth.
These people transcend national boundaries and don't particularly care about any one country because they've "got theirs".
There really is no reason for Western Nations to play the game of competing with sweat shops.
Controversial video but I complete agree with Mr Mosley on this particular issue.
There's a good set of documentary programs on the BBC iplayer at the moment, two episodes, about these very people.
I've been told it's good at least, haven't got round to watching them yet.
I really don't understand why people defend that type of wealth (not all wealth, it's lazy to call it the same). It's like people have this dream that they too will be able to achieve such lofty financial heights. It's like another version of the bizarre obsession with celebrity.
The rich are usually ahead of the average person when it comes to making money.
They understand the system, the laws, the business sense and are generally very skilled at what they do.
So giving us average joes a few hundred thousand each of the wealth would leave us in the same spot again as we cant generate wealth as efficiently as the rich with their contacts and knowledge putting them leagues ahead of us.
Say some of the local millionaires gave me a 200,000 dollars. Most of that I would not be able to replace with my current 20 year old situation. It would simply gain interest for a little while at best. Or temporarily make my life seem easier. Im sure there are many who would probably spend it stupidly as well.
When I went to a city for the first time, I saw homeless people for the first time. Was pretty gross when you can look across the street and see the wealthy doing their thing. But then you see the wine bottles, smell the cigarettes and wonder how many homeless, if simply given money, would be able to stay off the streets within a few years?
There will always be people ahead of the curve. Those with a better understanding and business sense will simply use that advantage to further themselves beyond what the average person can achieve.
Swastakowey wrote: The rich are usually ahead of the average person when it comes to making money.
They understand the system, the laws, the business sense and are generally very skilled at what they do.
Or are born into it.
Well those tend to not last that long or crazy insider shenanigans can see that wealth moved around to new people. or the heir is properly raised and taught so that there cycle can continue
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 21:22:47
So giving us average joes a few hundred thousand each of the wealth would leave us in the same spot again as we cant generate wealth as efficiently as the rich with their contacts and knowledge putting them leagues ahead of us.
Say some of the local millionaires gave me a 200,000 dollars. Most of that I would not be able to replace with my current 20 year old situation. It would simply gain interest for a little while at best. Or temporarily make my life seem easier. Im sure there are many who would probably spend it stupidly as well.
When I went to a city for the first time, I saw homeless people for the first time. Was pretty gross when you can look across the street and see the wealthy doing their thing. But then you see the wine bottles, smell the cigarettes and wonder how many homeless, if simply given money, would be able to stay off the streets within a few years?
I don't think anyone is saying that we should just be handing out cash to anyone who asks for it, obviously that would have rather massive socio-economic repercussions.
However, take this as an example: The UK government introduces a new tax, say 10-15% once you hit a few million, only for this super-rich cadre. This money is does not go into the general government budget, but instead to an entirely separate cash streams that is fast-tracked into providing short-term financial support with no interest or charges, into building govenrment-funded institutes for providing food and housing for the homeless or those in poverty, and for improving quality of life for those without the means to improve it for themselves.
What this does:
- Making it a tax ensures a constant stream of income for this particular fund, so it's not like people can just get a bonus, spend it and then back to square 1.
- Creates jobs in establishing and managing this new system
- Doesn't impact those paying the tax in any reasonable way
Swastakowey wrote: The rich are usually ahead of the average person when it comes to making money.
They understand the system, the laws, the business sense and are generally very skilled at what they do.
Or are born into it.
It takes a lot of work to be rich. If you inherited money and arent up to the task of using it to its potential then you will end up an average person.
Thats why the rich tend to educate their children on money matters so they dont mess it up. My boss is doing right now to my future boss (his son).
Also being born into it means your father has worked hard to give you that money, belittling them is pretty wrong since im sure they will be working hard to do the same for their kid provided they are able to keep the wealth.
Being rich is hard work, inherited or made. They will probably work more in their lives than most of us.
Swastakowey wrote: The rich are usually ahead of the average person when it comes to making money.
They understand the system, the laws, the business sense and are generally very skilled at what they do.
Or are born into it.
It takes a lot of work to be rich. If you inherited money and arent up to the task of using it to its potential then you will end up an average person.
Thats why the rich tend to educate their children on money matters so they dont mess it up. My boss is doing right now to my future boss (his son).
Also being born into it means your father has worked hard to give you that money, belittling them is pretty wrong since im sure they will be working hard to do the same for their kid provided they are able to keep the wealth.
Being rich is hard work, inherited or made. They will probably work more in their lives than most of us.
well, if we divided all the money in the world between all the people in the world we'd have around $33,000 each.
I wonder how long it would last......
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
Grey Templar wrote: Billionaires are not morally evil people just because someone else somewhere doesn't have their basic needs met.
I would agree to some extent. It is a "don't hate the player, hate the game" sort of situation. Even is someone did have an agenda to help people, it would still be beneficial to amass money and power first, so that you could support the causes and changes that you would like to see.
Unfortunately, the changes that the super rich would like to see are not always for the betterment of humanity...
Grey Templar wrote: Evil warlords in Africa intercept food meant to be given to people as aid. Some areas just are not developed to where they can be self-sufficient, largely because of local economic collapse and cultural factors which prevent development.
... I would defer you to the controversy with Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, saying that he doesn't think water is a basic human right. He has tried to back peddle on this, but all the while Nestle are monopolizing water sources in the 3rd world, removing huge amounts of ground water, and then selling it at prices that many local people could never afford.
You also have to look at the power behind things like TTIP and ask if it is really for the betterment of people or corporations.
Swastakowey wrote: Being rich is hard work, inherited or made. They will probably work more in their lives than most of us.
Well that's simply not true. No one is working so hard that they deserve ~20 billion dollars. What could they possibly be doing that is so hard and degrading that it is worth 20 billion dollars? Cleaning up gak in a nursing home for 40 years? Getting their legs blow off by an IED? Oh no wait! the people doing those nasty jobs get paid feth-all. Knowing the system and exploiting it for huge profits might be hard work, but there are plenty or people who work just as hard for less, and who actually contribute a lot more to the betterment of humanity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 21:53:07
The top 1% globally will mean the top several percent in most western countries.
It is quite probable someone on these forums might make the 1% statistically and yet still not be on mega money.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Swastakowey wrote: The rich are usually ahead of the average person when it comes to making money.
They understand the system, the laws, the business sense and are generally very skilled at what they do.
Or are born into it.
It takes a lot of work to be rich. If you inherited money and arent up to the task of using it to its potential then you will end up an average person.
Thats why the rich tend to educate their children on money matters so they dont mess it up. My boss is doing right now to my future boss (his son).
Also being born into it means your father has worked hard to give you that money, belittling them is pretty wrong since im sure they will be working hard to do the same for their kid provided they are able to keep the wealth.
Being rich is hard work, inherited or made. They will probably work more in their lives than most of us.
Grey Templar wrote: Billionaires are not morally evil people just because someone else somewhere doesn't have their basic needs met.
I would agree to some extent. It is a "don't hate the player, hate the game" sort of situation. Even is someone did have an agenda to help people, it would still be beneficial to amass money and power first, so that you could support the causes and changes that you would like to see.
Unfortunately, the changes that the super rich would like to see are not always for the betterment of humanity...
Grey Templar wrote: Evil warlords in Africa intercept food meant to be given to people as aid. Some areas just are not developed to where they can be self-sufficient, largely because of local economic collapse and cultural factors which prevent development.
... I would defer you to the controversy with Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, saying that he doesn't think water is a basic human right. He has tried to back peddle on this, but all the while Nestle are monopolizing water sources in the 3rd world, removing huge amounts of ground water, and then selling it at prices that many local people could never afford.
You also have to look at the power behind things like TTIP and ask if it is really for the betterment of people or corporations.
Of course there are always bad people. But that doesn't mean that everyone with money is some evil super villain. Money is also a funny thing. Its worth nothing unless you can buy stuff with it, and its value is dependent on its rarity. If everyone had a million dollars, everyone would have a million useless scraps of paper.
The entire concept of bottled water is definitely mind bogglingly stupid. I never buy bottled water.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Of course there are always bad people. But that doesn't mean that everyone with money is some evil super villain.
And no one is saying that. I'm just saying that I feel those with have the responsibility to provide for those without, if they can. It's just common decency which seems to be a fading concept.
Money is also a funny thing. Its worth nothing unless you can buy stuff with it, and its value is dependent on its rarity. If everyone had a million dollars, everyone would have a million useless scraps of paper.
No one is suggesting just handing out these 'useless scraps of paper'. That does not mean that money can't do more good for the population being challened into improving quality of life for those who can't improve it themselves rather than in the hands of someone who is never going to use or spend it.
I'm willing to take up the burden, should any reading this feel the desire to be relieved of it.
Im gonna be mean and assume you will probably not be rich for long, which is the case for most of us
Will be one hell of a ride though.
I worked so hard for all that money though.
Not if you lost it all.
What happens to lottery winners when they win their millions is a good example of what happens when someone not up to the task inherits large sums of money.
Many of them end up poor again.
Now if your money was taken away from you after you earned it, then you can complain.
The reason people are low paid is because people at the top funnel as much money as they can to the top. Why does anyone need 28 billion anyway? Could he not live a fantastic enough lifestyle with 1 billion? And in the process make his employees and customers 27 billion dollars less poor. People shouldn't be allowed to amass so much wealth, not while half the world is starving, it's amoral, and a system that allows it is a disgrace.
Perfectly put. Even half of that pays for a hell of a lot of people's food, housing and welfare for a good few years, and oh, some over-rich guy might have to sell off a few of his collector's cars of luxury houses. What a shame.
This is not an accurate view of the situation.
Amazon's CEO doesn't have 28 billion dollars sitting around in his bank account. That's not what 'net worth' means. That 28 billion is probably mostly in the form of shares and investments. That's an important distinction, because it means his "net worth" includes things like Amazon and other companies. Those companies employ people and pay them wages and the like. He has, in effect, basically written a 27 billion dollar check to create a bunch of jobs and such, and the "net worth" is simply keeping track of the fact that he's loaned that much money out. Granted, it's more complicated than that, but your statement is a gross oversimplification.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
I'm willing to take up the burden, should any reading this feel the desire to be relieved of it.
Im gonna be mean and assume you will probably not be rich for long, which is the case for most of us
Will be one hell of a ride though.
I worked so hard for all that money though.
Not if you lost it all.
Well if I lose it it all if I didn't work hard, then I can't lose it all. Because If being rich is hard work, and I'm rich then I've worked hard. If I've worked hard, I can't have not worked hard, therefore I can't have lost it all because I'd only have lost it all if I didn't work hard, which I did because I'm rich and being rich is hard work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 22:29:55
Put another way, he's worth 28 billion because he owns Amazon (kinda). If he wanted to cash that check, he would have to fire all those employees, sell off the equipment, and shut down the business or otherwise liquidate his funds. Instead, he choses to keep Amazon running and employing thousands and thousands of people. All in all, it's a pretty good use of 28 billion dollars, independent of any criticism of Amazon business practice.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Indeed. He might only have a couple million in personal or liquid assets.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
