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.
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.
This is bs. Do you think people who work a minimum wage job (or multiple minimum wage jobs) don't work hard? I'm not saying that people who are rich don't work hard, but acting like how hard they work somehow makes them more deserving of being rich than a poor or working class person is crap. Someone with money has way more options and can choose to work less or take vacations or things like that if they want to. They're not living paycheck to paycheck trying to get the right amount of hours to be able to pay their bills. If they get sick they can take a sick day. There are a million reasons why it's easier to be rich than to be poor.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Not all work is equal. Wages are determined by both the value of the work done and by how valuable the actual labor is.
If its a simple job that anyone can accomplish, no matter how vital that job is its not going to command a high salary. Labor is a commodity just like any other, and if there is a high supply of a particular type than its going to have a lower price.
Anyone can flip burgers, take fast food orders, or restock shelves. Thus the labor isn't worth very much.
Only a few people have the experience or education needed to run a billion dollar company, thus the labor is worth a lot more.
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.
Nobody has gotten to be exorbitantly rich off the back of honest labour. When you start getting into the real top players you've got around 100 to 200 people. Something stinks about that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 22:39:10
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
So Steve Jobs, the great and powerful Woz, and Bill Gates are nobody?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 22:41:27
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.
Medium of Death wrote: Nobody has gotten to be exorbitantly rich off the back of honest labour. When you start getting into the real top players you've got around 100 to 200 people. Something stinks about that.
Well then... Start advocating your government to repeal the laws and regulations that hamper the free market economy... since the free market economy is the best thing that ever happened to the poor. Yes, it's an imperfect system, but can you honestly say any other practical system is better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: So Steve Jobs, the great and powerful Woz, and Bill Gates are nobody?
Nah... they're rich... so they much be full of evilz.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 22:42:57
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Grey Templar wrote: Not all work is equal. Wages are determined by both the value of the work done and by how valuable the actual labor is.
If its a simple job that anyone can accomplish, no matter how vital that job is its not going to command a high salary. Labor is a commodity just like any other, and if there is a high supply of a particular type than its going to have a lower price.
Anyone can flip burgers, take fast food orders, or restock shelves. Thus the labor isn't worth very much.
Only a few people have the experience or education needed to run a billion dollar company, thus the labor is worth a lot more.
That's not what I'm talking about. Even if the labor for a minimum wage job doesn't command a high price, that doesn't mean people who bust their ass at those jobs don't work hard, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone who makes a bazillion dollars a year works that much harder to deserve that much more money. The bottom line is that being poor is harder than being rich, and there's absolutely no contest.
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
Yeah, you'd be suprised at how mant millionaires are self made. I mean, if you're born into the top 20% of wealth you'll probably stay there, but that doesn't mean that the wealthy don't work or that if you're born into the top 1% that you will stay there. The 1% vs the 99% is not an issue. The issue is escaping the bottom 20%.
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.
See you're spending your time laughing it up while not a single rich person on earth is having fun or spending their money on idle pleasures. That's why they're rich, they're working right now. While you're asleep? Working. They never take a dump either, they've got people for that. Stopping to gak would get in the way of all that work.
That's not what I'm talking about. Even if the labor for a minimum wage job doesn't command a high price, that doesn't mean people who bust their ass at those jobs don't work hard, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone who makes a bazillion dollars a year works that much harder to deserve that much more money. The bottom line is that being poor is harder than being rich, and there's absolutely no contest.
If being poor sucks so much, why do so many choose to be poor? If that's what the overwhelming majority of earth's population does, therre has to be something to it. If being rich were so great, more people would work to be rich.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 22:48:54
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.
Of course it's an oversimplication, I'm not here to be writing multiple-page essays on economics. The point I am trying to make is that there are people out there (fewer and fewer) who have a lot of money (more and more) that achieves far less good in their hands where it is used to invest in business (turning it into more money), buy sports cars or take round-the-world private yacht cruises than if it were to be handed over to a body that could tangibly, practically and physically improve the quality of life for millions of people on the streets of our own cities that have nothing at all.
When every person in the country is housed, clothed, fed and watered, then we can start to have people making insane amounts of profit. As it is, there is no way such money is doing as much good as it could if it were put to use helping those who cannot help themselves.
See you're spending your time laughing it up while not a single rich person on earth is having fun or spending their money on idle pleasures. That's why they're rich, they're working right now. While you're asleep? Working. They never take a dump either, they've got people for that. Stopping to gak would get in the way of all that work.
That's not what I'm talking about. Even if the labor for a minimum wage job doesn't command a high price, that doesn't mean people who bust their ass at those jobs don't work hard, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone who makes a bazillion dollars a year works that much harder to deserve that much more money. The bottom line is that being poor is harder than being rich, and there's absolutely no contest.
If being poor sucks so much, why do so many choose to be poor? If that's what the overwhelming majority of earth's population does, therre has to be something to it. If being rich were so great, more people would work to be rich.
You know, I never thought about it like that. You're absolutely right. I didn't realize that so many people preferred being poor! I was honestly surprised to find out that not everyone wanted to work hard so they could go to private school, have a yacht, a summer home, and a trust fund. I have seen the error of my ways and changed my opinion due to your insightful post on the matter.
Grey Templar wrote: Not all work is equal. Wages are determined by both the value of the work done and by how valuable the actual labor is.
If its a simple job that anyone can accomplish, no matter how vital that job is its not going to command a high salary. Labor is a commodity just like any other, and if there is a high supply of a particular type than its going to have a lower price.
Anyone can flip burgers, take fast food orders, or restock shelves. Thus the labor isn't worth very much.
Only a few people have the experience or education needed to run a billion dollar company, thus the labor is worth a lot more.
That's not what I'm talking about. Even if the labor for a minimum wage job doesn't command a high price, that doesn't mean people who bust their ass at those jobs don't work hard, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone who makes a bazillion dollars a year works that much harder to deserve that much more money. The bottom line is that being poor is harder than being rich, and there's absolutely no contest.
But nor does it mean that just because you work hard that you somehow deserve more money. You deserve no more than what your job is worth. You can't go in to your bosses office to ask for a raise, and when he asks you why you deserve a raise your answer is "I worked really really hard".
You get raises based on how much you as an employee are worth to the company. If your labor isn't worth more than the next guy in the long list of job applicants you aren't going to continue working there, no matter how "hard" you've worked.
Your employer is under no obligation to continue to purchase your labor. You need to make the case for why your labor is more valuable than the next guys. You are selling yourself. If you work really hard, but your labor is still not as valuable as the next guy, it doesn't matter.
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.
This is based on a thirty six year study that shows global poverty has declined 80% since 1970 entirely due to free market reforms.
…80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.
So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.
It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.
I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 23:04:12
If you think Bill Gates & Steve Jobs got into their positions honestly then you're huffing some top quality stuff.
The free market works?
That's why The Motor City is a ruin. Most Western manufactoring centres are completely obliterated. The skills needed for manufacture almost completely lost in those countries. This translates almost to the Military thread that Ketara posted up. Once you loose those centres you become dependent on other nations.
All Globalisation and the free market has achieved is moving power from nations to individuals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/19 23:06:56
DarkLink wrote: 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.
Why would he fire people and liquidate? Amazon is valued at around 200ish billion. He could cash in his 28B any time just by selling his share (give or take a few billion), which proves that it is actually his wealth.
FYI to all the 1%ers out there, when and if you choose to crush us (the poor slobs) under your boot of oppression, I would make an excellent indoor pet.
Grey Templar wrote: Not all work is equal. Wages are determined by both the value of the work done and by how valuable the actual labor is.
If its a simple job that anyone can accomplish, no matter how vital that job is its not going to command a high salary. Labor is a commodity just like any other, and if there is a high supply of a particular type than its going to have a lower price.
Anyone can flip burgers, take fast food orders, or restock shelves. Thus the labor isn't worth very much.
Only a few people have the experience or education needed to run a billion dollar company, thus the labor is worth a lot more.
That's not what I'm talking about. Even if the labor for a minimum wage job doesn't command a high price, that doesn't mean people who bust their ass at those jobs don't work hard, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone who makes a bazillion dollars a year works that much harder to deserve that much more money. The bottom line is that being poor is harder than being rich, and there's absolutely no contest.
But nor does it mean that just because you work hard that you somehow deserve more money. You deserve no more than what your job is worth. You can't go in to your bosses office to ask for a raise, and when he asks you why you deserve a raise your answer is "I worked really really hard".
You get raises based on how much you as an employee are worth to the company. If your labor isn't worth more than the next guy in the long list of job applicants you aren't going to continue working there, no matter how "hard" you've worked.
Your employer is under no obligation to continue to purchase your labor. You need to make the case for why your labor is more valuable than the next guys. You are selling yourself. If you work really hard, but your labor is still not as valuable as the next guy, it doesn't matter.
When did I ever say that people deserve more money because they work hard? I was basically saying the exact opposite, that hard work has nothing to do with it. The claim was rich people deserve their money because they work hard, which is a crap argument.
whembly wrote: It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.
To play Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate, what makes this better than a system whereby a government, through the taxation of its most wealthy, takes an active, expansive and ongoing interest in eradicating poverty and hardship by providing an infrastructure where every citizen can be housed, clothed, fed and watered to a basic level? Where instead of relying on people to haul themselves from poverty when in fact they can't, your government supplies them with what they need to ensure that no one falls below the level of a living income? Where less is taken from those that have less to give, and more from those that have more?
Call me an idealist, call me a socialist (I'm both), but I would hugely prefer a system by which the government actively works to provide for EVERY ONE of its citizens, to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.
People take the piss with social benefits and expect the Government to provide everything for them. There should be a safety net but not everybody needs it.
The kind of system your describing can't be implemented on the basis that it is now. Each country needs to sort itself out. A global problem that needs to be addressed at local levels. Boundless, unrestricted immigration doesn't help this matter either as that keeps wages down.
Medium of Death wrote: All Globalisation and the free market has achieved is moving power from nations to individuals.
I thinks it's moved to nations (as well) like places like China and India, where their economies have expanded several times over in the past few decades and because of that developed nations are just going to have to deal with their wealth being redistributed as developing nations start to
become more powerful economically creating a more equalized situation globally but at the sacrifice of developed nations having to give up some of their economic power. At least that's how I think it works my understanding of economics is extremely crude.
Medium of Death wrote: The money isn't going there though is it. The workers are getting paid a lot less that's why the manufacturing moved out of the Western countries.
It's a bizarre, masochistic, argument that we should all be equal in poverty with a handful of some extraordinarily rich people sitting at the top.
Yeah, I'll agree that the standards of living between the various classes is generally pretty bad in the world. I still think money is going to India and China as you can find plenty of articles about the standard of living increasing in those areas in the past few decades talking about being able to
afford luxury items, increase in shopping centers, etc that isn't just money going to the extremely rich these are ordinary Chinese and Indian families who are being effected (obviously being poor in those countries is still worse that it would be in a developed nations).
These massively harmful actions benefit tiny minorities. These tiny minorities are then held up as the success story for Globalisation.
Globalisation is not a success on a Global level. Massive population growth, massive slum growth, disease, starvation. Propped up just enough to keep it all going.
Does this mean I get to dust of my red flag and budyonovka? You guys should join in too! We will sing lots of inspiring songs and get to toast decadent bourgeois parasites! It will be fun!
And as if that wasn't enough fun yet, we will be of gettings all the glorious joys of agricultural collectivisation! Yay! Worker's control of the means of production! Yay! Yell inspirational slogans! Yay! Crush capitalism! Yay! Paint inspirational slogans on buildings! Yay! Electrification of whole country! Yay! Abolish opressive bourgeois currency! Yay! From each according to his ability! Yay! To each according to his need! Yay! Paint inspirational slogans on posters! Yay! We will get to remove all traces of bourgeois opression and remove chains from people of the world! Yay! World Revolution! Yay! Come join the Party!!!
Spoiler:
We have inspirational slogans...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/01/20 02:07:58
Medium of Death wrote: These massively harmful actions benefit tiny minorities. These tiny minorities are then held up as the success story for Globalisation.
Globalisation is not a success on a Global level. Massive population growth, massive slum growth, disease, starvation. Propped up just enough to keep it all going.
Well looking at population and demographic transition graphs I don't think populations of India and china are going to keep growing forever as those nations get wealthier the population begin to stagnate and sometimes decline as wealthier families tend to have fewer kids. As for disease I
can't confirm if things will get worse or better with that but I do know the average life expectancy of the world is increasing which would imply disease is becoming less of an issue. As for massive slum growth I won't comment on it as I have no idea if that's true or not and the starvation thing
seems believable considering environmental problems can have negative effect on food yields and also the increase in people means more mouths to feed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/20 02:07:36