Support NeoGAF

[Inflammable Slinky]

Interesting way of looking at it. I look at money as a value of things, whether it be ideas, assets, or labor. People who are rich either have lots of assets, have good ideas, or provide a labor that has a high value. Or inherited it.

But the rich, the super rich, the mind-bogglingly wealthy generate their wealth merely from owning factories, or companies, or other forms of production.

When they get money, its money that comes from the labor produced by the workers they employ. They contribute nothing to the labor process, but take as much as they can.

All wealth of the super-rich comes at the expense of the working class.

To be more accurate with your metaphor, your uncle gives you the idea, and then the local field mogul refuses to sell you fields except at an exorbitant rate. So you have no choice but to rent from him and give him half of your ptotatoes because you have no means to produce potatoes on your own.

(granted you probably know this already what with your username lol)

 

[GaimeGuy]

well it's a complex situation so any analogy is going to be somewhat flawed. But here is how the system more accurately works. 10 of you are sitting around eating grass and berries. Uncle Oscar says "hey I have an idea that will feed us 5 times as well as we are. I need your labor to help me but I get half of our produce since its my idea. You agree and when he has you plant potatoes he then gets half. His idea was more valuable than your labor so he is compensated more for it. Like I said though this is a broad analogy of how wealth differences develop. Not every situation is like this.

You think the inventors are the ones who make money? LOL

 

[empty vessel]

well it's a complex situation so any analogy is going to be somewhat flawed. But here is how the system more accurately works. 10 of you are sitting around eating grass and berries. Uncle Oscar says "hey I have an idea that will feed us 5 times as well as we are. I need your labor to help me but I get half of our produce since its my idea. You agree and when he has you plant potatoes he then gets half. His idea was more valuable than your labor so he is compensated more for it. Like I said though this is a broad analogy of how wealth differences develop. Not every situation is like this.

It doesn't work that way at all. (As GaimeGuy points out, high income earners aren't typically inventors. Most are corporate executives. The next biggest category are people in the financial industry. The third largest group of high income earners are dead people.) And why would merely having an idea warrant half of the wealth produced? Without the labor, the idea is as useless as the labor is without the idea.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

It doesn't work that way at all. And why would merely having an idea warrant half of the wealth produced? Without the labor, the idea is as useless as the labor is without the idea.

Yep. Besides, to drive my point into the ground, it's not even the potato idea man that gets half, it's that bastard that owns all the fields within a hundred miles that refuses to rent you one without you giving him 50% of your crop.

 

[Bolshevik]

You think the inventors are the ones who make money? LOL

It depends on how they sell thier idea/invention. Many sell it off to companies that can implement it for them. People like Bill Gates develop thier own means of production to implement thier idea and therefore kept all the profits. This is just my view of how the system works. I don't agree that it's the best way for a human economy to run, but I will admit it has worked pretty well.

 

[Flatline]

well it's a complex situation so any analogy is going to be somewhat flawed. But here is how the system more accurately works. 10 of you are sitting around eating grass and berries. Uncle Oscar says "hey I have an idea that will feed us 5 times as well as we are. I need your labor to help me but I get half of our produce since its my idea. You agree and when he has you plant potatoes he then gets half. His idea was more valuable than your labor so he is compensated more for it. Like I said though this is a broad analogy of how wealth differences develop. Not every situation is like this.

There are so many things wrong about this analogy but I'll focus on the most important one: The person that has the idea to "feed them 5 times as well as they are" in society isn't the executives or investors, it's the scientists that get paid much less.

It depends on how they sell thier idea/invention. Many sell it off to companies that can implement it for them. People like Bill Gates develop thier own means of production to implement thier idea and therefore kept all the profits. This is just my view of how the system works. I don't agree that it's the best way for a human economy to run, but I will admit it has worked pretty well.

Bill Gates had that opportunity because he was an inventor at the very beginning of a rising industry which is a rarity. That doesn't apply most of the time.

 

[FStop7]

I showed this article to someone and they asked me if it was the top 1% or the bottom 1%.

God I'm still laughing.

 

[Bolshevik]

It doesn't work that way at all. (As GaimeGuy points out, high income earners aren't typically inventors. Most are corporate executives. The next biggest category are people in the financial industry. The third largest group of high income earners are dead people.) And why would merely having an idea warrant half of the wealth produced? Without the labor, the idea is as useless as the labor is without the idea.

High income earners often either own physical capital or financial capital required for mass production. And what GaimeGuy explained is more akin to a situation where someone has a monopoly, which theoretically should be stopped by our government. And only good ideas warrant larger portions of wealth. If the idea produced 1.01 times the produce of what was already gathered its an idea with low worth and no one would use it, but since it produced 5 times as much produce it's a high value idea. He is essentially trading his idea for half of everyone's labor. If it benefits them then they agree, if the idea is worth less than half of thier labor then they wouldn't. But as it the idea would be worth 5 times what thier labor is currently worth.

 

[Jimothy]

Bill Gates had that opportunity because he was an inventor at the very beginning of a rising industry which is a rarity. That doesn't apply most of the time.

Gates also had the backing of investors that he met through his rich parents. No one creates wealth all on their own.

 

[foodtaster]

I showed this article to someone and they asked me if it was the top 1% of the bottom 1%.

God I'm still laughing.

ahahaha

 

[Karma Kramer]

No one creates wealth all on their own.

 

[cousins]

Why isn't overprivileged used more often, while underprivileged is used all the time?

 

[Bolshevik]

Yep. Besides, to drive my point into the ground, it's not even the potato idea man that gets half, it's that bastard that owns all the fields within a hundred miles that refuses to rent you one without you giving him 50% of your crop.

Well in our day and age you can go out to other farmers and bid your idea to them. Who ever offers their land for the cheapest gets your business.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Well in our day and age you can go out to other farmers and bid your idea to them. Who ever offers their land for the cheapest gets your business.

all the other farmers know each other and realize it is in their interest to charge you as much as possible.

Alternative answer: what good is a cheaper offer when you have to move 300 miles to take advantage of it? Remember, the local field mogul owns all the fields that are remotely nearby.

Even more specific answer: You find a field mogul willing to charge you "Only" 20% of your crop to use his field. Compared to the others thats a great deal and you take it.

Over time, he begins to charge you more and more of your crop. He offers lame reasons, like "I can't compete against the other field moguls if you get to keep so much of your crop" or "its a tough time, I might go under if I don't get more potatoes" and since you are enormously lacking in power you have to go along with it. After all, having to uproot yourself and find a new field mogul to start from scratch is pretty intimidating!

So, as time goes on, pretty soon the field mogul takes more and more potatoes for himself, and you and your friends have fewer to go around. You eat your potatoes, but the mogul just stores them in a potato silo. Maybe he trades his potato silo for a silo of beans, or a water mill, but the point is those potatoes aren't for eating anymore, they're a unit of wealth now.

And think about it, this field mogul had absolutely nothing to do with the idea for the potatoes, or the growing of them! He just happened to own a field, and now he has the majority of the product of your labor!

 

[The Technomancer]

Considering both of my parents (mother and stepfather) worked their asses off to educate themselves in STEM majors, and my mother eventually getting her MBA which gave my family a nice cushion of high-end income until my mother later became a teacher, and then disabled, and then both of them lost their jobs, I'd say that I don't mind this. My family worked to get to the stratosphere of American income. My parents were previously wealthy because they went for it themselves, good for them. Screw anyone who would look down on that.

Before you bring up "wealthy born into wealthy/wealthy getting wealthier" lol no. My mother was born as a child of 5 in a dirt poor rural village in the mountains of Colombia, with no money, working since kindergarten at a farm, with everyone working so she could get the money to go to Catholic grade school and eventually pave the road for her to become a chemical engineer. She's a rags to riches story if I ever saw one. It usually takes 8 generations to break a poverty cycle in a family. My mother broke it in one, and because of that, I get to go to school to be an engineer as well.

My parents are both self employed, and my father usually works 80 hours a week. My family is part of the top 15% of the nation financially (and don't get me started on how much that bothers me considering what that actually gets us). Yet they're still for the more even distribution of wealth and decreasing of economic inequality.

 

[pigeon]

Well in our day and age you can go out to other farmers and bid your idea to them. Who ever offers their land for the cheapest gets your business.

You're forgetting that supply and demand works the other way too. The people you're dealing with aren't farmers -- they're landlords, and they're not going to let you use their field if it would be more profitable for them to put up a parking lot instead. The problem is, there are a lot more people who want to use the field than there are fields, so the people who own the fields have all the power. (It's also worth noting that the reason they own the field in the first place is rarely any more detailed than "they got there first".)

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

You're forgetting that supply and demand works the other way too. The people you're dealing with aren't farmers -- they're landlords, and they're not going to let you use their field if it would be more profitable for them to put up a parking lot instead. The problem is, there are a lot more people who want to use the field than there are fields, so the people who own the fields have all the power. (It's also worth noting that the reason they own the field in the first place is rarely any more detailed than "they got there first".)

so wait, you're saying that rent-seeking behavior is endemic in our economic system?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

"As long as I have an iPhone and Netflix I really don't give a shit about 'merica's problems...."

 

[McLovin]

It's all bullshit anyway, if we made more money everything would cost more. It would all even out in the end.

 

[pigeon]

so wait, you're saying that rent-seeking behavior is endemic in our economic system?

I would probably use the phrase "is the fundamental defect of" rather than "is endemic in," but yeah, I think we're on the same page here.

The question I want to ask is how society benefits from people owning fields to begin with, but that might be a little radical for this discussion.

 

[Bolshevik]

I would probably use the phrase "is the fundamental defect of" rather than "is endemic in," but yeah, I think we're on the same page here.

The question I want to ask is how society benefits from people owning fields to begin with, but that might be a little radical for this discussion.

Well people owning fields certainly leads to abuse because not everyone is a rational person, and many are extremely lazy and selfish. However for the most part people who own fields will use those fields to their full potential or whatever pays the most which should be similar. If fields were community owned then people would use them to whatever they personally wanted which isn't always utilizing them to their full potential. This would also have some good pros like "lets have a concert here for free because we don't have to pay rent" or "lets make a community garden/farm" but it would also lead to things like "lets burn down the forest because that would be cool" or "lets just dump our waste here and it'll be the community's problem and not just ours". With some regulation that could be fixed. It would be interesting to look at how community property worked in communist states. I know in England they used to have community grazing land it just led to over feeding of the grass so that it was eaten down to the roots. The logic was, well if I stop grazing my herd it won't matter because there are 50 other guys who will anyways. Might as well get what I can from it before everyone else does. This same type of problem is now occuring with overfishing in the ocean. And the ocean(or atleast most of it) is like community property.

 

[thatbox]

It's all bullshit anyway, if we made more money everything would cost more. It would all even out in the end.

You're confusing several economic principles and misinterpreting this story.

 

[Chumly]

One of the managers from Sports Authority I know makes around $40k salary. Bear in mind he inherited over 100k, and he has a wife that makes a bit less than him, but he's been investing his money for years. He's made over 300k, and if nothing drastic changes in the market, he's looking to retire with an income of 13k a month. Well, that's what I saw on his account from Well's Fargos site.

I was blown away at 13k a month. I know for sure he invests in Boeing.

Are you sure you didn't mean 13k a YEAR. Because based off the information given your numbers seem way off base. Living off 13k a MONTH from investments would require a 3+ MILLION next egg based off most withdrawal rates. I hope the manager you know is one hell of a long ways away from retirement and putting away a lot of money every year.

 

[Wazzim]

We have the same problem in canada.

Add the rest of the world with maybe some exceptions.
US's economic policies essentially define the policies of the world.

 

[KtSlime]

Why isn't overprivileged used more often, while underprivileged is used all the time?

Because more privilage for everyone is the ideal for society?

 

[Piecake]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-america

I thought this was a good article

For anyone who is clamoring for a flat tax rate, we basically already have one.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You think the inventors are the ones who make money? LOL

Yeah. This is what puzzles me. Again, nobody got rich on their own. The inventor doesn't enjoy the "fruits of his labor " since he didn't labor anything.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Yeah. This is what puzzles me. Again, nobody got rich on their own. The inventor doesn't enjoy the "fruits of his labor " since he didn't labor anything.

Are you serious? The investor provides the liquidity that makes an idea come true. It's bizzare that people think that the only thing that maters is "labor". Newsflash: Most companies function purely on the skill of their CEOs. The rest are there just to make his vision come true. If you think that you can be the visionary, go start up your own company. Most people are clueless at he amont of hardwork and thinking is required to start up from scratch and create a corporation.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Are you serious? The investor provides the liquidity that makes an idea come true. It's bizzare that people think that the only thing that maters is "labor". Newsflash: Most companies function purely on the skill of their CEOs. The rest are there just to make his vision come true. If you think that you can be the visionary, go start up your own company. Most people are clueless at he amont of hardwork and thinking is required to start up from scratch and create a corporation.

I was referring to fairness. You can't even earn a living wage by doing the labor. I'm there to sell and extract as much money as I can from consumers. If sales are down, I and others are fired while the CEO is earning his $13 million. He doesn't give a shit about me or the others losing their homes. He's too busy playing golf.

 

[Conciliator]

Are you serious? The investor provides the liquidity that makes an idea come true. It's bizzare that people think that the only thing that maters is "labor". Newsflash: Most companies function purely on the skill of their CEOs. The rest are there just to make his vision come true. If you think that you can be the visionary, go start up your own company. Most people are clueless at he amont of hardwork and thinking is required to start up from scratch and create a corporation.

Great. People who are brilliant, extremely hard-working, brave and ambitious should be rewarded with increased wealth in a solid capitalist system, which is a system I believe in. Incentive is very important.

But how much smarter, hard-working and braver are they than your average person in the bottom 50%? Is it 100 times as much? A thousand? Ten thousand? Is this argument valid at any level of wealth inequality? What if the bottom 50% only have .5% of the wealth? (and there's no reason to believe this trend is going to change directions) What about .1%? What about .01%?

 

[pigeon]

However for the most part people who own fields will use those fields to their full potential or whatever pays the most which should be similar.

That's good for the people who own the fields -- they get the benefit. How is it good for society?

Note that "full potential" is a tricky term. For example, one way to maximize the return of your field would be to farm it heavily and grow the same crop over and over rather than rotating. Of course, in thirty years or so, you've created the Dust Bowl, but you didn't know that would happen, and any sort of moderation would've failed to use your field to its full potential! In fact, if you can sell your land twenty-five years from now for about the same price as you bought it, you'll really have maximized your resources -- by taking a hidden cost out as profit and charging it to the next owner and/or society as a whole. (I'm not suggesting here that corporations are to blame for the Dust Bowl -- it's just an example of the dangers of profit maximization.) So how does this help society?

It would be interesting to look at how community property worked in communist states. I know in England they used to have community grazing land it just led to over feeding of the grass so that it was eaten down to the roots. The logic was, well if I stop grazing my herd it won't matter because there are 50 other guys who will anyways. Might as well get what I can from it before everyone else does. This same type of problem is now occuring with overfishing in the ocean. And the ocean(or atleast most of it) is like community property.

This is definitely a concern, but as you observe, it happens now, because we don't protect our community property. If we recognized the ocean as community property we could regulate its use and sue corporations who damage its value.

Are you serious? The investor provides the liquidity that makes an idea come true. It's bizzare that people think that the only thing that maters is "labor". Newsflash: Most companies function purely on the skill of their CEOs. The rest are there just to make his vision come true. If you think that you can be the visionary, go start up your own company.

Okay, I will.

Oh wait, I can't! I don't have any liquidity! Because liquidity is just money. So what you're really saying is, only people that have money can make a lot of money. I don't disagree with you, but I also don't think that disagrees with my point. In fact, it validates it.

 

[Chrono]

Considering both of my parents (mother and stepfather) worked their asses off to educate themselves in STEM majors, and my mother eventually getting her MBA which gave my family a nice cushion of high-end income until my mother later became a teacher, and then disabled, and then both of them lost their jobs, I'd say that I don't mind this. My family worked to get to the stratosphere of American income. My parents were previously wealthy because they went for it themselves, good for them. Screw anyone who would look down on that.

Before you bring up "wealthy born into wealthy/wealthy getting wealthier" lol no. My mother was born as a child of 5 in a dirt poor rural village in the mountains of Colombia, with no money, working since kindergarten at a farm, with everyone working so she could get the money to go to Catholic grade school and eventually pave the road for her to become a chemical engineer. She's a rags to riches story if I ever saw one. It usually takes 8 generations to break a poverty cycle in a family. My mother broke it in one, and because of that, I get to go to school to be an engineer as well.

No, your mother stole from society. [/empty vessel]

Note: 'society' here stands for one that includes people that empty vessel think stole from him his millions but not the poorer ones in human society that would take whatever he has now.

 

[cousins]

Because more privilage for everyone is the ideal for society?

Privilege is always at someone else's expense. And, any way, things like food, decent housing, and good schools shouldn't be considered a privilege, they should be the norm.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, your mother stole from society. [/empty vessel]

Note: 'society' here stands for one that includes people that empty vessel think stole from him his millions but not the poorer ones in human society that would take whatever he has now.

Empty Vessel doesn't think that anyone "stole his millions", that's an incredibly shallow way of reading his opinion. The singular recurring theme of his posts on here is that wealth and money is not a zero-sum game

 

[Chrono]

Privilege is always at someone else's expense.

Sure, if you're one of those people that think - for example - that capitalist oppressors like J.K. Rowling are enjoying your money right now. For others that see the world differently, no, privilege is not always at someone else's expense.

Also, technology and the upcoming singularity will end scarcity and make plenty of things like food and energy and housing and lots of manufactured goods dirt cheap. Poverty is going to end in the next several decades.

Empty Vessel doesn't think that anyone "stole his millions", that's an incredibly shallow way of reading his opinion.

His money. Someone stole what belongs to society and his share of it. "Millions" was tongue in cheek.

 

[cousins]

Sure, if you're one of those people that think - for example - that capitalist oppressors like J.K. Rowling are enjoying your money right now. For others that see the world differently, no, privilege is not always at someone else's expense.

loooool.

 

[The Technomancer]

His money. Someone stole what belongs to society and his share of it. "Millions" was tongue in cheek.

Sorry, see my edit. I can understand the confusion if you're not familiar with his posting history but his economic-political beliefs revolve around the ideas that a.)money circulation is not a zero sum game (the amount of currency in the population is a paramater the government can tweak) and b.)taxing the rich is important for social equity reasons, not for financial reasons. Its not important to tax the rich in order to somehow "restore" that money to the poor in any direct way, more that its important to keep any one or handful of individuals from gaining massively disproportionate influence that comes along with massively disproportionate wealth on the order of billions of dollars.

(hope he doesn't mind me speaking for him here)

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Sorry, see my edit. I can understand the confusion if you're not familiar with his posting history but his economic-political beliefs revolve around the ideas that a.)money circulation is not a zero sum game (the amount of currency in the population is a paramater the government can tweak) and b.)taxing the rich is important for social equity reasons, not for financial reasons. Its not important to tax the rich in order to somehow "restore" that money to the poor in any direct way, more that its important to keep any one or handful of individuals from gaining massively disproportionate influence that comes along with massively disproportionate wealth on the order of billions of dollars.

(hope he doesn't mind me speaking for him here)

isn't empty vessel a socialist? because I'd say its more important to tax the rich to reduce their overall economic power to influence government that right now is out of control.

(that's the first step, really we should try to annihilate the capitalist class but I'll wish for a pony while I'm at it)

 

[pigeon]

Also, technology and the upcoming singularity will end scarcity and make plenty of things like food and energy and housing and lots of manufactured goods dirt cheap. Poverty is going to end in the next several decades.

Why? The yield of the American farm has multiplied by hundreds in 1900 and yet people are still starving every day, not just in Africa, but in America. Why would you assume that a general increase in productivity will end poverty, when it hasn't done so throughout the twentieth century? The middle class's standard of living keeps improving, but it also keeps turning into the lower class -- and how much is the lower class standard of living improving? Or standard of dying.

 

[Ether_Snake]

It doesn't work that way at all. (As GaimeGuy points out, high income earners aren't typically inventors. Most are corporate executives. The next biggest category are people in the financial industry. The third largest group of high income earners are dead people.) And why would merely having an idea warrant half of the wealth produced? Without the labor, the idea is as useless as the labor is without the idea.

Actually his point is true, if you consider than "an idea" can also be orders given by an executive. It doesn't have to be an invention, just directives.

So some people end up in positions that allow them to give directives, and we are supposed to assume that it is because they are the best positioned to do so. As a result, we let them take an enormous profit from our labor, under the pretense that without them we would not be generating enough profit to sustain similar levels of earnings on our end.

Are you serious? The investor provides the liquidity that makes an idea come true. It's bizzare that people think that the only thing that maters is "labor". Newsflash: Most companies function purely on the skill of their CEOs. The rest are there just to make his vision come true. If you think that you can be the visionary, go start up your own company. Most people are clueless at he amont of hardwork and thinking is required to start up from scratch and create a corporation.

But according to the free market, if an idea is good, someone will finance it anyway. Under that light, the investor is merely lucky to be the one providing the investment, since someone else would have otherwise provided the financing anyway, depriving him of a source of income. It is therefore obvious that the investor's share of the profit should be limited since it is merely compensation for being provided with an opportunity to grow his investment, not for providing capital that would have been provided anyway. If anything, the workers are selling a service to the investor in return for a share of profit. The workers are effectively the wealth creators.

Checkmate.

 

[cousins]

But according to the free market, if an idea is good, someone will finance it anyway. Under that light, the investor is merely lucky to be the one providing the investment, since someone else would have otherwise provided the financing anyway, depriving him of a source of income. It is therefore obvious that the investor's share of the profit should be limited since it is merely compensation for being provided with an opportunity to grow his investment, not for providing capital that would have been provided anyway. If anything, the workers are selling a service to the investor in return for a share of profit. The workers are effectively the wealth creators.

Checkmate.

yup.

 

[travisbickle]

Sure, if you're one of those people that think - for example - that capitalist oppressors like J.K. Rowling are enjoying your money right now. For others that see the world differently, no, privilege is not always at someone else's expense.

Also, technology and the upcoming singularity will end scarcity and make plenty of things like food and energy and housing and lots of manufactured goods dirt cheap. Poverty is going to end in the next several decades.



His money. Someone stole what belongs to society and his share of it. "Millions" was tongue in cheek.

Man, why did you pick gracious JK, who when asked about taxes responded:

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft’s idea of being a mug.

Link

Patriotism is paying your taxes as a domicile citizen.

 

[DR2K]

Why isn't overprivileged used more often, while underprivileged is used all the time?

Boot straps.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

CEOs/executives are far from perfect. With that said, the perception of them is getting completely ridiculous. The public sees them as completely unqualified people, born into the position, who make millions to put their company out of business.

While I won't justify every penny that every CEO makes, it is a VERY stressful, life-consuming job. They are responsibile for growing profits to the tune of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions in this EXTREMELY challenging economy. Of course everyone on the internet has all of the answers to do a better job than them.

It is my opinion, that it is entirely possible for anyone to be able to "make ends meet". The decisions are all in your hands, and no one is going to bail you out of your shit decisions. We have created this HORRIBLE culture that says it is ok to blame your problems in life on those who make more money. My CEO's pay has had no impact whatsoever on my life. I've worked hard in my life, and I live comfortably. Those who have worked hard under me, eventually make it. Quit with the BS that the man is holding you back your whole life.

 

[EatinOlives]

CEOs/executives are far from perfect. With that said, the perception of them is getting completely ridiculous. The public sees them as completely unqualified people, born into the position, who make millions to put their company out of business.

While I won't justify every penny that every CEO makes, it is a VERY stressful, life-consuming job. They are responsibile for growing profits to the tune of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions in this EXTREMELY challenging economy. Of course everyone on the internet has all of the answers to do a better job than them.

It is my opinion, that it is entirely possible for anyone to be able to "make ends meet". The decisions are all in your hands, and no one is going to bail you out of your shit decisions. We have created this HORRIBLE culture that says it is ok to blame your problems in life on those who make more money. My CEO's pay has had no impact whatsoever on my life. I've worked hard in my life, and I live comfortably. Those who have worked hard under me, eventually make it. Quit with the BS that the man is holding you back your whole life.

"I played the rigged game and didn't end up too badly myself. Quit yer whining"

 

[The Technomancer]

But according to the free market, if an idea is good, someone will finance it anyway. Under that light, the investor is merely lucky to be the one providing the investment, since someone else would have otherwise provided the financing anyway, depriving him of a source of income. It is therefore obvious that the investor's share of the profit should be limited since it is merely compensation for being provided with an opportunity to grow his investment, not for providing capital that would have been provided anyway. If anything, the workers are selling a service to the investor in return for a share of profit. The workers are effectively the wealth creators.

Checkmate.

I love you

 

[travisbickle]

CEOs/executives are far from perfect. With that said, the perception of them is getting completely ridiculous. The public sees them as completely unqualified people, born into the position, who make millions to put their company out of business.

While I won't justify every penny that every CEO makes, it is a VERY stressful, life-consuming job. They are responsibile for growing profits to the tune of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions in this EXTREMELY challenging economy. Of course everyone on the internet has all of the answers to do a better job than them.

It is my opinion, that it is entirely possible for anyone to be able to "make ends meet". The decisions are all in your hands, and no one is going to bail you out of your shit decisions. We have created this HORRIBLE culture that says it is ok to blame your problems in life on those who make more money. My CEO's pay has had no impact whatsoever on my life. I've worked hard in my life, and I live comfortably. Those who have worked hard under me, eventually make it. Quit with the BS that the man is holding you back your whole life.

The title is "50% of American households hold just 1% of the country's wealth", get your head out of your arse and stop thinking in terms of me, ,me, me, you, you, you.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Can we have a stab at Socialism again? And lets have it be real Socialism (workers control their workplace) and not some totalitarian bullshit.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

"I played the rigged game and didn't end up too badly myself. Quit yer whining"

I started a minimum wage job in high school, went to community college while working full time, lived at home, graduated, and worked my way up the chain to where I was able to pay off a new car and put down a huge down payment on a house. What was rigged?

I'll say it all day long, distribution of wealth played no part in my life. Opportunities aren't everywhere, but they are there. You can take them or complain about not being handed them.

The consumer has just as much blame around the economy as a CEO does.

The title is "50% of American households hold just 1% of the country's wealth", get your head out of your arse and stop thinking in terms of me, ,me, me, you, you, you.

In case you didn't see my article previously, 84% of Americans more than their parents did (adjusted for inflation). These 1% of wealth stories are skewed to make you think that no one has the opportunity anymore to make money, when in fact we have more than we ever had.

 

[Trojita]

CEOs/executives are far from perfect. With that said, the perception of them is getting completely ridiculous. The public sees them as completely unqualified people, born into the position, who make millions to put their company out of business.

While I won't justify every penny that every CEO makes, it is a VERY stressful, life-consuming job. They are responsibile for growing profits to the tune of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions in this EXTREMELY challenging economy. Of course everyone on the internet has all of the answers to do a better job than them.

It is my opinion, that it is entirely possible for anyone to be able to "make ends meet". The decisions are all in your hands, and no one is going to bail you out of your shit decisions. We have created this HORRIBLE culture that says it is ok to blame your problems in life on those who make more money. My CEO's pay has had no impact whatsoever on my life. I've worked hard in my life, and I live comfortably. Those who have worked hard under me, eventually make it. Quit with the BS that the man is holding you back your whole life.

In my workplace, if my managers give us 2% or less of a raise each year (If you knew my type of work you'd find that hilarious), then they get higher raises.

CEO pay has exorbitantly increased beyond anywhere near the equivalent after inflation. Of course it affects you when the work you are producing is giving you less and your CEO more.