PDA

View Full Version : Rich People



Monkey
11-27-2013, 09:32 AM
There was a thread that ran its course last year that was one of the typical left vs right arguments--I really can't recall which one. At one point in the conversation, there were several posts that were derogatory towards the rich (i.e. "rich people are a$$&*(^s", "I can't stand rich people", etc.). The disgust towards the rich was initiated by JoeB (of course) but seemed to be shared by all.

Is this accurate that the majority of posters here have contempt for the rich? If so, what is your reasoning?

AJBIGJ
11-27-2013, 11:31 AM
There was a thread that ran its course last year that was one of the typical left vs right arguments--I really can't recall which one. At one point in the conversation, there were several posts that were derogatory towards the rich (i.e. "rich people are a$$&*(^s", "I can't stand rich people", etc.). The disgust towards the rich was initiated by JoeB (of course) but seemed to be shared by all.

Is this accurate that the majority of posters here have contempt for the rich? If so, what is your reasoning?

I have a certain level of contempt for corporations receiving bailouts from the government, as well as individuals who exploit such. I also have a certain contempt for the revolving door between the public and private sectors where legislators and lobbyists work out drug deals for legislation buried in appropriations bills that gives the private sector entities an advantage in their market niche and then open their doors to the former legislators after they leave office (often to see those individuals return again one day in the future). I doubt these were very much resembling any arguments JB would have made.

People who get ahead through being more innovative than the competition in a fair competitive environment I have no issues with. Be it celebrity, athlete, or CEO, we as consumers pay them the value we see in their contributions by purchasing the goods and services they offer. We may not determine their compensation via paychecks directly, but we provide the capital resources to those who do.

efmbman
11-27-2013, 12:07 PM
I have a certain level of contempt for corporations receiving bailouts from the government, as well as individuals who exploit such. I also have a certain contempt for the revolving door between the public and private sectors where legislators and lobbyists work out drug deals for legislation buried in appropriations bills that gives the private sector entities an advantage in their market niche and then open their doors to the former legislators after they leave office (often to see those individuals return again one day in the future). I doubt these were very much resembling any arguments JB would have made.

People who get ahead through being more innovative than the competition in a fair competitive environment I have no issues with. Be it celebrity, athlete, or CEO, we as consumers pay them the value we see in their contributions by purchasing the goods and services they offer. We may not determine their compensation via paychecks directly, but we provide the capital resources to those who do.

Sums up my position nicely. I am not a fan of my tax dollars being used to bailout any company that fails or is failing as a result of poor decisions and practices. Survival of the fittest goes for the business world, too.

I do not hate the rich, nor do I hate the poor. I am concerned about the middle class.

imnohero
11-27-2013, 12:29 PM
Speaking for myself, I don't have a general contempt for "the rich"...on the other hand, a lot of rich people got rich by being immoral and/or unethical and are deserving of contempt as individuals.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2013, 12:34 PM
We live in a world of finite resources and, as such, the game of rich and poor is a zero sum game. The more one has, the less someone else does.

I'm a firm believer in "live simply, so that others may simply live." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have nice things, but it gets pretty ridiculous when a corporate executive has a private jet and five chauffeurs; while his employees are struggling to make ends meet. If the company is having financial trouble, that executive's money won't get touched. He's not giving up a dime. He's going to slash the pay of the workers, or even lay them off... workers who are only one paycheck away from being homeless.

The issue isn't whether or not someone is rich. The issue is whether or not the wealth - and the power that comes with it - is abused.

AJBIGJ
11-27-2013, 01:20 PM
We live in a world of finite resources and, as such, the game of rich and poor is a zero sum game. The more one has, the less someone else does.

I'm a firm believer in "live simply, so that others may simply live." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have nice things, but it gets pretty ridiculous when a corporate executive has a private jet and five chauffeurs; while his employees are struggling to make ends meet. If the company is having financial trouble, that executive's money won't get touched. He's not giving up a dime. He's going to slash the pay of the workers, or even lay them off... workers who are only one paycheck away from being homeless.

The issue isn't whether or not someone is rich. The issue is whether or not the wealth - and the power that comes with it - is abused.

Some resources are indeed finite, but not all. Innovation is a resource of the latter category, and even our being limited to the tangible resources that exist on this world is only applicable to the here and now. I'll grant you these resources are not as tangible or as fully realized as say the oil in an oil field, but they do hold a certain monetary value, or potential for it. The problem with your philosophy is, at least in premise would add constraints with completely vague and arbitrary terms on individuals. If we expect to hold individuals to these constraints, it would require some form of specific definitions at least in terms of lower and upper limits. After thus a government entity would be required to use force, sometimes even violent force, to take the possessions of those who exceed the maximum allowable in the constraint window to be redistributed elsewhere.

We could go into the discussion about how having the fruits of ones accomplishments ransacked to accomplish this goal of "equal outcomes" will actively discourage a greater level of performance than that which is required to achieve that maximum, but I think that dead horse is as putrid as they come.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2013, 01:33 PM
Some resources are indeed finite, but not all. Innovation is a resource of the latter category, and even our being limited to the tangible resources that exist on this world is only applicable to the here and now. I'll grant you these resources are not as tangible or as fully realized as say the oil in an oil field, but they do hold a certain monetary value, or potential for it. The problem with your philosophy is, at least in premise would add constraints with completely vague and arbitrary terms on individuals. If we expect to hold individuals to these constraints, it would require some form of specific definitions at least in terms of lower and upper limits. After thus a government entity would be required to use force, sometimes even violent force, to take the possessions of those who exceed the maximum allowable in the constraint window to be redistributed elsewhere.

We could go into the discussion about how having the fruits of ones accomplishments ransacked to accomplish this goal of "equal outcomes" will actively discourage a greater level of performance than that which is required to achieve that maximum, but I think that dead horse is as putrid as they come.

Even if everyone was "innovative," there's only still but so much to go around to reward people for their innovation. We're back to square one.

ThaBufe
11-27-2013, 02:05 PM
We live in a world of finite resources and, as such, the game of rich and poor is a zero sum game. The more one has, the less someone else does.

I'm a firm believer in "live simply, so that others may simply live." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have nice things, but it gets pretty ridiculous when a corporate executive has a private jet and five chauffeurs; while his employees are struggling to make ends meet. If the company is having financial trouble, that executive's money won't get touched. He's not giving up a dime. He's going to slash the pay of the workers, or even lay them off... workers who are only one paycheck away from being homeless.

The issue isn't whether or not someone is rich. The issue is whether or not the wealth - and the power that comes with it - is abused.

While resources are indeed finite, we have plenty of the ones that really matter. I don't really concern myself we weather or not everyone has a Mercedes. I don't really care if things are "fair". What I care about is whether or not people have food on the table and a roof over their heads. As such, the rich people that I really have an issue with are the ones that have a mountain of cash and just sit on it. If some guy has a billion dollars, I want him to have a private jet and five chauffeurs. In fact, I want him to have 10 private jets and 500 chauffeurs. Because the people that build and maintain those jets, and all of those chauffeurs get to eat today and can pay the mortgage. No matter how much of a rich asshole he is, he can only eat so much food. I don't care if it cost him $10k/plate or $3.00. He can only wear so much clothing; its cost doesn't matter to me. So to all the exceedingly rich assholes out there, spend and spend big. People need to eat and they'll gladly make a bunch of crap you don't need and sell it to you in order to do that. And if all that crap makes you feel better or more important, then I really hope you enjoy your illusion.

Rusty, based on your gripes with the rich, it appears that you are far less concerned about “finite resources” and far more concerned with everybody having the same amount/quality of “stuff”. That’s not really a philosophy that I can get behind because at the end of the day, all of that stuff doesn’t mean jack and there are plenty of private jets to go around to those who really want and can afford them. There is also plenty of food, houses, and clothing to go around too, but it’s not free. I want people to have jobs for that stuff and if some dude has to own a private jet so that another 100 people can have those things, I’m good with that.

AJBIGJ
11-27-2013, 02:11 PM
Even if everyone was "innovative," there's only still but so much to go around to reward people for their innovation. We're back to square one.

Well that's simply not true. GDP itself is not stagnant, which is a better measure of economic strength than most things.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2013, 02:31 PM
While resources are indeed finite, we have plenty of the ones that really matter. I don't really concern myself we weather or not everyone has a Mercedes. I don't really care if things are "fair". What I care about is whether or not people have food on the table and a roof over their heads. As such, the rich people that I really have an issue with are the ones that have a mountain of cash and just sit on it. If some guy has a billion dollars, I want him to have a private jet and five chauffeurs. In fact, I want him to have 10 private jets and 500 chauffeurs. Because the people that build and maintain those jets, and all of those chauffeurs get to eat today and can pay the mortgage. No matter how much of a rich asshole he is, he can only eat so much food. I don't care if it cost him $10k/plate or $3.00. He can only wear so much clothing; its cost doesn't matter to me. So to all the exceedingly rich assholes out there, spend and spend big. People need to eat and they'll gladly make a bunch of crap you don't need and sell it to you in order to do that. And if all that crap makes you feel better or more important, then I really hope you enjoy your illusion.

You ignored the example I gave. You gave the example of an "old money" rich guy who doesn't occupy position that affects other people - like a corporate executive. I'm talking about people in these positions who, when called upon to make decisions that adversely affect personnel, will screw the workers so that they themselves won't have to share in the sacrifice.


Rusty, based on your gripes with the rich, it appears that you are far less concerned about “finite resources” and far more concerned with everybody having the same amount/quality of “stuff”. That’s not really a philosophy that I can get behind because at the end of the day, all of that stuff doesn’t mean jack and there are plenty of private jets to go around to those who really want and can afford them. There is also plenty of food, houses, and clothing to go around too, but it’s not free. I want people to have jobs for that stuff and if some dude has to own a private jet so that another 100 people can have those things, I’m good with that.

Straw man. You can't argue with what I said, so you attribute something else to me and argue with THAT instead. Tsk, tsk.


Well that's simply not true. GDP itself is not stagnant, which is a better measure of economic strength than most things.

GDP is measured by country. If someone else is gaining, we could be losing and vice versa.

AJBIGJ
11-27-2013, 02:52 PM
GDP is measured by country. If someone else is gaining, we could be losing and vice versa.

Even then, it tends to grow and shrink in total as well, it is not constrained to a single total amount.

garhkal
11-27-2013, 05:57 PM
We live in a world of finite resources and, as such, the game of rich and poor is a zero sum game. The more one has, the less someone else does.

I'm a firm believer in "live simply, so that others may simply live." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have nice things, but it gets pretty ridiculous when a corporate executive has a private jet and five chauffeurs; while his employees are struggling to make ends meet. If the company is having financial trouble, that executive's money won't get touched. He's not giving up a dime. He's going to slash the pay of the workers, or even lay them off... workers who are only one paycheck away from being homeless.

The issue isn't whether or not someone is rich. The issue is whether or not the wealth - and the power that comes with it - is abused.

My thoughts exactly. I would rather it work that when a company needs to slash expenditures, they seek to reduce the over inflated pay and benefits of their top level staff rather than cutting the lower workers, but the likely hood of that happening is about as likely as All of congress voting yes on the same bill.
Now however, if that rich person is that way from luck (winning the lottery/hitting it big at the casino) or cause of hard work (built his own company from the ground up), i care a lot less.

Rusty Jones
11-27-2013, 07:30 PM
My thoughts exactly. I would rather it work that when a company needs to slash expenditures, they seek to reduce the over inflated pay and benefits of their top level staff rather than cutting the lower workers, but the likely hood of that happening is about as likely as All of congress voting yes on the same bill.
Now however, if that rich person is that way from luck (winning the lottery/hitting it big at the casino) or cause of hard work (built his own company from the ground up), i care a lot less.

Exactly. The rich people that I'm concerned about are those who are stewards of money that does not belong to them (for example, shareholders) and also, stewards of people (like employees).

I bring up shareholders, because when executives commit these acts; shareholders are also affected. You slash the worker's pay; now they have issues at home that can affect productivity. You fire them, now the employees who are left over will have to take on more work - which will affect attention to detail and the quality of the product. Or, it may even affect the ability to keep up with demand if it's impossible for the left over employees to produce the same amount of product. All because the executives don't want to part with any money.

Rainmaker
11-27-2013, 09:53 PM
This is the problem summed up in a nutshell
“When Banks are considered too big to fail it is difficult to prosecute them. If we do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy.” - Attorney General" My People" Holder 3/4/13.

Glass Stegall prevented this. It split up conflicts of interest in the Banking Sector which led to the great depression. 10 years after it's repeal we had 12 banks controlling over 70 percent of the world's financial market and another collapse. Rob a 7-11 for a couple hundred bucks and some smokes and you might find yourself doing years of hard time in the state pen. Rob the public and you get a trillion dollar taxpayer bailout, a couple token slap on the wrist fines and go back to business as usual.

There's nothing wrong with getting rich. But, at every level of society, the system (rule of Law) doesn't value ethics. Neither party really wants to fix this. So, It's time to hit reset and throw them all out. Happy Thanksgivikkah Muhfuggas!

garhkal
11-29-2013, 06:25 AM
Exactly. The rich people that I'm concerned about are those who are stewards of money that does not belong to them (for example, shareholders) and also, stewards of people (like employees).


First time i see someone calling shareholders part of the problem. I take it you have no stocks or mutual funds etc?

Rusty Jones
11-29-2013, 08:44 PM
First time i see someone calling shareholders part of the problem. I take it you have no stocks or mutual funds etc?

That was a typo. I meant to say that executives are stewards of money that belongs to investors, i.e. shareholders.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 03:29 PM
Sums up my position nicely. I am not a fan of my tax dollars being used to bailout any company that fails or is failing as a result of poor decisions and practices. Survival of the fittest goes for the business world, too.

I do not hate the rich, nor do I hate the poor. I am concerned about the middle class.

What about businesses that fail because of the Unions that went on strike and refused to ever give up any pay or plush benies when the company stated to take a slide in profits? Examples are Chrysler and Chevy. I guess you can blame management for giving into demands, then turning around and cut quality of the products to save on cost of the car so the total price of the product was out of reach of their primary purchasing base. But isnt that just how it goes, because if the price for the product when up, then the workers would essentitally loose the little payraise they got in comparison to "cost of living". But hey, at least the heads of the unions are getting a measly half a million a year in salary. They work hard for their lucrative income that is essentially stolen from the workers via taxed out of their income in the form of dues, whether the people belong to the union or not.

imnohero
12-02-2013, 04:06 PM
WJ, while I tend to agree that there are abuses by unions, GM and Chrysler "failed" while Ford didn't and they all had essentially the same deals with the UAW. While the union benefits did have some impact in the failure of the auto companies, it was ultimately the horrendous management and business practices that led to their bankruptcy. Same goes for Hostess, the other big "unions ruined the company" story of recent years. Boeing compalined recently about "union demands" and a strike but somehow always neglected to mention the cuts in pay and benefits the unions accepted years earlier when the company wasn't doing as well.

None of these instances are so clear cut or simple as "it was union demands" or "mismanagement" once we start digging into the details and histories of these companies.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 04:20 PM
WJ, while I tend to agree that there are abuses by unions, GM and Chrysler "failed" while Ford didn't and they all had essentially the same deals with the UAW. While the union benefits did have some impact in the failure of the auto companies, it was ultimately the horrendous management and business practices that led to their bankruptcy. Same goes for Hostess, the other big "unions ruined the company" story of recent years. Boeing compalined recently about "union demands" and a strike but somehow always neglected to mention the cuts in pay and benefits the unions accepted years earlier when the company wasn't doing as well.

None of these instances are so clear cut or simple as "it was union demands" or "mismanagement" once we start digging into the details and histories of these companies.

Dont forget about government regulations and taxes on such companies. Obama wants the coal industry to fail so he puts in Cap and trade. Many small oil companies cant deal with the regualtions the government puts out so they go under as well.

I agree, people who run businesses and fail should not be bailed out. Ford was one car that I saw the most everytime I deployed. And they charge extra for selling vehicles WITHOUT a CD player in them. Friends of government seem to always come out on top, and that always seems to be unions. Who got paid first in the GM, Chrysler bailouts, the investors or the unions...the unions.

imported_WILDJOKER5
12-02-2013, 04:23 PM
My thoughts exactly. I would rather it work that when a company needs to slash expenditures, they seek to reduce the over inflated pay and benefits of their top level staff rather than cutting the lower workers, but the likely hood of that happening is about as likely as All of congress voting yes on the same bill.
Now however, if that rich person is that way from luck (winning the lottery/hitting it big at the casino) or cause of hard work (built his own company from the ground up), i care a lot less.

Federal regulations are making it harder and harder to do such a thing. We are seeing the ever growing crony capitalism from the government on BOTH sides, and its not being addressed.

efmbman
12-02-2013, 10:37 PM
What about businesses that fail because of the Unions that went on strike and refused to ever give up any pay or plush benies when the company stated to take a slide in profits? Examples are Chrysler and Chevy. I guess you can blame management for giving into demands, then turning around and cut quality of the products to save on cost of the car so the total price of the product was out of reach of their primary purchasing base. But isnt that just how it goes, because if the price for the product when up, then the workers would essentitally loose the little payraise they got in comparison to "cost of living". But hey, at least the heads of the unions are getting a measly half a million a year in salary. They work hard for their lucrative income that is essentially stolen from the workers via taxed out of their income in the form of dues, whether the people belong to the union or not.

When unions bargain for benefits, they do so with their best interests in mind - not that of the company. Conversely, the corporation will do so with the best interest of the stockholder in mind (profits). Both sides are correct to do so. A balance should be reached where the company maintains a reasonable profit margin (thus ensuring continued investments) and the workers are taken care of enough that they will continue to work and attract more employees (thus combating turnover in personnel and enabling future growth).

The problem is that neither side cares enough about the other side to compromise (sound familiar?). The CEO is responsible to the board of directors and stockholders - not the union boss. Every increase in benefits that the corporation pays out to the employees will be passed on the the consumer. Will that damage profits and/or market share? There is a lot to take into consideration. As others have mentioned, there are many examples of major corporations that have established unions that do not fail miserably, so it is possible to have that balance.

When a union makes the decision to strike in order to get outrageous benefits, or when the corporation fails to act with compassion toward the workers, the negotiations failed. The entire company will suffer. Both are responsible, and both are very experienced in spinning the result to favor their position. An open mind flows with thoughts and ideas. A closed mind resembles a pond - stagnate water.

garhkal
12-03-2013, 03:28 AM
Sounds a lot like how the dems and republicans are..