The rich have money -- and passion

[jman507]

The question of whether everyone can be rich is certainly a debatable one. There are some goods for which as we produce more, the cost goes down. For example, TV’s and computers cost less than they did 20 years ago because of huge productivity gains. On the other hand, things like health care and higher education cost more because we haven’t had the productivity gains that we have had in other industries. We (in the US) gain in certain ways because other people are poor. My pants are less expensive because they are made by low wage people in Indonesia. If everyone there becomes rich, pants will become more expensive. which of course will make me less rich .

What is the answer? I think we still have significant room for growth in wealth, but it is not clear as to whether everyone can be rich. The other issue that complicates things is that whatever we have, it never seems to be enough.

The difference between a pair of pants and health care, is that there hasn’t been much innovation in a pair of pants. Let’s see maybe some new synthetic fiber and it’s eaiser to stich designs. Productivity gains in health care are rendedered insignificatate compared to the cost of innovation and new interventions.

You can say that productivity gains in computers over the last 20 years has been great at bringing down the cost, but the difference is in general for a typical family they were a novelty, while today they are nearly a need to have item.

If you are saying I don’t think it’s possible for everyone to be rich? Along with Vern’s point, many of the working class, have things today, that the rich not too long ago would love to have. A hack of a physics major of today might have knowledge of the world that’d be the envy of Newton, granted Newton would probably do far more with it if that was his base.

But I don’t think having this material is the point of Vern’s OP, it’s not about having things, but knowing how to use your resources to grow it into something you can make a living on. If you can help teach someone on how to make good judgements on what is worth keeping and what’s going to be a liablity, and what might be worth having, but holding off long enough, inorder to have more left over for other needs.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And when they do, they go to jail.

Not every method that insiders use to enrich themselves at the expense of others is illegal. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. Executive compensation is one of those areas where there is significant scope for unethical behavior. Just think about it for a minute. The Board of Directors of a corporation are supposed to represent the shareholders. However, they are usually recommended for their job by the managers (i.e. the CEO and others). Therefore, the board members owe their existence to the management of the firm. Therefore, in practice, they are likely to support the management over shareholders. In addition, the compensation consultants that are used set the CEO’s pay, get paid around $900 per hour. If the CEO is paying you $900 per hour, who are you going to want to make happy, the CEO or the shareholders?

 

[cynic]

Eventually, yes. India, unlike the United States has structural problems to day (caste, for example) that hinder broas-based accumulation of wealth. But that’s chainging. The next generation in India will be more affluent than this one, and the one after more affluent still.

that wasn’t my point, those workers could be American, and if they were all paid enough to become millionaires then Microsoft… any company… would go out of business. In order for some people to become millionaires, they need workers who will produce/maunufacture the product…

 

[LJN21]

This thread is depressing.

You know what it takes to be in the top 10% of all Americans Financially?

No dept except the (non-upside down) Mortgages and $10k in the bank.

You know that it takes to be wealthy?

Spend less than you make and a clue how money works.

We make $40k a year. We are in the top 10% of Americans financially. We don’t use Credit Cars, we don’t go in to debt for cars. Are the affluent? No. Well we be millionaires? Yes. Probably well before we retire.

All of you who say that some people just can’t do it are demeaning the single moms and minorities that do. Recently I heard the story of a Single mother who was not getting child support that worked her way out of dept and was saving money for the first time in her life. For the first time she could see the light at the end of the tunnel “and it wasn’t an oncoming train.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

that wasn’t my point, those workers could be American, and if they were all paid enough to become millionaires then Microsoft… any company… would go out of business.

I worked in a business where there was an Employee Stock Option Plan. One lady, a secretary, took full advantage. When the business was sold, she became a millionaire.

So obviously, if a small business can make a mere secretary a millionaire, clearly a large business can make its programmers rich.

All that is necessary in America is to save and invest. Over the long haul, anyone who does that can retire in comfort.

In order for some people to become millionaires, they need workers who will produce/maunufacture the product…

Who, if they save and invest, can become quite prosperous over time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This thread is depressing.

You know what it takes to be in the top 10% of all Americans Financially?

No dept except the (non-upside down) Mortgages and $10k in the bank.

You know that it takes to be wealthy?

Spend less than you make and a clue how money works.

We make $40k a year. We are in the top 10% of Americans financially. We don’t use Credit Cars, we don’t go in to debt for cars. Are the affluent? No. Well we be millionaires? Yes. Probably well before we retire.

All of you who say that some people just can’t do it are demeaning the single moms and minorities that do. Recently I heard the story of a Single mother who was not getting child support that worked her way out of dept and was saving money for the first time in her life. For the first time she could see the light at the end of the tunnel “and it wasn’t an oncoming train.”

What is so depressing is so many people who don’t save and invest try to persuade others that they can’t make it by that method.

 

[LJN21]

What is so depressing is so many people who don’t save and invest try to persuade others that they can’t make it by that method.

Exactly!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Not every method that insiders use to enrich themselves at the expense of others is illegal. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it is ethical. Executive compensation is one of those areas where there is significant scope for unethical behavior. Just think about it for a minute. The Board of Directors of a corporation are supposed to represent the shareholders. However, they are usually recommended for their job by the managers (i.e. the CEO and others). Therefore, the board members owe their existence to the management of the firm. Therefore, in practice, they are likely to support the management over shareholders. In addition, the compensation consultants that are used set the CEO’s pay, get paid around $900 per hour. If the CEO is paying you $900 per hour, who are you going to want to make happy, the CEO or the shareholders?

And guess how this all came about?

About 30 years or so, there were many bloated, poorly-managed corporations. And some savvy investors bought their stock, took them over, got rid of the dead wood, split up dis-similar businesses and made money.

But in the process of making those businesses profitable, some people got laid off. So there was an outcry and Congress changed the rules. The take over artists were owners of the businesses, so Congress made rules so the owners could no longer run the businesses. They gave that power to the management – and surprise! surprise! – management used it for their own advantage.

If you don’t like the way things are going, write to your congressman and tell him to sponsor a bill to return control of joint stock companies to the owners, the shareholders. Let them set the compensation of the BOD and corporate officers.

 

[cynic]

Who, if they save and invest, can become quite prosperous over time.

Try saving enough to invest when you’re on $250 a week, or whatever the third world equivalent of 10 cents an hour is. The Indian workforce is an obvious example of companies outsourcing for **cheap labour. **. That is the whole point of thee right leaning philosophies, create the situation (in the west) where we can pay people a little as possible (so they have no money to invest), for in some cases doing quite involved work (programming) and extending working hours to as long a possible (so they have no time to even understand or think about investing), then blame said workers for not saving, investing and moving forward in life:thumbsup: . Way to go.

You, vern, advocate abolishing the minimum wage, even though the the cost of rent and a good deal of the groceries we buy will not be affected. I 'd say you’d also agree with privatising the supply of education, and removing whatever medicaid supplements people have in the U.S, hence upping the cost of living for those people. You can then blame then for the mess they’ll find themselves in. Don’t be fooled this not about getting people to be self sufficient, not about fair recompense for work, it’s about cheap labour

 

[LJN21]

Try saving enough to invest when you’re on $250 a week, or whatever the third world equivalent of 10 cents an hour is. The Indian workforce is an obvious example of companies outsourcing for **cheap labour. **. That is the whole point of thee right leaning philosophies, create the situation (in the west) where we can pay people a little as possible (so they have no money to invest), for in some cases doing quite involved work (programming) and extending working hours to as long a possible (so they have no time to even understand or think about investing), then blame said workers for not saving, investing and moving forward in life:thumbsup: . Way to go.

You, vern, advocate abolishing the minimum wage, even though the the cost of rent and a good deal of the groceries we buy will not be affected. I 'd say you’d also agree with privatising the supply of education, and removing whatever medicaid supplements people have in the U.S, hence upping the cost of living for those people. You can then blame then for the mess they’ll find themselves in. Don’t be fooled this not about getting people to be self sufficient, not about fair recompense for work, it’s about cheap labour

Here in the US no one has to live off that. You can make $20 an hour cleaning houses! You can make another $1000 a month delivering pizza’s. If someone is willing they can always make more money.

The large majority of poor people are already earning more than minimum wage so you augment there does not hold water.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn…010301619.html

I’m going to pull some of the more telling statics out of that.

“Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America’s wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives in families with earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part time, and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively.)”

“Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between ages 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers.”

“The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, so 29 states with 70 percent of the nation’s workforce have set minimum wages between $6.15 and $7.93 an hour.”

The only people that really win are the unions.
heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1350.cfm
“Unions campaign to raise the minimum wage at least in part because it enriches them. Raising the minimum wage makes unskilled workers more expensive for businesses to hire, and so hiring skilled and highly paid union members becomes a more attractive choice. This effect increases union members’ earned income but reduces low-income workers’ job prospects and income. That unions support raising the minimum wage is understandable, but antipoverty advocates should reconsider their support for a policy that hurts the very people they seek to help.”

 

[cynic]

The fact that most low incomes hover above the minimum simply says that wherever the minimum wage is, that will effect what employers will be willing to pa. It’s $5.50, no employers want to be *seen *as paying minumum wage, so it’s $6.50 for their non skilled workers. If the minium were $2.50, they would pay $3.00…

 

[anthony022071]

I would not use the term"wrong" I think others are refering to scale. If you had a society in which the lowest annual resource was $38K, and the highest was $68k you would still define the subgroups as poor, working poor, middle class, rich, and wealthy. However the standards of living would be much closer. I once heard some interesting comments on this from Warren Buffet concerning is living standard verse a typpical American ( lets say middle class) he stated it is very little difference. He drives a fairly standard auto, wears practically the same clothes, eats food of his choosing as they do, uses same phone, TV, computer, highway, water, sewer system, etc, etc.
Now the difference is in the poeple who do not have enough food, water, clothes, highways, sewers, etc. Overall free trade and private property rights have so far proven the most successful why to improve their lives. The process is not easy however this appears the best current solution

Fair enough. I think that we as Christians should,in the meantime,
practice personal charity toward the poor people that we come across. Let’s not put too much faith in any economic system because they all have many bad side-effects which give the lie against the benefits,and are bound to fail in the long run. We should be always be ready to help the poor,and to face the prospect of becoming poor ourselves should the economy collapse or something disastrous happen in our personal lives.
We should,individually,take the stigma out of being poor,homeless and desperate by acknowledging those in that condition as brothers and not just social inferiors. And there is,for us,a great stigma in being poor,else we would not worry and fret so much about our finances and economic security.

By the way,has anyone read the book The Wal-Mart Effect?

 

[cynic]

“Unions campaign to raise the minimum wage at least in part because it enriches them. Raising the minimum wage makes unskilled workers more expensive for businesses to hire, and so hiring skilled and highly paid union members becomes a more attractive choice. This effect increases union members’ earned income but reduces low-income workers’ job prospects and income. That unions support raising the minimum wage is understandable, but antipoverty advocates should reconsider their support for a policy that hurts the very people they seek to help.”

Reducing or abolishing a modest minimum wage in order to help those on low incomes, a distasteful joke surely. First what good is employment if you can’t pay your rent? second why would an employer pay for a non-unions members training or upskilling if they aren’t willing to pay them the mimimum wage to begin with? I don’t understand this at all to be honest. This is stuff from loony right wing think tanks, people who want this would have full time workers become welfare recipients. The government would have to top up peoples wages just so that they could survive. Either the government supplements corporate greed, or you’ll have a whole new class of homeless people. If it were possible for everyone to earn $20 an hour cleaning, then why worry about a 5 or 7 dollar minimum anyway?

 

[LJN21]

The fact that most low incomes hover above the minimum simply says that wherever the minimum wage is, that will effect what employers will be willing to pa. It’s $5.50, no employers want to be *seen *as paying minumum wage, so it’s $6.50 for their non skilled workers. If the minium were $2.50, they would pay $3.00…

Have you done a survay of what jobs pay? Do you have statistics of that? I backed my statements up.

The fact is most people are told they can’t from day one so they don’t try. People like you keep telling them they’ll never get ahead, they can’t make enough to save and they stop trying. Why should they even bother to try then.

 

[LJN21]

Reducing or abolishing a modest minimum wage in order to help those on low incomes, a distasteful joke surely. First what good is employment if you can’t pay your rent? second why would an employer pay for a non-unions members training or upskilling if they aren’t willing to pay them the mimimum wage to begin with? I don’t understand this at all to be honest. This is stuff from loony right wing think tanks, people who want this would have full time workers become welfare recipients. The government would have to top up peoples wages just so that they could survive. Either the government supplements corporate greed, or you’ll have a whole new class of homeless people. If it were possible for everyone to earn $20 an hour cleaning, then why worry about a 5 or 7 dollar minimum anyway?

You missed the point and jump to the opposite conclusion that wasn’t even alluded too. I don’t think its possible to abolition or reduce minimum wages at this point. I also don’t think it the federal governments job to tell the States what minimum wages is.

I’m not worried about a $6.25 dollar minimum personally, the damage form that has already been done. Most because 0.6% of a Americans actually make it and they are teenagers and high school students I don’t think it should get any higher because it makes lots of stuff go up. It is not really a raise. When minimum wage when form $5.15 to where it is now I was in high school student working at a fast food restaurant making minimum wage. We had a meeting one morning and the general manager came in and told has while we may think we were getting a raise we weren’t. The price of everything was about to go up. He told us just to watch the menu in a week or two there would be new ones with new prices.

I do think the argument against raising it has valid points. I also think that there are better ways to help the poor. Here we change sales taxes on food in grocery stores but the state government goes and waves the sales taxes on college sports event tickets. How unfair is that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

When we talk about minimum wage, we must also talk about the McDonalds Fountain of Youth.

Thirty years ago, there was a lot of talk about “McJobs” – minimum wage, “burger-flipping, dead end jobs.” Those were the people we were trying to help by forcing mean 'ol McDonalds to pay more.

Little did we know that McDonalds had found the Fountain of Youth. I know they did – because those people who were “locked in” to those “burger-flipping, dead end jobs” haven’t aged at all in the last 30 years.

The rest of us have sagging bodies, flat feet, varicose veins and male-pattern baldness, but the people at McDonalds are still fresh-faced kids after working those “burger-flipping, dead end jobs” for the last 30 years.

(Now, I know someone will pop up and tell me, “It isn’t the same kids. They work at McDonalds a while, get some work experience, and move on.” But that can’t be right. Can it?)

 

[mary_bobo]

Reducing or abolishing a modest minimum wage in order to help those on low incomes, a distasteful joke surely. First what good is employment if you can’t pay your rent? second why would an employer pay for a non-unions members training or upskilling if they aren’t willing to pay them the mimimum wage to begin with? I don’t understand this at all to be honest. This is stuff from loony right wing think tanks, people who want this would have full time workers become welfare recipients. The government would have to top up peoples wages just so that they could survive. Either the government supplements corporate greed, or you’ll have a whole new class of homeless people. If it were possible for everyone to earn $20 an hour cleaning, then why worry about a 5 or 7 dollar minimum anyway?

With all due respect to your opinion, I don’t think the “loony right think tanks” want people on welfare. Quite the opposite. They want people off of welfare. I don’t think you will find many people with minimum wage jobs who are supporting a family. And your comment about corporate greed is off base. The minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs and not ever intended to be the only job in the family. I think maybe you are exaggerating a little.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have always had a issue understanding the conservative response to minimum wage. First it is not an issue of if the economy can survive with or without a minimum wage, as it has done both. Second did you know every minimum wage boost has boosted the US economy? It is true and directly opposite the conservative stance. Third the Free Market Principles claim “all are equal” which is a relative term however the slow or handicapped are disadvantaged. I do believe the minimum wage is a form of protection for them.

If someone could explain to me

1. Why we should not improve the economy by increasing the minimum wage again
2. How the free market ethically handles the slow and disadvantaged
   thanks in advance

 

[jman507]

I have always had a issue understanding the conservative response to minimum wage. First it is not an issue of if the economy can survive with or without a minimum wage, as it has done both. Second did you know every minimum wage boost has boosted the US economy? It is true and directly opposite the conservative stance. Third the Free Market Principles claim “all are equal” which is a relative term however the slow or handicapped are disadvantaged. I do believe the minimum wage is a form of protection for them.

If someone could explain to me

1. Why we should not improve the economy by increasing the minimum wage again
2. How the free market ethically handles the slow and disadvantaged
   thanks in advance

Hmmm, I’m assume you got that somewhere, so what exactly do you have to back that up, I think it might be hard to isolate an economic boost for what would occur naturally. Plus does it take into account, not the nominative effect, but the real effect? I guess too it can also increase inflation, though that too might be hard to isolate from inflation that would occur anyway.

Also I think, because increasing the minimum effects a broader spectrum of people than just the slow and handicapped, it would be better to take a more precise intervention to help them. Granted I think it will cause problems when trying to get that through the government. But I think to back to the OP, that too might be apart of the values to be taught too, to make sure that those that need extra care are cared after. A local program might really do a better job of meeting their needs, and less red tape to get help to people hard on their luck for a short period of time.

 

[LJN21]

Hmmm, I’m assume you got that somewhere, so what exactly do you have to back that up, I think it might be hard to isolate an economic boost for what would occur naturally. Plus does it take into account, not the nominative effect, but the real effect? I guess too it can also increase inflation, though that too might be hard to isolate from inflation that would occur anyway.

Also I think, because increasing the minimum effects a broader spectrum of people than just the slow and handicapped, it would be better to take a more precise intervention to help them. Granted I think it will cause problems when trying to get that through the government. But I think to back to the OP, that too might be apart of the values to be taught too, to make sure that those that need extra care are cared after. A local program might really do a better job of meeting their needs, and less red tape to get help to people hard on their luck for a short period of time.

IMO is our job to take care of the needy not the governments.