Forum Post: Rich or poor - who works hardest. ?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 9:35 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA
(610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
So than why do the rich get paid more ?
Troll or Dork - Who posts SH!T like this ?!
LOL, couldnt have said it any better myself
there you go again, shadz66. People like you make this movement into a pack of clowns.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cult of wealth and we should focus on wealth acquired honestly and not fret ourselves with wealth redistribution which in my opinion is the most colossal mistake that could be made by this nation.
'Wealth' and the concept of 'private property' are blights on the planet.
"The more stuff you own, the more your stuff owns you."
~Tyler Durden
Capitalism is Dead
the way i look at it, you can come and TRY to take what is mine. one of biggest reasons communism won't work here; americans aren't European Sheeple, we will not give the gov't our rights
"Rights" to do what?
Own property?
"Economic Freedom" means nothing to the poor. Free to starve is all that it means. Without some degree of 'socialism', society falls apart.
For all those fundamentalist capitalists out there who whine about the "evils of government" and who are too chicken shit to pay their damned taxes: They should be thankful that the government is here to keep the poor fed just well enough so as not to be inclined to storm those gated communities.
For all those anarchists protesting in the streets, remember: Big Business LOVES anarchy because without government, there's nothing to stop banks and corporations from riding roughshod over the rest of us.
This is humorously illustrated as follows:
http://tinyurl.com/d92m97a
All societies invariably 'socialize' some resources and 'capitalize' others.
This is the natural balance.
The "economic ecology", if you will.
More here:
http://metapolitik.org/nutshell
we pay our taxes
Sorry, but that is a fundamental wrong in your thinking. If not capitalism, then what? Communism? I have heard it said that China is a good example. Look again. So if communism is not the answer,then what is? Bartering a chicken for a midwife?
I agree, communism (albeit not practiced in its truest form) failed. Welfare states failed, Corporate "regulated" capitalism has also failed, need to discuss what the best new system. however as always there will be a controlling "class" who will try and manipulate it to their benefit. I personally think direct democracy, and much less government and less regulation federally is best, let communities decide if they want clean water, fracking, mountain top clearing, deep water drilling then they only have themselves to blame when it goes wrong.
people will want to take from companies, it is the way we work. representatives work best
ok I have been 5 years starting a business, many times I have had to no money to buy food or pay the next bill, now I employee 3 people who pay taxes. if everyone can "take" from the companies why would anyone bother for the sleepless nights, 18 hour days etc?
my point
A very good idea
Communism is not a good thing either. In communism the stuff owns the government as they control the stuff. In theory it is people however based on Tyler Durdan's (a fictional character) quote it is the stuff that owns whoever own what ever possesses it. Small things, Big things, stock, intangibles, countries, corporations: they own whoever possesses it.
tedscr@t : You give the impression of possibly still believing in the now palpably defunct 'Trickle Down' theory of Capitalism, whereas those with the eyes to see, discern a "Hoover Up Kaputalism" at work.
The Petit Bourgeois (like you?) seem to really be fretting whether some one is coming for their hard earned dollars, whereas of course it's The Corporations (& The Trans-National Banking Corporations in particular) which have usurped democracy and which have to be opposed by all freedom loving people.
The Ruling Elites (The 0.01%) in The U$A have been too engaged with Parasitism and Larceny at home & Empire and WAR abroad, to really be bothered with the 99% and indeed there is no end of "clowns" on this forum alone, more animated and excited by the prospect of WAR on Iran for example - than with the Debt-Bondage of their own fellow citizens.
radix malorum est cupiditas ...
OK, let's hear of some ways that you would change the nation. And I am sorry, but I do not know latin. So you are one up on me there.
"radix malorum est cupititas" = Love Of Money Is The Root of Evil, as an elementary cut and paste into any search engine would've told you.
Abolishing "Corporate Personhood" ; Loosening The Grip of The Corporations on US Society, Politics and Culture ; Moving from a War Economy to Investing in National Infrastructure and The Citizenry, amongst other things, would start to change The U$A but none of this will happen from "The Top Down" largesse as ONLY a bottom up, 99% Struggle and 'Consciousness Shift' will bring about any change.
per ardua ad astra (= "by hard work to the stars")
Thanks for the Latin lesson.
I would be interested in seeing the corporate influence in Congress diminished, while not sacrificing the corporate power in the economic sense. There are people and groups and professionals who have the knowledge to put together money and manpower to run truly large projects. I fail to see how the bottom up approach that you mention is going to be able to accomplish anything beyond the very local projects.
I do not believe a vilification of the corporate sector is the answer. A flat tax rate combined with a basic tax on consumption will, in my opinion, be a large step toward change that we need
a) http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1ejBOPiGq ;
b) http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf ;
c) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/economics/ ;
d) http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-broke/ &
e) http://maxkeiser.com/ .
fiat lux ( = let there be light)
Thanks for the links shadz66, a couple more to throw at trolls that for whatever reason they cannot realistically address what they oppose. With them its always BS and smear instead of what its really all about.
@TTS ;-) & further to the above ...
f) Silver Bears on "MF Global" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLt05sN7vK0&feature=player_embedded#! ;
g) Re. Silver Bears on Quantitative Easing (Queasing ?!) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k &
h) Re. Silver Bears on Bank Bailouts : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw&feature=relmfu
i.) Re. the above (& much more besides!) : http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ ;
j.) + http://www.opensecrets.org/ .
pax, amor et lux ...
exactly why there should be a low, flat tax with no write offs
I agree, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make money in an honest way but there is a massive problem with the corruption, fraud, insider trading which are hallmarks of the corporate and establishment bureaucracy - this is the case from China to Russia to the USA...
[Deleted]
LoL ! Too much Troll-o-lol again 'supinesimon' ?!
Let's keep it simple then simon ; are you "simplesimon" a bit simple or even called simon ? Any idea what "simon" means ? If you hate OWSers, why hang out on this forum ? What might that say about you, d'you think ? & How did your head end up so far up your (x) ?
I am of course not remotely interested in any of the answers but I just wanted to leave you with some meditation material ...
ommm shaanti ;-)
I love you people! You all are like mayflys on the windshield of life!
LOL
Don't Lie ! You HATE OWS and people like me !! + You don't know SH!T about "Love". multum in parvo.
SPLAT! Classic!
Because Capitalism is pure Evil in it's relentless and systematic "externalization" of all cost.
The system as it stands does not understand, acknowledge or recognize that we are an interconnected, interdependent society or that social decay in one class-sector always seems to seep into the others via cultural osmosis.
Resources must be shared along with burdens and responsibilities or this planet and our species are headed for oblivion.
Thank you. How can we share our resources and burdens equally ?
Here are some ideas:
http://metapolitik.org/article/approaching-metapolitical-discourse
http://realneo.us/content/innovation-organizational-design-pragmatic-discussion-ring-cone-theory
this ring cone theory .. seems to be a business model of organizing resposibility and authority.. can you add your definition?
The federal workforce is more educated and gets less money. Right now, they are the scapegoats of this federal gov't. A bill is in Congress to extend the current two year freeze on federal pay through 2013; a 1.5% increase in employee pension contributions, and the elimination of the social security supplement. This is regardless of whether you are single, head of household, at the bottom of the pay scale or at the top.
A comment read in the WashPost.
The odds of this latest bill attacking average middle class federal workers going through are zero and none. They just are not getting it. Most of GOP and Tea Bags will be voted out due to severe voter backlash resulting from continuous attacks on average middle class American workers. Will be glad to see them all get booted out of office. House likely to regain Democratic majority. Over 250 millionaires in Congress. Many participating in insider trading have increased their wealth by leaps and bounds during the past three years. Several Congressmen with net worths exceeding several hundred million dollars. Any idiot can see who they really work for. Mega millionaires and billionaires continue to receive numerous breaks while contributing nothing at the expense of average middle class American workers. The top 1% own over 50% of the wealth and assets of America while contributing nearly nothing and stripping more pay away from the middle class and sending jobs overseas. The ultra wealthy have increased their vast fortunes by over 275%. Federal pay already lags the private sector by well over 26.3% . I do not know any rich average federal employees. Funny how Congress focused on attacking a small group of average middle class workers while the wealthy continue to tremendously increase their fortunes. Anyone participating in insider trading should be sent to prison.
No one has a problem with the rich getting paid what they do, the problem is when they try to use their money to get more influence in our political system. I don't care what anyone gets paid, I just want a fair democracy where the laws aren't slanted to those who have money to pay lobbyists.
then go occupy your congressman - vote them out of office if you dont like what they do. your aim is off.
Unfortunately there are millions of party-line drones who make are moved by advertisements instead of platforms, rendering any one vote moot. Too many people's votes are actually "bought" out by obscene levels of campaign spending.
If more people actually cared about politics to read the platforms, ignore the media circus, and come to their own independent conclusions, then we wouldn't have all of these narrow-minded pro-greed incompetents running the show.
Maybe that can change. I hope it can. I believe that we will see a real third party come out of this, and if that party plays its cards right, then we can start seeing seats in Congress being taken away from party-line towers and towards common-sense representatives.
so basically - in a nutshell - a lot of excuses lol!
PArty rule will always override new hires..
not if the whole Party becomes the new hires.
Average of 90% re-election of incumbents. The people are too fuckin dumb to vote them out.
More people are awake today than they were four months ago. It takes six years to fully eradicate stupidyness from the Halls of Congress. Patience, pride and passivity are our greatest strengths.
I hope so. But if we are going to wait that long, I think we may as well just create a new party, no corporate backing, grassroots style, focusing on those that never vote, along with the indies and the disenfranchised D and R.
do you know that the way the system is set up that if liberals would make a new party, it would secure the Republicans their victory. If Trump runs independent, the Democrats are secured a victory. And say you do get a third party in there, that party has to caucus with one of the two. this would give the new party a lot of leverage, but statistically speaking, it is too much of a long shot. libertarians caucus with the R's and Independents choose between the two, while progressives caucus with the left. The system is a machine, a game if you please, and only after the rules have changed could a third party be applicable, unless the tea party and the ows both decide to run candidates, but I believe that this would just make it harder for R & D to win. (there are still too many people happy with the 'Quo. IMOP.)
If we want to keep using money to reward labor, then the only thing that makes sense would be when jobs that benefit humanity the most are rewarded the most.
But the way it is now, the most useless jobs get payed the most. I don't really care if they work hard or not. If all that work is only making the world worse, then we would be better off if they didn't work at all.
we vote everyday on what we value the most. Every time we spend a dollar we vote on what has the highest value to us. Do we value the NFL? MLB?, Music? Movies? what kind of car we value? you get the picture.
How is that a response to what i wrote?
"using money to reward labor." "jobs that benefit humanity" are being rewarded by how much we value them every day
The thing is, money is no indicator of human needs or even wants. It doesn't say a damn thing about what humanity needs to flourish.
I suppose you know what humanity needs. Money is a store of value. It is used to make barter more convenient.
Human needs are pretty easy to determine yes. At least in the form of resources. What we need in terms of social contact and mental stimuli is a little harder but there are studies that do answer what we need to become stable productive members of society.
Rich get paid more because they have scarce skills. Should the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds be paid the same as a Surgeon?
Actually I think he does believe that.
The question is who works hardest.
Define hard. Physical labor, the tedious any warm body can do this kind of thing? May very well be the poor individual.
Define hard.
The owner of a business steps out of his office and says to his employee , build five hundred cars today. And than he goes back to his office. Obviously his job is very difficult Indeed.
any warm body can do it hence the low wages. Like I said - acquire some skills if you want more money. Dont be just any warm body
Even in that logic, our current world does not make sense. A stockbroker makes more then a surgeon. Yet his so called skills are completely useless in the real world.
I could accept that surgeons and scientist make good money. But often in comparison, they do not. Not compared to jobs that focus on shifting this thing called money around without producing anything.
A stock broker is a salesman selling a product. If his clients are pleased with his product they will continue to invest with them. If they are not - they will leave. The better the broker the more money they make. Just like a car salesman. Are salesmen useless?
obviously those 2 jobs do not compare at all. If salesmen are a useless job or not is a totally different discussion and your just trying to derail the argument.
Focus on what i try to say instead of trying to pick and twist my words for your own benefit
oh - by the way not all stock brokers make more than surgeons. The good ones do. The not so good ones dont. you say the stock brokers skills are useless - apparently not to people that hire them to invest their money for them.
I don't see you arguing that their job is useless though. So i guess you agree then? Their job is useless, and we as society would be better of if they didn't do their job at all and maybe focus their talents on actual useful work?
How is a salesmen useless? If they were useless there wouldnt be any.
we were talking about stockbrokers. Not salesmen. That's a totally different discussion as i said before.
So, you agree that stockbroker is a useless job or not?
stock brokers are salesmen - I guess you missed that in my first piece. No Stock brokers are not useless. They are providing a service people obviously want. If there were no demand for stockbrokers - there wouldn't be any. Just like the Chevy Volt. No demand for that piece of crap. It has to be propped up by the government with tax payer subsidies.
Just because something exists doesn't make it useful. That's like saying thieves and killers are useful because they exists. And i hope you at least agree that we would be better of without those.
hahahaha! your kidding right hahaha! stock brokers are salesmen - no different than a car salesman. they sell a product. an investment product. Plenty of people use stockbrokers to help them with their investments. do people seek out thieves & killers to help them with their lives?
"do people seek out thieves & killers to help them with their lives?"
Do stockbrokers? No, they don't. The comparison is fair. Thieves and murderers provide a service too. According to your theory they are useful because they exist. I don't see the difference.
no frizzle - stockbrokers exist because people want their services. If people didnt want their services - they would not make any money and they would seek another occupation. How old are you anyway?
no Aries - Thieves exist because people want their services. If people didnt want their services - they would not make any money and they would seek another occupation. And how old are you?
ok - a pointless waste of time discussion have a great evening.
aries point was right on target.
Go ahead and explain why you think that.
I agree with aries that stocks are a product and that stockbrokers are salesmen. There are all types of stocks; one can decide what type of companies he will support with his portfolio. All my stock is currently in companies working on emerging sources of energy like solar power and wind farms. I could have invested elsewhere, or I could have bought something with my money, but I decide to purchase stocks in these companies to support them and because I believe it is a good investment. Stocks are a product. If nobody wanted that product, then they wouldn't exist. It's a free market ruled by offer and demand.
I agree completely.
the one who acquires the skills
[Removed]
[Removed]
Depends on the job and person.
The KTC works the hardest.
The Revolution has a new theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/
The Revolution starts here!
I'm rich because I won 20 mil in the lotto. I work the hardest.
Those who are actually dedicated to doing the best that they can do regardless of income or incentives, but because they signed-up for the job, and so they will put out their best effort and keep doing it until they go on to do something else.
The rich get more because they are in the drivers seat. The good ones though will not rape their employees.
The rich get more because they take the first piece of the pie .. as opposed to the last piece.
Rich!!
In Wisconsin, it's OK to be poor...you can get some decent government assistance to survive...it's good to be rich of course...but if you are a low paid working class person...you are in big trouble.
yeah, and thats just not right. we are all human beings putting in a days work .. its unfair the difference in pay
I look at with someone getting government benefits, food stamps, energy assistance (etc.) being able to live better than someone putting in 40, 50 hours a week...how are they supposed to stay motivated to work? I myself am completely at a loss as to what is happening in my state.
okay .. I understand your point ..
and just to add to this .. I believe those getting assistance would lose it if they were to go back to work .. defies motivation ..
we need to take a serious look at the whole unfairness of it all ..
Exactly my point. Some people can't afford to go back to work. It's not as simple as "get a job" which many people fail to understand. The low paid workers either need some tax relief or some access to government assistance. We have to give somewhere if we are going to keep the minimum wage where it's at.
I spoke with a homeless man about finding a job, and he said its tough without a home to hold down a job. he gave an example of one afternoon he worked carrying steel bars . by the end of the day he was tired and dirty .. and had to wash behing a gas station using a cold water garden hose.
Even the application is rough with the detail that is expected these days. I feel for the man you spoke with who is obviously trying to do the right thing. I hope he can get the help he needs to get back on his feet.
I openly challange any of the top earner to work all three of my jobs for a month. While I work there job or jobs for a month. I gvie them a week before they want to quit. Half of them might even die off before the end of the month. 80+ hours a week on 5 or less hours of sleep would make them change there tune for sure.
The basic principle of hierarchical capitalist consumer civilization is: the harder you work: the less you get paid. The less you work: the more you get paid... Until you get to the top: where the Queen of England does nothing whatsoever to earn one penny of the obscene amount of wealth she owns and the obscene amount of tax dollars that is sucked from poor working class people to keep her rich and in the manner that is accustomed.. which is to say: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the rich do NOT like anyone else except them becoming rich, and will NOT allow anyone to become richer than they are..
Both work the same. However those who are paid a salary have less stress and less risk than the person who pays the salary. This needs to be rewarded or else you are proposing a communist system which does not reward innovation or Entrepreneurship.
the reward in a collective system is shared by all .. and removes the dog eat dog competition and replaces with a all work together .
I see the constant struggle between competition which only restricts mankinds full potetential .. if we all worked together we could accomplish greeat things..
Its just not that simple. Not even close. Holy albino lobster crap. You're not even in the right universe.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
I didnt say that there wasn't a fraudulent and corrupt system channeling money to a select few, that is clear, but putting another set of rules, taxes, controls on free enterprise and small productive, competitive business is not the solution.
Desires are not rights
Then stop supporting corporate subsidies.
when did I ever say I support corporate subsidies? I am for true free market capitalism. Not crony capitalism. or redistribution to various voting blocks.
Finally one point we can agree on (the crony capitalism).
You have done a lifetime of research.
The question I would focus on , how did they concentrate the wealth to the rich? the answer , through unfettered profits.
I heard of the "roaring twenties , which the media never points out .. they only talk of the great depression which follows ... was there a huge influx of borrowed money that caused the roaring twenties ? I do not know this answer.
Certainly this recent boom was all about a huge amount of borrowed money. Interest rates were lowered immediately after 9/11 and boom sales went through the roof ... if There had been a CAP on sales profits .. prices would have stayed low and affordable .. and undeniably prevented this current crisis .. HOW ? because the middleman would not have been able to drain the wealth from the economy and concentrate it all . The CAP would have prevented borrowers from going so far in debt.
It's a extremely simple fix on this style of free market. place a percetage cap between points of buy and sell .. think about it carefull ..walk through it .. the only disagreement you will find is that people feel they have a right to set their own price .. even at the failure of the economy ..
Borrowing money created a false demand .. and so prices were raised according to this false demand ... if only we could borrow money indefinitly .. but reality was we ran out of borrowers ... and the demand shrank .. and as in the 30's businesses began cutting jobs .. and people with debt started losing their jobs ..
Everyone blames the borrower for not being more careful , but during the boom no one was complaining than ..
but for every borrower there is a hoarder .. and eventually the hoarders got it all ...
money needs to circulate .. and right now with the huge concentration of wealth at the top .. it is just not circulating fast enough .. it is "trickling " back into circulation .. how long will this trickle continue ? more job loss for sure is in our near future .. no one is borrowing money to create jobs .. the government can't borrow anymore .. and the rich have no obligation to anyone .. so were stuck in this choke hold" .. the rich are refusing to spend and create work ... The dangerous news .. in the great depression .. a war broke out as you mentioned ... is that in our future ?
Can we prevent a major WAR? everyone will be on edge in short time without jobs .. and very ready to do something .. so much pressure .. everywhere .. all over a improperly designed economic system ..
Again a simple CAP on profits would have prevented this whole mess ...
Does that bring you into my universe now ?
Our views aren't identical but they are very similar on this issue..
I concede you have done greater research also .
At this point we need to focus on a solution.
I know you have been advocating higher taxes .. I would like to point out the consequences of raising business taxes are very dire .. and that a better solution is the CAP.
thanks ..
It's a nice philosophical question, but what's the point?
the argument of equal pay .. the rich always claim they worked hard for everything they have and somehow this is their justification .. well so I ask who works hardest .. and you will find many of the poor work far harder than all the rich .. so if the rich can justify their efforts with their wealth .. than how would you explain the efforts of a poor man and his wealth .. there is no justification is the actual point.
Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. Does each prostitute deserve across the board equal pay?
THE RICH
Neither, it has to do with the individual person working. I know many rich people who do not work hard, I know even more poor people who protest and do not work at all! Instead they look for a handout from the government and run around "protesting" everything. I do know a lot of working class people who work extremely hard.
Interesting. The rich are more of a burden on the working middle class than are the poor.
Everyone I know who works for themselves dwarfs those who do the same thing, but for someone. There is no time o
I have a friend who worked seven days a week, ten hours a day, and a lot of times more than that. Worked one year, ten months straight without a day off, no overtime, no benefits in order to pay her bills. She got paid minimum wage, and since they considered this job, a contract job, which just means that they take taxes out but consider you a slave that works more than eight hours a day and doesn't get overtime, much less vacation, time and a half for more than 8 hours or holidays, no 401k, no retirement. Guess who makes all the money, the employer who uses slave wages in order to get rich while abusing their workers with slave wages and no benefits. Yes, it is the workers who make the money for the rich, for without workers, they would have nothing. I cannot imagine them doing any of the hard work, all they do is control the money and wealth, and are so greedy and corrupt that they do not want to share the hard work of their workers, and try to keep everything to themselves. Yes, of course, it is the workers who work harder and in the end, receive little or no compensation. This is why, on May01st(May Day or Workers Day throughout the world), millions of workers will march on Washington D.C. and demand more workers rights, and an end to greed in corruption in Congress, Wall Street, the Banks and Corporations!
Give your friend a hug for me.
Who knows Let's not make this about bankers only Why does a doctor gets paid shit when Lady Gaga earns millions, or Kobe Bryant for things that are unimportant to society? At least Gates is important, Jobs was important but we pay so much to be entertained.
Senseless entertainment is highly rewarded.
Because the system is rigged to value land and what comes from it rather than labor.
There are definitely portions of both groups that work harder than the rest. It's a divisive question that doesn't make any practical sense. I believe there are many rich people that deserve to have more. These are not the ones lobbying Republicans to cling to Inheritance Tax Holidays.
We are debating equality and fairness.
Equal pay for everyone would end the debate.
Hard physical work is not the effort which creates compensation.....it is the result of the effort that determines the compensation.....
The question should be "why" is there a disparity....and the answer is effort and results
Another post from the very simple minded FriendlyObserverA. Don't we all wish he would just observe?
Yes.
Hey "Thrasy" a point of genuine agreement between us (& Rico too!). Re. your second sentence and question ... alas NOW you show an insight ! ;-)
Verba docent, exempla trahunt !!
Depends on which rich you talk about. Which jobs you take into consideration. There's a lot of jobs at the higher end of the scale that require a lot of work, or even dangerous work. So in the end there's no way to measure.
Probably because of the growth of inequality we've ended up with two myths perpetuated by the opposite groups.
1) The poor are to blame for their poverty. 2) The rich never worked a hard day's labor.
Both, for the majority, are false. Unfortunately, the small percentage it's true for continue to be used to justify the myths as fact for those in the opposite class. In the end, the enemy is corruption and unethical practices, and who gets paid more doesn't matter.
A janitor works harder than CEO.
Having worked both sides, I'd say no. The GOOD janitor does more physical labor, a GOOD CEO does more mental labor - which can be just as exhausting. However, having a position of power, a CEO has a higher responsibility - and therefore, things like ethics, which nobody would think to ask a janitor about (Though I have worked a job where a janitor was fired for ethics), are - and should be - asked of a CEO. People want to claim that it's unfair to ask this higher standard, but it isn't.
It doesn't matter why they entered the work force. (For the most part, we all enter the workforce to have money and have a better life for ourselves and/or our families. Period.) The moment you accept a position of management, you are now responsible for the lives of others. And the problem is that too many managers and businesses don't want to take that responsibility seriously.
Many factory workers would be more than willing to work in management. But how many managers would consider going out on the floor. its harder dirtier and less pay.
Work harder this week. Do it blindfolder and while hopping on one foot. It'll be much harder and therefore more valuable.
Are you really this stupid?
No, you have an image that a CEO sits back and just makes money. It's not like that.
If being a CEO is so easy than why don't the janitor become a CEO?
A janitor works harder than CEO.
No, they don't
Yes they do.
rich or poor is not the issue! it's what is done with the money in respect to manipulating the government that is important
so go occupy your congressman.
occupy everything!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't that be considered rape?
hahahaha! glad to see you have a sense of humor
The "occupy" rhetoric gets a bit stupid at times. I even read "occupy" earth. I thought we already did.
It isn't just effort, it's also skill, the abundance of labor, demand for certain products or services, many things. Even chance plays a role, it probably wouldn't be Gates at the top of Microsoft if he'd been born on a farm in China or Zambia.
Why waste time with concern over what someone else has? We have to do things for ourself. There are opportunities if we make them and not expect someone else to take care of us.
"We have to do things for ourself."
Good luck trying to plant your own food, clean your own water, build your own home, doctor yourself when you get sick. Not even to mention all the highly technological stuff you can simply buy without ever having done anything to make them yourself.
None of us do things only for ourself. We deeply depend on eachother. If you can't see that then i urge to to live without the benefits of your fellow human beings.
In a complex society no one does every task. We have specialized, by doing things for ourself I meant not waiting for someone else to take care of me or my needs. Taking action in a positive way and not demanding things of others without any effort put in to that society somewhere by me. I worked in unskilled jobs to earn my education, work now to trade my pay for food someone else grew, home someone else built, and so on.
Because it's a complex society, you have to focus on what is good for the whole of society. To only focus on what individuals can do is ignoring the fact that our lives are dependent.
Take jobs, the most important thing people would need to for-fill that self determination. There simply are less jobs then there are people that want/need the work. It's like a game of musical chairs. Some will lose. So what do you tell those for whom there is no chair? 'To bad, you lose' ? In real life that means they lose basic human needs. It's not a game, and it's not ethical.
We can provide for everyone, so why would you demand that people suffer if it is not needed. It makes totally no sense if you look at society as a whole and how we are all connected instead of at individuals.
Can we provide for everyone? Restructure the tax system, and tax those well off more. We still don't have the money to do what we want as a nation. Everyone will have to pay more. If the population has exceeded the number of jobs more and difficult choices have to be made. How to provide for someone and still not create a welfare cycle in families where you have a disincentive to work.
Money, it's a funny thing isn't it. We are fighting so hard to get enough of it. And when you really think of it, it doesn't even really exist. In a debt based money system, you are right. We will never have enough money.
But the real question shouldn't be if we have the money, but do we have the resources and technology. Then just figure out a more sane system to economize our resources.
There have been alternatives proposed. Even if you could somehow guarantee it would be free from corruption getting a majority of the public to go along with a change is a monumental task.
I've noticed people in general love to complain, but when it comes down to actually making a change they back off and seem to prefer the devil that they know to one they don't.
That's true. People tend to fear change. Still, change does happen all the time. And at the very least we can talk and think about the possibilities.
Why not give everyone on Welfare government-backed jobs? There are literally millions of buildings and miles of highway that can be cleaned up, restored, repaired. If you don't want a "welfare state" make it a "work for all state instead." That way everyone gets the basic human needs (food, water, clothing, shelter) and everyone has the dignity of work. That kind of compromise is something that I would push for.
That would work in states that don't have strong public employee unions I suppose. Alabama needs farm workers, their new immigration law has created openings. No one seems to want the jobs though, even though they do pay above minimum wage. People would rather get things for free then work it seems.
I agree that there is a minority of people who don't want to work at all. There are always going to be anomalies in society.
I'm OK with denying benefits to those who refuse work offers, but I feel that the majority of the people collecting are not trying to "game" the system in this way and are genuinely in need of assistance.
I've been accused of promoting a welfare state, but what I really want is the government to give every citizen the ability to have the basic human needs (food, water, clothing, shelter.) I can care less if these people have flat screen TVs or nice cars, but I will fully support making sure that they have food to eat and a roof to sleep under.
Who are we to say that you cannot have a life if there are no jobs for you? If there are legitimately no jobs, then I believe it is our obligation to either provide/create/protect the jobs (through aggressive tariffs on Indian & Chinese imports, job programs & new federal work) or help out until we can make those jobs available.
It may be a mistake to give people anything more than an opportunity. Since the start of the War on Poverty, we've created a feeling of entitlement.
""""Why waste time with concern over what someone else has? We have to do things for ourself. There are opportunities if we make them and not expect someone else to take care of us."""""Somehow , that manner of thinking and feeling has been removed from so many mindless sheeple by government, religion, unions, special interest groups, LIBERAL ideology and their narcissistic feeling of superiority over minorities, civil law and lawsuits, etc. People have been trained to believe that whatever their "standing" in life, it has been decided by external forces, and not their own, choices, work ethic, and confidence in THEMSELVES.
Define "rich"
Define "poor"
what world are you from ?
Earth. That is the only world that communicates on this board I am aware of. Are you from a different world?
its the only world with rich and poor to .. and you need a definition for it. make your point if you have one
its the only world with rich and poor to .. To what?
and you need a definition for it. Yes. Until there is a definition given as to what defines a "rich" person and a "poor" person, it seems unlikely i will be able to give an accurate answer to, "who works harder?"
make your point if you have one... I am not trying to make a point as of yet, I am just trying to determine the parameters in order to answer the question.
if you don't know what rich and poor are defined as .. than your opinion or point hardly has any consequence .. please go to another thread .. your obviously here to disrupt.
Great! I have been trying to have a logical conversation with an uneducated idiot. Here, let me give you a few pointers...
if (<--- sentences start with a capital letter) you don't know what rich and poor are defined as .. than (I am going to have to assume you meant the word "then" as the word you chose, "than" makes no sense. Also, although the periods have been misplaced, it appears you have started another sentence with a lowercase letter rather than a capital) your opinion or point hardly has any consequence .. please go to another thread .. your obviously hear (again, you choice of diction implies that I listen to disrupt, where I think you mean that I choose to read and reply on this site to disrupt) to disrupt.
Perhaps you should be reading The Ransom of Redchief and studying sentence structure during your Christmas vacation rather than playing with your mothers computer and trying to have conversations with adults on an adult message board.
Great! I have been trying to have a logical conversation with an uneducated idiot.
Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you talking to yourself. I'll be moving on.
P.S. I think you meant here to disrupt, not hear to disrupt.
talking to yourself .. took me a minute .. but I got it .. haha
I couldn't resist. It's the little devil in me.
gives you that perfect balance !
how did you know I had two legs?...:-)
Thanks for coming to my defence.
De Nada. You softened toonboy up for me.
I was thinking of making a list of these people who come on here with only one intention .. to disturb .. ask stupid foolish questions .. answer one and they have ten more ... it is some kind of tactical method to wear us down . of course my grammar ain't all so great .. he was right there .. !
well at least I did not ask you to define "rich and poor ".. or do the struggling poor have a car ? .. or do the wealthy hire someone to clean their homes .. pretty soon we will have to start calling them "gods!"
thanks for the lessons in grammar here hear
First, you have something better than grammar, you have manners. Toonboy had none.
Second, anything produced from asking - who works harder, the rich or poor - is only going to result in questions, foolish or otherwise, or opinions. Until, of course, somebody gathers some empirical evidence that actually measures every rich person and every poor person by some standard and gives us some real data that is. I prefer to deal in empirical evidence where I can. Some can and will, of course, always question the credibility of the studiers.
Researchers around the world tested the culture of poverty concept empirically (see Billings, 1974; Carmon, 1985; Jones & Luo, 1999). Others analyzed the overall body of evidence regarding the culture of poverty paradigm (see Abell & Lyon, 1979; Ortiz & Briggs, 2003; Rodman, 1977).
These studies raise a variety of questions and come to a variety of conclusions about poverty. But on this they all agree:
There is no such thing as a culture of poverty.
Differences in values and behaviors among poor people are just as great as those between poor and wealthy people.
In actuality, the culture of poverty concept is constructed from a collection of smaller stereotypes which, however false, seem to have crept into mainstream thinking as unquestioned fact. Let's look at some examples.
MYTH: Poor people are unmotivated and have weak work ethics.
The Reality: Poor people do not have weaker work ethics or lower levels of motivation than wealthier people (Iversen & Farber, 1996; Wilson, 1997). Although poor people are often stereotyped as lazy, 83 percent of children from low-income families have at least one employed parent; close to 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time and year-round (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2004). In fact, the severe shortage of living-wage jobs means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute (2002), poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts.
MYTH: Poor parents are uninvolved in their children's learning, largely because they do not value education.
The Reality: Low-income parents hold the same attitudes about education that wealthy parents do (Compton-Lilly, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Leichter, 1978). Low-income parents are less likely to attend school functions or volunteer in their children's classrooms (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005)—not because they care less about education, but because they have less access to school involvement than their wealthier peers. They are more likely to work multiple jobs, to work evenings, to have jobs without paid leave, and to be unable to afford child care and public transportation. It might be said more accurately that schools that fail to take these considerations into account do not value the involvement of poor families as much as they value the involvement of other families.
MYTH: Poor people are linguistically deficient.
The Reality: All people, regardless of the languages and language varieties they speak, use a full continuum of language registers (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008). What's more, linguists have known for decades that all language varieties are highly structured with complex grammatical rules (Gee, 2004; Hess, 1974; Miller, Cho, & Bracey, 2005). What often are assumed to be deficient varieties of English—Appalachian varieties, perhaps, or what some refer to as Black English Vernacular—are no less sophisticated than so-called "standard English."
MYTH: Poor people tend to abuse drugs and alcohol.
The Reality: Poor people are no more likely than their wealthier counterparts to abuse alcohol or drugs. Although drug sales are more visible in poor neighborhoods, drug use is equally distributed across poor, middle class, and wealthy communities (Saxe, Kadushin, Tighe, Rindskopf, & Beveridge, 2001). Chen, Sheth, Krejci, and Wallace (2003) found that alcohol consumption is significantly higher among upper middle class white high school students than among poor black high school students. Their finding supports a history of research showing that alcohol abuse is far more prevalent among wealthy people than among poor people (Diala, Muntaner, & Walrath, 2004; Galea, Ahern, Tracy, & Vlahov, 2007). In other words, considering alcohol and illicit drugs together, wealthy people are more likely than poor people to be substance abusers.
Third, on tactical methods to wear people down. Either, they are ignorant of empirical evidence or choose to ignore it or choose to dismiss it.....go figure.
The Culture of Classism
The myth of a "culture of poverty" distracts us from a dangerous culture that does exist—the culture of classism. This culture continues to harden in our schools today. It leads the most well intentioned of us, like my friend Janet, into low expectations for low-income students. It makes teachers fear their most powerless pupils. And, worst of all, it diverts attention from what people in poverty do have in common: inequitable access to basic human rights.
The most destructive tool of the culture of classism is deficit theory. In education, we often talk about the deficit perspective—defining students by their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Deficit theory takes this attitude a step further, suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Deficit theorists use two strategies for propagating this world view: (1) drawing on well-established stereotypes, and (2) ignoring systemic conditions, such as inequitable access to high-quality schooling, that support the cycle of poverty.
The implications of deficit theory reach far beyond individual bias. If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people's own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don't value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. This application of deficit theory establishes the idea of what Gans (1995) calls the undeserving poor—a segment of our society that simply does not deserve a fair shake.
If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously. In our determination to "fix" the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill. They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.
Perhaps most of us, as educators, feel powerless to address these bigger issues. But the question is this: Are we willing, at the very least, to tackle the classism in our own schools and classrooms?
This classism is plentiful and well documented (Kozol, 1992). For example, compared with their wealthier peers, poor students are more likely to attend schools that have less funding (Carey, 2005); lower teacher salaries (Karoly, 2001); more limited computer and Internet access (Gorski, 2003); larger class sizes; higher student-to-teacher ratios; a less-rigorous curriculum; and fewer experienced teachers (Barton, 2004). The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2004) also found that low-income schools were more likely to suffer from cockroach or rat infestation, dirty or inoperative student bathrooms, large numbers of teacher vacancies and substitute teachers, more teachers who are not licensed in their subject areas, insufficient or outdated classroom materials, and inadequate or nonexistent learning facilities, such as science labs.
Here in Minnesota, several school districts offer universal half-day kindergarten but allow those families that can afford to do so to pay for full-day services. Our poor students scarcely make it out of early childhood without paying the price for our culture of classism. Deficit theory requires us to ignore these inequities—or worse, to see them as normal and justified.
What does this mean? Regardless of how much students in poverty value education, they must overcome tremendous inequities to learn. Perhaps the greatest myth of all is the one that dubs education the "great equalizer." Without considerable change, it cannot be anything of the sort.
So lastly, anybody telling you the rich work harder, just point them to the evidence and tell them to get their heads out of their asses.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx
Truth be told , there is no corelation between the quality of a person and his/her financial background.
thank you for sharing this study. imperical evidence.
My argument for equal pay tries to level the playing field and give everyone equal chance and opportunity. because the fact is the wealthy do have an advantage over the poor in reaching a happy healthy standard of living.. but it is nothing to do with hard work .. unless hard work is what the wealthy are afraid of and thus motivates them to never be poor?
I know I would like to be wealthy , because than I would not have to work so hard ..!
.. the question the study does not seem to address .. if not hard work how does the rich man justify his "taking a larger piece of the pie" ?
read culture of classism again.
If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously
extend that into adulthood and......well you've probably heard plenty of deficit theory in practice on this forum.
about equal pay. I think you already know how I feel about equal pay (some day in the future, fingers crossed), but I'm all in on leveling the playing field. They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.
certainly , the wealthy continually point at the poor and say," you all had the same chance as me." And the sad part is I actually think the rich believe that to be true ?
Excerpts from The Spirit Level: Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.
"Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me with greater force than the equality of conditions. I easily perceived the enormous influence that this primary fact exercises on the workings of the society"~Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Excerpt 1
The Equality of Conditions
A very different vision of America is offered by one of its earliest observers. Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States in 1831. He met presidents and ex-presidents, mayors, senators and judges, as well as ordinary citizens, and everywhere he went he was impressed by the 'equality of conditions'. 'the blending of social ranks and the abolition of privileges' -- the way society was one 'single mass' (at least for whites). He wrote that 'Americans of all ages, conditions, and all dispositions constantly unite together', that 'strangers readily congregate in the same places and find neither danger nor advantage in telling each other freely what they think', their manner being 'natural, open, and unreserved. And de Tocqueville points out the ways in which Americans support one another in times of trouble.
Should some unforeseen accident occur on the public highway, people run from all sides to help the victim; should some family fall foul of an unexpected danger, a thousand strangers willingly open their purses.
Excerpt 2
What's Trust Got To Do With It?
But does inequality erode trust and divide people -- government from citizens, rich from poor, minority from majority? This chapter shows that the quality of social relations deteriorates in less equal societies.
Inequality, not surprisingly, is a powerful social divider, perhaps because we all tend to use differences in living standards as markers of status differences. We tend to choose our friends from among our near equals and have little to do with those much richer or poorer. And when we have less to do with other kinds of people, it's harder for us to trust them. Our position in the social hierarchy affects who we see as part of the in-group and who as out-group -- us and them -- so affecting our ability to identify with and empathize with other people. Later in the book, we'll show that inequality not only has an impact on how much we look down on others because they have less than we do, but also affects other kinds of discrimination, such as racism and sexism, with attitudes sometimes...justified....by statements like, 'they just don't live like us'.
De Tocqueville understood this point. A lifelong opponent of slavery, he wrote about the exclusion of African-Americans and Native Americans from the liberty and equality enjoyed by other Americans. Slavery, he thought, could only be maintained because African-Americans were viewed as 'other', so much so that 'the European is to other races what man himself is to the animals'.
Empathy is only felt for those we view as equals, 'the same feeling for one another does not exist between the different classes'. Prejudice, thought de Tocqueville, was 'an imaginary inequality' which followed the 'real inequality produced by wealth and the law'.
Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger."
How strong would we be with "equal - pay" ?
thanks Jadedone
How strong would we be with "equal - pay"? (it begs more questions, what about meritocracy? what about rewards and consequences?)
The only honest answer I can give is I do not know. My opinion, however, is derived from this pattern.
If the pendulum swings to far one way and we get income inequality, it produces a negative impact on society by way of 'dividing social ranks and creating privileges'.
and if the pendulum swings back to the middle and we get greater income equality, it produces a positive impact on society by way of 'blending social ranks and abolition of privileges'.
..........but if the pendulum swings over to equal income equality, it might also produce a negative outcome by way of 'ending social ranks and abolition of merits '.
If it helps, think of it on the scale of one family. How you would reward children of different ages and abilities. Would you appease a five year old and give that child car keys, just because the five year old thought it unfair that the sixteen year old took the car for a spin. Would you take away the car keys from the sixteen year old? By proxy of age and experience, hasn't the sixteen year old earned the trust to merit the car keys? Can you really abolish merits? Is there not an inherent social rank in people to begin with?
sorry ran out of reply space .. just wanted to respond to your last comment on merit.. with equal pay there will still be a merit system , that is how one will achieve their position .. it is the pay that will be equal in all and any position .. the 16 year old has the merit to drive the car .. the five year old has the merit to enter grade school .. it works on merit.
thanks again ..
If someone could devise a well-planned, tangible, and acceptable (three big hurdles) alternate merit system in place of the monetary system, I could see it being feasible to implement it.
here's one more :
myth: rich people work hard . [couldn't resist ! ]
rich are those who buy third, forth and fifth homes an the backs of the struggling working class who are the poor. Everything is relative, even words.
Do "the struggling working class" have a car? A TV? Daily food? A home (rented or otherwise)? A job? A computer and/or video game?
How did the "rich" earn the money to buy the third, fourth, and fifth homes? Does "the rich" person employ anyone to help with the upkeep of the homes? Does "the rich" person pay taxes on the property in the community the property is located in to help pay the continuing burdens of the municipality? Does "the rich" person pay taxes on his income? How does the tax "the rich" person pays compare to the amount of taxes "the poor" person pays?
And all of that is wiped away if. God for bid, they get sick, break a bone on the job or those who pay the taxes take a little more each year. I protest the ideas that pass for legislation by the right. you can take my video games and... I want a respectable wage for my labor and dignified health insurance for my family. Also, I don't want the uber rich paying all the federal taxes and eating free lunches. you are talking total amount paid I'm talking percents. It is fitting that the uber rich pay seventy percent of the FEd's tab, considering they make most of the nation's wealth. That is my perspective from the bottom rung. Cheers!
But you didn't answer my questions. I asked a few simple questions that I do not consider unfair to consider when answering the question posed in the start of this thread.
I am on this board because I am looking for the reasons the people here feel the way they do, and I cannot get any concrete replies to questions I ask those who post threads or reply to my posts. Can you answer the questions with concrete answers, or are your arguments feeling based?
i did answer your questions. Just because I did not line item each question does not mean they were not answered. I guess i did leave one out. The way the states organize their property taxes and school contributions contributes to me wanting retribution. Now, call me greedy, but i'd rather pay more money for consumer goods than have those goods made in foreign markets. I'm a citizen first and a consumer only in actions. The one percent should pay their peons more and stop chasing higher profit margins over seas. Also, if they paid more, they would not have the money to buy politicians. The rich person does not make his money with payroll income, and if he does he is not the rich that is the bane of my existence. The rich I'd like to see brought down a few pegs, are the ones who make money through weakly taxed capital gains. If i left anything out, after going back and reading my last post, please re ask.
Do "the struggling working class" have a car? A TV? Daily food? A home (rented or otherwise)? A job? A computer and/or video game?
How did the "rich" earn the money to buy the third, fourth, and fifth homes?
Does "the rich" person employ anyone to help with the upkeep of the homes?
even the wealthy get it
Odd they chose a person who lacked the conviction and honor of their beliefs to show their face rather than one of the openly and honorably protesting members of the Tea Party events.
Time magazine could have more accurately titled their article, "The Protestor who uses tactics reminiscent of those used by the KKK to intimidate and cow those who disagree with them."
Forget it. If you cant see that I fully showed you why there is discontent in the "states, you choose not to see the problems staring you in the face. I am going to go converse with more open minded individuals.
By "open minded" I would guess someone who agrees with you and does not challenge your beliefs.
Sorry I asked questions too tough to answer.
many minimum wage workers dont risk anything.. they show up to work, punch their time card, and get paid their wage.
if they want to put their money on the line, then maybe they should earn more.
for example: have airline union workers take a 50% pay cut, then they will get profit sharing of airline revenue
deal?
yea didnt think so.. dont like the risk eh?
Risk does not equal hard work. People who take financial risk are trying to avoid hard work.
it is a different type of work
would i rather invest my family's last 50k on starting my small business, which has the potential of earning 1million/yr within 5 years?
some would argue yes, some would argue no.
imagine having to start from 0 when you lose everything.. that is work.. (i'll agree its a different type of hard work)
if you are defining hard work as manual labor, then a sanitation engineer (ie: garbage man) should get paid much more than an architect or a doctor.. work comes in different forms.. in finance and business, hard work comes in the ability to do due dilligence and analysis so you dont lose your shirt
interesting comment thanks
Thye are risking their money AND People who start a business work hard to make that business succeed.
poor
It's equal, there are hard workers in both. But it's not just working hard it's working smart.
The rich don't get paid. If you have a problem with the amount of money they get stop buying their products and services.
Honestly, I think they both work harder than I do.
[Removed]
Suckers do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Your Communistic agenda is pathetic. Shove it.
Karl Marx was trying to improve the human condition by preventing the capitalist elite from stomping on everyone.
I work hardest butch and I don't like your name nigga.