New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[9th Engineer]

Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.

What do we need to talk about in the health forum exactly? My motivations? Is class warfare not political?

[DanaC]

So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.

Agreed.

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

If the other workers weren't there, would the company still prosper? He may be more difficult to replace than other workers and therefore more money is paid to retain him, but in order for the company to prosper it needs people to do all the necessary jobs. A wristwatch may have more expensive components than the battery, but if it that £1.50 battery goes flat the watch stops working. The battery is as important (more so?) than the gold strap holding the watch onto your wrist.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

And if they too are not at least moderately skilled and motivated, they lose it again very quickly.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I donate to causes that I think are worthy, when I can.

And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?

Nice try.

[Clodfobble]

It's not a try, Spexx, it's a genuine question. If you can afford X amount to give to charities, but you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, then your extra money is going to come from somewhere. Either you're going to give less than you currently do to charity, or you're going to have to downsize in some other way. Are you willing to downsize? Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, ...

I don't.

[Clodfobble]

Then what do you think, Spexx?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.

You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Then what do you think, Spexx?



You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?

The rich folks should not keep as much. They can pay their employees more, improve the employees working conditions, hire more employees, lower the price of their product/service, improve its value without raising the price, etc. Any of these things would help to get people off of welfare, or no longer need the help of charities.

[DanaC]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

Good choice. Beyond instituting minimum wage legislation, safety at work, protection from unfair practices and finding a tax balance the electorate as a whole is prepared to accept, there's not much a government can do to force greater equity within the private sectors. Even those things are only things governments tend to push because unions are pushing them.

[lookout123]

The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.

define a "good enoughjob caring for those in need". Who's standard of living are we trying to get them to? yours? mine? a CEO's?

you just don't get it. just handing more money to people on the bottom of the payscale doesn't increase their position relative to the CEO, all it does is increase things across the board. If the broom pushing janitor (who is important but generally less skilled) suddenly gets a pay raise to $20 hour (@$42,000/year) you'll feel good because now they can get a nicer car or a better tv, or whatever it is they set their priority as. But wait, the guy who assembles the machine says "back the Eff up." If he is worth $20, I'm now worth $45, and if you don't give it to me, i go on strike." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he has more disposeable income and you're happy because 2 people on the lower end of the payscale are making more. Except the engineer that designs the machine says, "BS! if the schmoe who assembles my ideas gets $45, I'm worth $80 or I quit." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he makes more money and he can pay off his last student loan. Uh oh, our government hasn't gotten rid of the alternative minimum tax so now he owes more to uncle sam... so now he isn't happy again. But you're ecstatic because 2 lower payscale individuals are making more money, and one midscale is making more and the awesome part is that now Uncle Sam gets to sift more of that poor sucker's money through the system to help "the poor". Happy day. Except the plant manager says "oh hell no, if my designer gets $80/hour, i get $150... and so on and so on.

See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.

someone was talking about the importance of the worker vs the manager vs the exec. you're right, the product can't be produced and the company can't prosper if a cog is missing at any step. But you completely miss the point that if a company needs to hire a janitor all they need to do is find someone who can hold a broom. Just about anyone can do that. If they need an assembler there are a few less people who can do that. If they need a designer there is a limited pool of qualified people available. If they need a plant manager the pool of talent becomes distinctly smaller. If they need a CEO there is a very very small pool of available talent. It is the simple law of supply and demand. The CEO (the commodity) is in limited supply so he is worth far more than the guy who can be replaced by anyone with a pulse. That's life.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

....See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.
....

Only if the top keeps moving up. If they decide they have enough, what happens? In the mean time, the economy will be very healthy with all those cars (or widgets) the bottom-rung employees will be buying.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The rich folks should not keep as much.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?

So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?

Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?

You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things. When you reach that point, you have a choice - be a glutton or a team player.