Is it bad to be "rich"?

[Mr. Pedantic]

Quite often it's doing the rich guys job for him too

Generally the point of creating jobs is so that the person paying you doesn't have to do them himself. It's perfectly kosher, and perfectly reasonable.

 

[Kappo]

I'm talking about Kennedy rich not some lucky sucker who won a couple of million in the lottery. Of course I wouldn't mind having those worries, compared to the laid off factory worker those worries seem rather trivial.

Any way I see nothing bad with being Rich, in fact it would be great.

Now imagine that the concept of being rich, was divided by 1000, employed you, and worked 80 hours a week.

Those are the people we currently target.

While I don't personally CARE about that top .001%, I do care about the concept. The government (out of touch) deciding what a suitable about for me to live on is asinine. How about they do what everyone else has to do? Stop spending when you don't have it, let people take care of themselves aside from the infrastructure, and make do with what you have until you can make more.

 

[Red Dawn]

Now imagine that the concept of being rich, was divided by 1000, employed you, and worked 80 hours a week.

Those are the people we currently target.

While I don't personally CARE about that top .001%, I do care about the concept. The government (out of touch) deciding what a suitable about for me to live on is asinine. How about they do what everyone else has to do? Stop spending when you don't have it, let people take care of themselves aside from the infrastructure, and make do with what you have until you can make more.

You mean like back in the 50's and early 60's?

 

[Paul98]

no. The rich make jobs for all you loosers out there. Have you ever been hired by a poor slouch??

These statements always crack me up. Why do you think they are hiring you? Unless it's something strange it sure isn't out the goodness of there heart. They are making money or at least plan to make money because of you.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Who cares? It's Dave.

If he makes a claim he needs to back it up.

...crickets...

 

[blackangst1]

Generally the point of creating jobs is so that the person paying you doesn't have to do them himself. It's perfectly kosher, and perfectly reasonable.

Well, not always. It's also to keep up the demand of supply. I mean, one guy cant R&D and build enough cars to supply the world

 

[blackangst1]

These statements always crack me up. Why do you think they are hiring you? Unless it's something strange it sure isn't out the goodness of there heart. They are making money or at least plan to make money because of you.

It's win win. Unless how you can explain why its a bad thing to hire someone.

 

[Kappo]

You mean like back in the 50's and early 60's?

I cant comment about that other that from a "factual" standpoint (manufactured I'm sure) because I wasn't alive during that time period. I can't speak for the mood of the nation other than from someone else's perspective.

These statements always crack me up. Why do you think they are hiring you? Unless it's something strange it sure isn't out the goodness of there heart. They are making money or at least plan to make money because of you.

I heard that the purpose of going into business for yourself is so that you can work stupid long hours and deal with endless government/customer/employee crap while not making a profit. confirm/deny?

 

[nonlnear]

These statements always crack me up. Why do you think they are hiring you? Unless it's something strange it sure isn't out the goodness of there heart. They are making money or at least plan to make money because of you.

I heard that the purpose of going into business for yourself is so that you can work stupid long hours and deal with endless government/customer/employee crap while not making a profit. confirm/deny?

That's only if you have goodness of heart. The truly virtuous give their evil wealth away by hiring employees at a loss until they are penniless and homeless. This is how they prove their virtue and enter into progressive heaven.

Only the most purely blackened souls hire employees under mutually beneficial terms that allow them to create wealth for themselves and others. Profits? How utterly repugnant!

 

[Paul98]

Yes it is win/win when you look at the most basic part of it. But look past that to how most of these companies are setup. What happens to profits and how much money different parts get depending on how certain people work.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes it is win/win when you look at the most basic part of it. But look past that to how most of these companies are setup. What happens to profits and how much money different parts get depending on how certain people work.

Unless you clarify that, it still sounds like a win-win to me...

 

[JTsyo]

I think it's stuff like this that makes some of the rich seem slimy. I realize they aren't doing anything illegal but those types of loopholes needs to be closed.

 

[Paul98]

should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence. I am asking WHAT happens, generally the bottom gets a small boost or nothing at all. Where the top makes all the money from it. I have seen this many many times. You guys really seem to be missing my point, you should look to see what happens for profits and wealth for both top and bottom depending on what happens. I am in no way saying that the rich are bad or shouldn't be making money hiring people and make money from the people they hire. This is what they should be doing. What I have a problem with is how it's setup and what should happen when profits go down or go up. There are good companies out there that are doing what I feel they should be. But there are also tons that aren't.

 

[nonlnear]

I think it's stuff like this that makes some of the rich seem slimy. I realize they aren't doing anything illegal but those types of loopholes needs to be closed.

Yes, all the sleazy pension funds and middle class retirement account owners who are profiting from this evil tax evasion must be strung up by their toenails. Now execs who personally evade taxes I agree ought to be pilloried, but corporations paying no income tax is not the same as individuals paying no income tax.

 

[Kappo]

should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence. I am asking WHAT happens, generally the bottom gets a small boost or nothing at all. Where the top makes all the money from it. I have seen this many many times. You guys really seem to be missing my point, you should look to see what happens for profits and wealth for both top and bottom depending on what happens. I am in no way saying that the rich are bad or shouldn't be making money hiring people and make money from the people they hire. This is what they should be doing. What I have a problem with is how it's setup and what should happen when profits go down or go up. There are good companies out there that are doing what I feel they should be. But there are also tons that aren't.

How much financial risk are those lower-level employees taking? If the business closed today, how much out of pocket would they need to come up with in order to make good on existing debts for the company?

Would it seem fair to the person(s) who were assuming all the risk got the same reward as someone who assumed none? The implications you are making seem to point to a) smaller profits for the people who have literally everything on the line b) removing the incentive to start a business (less reward even if you succeed and lose everything if you fail). I know I won't restart my business even in THIS climate, much less the one you are saying is better.

 

[irishScott]

Being rich is fine. The problem is that a lot of rich people (especially those with old money) judge themselves by their wealth to the point where they believe that being wealthy somehow makes them a superior person.

On that note, I'm sick of the "well if you've got that money you don't need a yacht. Give it to the people who really need it" argument. If I've worked my ass off for that money I'll use it as I see fit and sail my future yacht right up your ass. Hell a lot of rich people give very generously to charity, while remaining rich. Being wealthy IMHO comes with the obligation to give more, not to give all or anything close to all.

In conclusion, there are stuck up rich bastards who are no better than the lazy redneck welfare obese chimps; and there are old money rich people who are morally equivalent to those on welfare who honestly need it. The former two catch about equal flack, and the latter two are never heard about. Just like every other similar demographic.

 

[blackangst1]

Being rich is fine. The problem is that a lot of rich people (especially those with old money) judge themselves by their wealth to the point where they believe that being wealthy somehow makes them a superior person.

On that note, I'm sick of the "well if you've got that money you don't need a yacht. Give it to the people who really need it" argument. If I've worked my ass off for that money I'll use it as I see fit and sail my future yacht right up your ass. Hell a lot of rich people give very generously to charity, while remaining rich. Being wealthy IMHO comes with the obligation to give more, not to give all or anything close to all.

In conclusion, there are stuck up rich bastards who are no better than the lazy redneck welfare obese chimps; and there are old money rich people who are morally equivalent to those on welfare who honestly need it. The former two catch about equal flack, and the latter two are never heard about. Just like every other similar demographic.

Well, mankind in every culture has judged and equalled success and worth to possesions. Its a human-kind thing.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, not always. It's also to keep up the demand of supply. I mean, one guy cant R&D and build enough cars to supply the world

How does this contradict what I wrote in any way?

 

[blackangst1]

should have been a question mark at the end of that sentence. I am asking WHAT happens, generally the bottom gets a small boost or nothing at all. Where the top makes all the money from it. I have seen this many many times. You guys really seem to be missing my point, you should look to see what happens for profits and wealth for both top and bottom depending on what happens. I am in no way saying that the rich are bad or shouldn't be making money hiring people and make money from the people they hire. This is what they should be doing. What I have a problem with is how it's setup and what should happen when profits go down or go up. There are good companies out there that are doing what I feel they should be. But there are also tons that aren't.

And generally profits are equalled by risk. One lowly employee who makes minimum wage and gets no bonus can inadvertantly cost an owner his business if he/she doesnt wash their hands after taking a shit. Its almost always the guys at the top who are the most risk exposed for the actions of those below them. Maybe you should keep that in mind also in your analysis.

 

[blackangst1]

How does this contradict what I wrote in any way?

After taking a second read, perhaps I misunderstood you. The theme of "the lazy rich make their wealth by stepping on the little guy" is popular around here, so when you said "the person paying you doesn't have to do them himself" I kind of took it in that light. My apologies if that wasnt your intent.

 

[dali71]

Jealous of what exactly? Please answer. For the lulz.

We're obviously jealous of his movie star good looks and his smoking hot wife. Oh, wait a minute...

 

[blackangst1]

We're obviously jealous of his movie star good looks and his smoking hot wife. Oh, wait a minute...

Attacking his wife is a little too far. Even if its Dave....

 

[Bowfinger]

You are forcing them to pay for the infrastructure, then claiming that because they have to use the infrastructure they paid for, they must continue to pay for it. The "resources" that gave them that foundation were their own, or those of a previous generation. "Society" does not generate any resources. At best, it can simply pool them together for the common good.

Forcing them? As opposed to what, heading off into the forest and using stone tools to make their own Center for Innovation by hand? You need to get past this fantasy that you or anyone else is self-made. Everything you are and have was built upon those who came before you, using America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure (substituting other countries as appropriate for other people).

We don't see meaningful innovation coming from aboriginal tribes using hand-made stone tools. It comes from people people who leverage the benefits of a developed society to push forward. It comes from people who can take for granted things like electricity, clean water, plentiful safe food, roads, housing, education, banks, merchants, public safety, etc., so they can focus on creating the next big thing instead of scrounging for grubs for dinner.

Even more, turning that idea from a pipe dream into a profitable product demands extensive infrastructure support. One needs facilities, utilities, an adequately-educated workforce, suppliers, service providers, public safety and health, transportation, distributors, investors, a legal system with property & IP rights, ... and customers, all of whom are products of and dependent upon the same incredible physical, financial, and educational infrastructure provided by society. Take it away and no matter how brilliant and ambitious you may be, you're just a smart chimpanzee in a loin cloth.

And which side am I beholden to? I have no representation in our government at this point, and I've never been a member of any political party. I don't have a dog in the fight. I simply object to those who claim that their need gives them a right to what I have earned. To be fair, you have made just about the best argument I've seen for why "society" might have some claim to what I've earned, but it still falls apart because society as a whole cannot contribute anything - only its members can.

As an educated person, you surely must understand that "partisan" is not limited to political parties. It can also, for example, refer to ideologies and generally taking sides. In this case, I was referring to your partisan devotion to the myth of the self-made man.

No? Anybody? Is anyone willing to defend the myth of the self-made man, or was I just that persuasive?

 

[nonlnear]

No? Anybody? Is anyone willing to defend the myth of the self-made man, or was I just that persuasive?

I tend not to engage in straw men. The self-made man is quite irrelevant to certain constructions of libertarian thinking. In fact, constructs which actually use the self-made man as a foundation tend towards the anarchistic end of the libertarian continuum. What you are actually doing is positing a false dichotomy between the self-made man and the state-made man. It is entirely possible to have a fully integrated social individual in a relatively state-free environment.

 

[Bowfinger]

I tend not to engage in straw men. The self-made man is quite irrelevant to certain constructions of libertarian thinking. In fact, constructs which actually use the self-made man as a foundation tend towards the anarchistic end of the libertarian continuum. What you are actually doing is positing a false dichotomy between the self-made man and the state-made man. It is entirely possible to have a fully integrated social individual in a relatively state-free environment.

No, not really. We were discussing taxation and whether it is justified to tax someone who is successful (specifically due to his innovation). My contention is developing the innovation and turning it into a successful product is only possible due to our extraordinary infrastructure, and it is therefore reasonable for society to expect a cut of the success. CycloWizard's contention is the innovator is "forced" to use this infrastructure, but would be just as successful and prosperous without it (as I understand his position).