Millionaire Senators: Why is this such a big deal?

[Ferocious]

Wealth is relative.

Only the top few percent can be wealthy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that rant assume that "real hard work" is directly proportional to how much money you make? I realize that's the theory behind the Ayn Rand approach to the universe, but I don't really see it reflected in reality. Obviously the very broad trends tend to agree, but there are so many exceptions that it's really meaningless to equate monetary gain with "real hard work". The problem, as has been pointed out before, is that not everyone is just working towards making as much money as humanly possible. Take your scientists, a lot of them work in academia doing really great work that they often give away for free...they aren't starving, but they aren't making as much money as even an average lawyer at a mid-range firm. Now which one is the "real hard worker"?

That's basically what I'm saying, yes. Overall (there are exceptions), the harder you work, the more money you will make.

I understand that everyone is not working for money, but there are very very few jobs out there that require large amounts of intelligence, but offer very little pay, that simply doesn't happen in capitalism.

Regarding the scientist and the lawyer, yeah the lawyer makes more, and the scientist may be a bit more intelligent, but they both still rake it in. I've never met a scientist living in a trailer park. That's like comparing a Lexus to a Mercedes, they're both expensive, yeah the Mercedes may cost a bit more, although they both have the same features, but it's still really close.

Sure, scientists aren't living in trailer parks, and capitalism does tend to reward hard work. But while the general trend holds even with exceptions, it seems like its hard to judge an individual on their bank account alone. There are enough exceptions that a general rule can't be applied to individuals without looking at everything about them, which was the only point I was trying to make here

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really think if you look at her ideology she exudes the same unfounded faith in rich people that many marxists place in poor people. It's equally wrong on both sides of the economic spectrum.

Here is a question I ask people.

If you had to choose between two people you've never met to babysit your kids, and the only thing you knew about them was their profession, and one was a doctor and one was a garbage man, which would you choose? Don't dance around the question, just answer it.

Doctor, as I would imagine most people would answer...but their salaries have nothing to do with that answer. A doctor has a job that involves caring for a lot of lives in a lot of life-or-death situations, the expected level of responsibility of a doctor is higher than that of a garbage man.

Now here is another way to ask that question...same question about babysitting, but instead of a doctor and a garbage man, the two people are a stockbroker and a police officer.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure why you think a few million is small potatoes...at least relatively speaking. Most people do NOT retire with that much money, whether it's because they are stupid (as you seem to think) or whatever the reason, those that do are clearly "elite" by definition. Not that it's a bad thing, I don't think they are somehow unable to lead because of their wealth, but no matter how easy you seem to think it is, most people don't get there...so clearly having a few million puts you ahead of most of the population.

If you really understood how uneducated and ignorant the average person is, you'd understand why that's not a bad thing. I think some of us spend too much time on Anandtech and think the average person is just like the typical Anandtech poster, no way. If you post on this forum and know anything at all about computer hardware, odds are you're intellectually ahead of 95% of the population. Only about half the population even has an internet connection, and 90% of them still aren't that familiar with the internet. That's how pathetic most people are.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure why you think a few million is small potatoes...at least relatively speaking. Most people do NOT retire with that much money, whether it's because they are stupid (as you seem to think) or whatever the reason, those that do are clearly "elite" by definition. Not that it's a bad thing, I don't think they are somehow unable to lead because of their wealth, but no matter how easy you seem to think it is, most people don't get there...so clearly having a few million puts you ahead of most of the population.

If you really understood how uneducated and ignorant the average person is, you'd understand why that's not a bad thing. I think some of us spend too much time on Anandtech and think the average person is just like the typical Anandtech poster, no way. If you post on this forum and know anything at all about computer hardware, odds are you're intellectually ahead of 95% of the population. Only about half the population even has an internet connection, and 90% of them still aren't that familiar with the internet. That's how pathetic most people are.

I didn't say being on top intellectually, financially, or however, is a bad thing...and you certainly won't have to convince me that the average person is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But "elite" is a relative term, having a few million bucks in the bank is "elite" even if you don't think it's very hard to get there.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now here is another way to ask that question...same question about babysitting, but instead of a doctor and a garbage man, the two people are a stockbroker and a police officer.

Hey now, that's a loaded question. I don't consider a "police officer" to be a "blue collar" job. It involves physical work, but more so, it involves lots of mental work too and large amounts of responsibility. Police officer is a very respectable job and I don't lump it in with "blue collar jobs." I lump police officer in with "public service" jobs, which is a special category of low paid, good people, like teachers.

If you changed it to stockbroker (or any highly paid white collar job) and garbage man, people would still pick the stockbroker, and you know it.

The world is a fair place. Most good people in this world succeed and most bad people fail. Despite all the bad things in the world, it's a surprisingly just place. In high school, the smartest people were always the nicest, and most of them went on to good colleges and are on their way to getting high paying jobs (doctors, researchers, lawyers etc).

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

The world is a fair place. Most good people in this world succeed and most bad people fail. Despite all the bad things in the world, it's a surprisingly just place. In high school, the smartest people were always the nicest, and most of them went on to good colleges and are on their way to getting high paying jobs (doctors, researchers, lawyers etc).

This is highly situational, the nicest people from school I remember a good part of them wound up on drugs and dead, life is not kind to "nice" people, the system is geared for those who know how to take what they want regardless of who they step on to get their way, nice folks generally get taken advantage of, stepped by previously mentioned folk and straight up used in most cases I have seen.

Your mileage may vary depending on where you are from I guess, having money already probably isolates you from reality a bit too. Sounds like a fairy-tale to be honest.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is highly situational, the nicest people from school I remember a good part of them wound up on drugs and dead, life is not kind to "nice" people, the system is geared for those who know how to take what they want regardless of who they step on to get their way, nice folks generally get taken advantage of, stepped by later mentioned folk and used in most cases I have seen.

You must be older and lived in a time where life wasn't as just. I'm generation Y, born in the early 80s, and so far life has been pretty fair to us.

All of my alleged stereotypes and generalizations have been reinforced in real life 1000x over, this is one that has never let me down. Life's ability to reward those I have thought to be morally superior has yet to fail me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is highly situational, the nicest people from school I remember a good part of them wound up on drugs and dead, life is not kind to "nice" people, the system is geared for those who know how to take what they want regardless of who they step on to get their way, nice folks generally get taken advantage of, stepped by later mentioned folk and used in most cases I have seen.

You must be older and lived in a time where life wasn't as just. I'm generation Y, born in the early 80s, and so far life has been pretty fair to us.

All of my alleged stereotypes and generalizations have been reinforced in real life 1000x over, this is one that has never let me down. Life's ability to reward those I have thought to be morally superior has yet to fail me.

Then it should be expected that you won't fair well yourself.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Then it should be expected that you won't fair well yourself.

I'm so intelligent and skilled I defy even the laws of life.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Wealthy do not have a better grasp on those subjects. If that's what you're looking for, Elect an Economist or an ex-Diplomat. By and large Political Office is something that is learned on the Job.

Now let me ask you, are you trolling? Because that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of. No offense, but I cannot even believe anyone would think what you just wrote.

Most wealthy people are educated, and most of them are in positions of power that require extensive amounts of intelligence, an often times, broad intelligence. And on top of that, most wealthy people thirst for knowledge, that's how they became to be so wealthy.

I'd love to see the type of magazines a wealthy person subscribes to compared to a working class person. Be honest with me, what do you think the results of such a survey would be? Look at the media kits of any business magazine and compare the demographics with a more blue collar oriented magazine (like a pickup truck accessory or some sort of car racing magazine). That would give an honest insight into what topics different kinds of people spend their time learning about.

Trolling?

I merely suggest that Wealth, educated or not, is not better than Representation of all that makes up Society. You say you want those with knowledge in Economics, choose an Economist. You want someone with knowledge in Diplomacy, choose an ex-Diplomat. No Wealthy person can match their expertise in these matters.

The Wealthy have mastered how to accumulate Wealth. Certainly it is a valuable talent and important knowledge, but it has little to do with Political Office. Politics is about balancing the Needs of Society, it is not about turning a Profit.

Seems to me you just want to dismiss any view that varies from your own.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Then it should be expected that you won't fair well yourself.

I'm so intelligent and skilled I defy even the laws of life.

What skills have you besides the ability to annoy?

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Wealthy have mastered how to accumulate Wealth. Certainly it is a valuable talent and important knowledge, but it has little to do with Political Office.

Incorrect.

Most wealthy people have mastered how to acquire wealth, that is true. But most wealthy people are in general, intelligent. Most self made wealthy people are far more interested in important subjects such as economics, current events, and science than the average person.

To say that to become wealthy only requires you to memorize some secret set of formulas, and outside that, most wealthy people are no more intelligent in every other subject as the average person is nonsense.

Wealth is the result of ambition, thirst for success and an overall thirst for knowledge.

Forbes interviewed a few billionaires in an article and one of the questions they asked was how many hours a day they read. Most of them replied with several hours a day of reading.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/20/ent-ma...00_self_made_entrepreneurs_lander.html

I would almost bet anything they mostly read non-fiction out of their thirst for knowledge and curiosity of the world.

While the average person probably doesn't read at all, and those average people who do read are mostly reading BS nonsense like romance novels and crap like "The Da Vinci Code." Very few people read tons of non-fiction as these billionaires and most self made wealthy people do.

Intelligence is (for the most part) like an ocean. You cannot have one part of it be 200% higher than another part. Intelligence spills out from one subject into others because everything in the world is related to one another. When you learn business, you learn more than "earnings ratios" and "how to cash that check." You learn human psychology, engineering, economics, government policy (all businesses deal with government at one time or another), and in general you experience the world, and lots of other things.

There is no better way to become intellectually well rounded than to enter the business world.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
There is no better way to become intellectually well rounded than to enter the business world.

That's why the vast majority of successful Businessmen steer clear of politics. They're not interested in helping others, just themselves and their immediate family. You get the few who are looking for more power and prestige (Bloomberg and Perot) and for them Politics is the answer. The desire for power and prestige doesn't equate a good leader IMO. On the other hand, someone who is willing to forgo vast wealth and give of himself to help others would make a good leader. Now that's not always the case as you can find some exceptions but most are like Bush or Teddy Kennedy where politics is the avenue for power and prestige.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Wealthy have mastered how to accumulate Wealth. Certainly it is a valuable talent and important knowledge, but it has little to do with Political Office.

Incorrect.

Most wealthy people have mastered how to acquire wealth, that is true. But most wealthy people are in general, intelligent. Most self made wealthy people are far more interested in important subjects such as economics, current events, and science than the average person.

To say that to become wealthy only requires you to memorize some secret set of formulas, and outside that, most wealthy people are no more intelligent in every other subject as the average person is nonsense.

Wealth is the result of ambition, thirst for success and an overall thirst for knowledge.

Forbes interviewed a few billionaires in an article and one of the questions they asked was how many hours a day they read. Most of them replied with several hours a day of reading.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/09/20/ent-ma...00_self_made_entrepreneurs_lander.html

I would almost bet anything they mostly read non-fiction out of their thirst for knowledge and curiosity of the world.

While the average person probably doesn't read at all, and those average people who do read are mostly reading BS nonsense like romance novels and crap like "The Da Vinci Code." Very few people read tons of non-fiction as these billionaires and most self made wealthy people do.

Intelligence is (for the most part) like an ocean. You cannot have one part of it be 200% higher than another part. Intelligence spills out from one subject into others because everything in the world is related to one another. When you learn business, you learn more than "earnings ratios" and "how to cash that check." You learn human psychology, engineering, economics, government policy (all businesses deal with government at one time or another), and in general you experience the world, and lots of other things.

There is no better way to become intellectually well rounded than to enter the business world.

Oh come on now. You have extrapolated all that from a Forbes article about how much they read? I'm not saying they're idiots by any stretch, but what you're saying is not supported by anything other than your opinion and some vague reference to reading habits.

Wealth is not an indicator of Intelligence. Intelligence is not an indicator of good Government. Good Government is best served by people who are the People and not an Elite which are separated from the People. If that's what you want, then Monarchy is your best bet.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On the other hand, someone who is willing to forgo vast wealth and give of himself to help others would make a good leader.

You have to help yourself before you can help others. And you need to prove yourself in the private world before you can be trusted in the public world.

If you're looking for some altruistic Gandhi like figure who comes from nowhere, with nothing, and is dedicated to selfless sacrifice is non-existent. It's a wild goose chase.

And the notion that wealthy people are all about helping themselves is nonsense. During their business careers they chase the dollar (which if done within the rules, is noble), but most wealthy people who enter politics are trying to give back, it's not a power trip. From what I've read, and I read a lot about the wealthy, most of them are shockingly down to earth. You wouldn't believe how many of them live in modest houses.

The best you'll find for a politician is a wealthy older guy who has benefited from America's freedoms and wants to give back.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wealth is not an indicator of Intelligence. Intelligence is not an indicator of good Government. Good Government is best served by people who are the People and not an Elite which are separated from the People. If that's what you want, then Monarchy is your best bet.

Wealth is the BEST indicator of overall, well rounded intelligence.

Why was Einstein never very wealthy? Because intellectually he wasn't very well rounded. He was a science/math genius, that's it.

Intelligence is not "memorizing formulas," true intelligence is having a diverse understanding of the world, people, places, and things. Business teaches you that. I believe that 100%. And wealth buys freedom and time, the time to travel the world, read books, and pay attention to current events. Not many people with an 8 to 5 have been to all 7 continents, read newspapers front to back every day, or have the time to read extensively about things that interest them. They're just too busy.

Well rounded intellect is something we need in Washington. There are too many people with too many one sided opinions.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is highly situational, the nicest people from school I remember a good part of them wound up on drugs and dead, life is not kind to "nice" people, the system is geared for those who know how to take what they want regardless of who they step on to get their way, nice folks generally get taken advantage of, stepped by later mentioned folk and used in most cases I have seen.

You must be older and lived in a time where life wasn't as just. I'm generation Y, born in the early 80s, and so far life has been pretty fair to us.

All of my alleged stereotypes and generalizations have been reinforced in real life 1000x over, this is one that has never let me down. Life's ability to reward those I have thought to be morally superior has yet to fail me.

In other words you were sheltered, you know for someone who is a Siouxsie fan, someone who grew up squatting ghettos in london with jhonny and sid you would think such people would be "under" you.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
In other words you were sheltered, you know for someone who is a Siouxsie fan, someone who grew up squatting ghettos in london with jhonny and sid you would think such people would be "under" you.

Actually no, I was not sheltered at all. But from what I have noticed with others, most who have deserved it, have gotten it. But I was given enough intelligence and motivation to take what wasn't given to me.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "squatting ghettos" or how Siouxsie and London factor into that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
The best you'll find for a politician is a wealthy older guy who has benefited from America's freedoms and wants to give back.

You are as niave as those who are looking for a Ghandi if you don't believe power and prestige is the number one reason for a wealthy individual to enter politics.

BTW, if you happen to marry some rich guy don't even think about entering politics, threads like this on the Internet are archived for all history to see and you'll never get the vote of the "Lowbrow Blue Collar Slob" that you'd need to win any elelction because of them.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BTW, if you happen to marry some rich guy don't even think about entering politics, threads like this on the Internet are archived for all history to see and you'll never get the vote of the "Lowbrow Blue Collar Slob" that you'd need to win any elelction because of them.

Marry a rich guy? :Q I'm gay? That's news to me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BTW, if you happen to marry some rich guy don't even think about entering politics, threads like this on the Internet are archived for all history to see and you'll never get the vote of the "Lowbrow Blue Collar Slob" that you'd need to win any elelction because of them.

Marry a rich guy? :Q I'm gay? That's news to me.

Sorry, Rich Girl.

 

[Strk]

I'd say the problem is that a lot of them aren't millionaires going into the Senate/House. While the job pays well (163k), it doesn't pay that well, so take a guess at how they're getting that money.

 

[Siddhartha]

I would not prohibit my voting for someone based on their income. Lincoln, Truman, and Bill Clinton were not rich when they were in political office.

 

[borosp1]

Well there is a problem with politics if you only have rich businessman running as politicians what you get is laws passed that have a disproportionate negative effect on working people and a greater benefit on conglomerates. Examples are the oil and drug industries tax breaks or allowance of unfair pricing practices (medicair drug program) which doesnt produce the lowest price to the consumer.

You have to have a society that makes it possible for a teacher or fireman to become a politican and not just the millionaire. You cant have 1 type of individual in office which is not healthy for debate and will cause less people to be interested in politics and the direction of either the country, county, or city they live in...