Thread: Aristotle's Warning

You are trading a rich bastard that provides the opportunity to improve your life for a rich bastard that provides nothing but being the broker of your personal wealth to be destributed to another individual.

There is no moral imparitive that anyone supply the needs of anyone else. Even if they stole it. That is why a nation has laws. To identify theives and remove them from society.

Please tell me at what point of misery will you say "Hey, quit taking my Budwieser and Camel Cigarettes.", since you don't want anybody sipping Scotch and smoking a cigar. There is always somebody that has more and somebody that has less than you. I don't need for the people that have 1% of the wealth to give it to me. In a free society, I can go earn it back from them. Just get the hell out of my way.

But then, that would not be fair to people that are disadvantaged and not able to earn it back, right? So for that, we need a police state (IRS) to take that money and give it to them. Minus a surcharge of course. In fact most of it. Like 90%.

So if the Govenment is going to protect us from the evil rich, who is going to protect us from them?

You're right JMS...I don't know what got into me...retired from one career and am half-way through another...how stupid of me! I coulda gotten my education paid for...remainded a student for years by changing majors, and then going on for a masters or whatever it took to keep the funding going; if researched and applied for properly, coulda had my housing/rent/mortgage partially or totallly paid; then energy assistance to help with my utilities...of course after seeing what food stamp users have in their cart at the store, I was a fool there too...they always buy the best I've noticed.

The finding someone to wipe your a$$ part is a problem, but, I bet if you went about it correctly...did a little research, there has gotta be a government program somewhere that you could find funding for to have a bidet installed in your bathroom...then we wouldn't need anybody to wipe our a$$...I can ge behind all this!!!

Originally Posted by HNSB

You're right. The kid behind the counter at McDonalds should get paid $120,000 a year. McDonald's is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They can afford it.
(this is EXACTLY what you're saying, just an extreme example...)

At what point did a company become slave to the employee? Companies don't have an obligation to ensure their employees can make a living off of the salary. They have a job available and offer a salary. Take it or leave it.
If the employee wants more, they should find a way to EARN more. It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of value.
My employer doesn't give half a crap about whether or not I need more money (or whether they are giving me more than I need). I am paid based upon the value of the service that I provide.
I worked my ass off to get from living below the poverty level to where I'm at. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that want more but aren't willing to work for it.

You'll note that I've said nothing about the healthcare thing. I don't really care about it.
I just get really torqued off when it comes up that every company in America is screwing their employees. That is absolutely not true. The thing that a lot of people miss is that need never justifies a salary. Value does.

It's pointless to get into the ownership/workforce debate. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both sides get upset with each other in probably every industry. Should you get paid according to your work ethic, or should your work ethic reflect what you get paid?

If you used to be below the poverty level then you should remember what it's like. Just because you and others in this thread -- myself included -- worked hard to get to where we're at now doesn't mean that everyone can with the same amount of work. Maybe others are currently working hard to get beyond poverty but have even more trouble in the recent economic conditions. Maybe they have pre-existing conditions or learning/physical disabilities. Maybe they have had other events in their lives that have put more strain on them financially than what we had. You can't make your life the template by which every other citizen can and should follow.

Originally Posted by HNSB

Normally I avoid these threads...



What's wrong with sipping scotch or smoking cigars?
The idea that the owners of a company are robbing the employees is wrong. No one is forcing people to work for a company. People are willing to work for the pay. If they weren't, the company would have to pay more. Is that wrong? If you believe it is, then you should sell me the best razor in your collection for $5. It is the same economic principle.
CEOs get paid what they do, because their companies make a lot of money off of decisions they make. Granted, there have been some recent examples of poor CEOs, but I could also show you examples of union workers that should be fired for basically stealing a paycheck from the company. You can't make broad generalizations from looking at a few examples.
You couldn't convince me for a second that Jack Welch wasn't worth his salary. You'll never convince me that Stan Gadek isn't worth his.
I am not a CEO, far from it in fact. But, I don't get upset with someone that does better than I do.

There's nothing wrong with scotch and cigars. As a matter of fact, I quite like both. There problem is that despite the few good CEOs who can be mentioned, many of them are greedy cheats, who would see their employees starve while they get fat on the hog. I'll step foot on your side of the arguement for a moment and say that a CEO should get paid more then his underlings. Despite the fact that he sits on his butt in a nice office, while people break their backs with physical labor to bring in revenue for his company, he is more educated, and better prepared to make intellegent decisions for the company. BUT how does that constitue him making an anual salary of $250 million + while his best, hardest working employee in the store makes only $30,000; at best.
Are we forced to work in these stores, for these greedy CEOs, technically no. However, when you have a family to feed, and your college education can't get you anything better a minimum wage job at kmart, are you going to see your family starve out of pride?
I'm not sure what selling you my best razor for $5 has to do with the conversation about CEOs sharing their money, but it brings up another good example. Let's look at a small group of SRP members, say 5, all with a collection of razors, some better then others. If I up and decide to sell my best razor to member 1 for $5, he can then sell his best razor to member 2 for $5. And round and round the cycle goes, and guess what? all 5 SRP members have just shared their best razors, and no one has broken the bank. Now if one of those members at some point decided they wouldn't sell the razor for any less then $100 the circle is broken, and the movement of razors comes to a halt. We are now in razor dead lock. One person has the best razor, and the rest have average razors. The lesson: when money moves freely from hand to hand, we all get to share the wealth, enjoying it's benefits, but when one person stops sharing, you develop all these negative things... want, envy, greed, murder, all because someone couldn't pass the buck.

Originally Posted by JMS

HNSB, our freyguy assumes an awful lot. For instance, he doesn't realize he is speaking with a man ( me ) who spends 10 to 20 dollars on a 25 oz bottle of beer on a semi daily basis and may spend as much as 200 dollars on a knife every 60 or so days. This same man had trouble paying for his own way in life not even 10 to 11 years ago.

Well JMS, you make an interesting assumtion yourself, because you see, you and I are not so different. A year ago, I was barely able to afford to buy myself lunch. Today, I can up and drop $250 on an external harddrive, or $130 on a beat up razor just because I like the way it looks. Nevertheless, I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. We're not talking about people like you and I. No matter how many $200 dollar knives, or external hard drives we could afford to buy in a year, we are still in that bottom 99% of that wealth distribution. The top 1% can buy a few $3,000 bottles of champaign with dinner, or a $250,000 Katana for his sword collect. That is the kind of wealth which needs to be redistributed.

Originally Posted by decraew

All this is very nice in principle but I'm sorry, that's just not how things work in the real world.

It's true that no one is forcing people to work for a given company. However, often people don't have a choice, because they need the income and there are no better-pay alternatives for them.

Thank you. Finally some people have stepped up and joined my side of this discussion. And your absolutely correct. Humans are condemned to choose, however, when your choice is a homeless family, or an underpaid, over worked position an ungreatful greedy CEO, the crappy job may not look great, but his necessary

Originally Posted by HNSB

You're right. The kid behind the counter at McDonalds should get paid $120,000 a year. McDonald's is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They can afford it.
(this is EXACTLY what you're saying, just an extreme example...)

At what point did a company become slave to the employee? Companies don't have an obligation to ensure their employees can make a living off of the salary. They have a job available and offer a salary. Take it or leave it.
If the employee wants more, they should find a way to EARN more. It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of value.
My employer doesn't give half a crap about whether or not I need more money (or whether they are giving me more than I need). I am paid based upon the value of the service that I provide.
I worked my ass off to get from living below the poverty level to where I'm at. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that want more but aren't willing to work for it.

You'll note that I've said nothing about the healthcare thing. I don't really care about it.
I just get really torqued off when it comes up that every company in America is screwing their employees. That is absolutely not true. The thing that a lot of people miss is that need never justifies a salary. Value does.

Have you ever thought that if an employee wasn't struggling to make ends meet, didn't have to work 3 jobs just put a meager meal on his plate, that this employee might actually come into work and do a better job? What ever happened to the saying "a happy worker is a good worker" Granted, you don't just want to throw money at someone who may not become a better employee as a result, however, many companies will either string employees along for years promising raises and promotions, only to hire some young person who will do the same job for less money.
I had to work my ass off to be where I am, and will likely continue to work my ass off, just cause thats the kind of man I am, but at some point you have to sit back and wonder "isn't there a better way?" wouldn't your ideal job strive to keep/improve you as an employee? Wouldn't you like to be appreciated for your work?

Originally Posted by Alembic

You are trading a rich bastard that provides the opportunity to improve your life for a rich bastard that provides nothing but being the broker of your personal wealth to be destributed to another individual.

There is no moral imparitive that anyone supply the needs of anyone else. Even if they stole it. That is why a nation has laws. To identify theives and remove them from society.

Please tell me at what point of misery will you say "Hey, quit taking my Budwieser and Camel Cigarettes.", since you don't want anybody sipping Scotch and smoking a cigar. There is always somebody that has more and somebody that has less than you. I don't need for the people that have 1% of the wealth to give it to me. In a free society, I can go earn it back from them. Just get the hell out of my way.

But then, that would not be fair to people that are disadvantaged and not able to earn it back, right? So for that, we need a police state (IRS) to take that money and give it to them. Minus a surcharge of course. In fact most of it. Like 90%.

So if the Govenment is going to protect us from the evil rich, who is going to protect us from them?

The amount of money that 1% controls, would be more then enough for all of us to have our case of Miller and pack of smokes. Have you ever really thought about what a billion dollars can buy. How many bottles of beer or packs of cigarettes could be afforded with $1,000,000,000.00. Look at all those zero's.

Here's the real issue guys. This country has always been controlled by rich people and corporations. Even back in the 1800s. What has set us apart from most other countries is that in the U.S there was this realization that as long as the average working stiff had enough money to buy a house, a new car every few years and take his family on vacation and have a few toys he was happy. He didn't care what the CEO of some corporation made or how the private sector controlled the Govt.

However that is all changing and it will change much more as the standard of living in this country continues to deteriorate for the masses and as that happens people will be more interested in what others have that they don't and that breeds social unrest and big problems for the future of this country until our debtors stroll in and take over.

Originally Posted by HNSB

At what point did a company become slave to the employee? Companies don't have an obligation to ensure their employees can make a living off of the salary. They have a job available and offer a salary. Take it or leave it.
If the employee wants more, they should find a way to EARN more. It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of value.

Sorry for not knowing how is it there, but in EU there are minimum wages that companies must pay to their workers. It is not much; much less than anyone could earn a living for his family, but nevertheless: it is not based on some value that employee only would claim.

In here it is not the question of taking away from the rich guys. They can earn as much as they ever can, but they still have to make sure they pay at least that minimum wage to their workers.
A company where not only high managers but workers as well feel that their work is respected usually does better job than those who give no half crap about their workers.

To be honest getting a minimum wage is very rare here, usually only students who work part time get paid the minimum.

=freyguy;566427]

A year ago, I was barely able to afford to buy myself lunch. Today, I can up and drop $250 on an external harddrive, or $130 on a beat up razor just because I like the way it looks.

If someone had given you a check at that time, so you could afford lunch, would you still have had the drive to try and better your circumstances, or would it have made it a little easier to stay where you were? IME, as soon as someone gets comfortable there is no longer the same drive to propel them further, why would there be, they are comfortable.[

Nevertheless, I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. We're not talking about people like you and I.

In the US you are more than likely talking about people that started the same as us, little guys. Steve Jobs started Apple in his garage, now he employs thousands and thousands of people, oh, and makes loads of money. John Hunstman had very humble beginings, yet is a billionaire who has vowed to die broke by giving it all away. Any one, from any beginning can become wealthy, as long as they want to be bad enough, work hard enough for it, and make the correct choices along the way. IMO, that is what handouts rob from those it is meant to help most.

No matter how many $200 dollar knives, or external hard drives we could afford to buy in a year, we are still in that bottom 99% of that wealth distribution. The top 1% can buy a few $3,000 bottles of champaign with dinner, or a $250,000 Katana for his sword collect. That is the kind of wealth which needs to be redistributed.

A ways back you said:

There once was a time when a skilled craftsman could be recognized for the quality of work, respected for the time and education it took to become that skilled, and be paid accordingly. Those skilled craftsman have been bought out by big corporations, those precious goods are now machine made, and the days of skilled machine operators seem to be numbered.

So now you dont think the excellent swordsmith should be paid for his skills and education, or the producer that can produce a bottle of champagne that someone would pay 3,000 dollars for? Do you notice how wealth was re-distributed naturally? The wealthy person gave his wealth to a craftsman, the interesting thing is they both got value for value. Both walked away feeling satisfied and happy with the deal.
Who do you think builds the huge homes the wealthy live in, the cars they drive, the food they eat, the products they buy? The rich already have their money and can afford not to buy new things, invest in new ventures, or for that matter make more taxable income. I think that every one that thinks that their supposed greed will keep them producing no matter how big a load you throw on their back, will find the rich arent as greedy as they may seem to some, instead they will suddenly become content with what they have, and we will get no new economic growth and no new tax revenue for you to re-distribute.

your absolutely correct. Humans are condemned to choose

,

And condemned to live with/pay for, the consequences of choices they make, not to force others to pay for the consequences of their choices.

Originally Posted by freyguy

I wasn't speaking of businessmen. The guy who runs my local deli. I'm referring to the skilled liars, con artists and thieves we now call businessmen. On a daily basis we are lied to and deceived so we will empty our wallets and fill the pockets of someone else. Bernie Madoff was called a businessman until he got caught, right?

Bernie Madoff? Oh yeah...isn't he the one who got busted for impersonating a United States Congressman?? Yeah that lying, stealing, cheating bastard