Thread: Aristotle's Warning

Originally Posted by commiecat

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.

I am not trying to make my life the template. Other people can do the same thing I have done, other people can do less, and still others can do MUCH more. That's the great thing about America; we all have the same opportunity. All I'm saying is that a lot of people bitch about their station in life, while doing nothing to improve it. If you want to stay in your comfort zone, fine. Just don't blame your circumstances on someone else. I realize that I am painting with broad strokes, and not everyone is like that. I get that some people actually are stuck due to circumstances they can't control... But there are also a lot of people that could do more, and simply don't. Some people are willing to sacrifice to win, others expect to just win without having to put the effort in to it.

Originally Posted by freyguy

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.

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.

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

Still with the greedy hog CEO's? Really? Do you realize that there are over 15,000 publicly traded corporations in the US? For almost all of them, the CEO is a position hired by the shareholders. If the CEOs did nothing but sit around and do nothing while collecting a fat paycheck, don't you think the board would fire them? I'm quite certain that the shareholders want the companies to do well...
Furthermore there are probably at least twice as many privately held corporations as public, so let's just say there are 45,000 corporations in America (that estimate is probably low), that means that there are 45,000 fat lazy slob worthless human being CEOs that are sucking the life blood out of their employees. Is that a reasonable estimate to you?
I'm guessing it's closer to a fraction of a percent that are as bad as you make them all out to be.

Originally Posted by freyguy

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?

Certainly a happy worker is a good worker. But, when there is a whole line of people that want the exact same job for the same pay, the worker had better do exceptional work. As long as the employee is providing value to the company, they should be compensated accordingly. Most companies will make that effort to hold on to the best people.
That's where unions have killed the working man, IMO.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

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.

Adjusted for inflation, the standard of living is 6x higher today than it was 100 years ago. Even people in dire economic circumstances have televisions and cell phones. People do have more debt today than they did years ago, but there is a difference between debt and standard of living.

Originally Posted by Sailor

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.

We have a minimum wage here as well, and it is exactly as you describe... Not enough to support a family, and very few people actually earn that little.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

=freyguy;566427]



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.[




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.





A ways back you said:



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.


,

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.

If someone had given me a check in order to afford lunch, I would have still worked to better myself. Despite being in a more comfortable position today, I still strive to be in a better position tomorrow, because thats the kind of person I am. When I find myself comfortable, I know it's time for me to get up and start busting my hump again to get to the next challenge.

The redistribution of wealth that is being suggested is not nearly as extreme as everyone seems to suggest. We're not talking about someone below the poverty line being brought up to a comfortable living situation. Nor will a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs be slumming it on the streets. Instead we're talking about balance. Closing the huge gap between the middle class and the upper class. Let's be real. Bill Gates alone has more money then he could spend in a single life time. What do you even do with that money? There has got to be a point when you can say, I have more money then I can could ever desire.

Originally Posted by freyguy

Bill Gates alone has more money then he could spend in a single life time. What do you even do with that money? There has got to be a point when you can say, I have more money then I can could ever desire.

Don't mean to get off-topic, but Bill Gates and his wife have given more than $28B to charity. Warren Buffet has given more than $40B. Yes, these are probably exceptions in the world of billionaires, but I felt it was worth noting as you cited Gates specifically.

It depends how you define standard of living. Back in the 1950s families were able to survive very well on 1 paycheck. That is in the realm of the few these days. Back then you bought when you had the money. Credit Cards existed but not for the average person. If credit cards really disappeared overnight this country would go down the tubes. As far as ownership of goods goes through the ages there is always a changing notion of what people acquire and how those things define their socio-economic status. At times having a horse and a nice saddle and a buckboard said you had made it. Having a car and a TV and a Cell Phone doesn't mean you have a good standard of living. Back in the 1950s everyone could afford healthcare now many can't and die because of it.

I think you should all pay special attention to this teaching tool developed by the Comparative Philosophy Department of the University of Wooloomoolloo (touches on Aristotle toward the end) before continuing your discussion here.

YouTube - Bruce's Philosophers Song