Are the rich good for us?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
the question jay really is:

Why...So...Serious...

I'm a dishwasher on the weekend. I get minimum wadge. I make enough to put gas in the car, get some basic care products, maybe a taco at Taco Bell once in a while' yet, I want to have the waiting job. I want to collect tip...get paid more. Have flexible hours. It is a social stigma we have that money equals success. That is true; however, we place too much emphasis on the amount...rather than the work. I can have someone work the grounds on a farm and only make 60,000 each year. Then, I can have someone give me several million to invest. All they do is watch the market and collect dividend and about 40-50 thousand a year. Which is the most successful one? The answer will be said later. Please post away your ideas.
 
Success is where you find it, and I always caution when anyone is worried about my, or anyone elses, money.
You can be happy placing Canadian bacon on frozen pizzas, or you can be happy getting a raise, or climbing that ladder.
Some things are harder these days because the economy sucks, which then is used by certain people on others weaknesses.
What I find interesting is, those whos dynamic is self reliance have a much less care for others monies, while those who want crutches for many a reason are worried about other peoples monies.
It gets to the point where the ones that want a crutch accuse those that dont that they want them all gone, which is a lie, once again, perpetuated by those who take advantage of those worried about someone elses money.
If we demand we have goose for dinner, dont then complain theres no more gold
 
I hate the rich because they flaunt it to much and always boast about what they have. They are greedy and have not iota of being really poor and what it is like. Regarding Romney an asshole with no feelings at all!
 

Minimum wage jobs are intended for entry level positions. No one (even "the rich") truly expects you to work for minimum wages your entire life.

The usual progression for you in your present position is dishwasher, bus boy, waiter. Been there. Done that. And moved on.
 

I can say that I agree with you John. We place money as the ultimate measuring tool when in fact it is character that makes success.


I have to disagree. I think there are those who are rich that have a general respect for those in lower socioeconomic status. Take the CEO of Costco. He had, and still does, have a love and respect for those who work for him. Then, there are guys who are all about money. I hate actions and intentions that are not of benefit for others but for oneself...

Those who may seem apparent that they have abused thier own charm to manipulate those into letting others allocate their own fortuen at the expense of others well-being...*cough* Madoff *cough*


I was just expressing my current economic status. I understand that I must start out low. I was not complaining at all. Just a reference for an explanation I will do later.

Currently a dishwasher...wannabe wait staffer this summer...pray!
 
Whos telling us money makes the man?
The MSM?
Hollywood?
Certain athletes?
Certain artists?

Almost everyone thats rich has become rich, and werent born into it.
Maybe some resent how becoming rich has changed them.
Some rich arent welcomed back in their old lives, some cant go back, and some would never go back.
But a few havnt changed, still keep close to those things and people who really made them what they are.
Now, does this make a rich person different from you or I?
No, it speaks only to how it can change you, if you let it.

Ive said many a time, with all the greed in this world, when I hear someone complaining the rich only marry the rich, how are they to tell if that significant other really loves them and not their money?
If the SO has money, no need to wonder, no more than anyone else.
Also, since it does change people, some can and some cant handle that change.
So, its not like theyre trying to keep all their money to themselves, its more than that, something more, like what we would want, but is taken away by those who are jealous
 
^ Money sounds like a handful.

Perhaps it would be wise to give it to me.

:)

On a serious note I believe money after a certain 'saturation' point proves little or nothing. Must certainly be different in different societies.

If I wanted money I wouldn't be applying for an Arts degree (creative writing major)
 


Bus boy, dishwasher with a gap to waiter. Dishwasher could go to be a prep cook, or a waiter. Lowest level is the bus boy though.
 
The people who hate the rich are obviously not rich. In fact, if given the chance to be rich, the poor would take that shot at any time.

This proves the very definition of jealousy. The poor hate the rich, but if given the chance would be one of the very people they hate. Quite hilarious.

In the United States...its not "hard" to become rich. It requires a good education, logic, creativity, and effort.

Poor people are the ones who slept during class in middle school, they are the ones who did not do their homework and got bad grades in high school, they are ones who dropped out or did drugs/parties in college when they should be studying, poor people are the ones who are lazy.

Then...these poor people demand unions so they can be lazier without being fired, and demand higher wages for doing nothing. These poor people then condemn the rich people who studied and put in the effort earlier in their lives that the poor people were never willing to do. Then these poor people realize they have nothing to lose and they do not care about anybody or anything except for themselves, because the poor are extremely greedy. So then they demand higher taxes and vote Democrat so that they can receive more handouts for doing...well...NOTHING.

That is how the system works and that is the reason for the divide.

In modern day society, its the brains that count, not the manual labor skill. This rule will apply even more so the further we advance through time. Those are smart enough to adapt will succeed, those who do not or refuse to will face their own demise and rightfully so.
 
Unions movement brought along higher wages and better safety measures, but I agree (to an extent) that some modern unions are money sucking leeches 😛.

Like the health services union here in Australia.

There are times that unions have a fair point.

Like when our teacher's union weren't having pay rises in line with inflation.
 
I agree, theres a time and a place for unions and non union work.
But since often its given only 1 side, or POV, and then to say the rich hate unions, again just isnt so.
The MSM, the Hollywooders, the elite artists etc, all give this distorted image, and it convinces many.
My grandfather started unions, had been shot at, litterally bled for them, and yes, they were needed.
My great grand father was local union #1 while working on the statue of liberty.
But if theyre not needed, theyre not needed.
If they bring better by far returns to their clients, thats great until you find out its usually the government workers that get those extras, all the while the unions send millions to the elected official allowing for those better deals.
Thats not a good union, thats collusion.
Ive known several owners of companies that wouldnt consider unions, and only because if they werent doing enough to keep them out, they ended up doing more, to keep a competitive edge for the people they had working for them, and thus, no need for a union.
Do we hear of such things?
Who controls telling the story?
 
I used to work in manufacturing. Our C-level had an unspoken rule. If a plant went union, we closed it. The plant could not operate at a profit when it was unionized. The company had 3 union plants in significant locations mainly for visibility but most of the work was done at different plants and trucked to the location.
 
I am talking about those who boast about their wealth like movie stars, greedy corporate executives and bankers.Not all are supporters of Obama . Stp putting a label on him already! The republicans are noted for this!
 
My list is wrong then?
Who above all else has portrayed the greedy rich than Hollywood?
This isnt about 1 man, as many have come out and said alot of things.
Its a mindset, and its sometimes forced to one side, as you said, but who is doing the forcing?
The rich Hollywood Moguls, movie stars, athletes with their big show of high money.
The millionaires who support such people arent on one side here.

Believe it or not, they are as diverse and thoughtful and caring as you and I.
Are all of them?
No.
Are all the bad ones of one political brand? Hardly.
 

I was showing the contrary to what you said at first, mentioning Romney, as you did label him.
I said it goes both ways
 
I personally believe this is about a general sense of entitlement. We fell, as humans, that certain unalienable rights are that of resources,( land, labor, capital entrepreneurship.) That said, only one is guaranteed.

We need, as a society, to get off the dollar signs and get on with getting each and every hand paired with a shovel at least! We have too many iduviduals who have the resources to do things great for this nation, but everyone feels like money is the main motivator. If you have no money, you can't:

Buy food
Buy a car
Buy gasoline
Buy a house
Build a business
Bake brownies

Basically, if you have no capital to invest into other resources, you are seen as a 'failure'. Let me put it this way, who is least successful:

The young couple who's small business went under
OR
The guy with a 4 year degree working at a fast food joint?

Circumstances play out,and that is why both are not successful! Okay, now who is most successful:

The couple who have a multimillion dollar business
OR
The guy who invested heavily into the fast food joint?

Again, circumstances play out, both are successful.

***

Now, here is the situation. Both of these scenario's use both parties: The couple and the guy.

The couple owned a multimillion dollar store in their town! They were the top, the best, highly respected by the community for the extensive commerce they brought in. However, in 2008, they lost everything. The business had outstanding debt that the bank called back on. They had the money, just not all of it. Are they successful now that they had money but lost it all to unwilling circumstance?

The guy, as we shall call him, has a 4 year degree in whatever you want him to have. He works at a fast food joint called The Clogger. This joint has been busy ever since. His job is to take orders as a cashier. no one know this but, he has invested heavily into a venture plan he heard of that the company was doing. They are starting to go overseas and introduce their establishment internationally. Investors of The Clogger are excited and have the market value of the company stock triple form 2.35 a share to 7.05 a share. His investment of 300,000 over the last 10 years has now grown from the initial principle to a net worth of 1.2 million USD after tax. He is successful right?

Tell me, what is the difference between people who work their hard earned time and money to lose it all, while someone who does minimal work get higher resource allocation via a network transaction in the economy?

This is where politics comes in. Who is is successful, who is rich?
 
What about the Koch brothers greedy and for money and power and they hate the Liberals completely.
 
I posted an earlier thread where theyve given millions of dollars to the arts, and to a science driven mainly by a liberal mindset.
This goes against them being greedy, and it goes against the liberal mindset, sported mainly by the MSM, as its them who hate the Koch brothers, and they shouldnt have a say in it anyways, and shows how worthless they are, complete crap they are the MSM, as they didnt report on the Kochs giving, no, they instead twist their way so others would dislike them.
So, being fair and balanced the MSM should have run this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/david-koch-donates-35-million-to-national-museum-of-natural-history-for-dinosaur-hall/2012/05/03/gIQAIjT3yT_story.html
But, since theyve already shown their commitment to a side, which there shouldnt be in our news, they cant, it would make them look the fools they are
 
The obsession people in the US have with being rich is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

The history of the union movement around the world reflects the poor standing up and saying together "while you may try to expliot us individually, you will not exploit us as a group".

Unions are the only answer to the rich simply treading all over the poor.

Unions gave us:

Minimum wages
Collective bargaining
Working hours / overtime
Basic conditions of service
Paid leave, sick leave, parental leave
Legal Representation for disputes
Representation on peak government groups

and other rights etc ..

Sometimes unions get it wrong too.

During the GFC Unions should have been more flexible in supporting changes to awards to make it easier for employers to adjust to the economic downturn.

Unions feed off the employers so they shoudl be there to work closely ... and positively with them.

Unions need to modernise their principles in order to stay relevant to younger workers.

I have spoken to a number of union officials about this recently.

I think the message is getting through.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom