Mocking The Poor

[Calm]

one thing I have seen a lot of is wealthy people paying for their kids schooling and ensuring them to become as successful as they are. One family in particular the dad came from nothing but climbed his way up to the top and became an optometrist and now owns half a pupil places  and paid for all of his kids schooling and his son in law's law school and 2/4 of his boys are now optometrists, the other two are I forget now. Mind you I only get my eyes done from the dad as I don't trust the boys

I don't have a problem with parents paying for education as long as the kids make good use of it, I applaud parents who make arrangements to ogive all their money away so there isnt that much to inherit, thus their kids have to learn to be independent. Helping get started in business...okay as well as long it is not the only resource and definitely not an ongoing payment because that would generally mean the business isnt viable without it, but just a kick starter...along with helping with a modest down payment on the first house. But the kids need to cut the cord or they will always be kids.

[Calm]

How do you measure who is a hard worker? I ask because it is easy to say at that point that hard workers are obviously the successful people which is a circular argument.

I have been discussing a very specific group of people who create new wealth, of which great examples would be the entrepreneurs I have met over the years....in general starting out and for many years they are working late into the night and start first thing in the morning. Most were married and starting families as well. The ones I know came from middle class with good educations (often having a full time job getting their business going while carrying a full load) and who took the risk of losing everything by fully committing to their project. Several have started businesses that were a brand new concept. All started small. A couple with a start a business with one dollar project in my husband's class.

Hard work does not always equate to success but it seems a necessary quality for all the startup business owners who have been successful that I know.

I am not even arguing they deserve to be millionaires...I am debating the value of taking all their income over a modest amount away from them while still expecting them to put in the same amount of effort. I don't see that happening that much...and therefore without that level of work, risk taking and commitment, no new business, no new jobs...less people helped. At some point forced charity is nonproductive.....

Edited January 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does the average CEO work 350 times harder than their average employee?

http://moneymorning.com/2013/04/19/ceo-pay-now-7000-an-hour-350-times-the-average-workers/

You know why a CEO makes more than that average employee? Might it have to do with the decisions and choices the CEO makes that impacts revenue, IE, production? For me it always boils down to production. If you can come up with a solution or a process that is more productive should you not reap that reward? IG, Henry Ford and the assembly line.

 

I reject your premise. That is what I am responding to.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ahab]

I will say it again: How a person becomes rich isnt the real issue here. What matters is what rich people do with their riches, and Ive been saying rich people should give everything in excess of what it takes to maintain a modest lifestyle to other people.

And one more thing. Poor people spending money doesnt mess up our economy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 hard workers are obviously the successful people which is a circular argument.

And it is a straw man. No one is making that kind of an argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have been discussing a very specific group of people who create new wealth, of which great examples would be the entrepreneurs I have met over the years....in general starting out and for many years they are working late into the night and start first thing in the morning. Most were married and starting families as well. The ones I know came from middle class with good educations (often having a full time job getting their business going while carrying a full load) and who took the risk of losing everything by fully committing to their project. Several have started businesses that were a brand new concept. All started small. A couple with a start a business with one dollar project in my husband's class.

 

And that is another reason why "CEO's" should be paid more. The risk a heck of a lot more than your average employee. Not all CEO's do but if you are in a small business you do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And one more thing. Poor people spending money doesnt mess up our economy.

Only government does that.

 

 

 

TO ALL

 

This thread is becoming political with too many personal attacks.  Clean it up or it will be closed.

[The Nehor]

And it is a straw man. No one is making that kind of an argument.

 

Actually I made the argument and then knocked it down myself. To qualify as a straw man I would have to attribute the argument to someone else. I was pointing out how difficult it is to measure work.

 

Your comment, on the other hand, is a straw man. You accused me of creating a straw man. I did not. You tried to defeat the straw man you imagine. You took its head off with one swing. Good job.

[The Nehor]

Only government does that.

 

Actually increased government spending has in many cases assisted in the reverse of bad economic conditions. It was instrumental in the recovery from the Great Depression.

[Ahab]

Only government does that.

Government messes up our economy only when they give more money to rich people who do not share the excess with the poor. If all rich people would simply maintain a modest lifestyle for themselves, giving everything in excess of that to other people, everybody would be able to maintain a modest lifestyle by the circulation of money through our whole economy. And when rich people do not choose to do that voluntarily all of us, through our government representatives, should take the excess away and distribute it to the poorest among us.

[Calm]

Nehor, I found one study that states the average work week of an entrepreneur is 70 hours.

http://www.princetonreview.com/Careers.aspx?cid=60

Ahab, you should take note about the part of controlling their own destinies...huge attribute in entrepreneurs iirc my husband's data correctly.

Edited January 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Government messes up our economy only when they give more money to rich people who do not share the excess with the poor. If all rich people would simply maintain a modest lifestyle for themselves, giving everything in excess of that to other people, everybody would be able to maintain a modest lifestyle by the circulation of money through our whole economy. And when rich people do not choose to do that voluntarily all of us, through our government representatives, should take the excess away and distribute it to the poorest among us.

 

If rich people knew that their excess would be taken away from them by force, they would stop making any excess.

[Ahab]

If rich people knew that their excess would be taken away from them by force, they would stop making any excess.

If that is true it shows how helpful they want to be, which is not very helpful.

[Calm]

Bluebell, now, now, don't get excited...apparently they do it solely for the joy of working...for example those successful entreprenuers...who likely failed 4 or 5 times before hitting the magic formula.....who wouldn't want to work 70 hours a week, risk losing one's house, not be there to play with your kids a couple of hours a day....and all to get paid only as much as the guy who works 40 hours, has no need to raise funds by putting up one's treasures for collateral and gets to have a full family life and leisure time on top of that....

Actually I think the loss of control would bug them even more, but the above certainly wouldn't help. Have to ask my husband to do a poll sometime to see.

[Calm]

If that is true it shows how helpful they want to be, which is not very helpful.

Why should they be any more helpful than anyone else?

[bluebell]

If that is true it shows how helpful they want to be, which is not very helpful.

 

You already covered that they might not be very helpful when you decided that if they didn't want to be helpful we should just steal the money from them anyway.

 

And can you really blame someone for not wanting to be helpful to the people who are stealing their money?  If someone doesn't want to give all their excess money to the poor, taking it by force is not going to change that-it's going to make them even more hostile to the idea.

[Ahab]

Why should they be any more helpful than anyone else?

There is a scripture somewhere with our Lord saying some of us can (righteously) seek wealth for the purpose of helping others. Or something like that.

We all gotta work for somebody, and we can work for the benefit of others as well as ourselves.

Werent you telling me you know some people who do that?

[Calm]

Like I said, taking control of what they produce would likely annoy the ones I know the most...but the other things would add to the weight of 'why bother' as they really don't work for the pure joy of it...and if they didn't have the companies, they wouldn't have to worry about their employees...someone else would be taking care of them by taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor to spend on whatever they wanted....

Forcing people to be charitable never leads to real charity IMO. Isn't that the theory most people have of Lucifer's plan, forcing people to be good and nice?

There is a reason why most people won't get into the risky business of entrepreneurship...they haven't the guts or the desire to risk failing. The payoff has to balance the costs...and I am not just talking financial, but emotional and mental and physical from the intense pressure and social from the excessive hours.

Edited January 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

You already covered that they might not be very helpful when you decided that if they didn't want to be helpful we should just steal the money from them anyway.

And can you really blame someone for not wanting to be helpful to the people who are stealing their money? If someone doesn't want to give all their excess money to the poor, taking it by force is not going to change that-it's going to make them even more hostile to the idea.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that our Lord created this planet for all of us. There is no good reason to let the rich and powerful in this world override that fact. Especially not in America, where we can elect our own representatives to speak for us and our own best interests, and with relatively few rich people who "own" most of the wealth in this country the more advantage the rest of us hsve when our representatives speak and act in the best interest of our collective society.

To allow the minority among us (the richest aming us) to hold onto most of what truly is for all us is simply not right, and we should be passing and enforcing laws against that kind of greed and selfishness instead of supporting that kind of behavior.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Forcing people to be charitable never leads to real charity IMO. Isn't that the theory most people have of Lucifer's plan, forcing people to be good and nice?

 

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

If we can force charity why can't we force salvation? Those that are for forcing charity ie, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, should have no issues saying, "We should just make every one Mormon after are we are right and it is going to safe them all".

Edited January 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

Ahab, then make the laws reasonable so that they promote businesses while sharing the wealth. Inheritance taxes for example. Allow the person who earns the money to keep it, step in at the next level...though since providing a better life for one's family is also a large motivator inheritance shouldn't be completely gutted or at least their ability to help their children get started in adulthood.

Edited January 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually increased government spending has in many cases assisted in the reverse of bad economic conditions. It was instrumental in the recovery from the Great Depression.

It was the policies of the fed (The Central Bank or the governmental bank) that caused the crash. And no the government didn't help in getting us out. That is the reason it lasted for over 10 years here in America was precisly because the government messed it up even more.  Good grief. Anyway that is all I will say about this. It doesn't matter what I say you will just dismiss it. Carry on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

 

TO ALL

 

This thread is becoming political with too many personal attacks.  Clean it up or it will be closed.

Doh very well, I will go to spectate mode now.

[Ahab]

You hit the nail right on the headd.

If we can force charity why can't we force salvation? Those that are for forcing charity ie, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, should have no issues saying, "We should just make every one Mormon after are we are right and it is going to safe them all".

It all comes down to what type of behavior we choose to uphold on this planet.

If you approve of corporate or individual greed, you need not do anything, because we already allow that by not making any laws against it other than not allowing any one person or corporation to have a monoply. Or instead we could make and enforce some laws against it, while also setting a limit to how much a person or corporation can have to maintain a modest lifestyle.

Its not as if we must allow every type of behavior our species is capable of.

[Calm]

I just watched a show where a family had adopted at least 18 special needs children from all over the world, many abandoned, many parents unable to care for them. It was obvious from the home and cars and clothing as well as how they described their life (28 major appliances from Sears, including two washers and dryers, massive amount of shopping, yearly summer vacations driving all over the US with all the kids) that they were well off. They didn't start that way, but I have to wonder if they would have ever dared to imagine taking in that many all at once and so successfully for the most part if they weren't secure in knowing not only would they have enough, but more than enough to provide the cushion that extra level of stress would cause as well as being assured there wouldn't come a time when they might be having to downsize because someone else decided someone else needed the money more than they did.