The Rich And The Poor - Lds Statements

[MormonFreeThinker]

I really believe that the majority who want to get ahead - will get ahead.  

 

How many low paid parents (25 years or older) that pay rent and the bills, received a better life in less than two decades?  It is much harder for single mothers. 

 

Elder Holland doesn't agree with you, "the poverty that holds them captive and destroys so many of their dreams"

Mitt Romney doesn't agree with you, “There is a great deal of chance or serendipity or even luck to success in business, in politics, in science, in academics, in investments, in winning and losing...their success is something out of their control or something left to chance” 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/no-obstacle-too-great-for-young-single-adults-in-arizona?lang=eng

 

Just because you know some poor people that became successful doesn't prove that everybody can do it, it depends on the circumstances and chance.

 

 Others, they complain about not getting paid enough, they complain about others and their success.  They want to drag others down to their level (reduce the rich) rather than trying to climb up to those successful people.  

 

Please do not judge, you don't know the circumstances of all the poor.

I am talking about a living wage, all hard workers need a living wage. They need money to feed their children. 

 

What about your $9 factory workers?  So what.  I know a guy who started out in my business making 17k a year (the company now starts a little higher (25-30k/yr).  No college education.  Not the smartest guy in the room at that time.   What he did have was a drive to succeed.  He learned the business.  He showed up earlier than everyone else. He stayed later than everyone else.  He now makes about $250k/yr.  I can name off many others almost like him.  He's one up on the others on his position but I can cite other starting out cases that have ended up with 100k/yr.  

 

You know a guy, but how many single mothers do you personally know that became successful?  There are millions of poor workers, some become successful, but just because some did it doesn't mean all can do it, especially today. 

 

It is like saying "Tiger woods had to practice a lot to become a good golfer, anyone can become as good as him"

Do you believe that Tiger woods became that good because he practiced a lot?  What about Michael Jordan?

What about Lionel Messi? Do you think that with enough practice, anybody can become as good as them? 

 

Your comments make me sad, please try to understand, it depends on their circumstances and chance. I personally know families that work very hard just to get some food to the table . 

 

 I worked hard for what I have as well.  I managed to place myself (salary) somewhere between one of their managers and an  asst. vice president. I have shown up early and stayed late.  I still do today.  "Factory workers" tend to show up, clock in on time, do their work, clock out on time, and then go home.  The exceptions will get out of that rut and make it to the next level.   

So yes, I will smile.  You have cited "hard working" factory workers.       You can't work hard and not smart. You can't work smart and not hard.  You have to work both hard and smart to be successful.  

 

Are you a single parent? Poor single parents do not have enough money for an education, especially today. Today, there are higher gas prices, the food is more expensive, the rent is higher,  the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer. I know hard working factory workers that stay late, but their salaries remain low. 

 

It depends on their circumstances and chance, not all the poor have the same circumstances, trust me. 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/no-obstacle-too-great-for-young-single-adults-in-arizona?lang=eng

Edited October 31, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

Sdc999, your analogy is almost spot on, until you figure in those jobs like school teachers etc. They go in early and stay late, but there ain't no way their pay will rise with that kind of extra oomph. They work for the student not for the almighty dollar. Why does government punish them so? Or the other low on the totem pole workers that seem to hold up everyone else.

Goverment jobs are typically low across the board, at least in Anerica, all the way up to the President who makes, what, 300k per year now?, while a typical CEO of a major corporation makes, what, at least several million per year now?

If you want to be rich, in the millions per year range, don't get a government job. Government contracts that pay outside contractors usually pay pretty well, though

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Walmart has 2,000,000+ employees worldwide.  It might not be "fair" for the CEO to make $35,000,000 per year, but you do realize that if he were to suddenly see the light and reduce his salary to $1 next year, each employee would theoretically get about $17. 

 

That's $17 for the year. 

Well shoot Cinepro, I think I might have to rethink some past things I thought about you. You are definitely on a roll in this thread.

 

When I was working at guitar center, I was thinking something along this lines how unfair it was that, we the salesmen, were the ones making all the money for the company but they paid us so poorly, in a lot of cases. Then I figures something out. The CEO at the time made a 1.7 mil dollar bonus. I thought that was ridiculous. If we took that bonus an divided it up among all the employes (5000) we would get 340 dollars more a year. I thought, that would be joke. Then I realized other things. People are paid what they are worth. People are worth more if they impact business and review more i.e., production.  I don't know all the things the CEO did to impact business but it had to be a lot. With the company I am currently with the CEO plays a major role in production and the in flow of money. She makes a lot of money. And she deserves it. Because of her efforts I have a really nice job. So what do I have to complain about.

 

Not every that works low skill jobs is going to stay there. They move up. That is what the American Dream is. The ability to move into better position as they acquire more skills.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Goverment jobs are typically low across the board, at least in Anerica, all the way up to the President who makes, what, 300k per year now?, while a typical CEO of a major corporation makes, what, at least several million per year now?

If you want to be rich, in the millions per year range, don't get a government job. Government contracts that pay outside contractors usually pay pretty well, though

Well, this is rather short sighted. If you think this is all the President is paid over the course of this life, then you need to take another look.

 

How much does Bill get paid to give a speech?  Government employess esp in DC are paid a lot more than their private sector counterparts.

[Tacenda]

Well shoot Cinepro, I think I might have to rethink some past things I thought about you. You are definitely on a roll in this thread.

When I was working at guitar center, I was thinking something along this lines how unfair it was that, we the salesmen, were the ones making all the money for the company but they paid us so poorly, in a lot of cases. Then I figures something out. The CEO at the time made a 1.7 mil dollar bonus. I thought that was ridiculous. If we took that bonus an divided it up among all the employes (5000) we would get 340 dollars more a year. I thought, that would be joke. Then I realized other things. People are paid what they are worth. People are worth more if they impact business and review more i.e., production. I don't know all the things the CEO did to impact business but it had to be a lot. With the company I am currently with the CEO plays a major role in production and the in flow of money. She makes a lot of money. And she deserves it. Because of her efforts I have a really nice job. So what do I have to complain about.

Not every that works low skill jobs is going to stay there. They move up. That is what the American Dream is. The ability to move into better position as they acquire more skills.

Or they give up their family lives basically, I think, those CEO's.

[MormonFreeThinker]

All hard workers need a living wage, 7.25 to 10.00 dollars an hour is not a living wage, not today. 

I know factory workers that only earn 9.00 (7.25 + their bonus) dollars an hour. 

[Ahab]

Well, this is rather short sighted. If you think this is all the President is paid over the course of this life, then you need to take another look.

How much does Bill get paid to give a speech? Government employess esp in DC are paid a lot more than their private sector counterparts.

I never said a President of these United States can't "move up" as you say after his term ends, and I also know he can make some more money on the side, like we can, while he has his job as the President, but still his governnent job as President pays only 300k per year in income, or whatever it is now.

[cinepro]

Goverment jobs are typically low across the board, at least in Anerica, all the way up to the President who makes, what, 300k per year now?, while a typical CEO of a major corporation makes, what, at least several million per year now?

If you want to be rich, in the millions per year range, don't get a government job. Government contracts that pay outside contractors usually pay pretty well, though

 

I'm sorry, but this is an overgeneralization.  There are many government workers who have salaries, benefits, pensions, early retirement, and job guarantees that the private sector can only dream of.

 

As for teachers, I don't know how it is in other districts, but the teachers in Los Angeles get paid pretty well.  Sure, they start out in the $40K range, but with experience and tenure, they can get above $50K - $60K, and it looks like $80K is the max.  Obviously there are times when they work longer hours than the obvious 8 hour school day, but there are only 180 school days per year compared to the 260 regular weekdays other people might work (250 weekdays with two weeks vacation).  That's a 70 day difference.  Factor in a couple weeks for preparation and training, and there's probably still a 50 - 60 day difference in numbers of days worked.  That's 10 weeks!

[cinepro]

My argument is that the rich need to help the poor. The rich should give jobs to the poor, and pay them a living wage, that is the best way for the rich to help the poor.

 

I honestly don't think there is anyone here that would argue with your first statement.  Of course the "rich" should help the "poor".

 

The problem is your second statement.  I'm not sure that it has ever been demonstrated that "the best way for the rich to help the poor" is to pay them more than a justified wage.  I'm certainly not sure that it's best for the government to force business owners (most of whom are not "rich") to pay their workers more than a justified wage. 

 

When all the ramifications of minimum wage and wealth redistribution laws are considered (to the extent they are known), I'm just not sure it's the best way to go.  We all agree on your first argument.  You've got to do better showing that your second argument holds water.

[Ahab]

All hard workers need a living wage, 7.25 to 10.00 dollars an hour is not a living wage, not today.

I know factory workers that only earn 9.00 (7.25 + their bonus) dollars an hour.

The thing is, if someone is willing to work for little or no pay they will usually be preferred over someone who expects more money for doing the very same job just as well as the person who is paid less money. And it's in the financial interest of the business to pay as little as possible for work or products of the same quality. So the only reason to pay more would be if the employer wanted to pay more charitably, and even then it would only be to the point that the employer could financially afford to be charitable.

Take a job at a Wal-mart store, as an example. Suppose the job was posted without any mention of a salary, or maybe said it was negotiable. Now suppose 100 people apply for the job and 10 are considered to be the most and equally qualified to do the work with a good attitude. And now suppose that 1 of the 10 asks for a salary much higher than the others. If you were the one hiring would you pick that person? Suppose he said he had 10 children. Would that sway your decision? And now suppose that another had 8 children, was a single parent due to divorce, and even with child support would not be making as much money as the other was asking for. Would you pick that person? What would be your reasoning for picking whoever you picked and how would you determine what salary to pay? Of course all of them would like to be paid as much as possible whether working to support only themselves or to give some of their income to others.

[thesometimesaint]

I honestly don't think there is anyone here that would argue with your first statement.  Of course the "rich" should help the "poor".

 

The problem is your second statement.  I'm not sure that it has ever been demonstrated that "the best way for the rich to help the poor" is to pay them more than a justified wage.  I'm certainly not sure that it's best for the government to force business owners (most of whom are not "rich") to pay their workers more than a justified wage. 

 

When all the ramifications of minimum wage and wealth redistribution laws are considered (to the extent they are known), I'm just not sure it's the best way to go.  We all agree on your first argument.  You've got to do better showing that your second argument holds water.

 

I too agree with the first example.

 

I do have a problem with your second example. Power, even economic power, is justified not by those that don't have that power, but by those that do. I suppose ideally if employers did adequately pay their employees no governmental actions would be necessary. Unfortunately down here in the real world such is often not the case. As witnessed by the owners of EFI, Sears/K-Mart, or the employees get heavily subsidized by our tax dollars like Walmarts.

SEE http://abc7news.com/business/efi-paid-indian-employees-working-in-us-less-than-$2/362055/

SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/how-ayn-rand-loving-ceo-tanked-sears

SEE http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

 

I think a better example can be shown by Henry Ford, a disgusting human being in many other ways, he did put his money where his mouth was. He wasn't born rich. He didn't invent the automobile. That was done years earlier. He didn't invent the assembly line. That too was invented years earlier. What his novel idea was was to pay his employees well enough to buy the automobiles they help build. In the process he started this country down the road to a real middle class, and himself very rich.

Edited October 31, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

 

Do you want life easier for the rich? 

 

 

You also seem to be under the assumption that all business owners and managers are well paid, and that all businesses make money each year.

 

Do you have a solution to the problem of workers that don't get paid as much as you think they should be paid that takes into account poor business owners and managers, and companies that are losing money or barely breaking even?

[cinepro]

Take a job at a Wal-mart store, as an example. Suppose the job was posted without any mention of a salary, or maybe said it was negotiable. Now suppose 100 people apply for the job and 10 are considered to be the most and equally qualified to do the work with a good attitude. And now suppose that 1 of the 10 asks for a salary much higher than the others. If you were the one hiring would you pick that person? Suppose he said he had 10 children. Would that sway your decision? And now suppose that another had 8 children, was a single parent due to divorce, and even with child support would not be making as much money as the other was asking for. Would you pick that person? What would be your reasoning for picking whoever you picked and how would you determine what salary to pay? Of course all of them would like to be paid as much as possible whether working to support only themselves or to give some of their income to others.

 

I would point out that marital status and number of children are both off limits in the interview process and you would probably be sued into oblivion if that kind of question were ever considered in a real-world situation, regardless of how generous the outcome.

[Ahab]

I would point out that marital status and number of children are both off limits in the interview process and you would probably be sued into oblivion if that kind of question were ever considered in a real-world situation, regardless of how generous the outcome.

Uh, no, sexual preference and gender are out of bounds but it's perfectly acceptable to ask is married or single or if they have any children, but if you feel a bit queasy asking those personal questions you could just ask them to tell you a little bit about themselves and how they like to spend their time when they're not at work. It will usually come out.

[cinepro]

Uh, no, sexual preference and gender are out of bounds but it's perfectly acceptable to ask is married or single or if they have any children, but if you feel a bit queasy asking those personal questions you could just ask them to tell you a little bit about themselves and how they like to spend their time when they're not at work. It will usually come out.

 

Where is this "perfectly acceptable"?  It certainly isn't in California, and I'd be surprised if it is anywhere in the country.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Do you have a solution to the problem of workers that don't get paid as much as you think they should be paid that takes into account poor business owners and managers, and companies that are losing money or barely breaking even?

 

I am only talking about the rich that can afford to pay their hard workers a living wage. 

[sdc999]

Mormon FT

From your comments, I can conclude that your signature goes on the back of paychecks and not on the front. I can also conclude that you being the CEO of any public or private company, assuming you continue to hold to your assertions, the P&L statement would not impress shareholders nor investors.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Mormon FT

 

You need to impress God. 

All hardworking employees deserve a living wage. If the rich cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage, why are they still rich? why are they getting richer? 

 

What would Jesus do? God teaches us in the scriptures that we need to help the poor. There is a significant number of workers that live in poverty, so they cannot afford to buy anything, so that is not good for businesses. 

 

Bytheway, look what Harvard Mitt Romney says

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602791/Mitt-Romney-I-think-we-ought-to-raise-the-minimum-wage.html?pg=all

Edited November 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

You need to impress God.

All hardworking employees deserve a living wage. If the rich cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage, why are they still rich? why are they getting richer?

It can't be righteously justified, so the only answers you'll get from those questions will be somebody's lame attempt to justify unrighteousness.

What would Jesus do? God teaches us in the scriptures that we need to help the poor. There is a significant number of workers that live in poverty, so they cannot afford to buy anything, so that is not good for businesses.

The righteous know and do what Jesus would do, while everyone else either don't know or don't do what they know they should do.

Bytheway, Harvard Mitt Romney agrees

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602791/Mitt-Romney-I-think-we-ought-to-raise-the-minimum-wage.html?pg=all

Doesn't he have something like $250,000,000.00 dollars? Why look to him as an example of how we should use our money???

[sdc999]

You need to impress God. 

All hardworking employees deserve a living wage. If the rich cannot afford to pay their employees a living wage, why are they still rich? why are they getting richer? 

 

What would Jesus do? God teaches us in the scriptures that we need to help the poor. There is a significant number of workers that live in poverty, so they cannot afford to buy anything, so that is not good for businesses. 

 

Bytheway, look what Harvard Mitt Romney says

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602791/Mitt-Romney-I-think-we-ought-to-raise-the-minimum-wage.html?pg=all

Mitt Romney has been over many organizations that, given time, I can probably research back to non-living wages.   

 

You seem to have a dislike for successful (rich) people.  Does it make you mad that they have been able to work hard and accomplish so much?  Or does it make you mad that they might just not want to share it with you?

 

Bingo!  I have an idea.    You, Mormon FT, need to start your own company.   

Start off small with just you and another employee or two.  You work about 60 hours  a week to really keep things going.  

Sales total for awhile are about 50k/mth.   

You run about 27% GP (any more and the customers will go to the competition)

$13,500 profit.  

Your take  4,000.00

Rent          1,750.00

Utilities      1,000.00 (water,phone,electric, security system)

Loan          1,000.00 (equipment/fixtures/opening inventory)

Labor         2,216.96 (8.00/hr x 32   x 4.33 if your business minded, you understand the .33)

Insurance   1,000.00

941 taxes   1,000.00 (rough guess)

other unforeseen expenses   ?????  (yes, they do pop up)

 

Without unforeseen expenses, that's 1533.04 margin of profit.  

 

Now fast forward several years down the road.  

 

All of these numbers increase as does the profit to about 7500-10000k /mth.  

 

Now, a person with a kid chooses to work at your place and says I can't survive on 8.00-10.00/hr  pay me more.  And then all the employees have kids and want "deserve" more.    There goes all the profit -  unforeseen expenses can no longer be dealt with.   You tell your, now 16 employees that are counting a some money that there is NO MORE MONEY and the business is closing.   They go from possibly 8-10 to 18-20 and then NOTHING.  

Oh, btw, this is my business model.  I have myself  making the most (because I'm greedy that way), a manager making 55k (with potential performance bonuses available), an assistant making 42k and another at 30k.  The rest are part time guys making between 8.25-10.00.

I have plans on expanding some more to give another manager about 50k, another asst or two between 30-35 and about 7 MORE part timers between 8/hr and 10/hr.

Now, I write about 16 paychecks every week that people depend on to help them get  by.  These guys all work their 'arses' off more than most factory workers that sit on a forklift.  They do it in the heat of the summer (+100) and they do it in the chill of the winter (20-30).  

But I wear the 'evil' badge with pride Mormon FT because I am doing while you are whining and complaining.  You provide no solutions other that stating that people deserve a handout because they show up.    Keep pushing for everybody gets a trophy.    

 

*disclosure for MFT.  Yes, my net worth has increased as a result.

Edited November 1, 2014 by sdc999

[Storm Rider]

Goverment jobs are typically low across the board, at least in Anerica, all the way up to the President who makes, what, 300k per year now?, while a typical CEO of a major corporation makes, what, at least several million per year now?

If you want to be rich, in the millions per year range, don't get a government job. Government contracts that pay outside contractors usually pay pretty well, though

 

Ahab, that used to be the reality; it is no longer.  Some of the best wages and benefit packages are found in government today.  No, you will not start a high tech business in government, but your total compensation will exceed that found in private business with far more days off.  The government unions have expanded the wages to the point now where they equal or exceed what is found elsewhere. 

[Ahab]

Ahab, that used to be the reality; it is no longer. Some of the best wages and benefit packages are found in government today. No, you will not start a high tech business in government, but your total compensation will exceed that found in private business with far more days off. The government unions have expanded the wages to the point now where they equal or exceed what is found elsewhere.

My point was that government jobs don't pay a rich wage, at or near a million or millions of dollars per year. Even the top paid officer, the President, doesn't get paid that much, topping out at about 300k per year, last time I heard. So if you want to get paid a rich wage, like a CEO of a major corporation or an investment banker or an actor or an athlete or anyone else who makes that much you'll need to get another job instead or in addition to a government job.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/14Tables/html/DCB.aspx

[Ahab]

sdc999, I think you're missing the point. There comes a point when a rich person has too much money and that point is when they have so much more than they need. And instead of just hoarding it they should give the excess to others who don't have as much as they need. And they are free to pick any person they want to help, as long as they pick someone other than another rich person who also has more than they need.

Money needs to be distributed to people who really need it so they can also get what they need rather than just it just being accumulated by rich people.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm sorry, but this is an overgeneralization.  There are many government workers who have salaries, benefits, pensions, early retirement, and job guarantees that the private sector can only dream of.

 

As for teachers, I don't know how it is in other districts, but the teachers in Los Angeles get paid pretty well.  Sure, they start out in the $40K range, but with experience and tenure, they can get above $50K - $60K, and it looks like $80K is the max.  Obviously there are times when they work longer hours than the obvious 8 hour school day, but there are only 180 school days per year compared to the 260 regular weekdays other people might work (250 weekdays with two weeks vacation).  That's a 70 day difference.  Factor in a couple weeks for preparation and training, and there's probably still a 50 - 60 day difference in numbers of days worked.  That's 10 weeks!

 

Teachers are paid for the hours in a standard school day. Not weekends, holidays, vacations, out of school prep time, or training.