Is it bad to be rich?

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Buried in there is the implicit assumption that the impoverished now are lazy and unfruitful.

Why not chuck the whole system of wealth entirely? Zion is hard but I hear it is worth it.

Yep. I love the book Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. He paints a picture of everybody in a society being wealthy and nobody having to work too much because everybody contributes to the activities that actually create wealth, and nobody wastes their time on non-productive administrative overhead jobs such as banking, insurance, tax collecting, etc.

In general, all Americans are hard working. While there is some correlation between what you actually contribute to society and how society financially compensates you for it, the relationship is not one-to-one. Adam Smith argued that in the long run, everybody is paid their fair market value--if you are overpaid you'll be replaced, and if you are underpaid you'll get a new job that will recognize your worth. Karl Marx's response to this was basically that you don't get paid what your actual value is--you get paid what you negotiate. Once you understand that and understand that the people who own and control the means of production are in an infinitely better negotiating position than the ones who don't, it becomes clear why the wealth percolates to the top.

There is a difference between being exceptionally good at playing the game of capitalism and being a productive member of society.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yep. I love the book Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. He paints a picture of everybody in a society being wealthy and nobody having to work too much because everybody contributes to the activities that actually create wealth, and nobody wastes their time on non-productive administrative overhead jobs such as banking, insurance, tax collecting, etc.

In general, all Americans are hard working. While there is some correlation between what you actually contribute to society and how society financially compensates you for it, the relationship is not one-to-one. Adam Smith argued that in the long run, everybody is paid their fair market value--if you are overpaid you'll be replaced, and if you are underpaid you'll get a new job that will recognize your worth. Karl Marx's response to this was basically that you don't get paid what your actual value is--you get paid what you negotiate. Once you understand that and understand that the people who own and control the means of production are in an infinitely better negotiating position than the ones who don't, it becomes clear why the wealth percolates to the top.

There is a difference between being exceptionally good at playing the game of capitalism and being a productive member of society.

Hugh Nibley once made the point that if we invented a device that actually measured the physical and mental effort everyone put into their jobs so we could truly pay based on actual merit the jig would be up.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Hugh Nibley once made the point that if we invented a device that actually measured the physical and mental effort everyone put into their jobs so we could truly pay based on actual merit the jig would be up.

Not sure that would work.  I'd have to bust a few blood vessels worth of effort to be an engineer or statistician. I know guys who can do that stuff in their sleep.

But I get the gist.  

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Not sure that would work.  I'd have to bust a few blood vessels worth of effort to be an engineer or statistician. I know guys who can do that stuff in their sleep.

But I get the gist.  

Yeah, I don’t mean just measure the stress. I mean the effort spent thinking about and doing the job.

One of the things that annoyed me at one company I worked at was how in management meetings a few of the managers spent a long time trying to figure out how to get every bit of productivity out of their workers with little downtime. Meanwhile they considered long lunches with other managers, long discussions in each other’s offices about work non-work related things as important. Then the exhaustive proposals on ways to get 2 minutes more work out of a few employees as time well spent followed by complaints about employee turnover as if the two were not related at all.

It has been interesting watching the pendulum shift in the employer/employee dynamic with employees having greater freedom to walk and watching employers thinking they can still browbeat people.

Friend sent me this today.

Click through to Twitter for the whole thread to get the whole thrilling saga. I just kept giggling more and more as the story went on.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I don’t mean just measure the stress. I mean the effort spent thinking about and doing the job.

One of the things that annoyed me at one company I worked at was how in management meetings a few of the managers spent a long time trying to figure out how to get every bit of productivity out of their workers with little downtime. Meanwhile they considered long lunches with other managers, long discussions in each other’s offices about work non-work related things as important. Then the exhaustive proposals on ways to get 2 minutes more work out of a few employees as time well spent followed by complaints about employee turnover as if the two were not related at all.

It has been interesting watching the pendulum shift in the employer/employee dynamic with employees having greater freedom to walk and watching employers thinking they can still browbeat people.

Friend sent me this today.

Click through to Twitter for the whole thread to get the whole thrilling saga. I just kept giggling more and more as the story went on.

I feel for companies that end up in this situation but frankly, if employees don't do this kind of stuff sometimes the companies will never learn.  Employees (good ones) are a valuable resource that companies need to care about.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Buried in there is the implicit assumption that the impoverished now are lazy and unfruitful.

Why not chuck the whole system of wealth entirely? Zion is hard but I hear it is worth it.

No actually. This approach will wipe out the impoverished that are that way because of circumstance… but the lazy and unfruitful will never go away. And who will judge between circumstance and laziness? There is no way.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just want those in poverty to get a leg up, it's one of the most difficult situations for those in deep poverty and a domino affect when you haven't the money for transportation or a place to call home etc. Help for those like these can create steps to get out of poverty not help them be dependent forever. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-can-help-the-poor-the-most-getting-out-of-a-poverty-trap-2020-09-04

Or how to help and some misconceptions that people who are poor are just lazy.

https://commonbond.org/7-ways-you-can-help-fight-poverty-in-your-community/

I’m not saying all poor are lazy. I’m saying that it is the lazy that the rich will become slaves to.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

I agree, I don't think that Singer's solution is actually a... solution. 

What do you think about similarities in Singer's beliefs and Jesus'? Things like "sell all you have and give it to the poor." or this interesting passage in Mosiah 4:

"16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent..."

Do you think that the moral requirement of giving that Jesus teaches is closer to Singers or an approach more similar to Nozick? I'm not really sure I have a great answer, I'm just curious. Are the smart, ethical, hard workers in the Kingdom of God slaves in some way to the lazy even now? Mitt Romney's tithing surely funds much more of church programs than someone who works the bare minimum. 

 

I don’t think Christ’s approach is compatible for comparison.

Charity, as taught by Christ, is less about what we expect of the rich and more about what we ought to expect of ourselves.

Nozick and Singer’s approach is about how society ought to act with wealth. Christ is talking more about how we as individuals ought to act with the wealth we have.

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Fether

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m not saying all poor are lazy. I’m saying that it is the lazy that the rich will become slaves to.

What about the lazy rich? Why only focus on the lazy poor?

”the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer”

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

No actually. This approach will wipe out the impoverished that are that way because of circumstance… but the lazy and unfruitful will never go away. And who will judge between circumstance and laziness? There is no way.

King Benjamin gave some advice on that point.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Fether said:

I don’t think Christ’s approach is comparable for comparison.

Charity, as taught by Christ, is less about what we expect of the rich and more about what we ought to expect of ourselves.

Nozick and Singer’s approach is about how society ought to act with wealth. Christ is talking more about how we as individuals ought to act with the wealth we have.

 

Christ’s admonitions on how we ought to act is how we can assume we will act if we make it so might as well try to acclimate to the idea that eventually it will overtake the current system. We can even chip away at the current system to make it more like Christ’s way as we can.

[Chum]

Just now, The Nehor said:

We can even chip away at the current system to make it more like Christ’s way as we can.

Will it have Jesus guns and abortion posse?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

Will it have Jesus guns and abortion posse?

Nah, gonna be a lot of people crying when we are told to take our prized firearm arsenals and beat them into plowshares or something useful.

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, gonna be a lot of people crying when we are told to take our prized firearm arsenals and beat them into plowshares or something useful.

I'll take "things that will never happen" for $100, Alex.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I'll take "things that will never happen" for $100, Alex.

It is going to be hard to defy the directive when Jesus is legally king off the world and instructs everyone to do that.

If you thought I meant that Congress would mandate it then yeah, I am not quite that naive.

[BRMC]

Just now, The Nehor said:

It is going to be hard to defy the directive when Jesus is legally king off the world and instructs everyone to do that.

If you thought I meant that Congress would mandate it then yeah, I am not quite that naive.

My previous comment stands.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, BRMC said:

My previous comment stands.

You think we will have gun hoarders in the Millenium? Why?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, BRMC said:

My previous comment stands.

Why will people need guns in the Millennium?  Perhaps hunting rifles…though the whole lion lamb thing seems to indicate a different relationship with the animal kingdom besides us being predators to me, but guns for self defense or in case the government needs to be overthrown…not seeing it.  Why not use the metal for more productive endeavors?

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why will people need guns in the Millennium?  Perhaps hunting rifles…though the whole lion lamb thing seems to indicate a different relationship with the animal kingdom besides us being predators to me, but guns for self defense or in case the government needs to be overthrown…not seeing it.  Why not use the metal for more productive endeavors?

Who said we will need guns in the Millennium?   I don't know if we will or won't.  However, why would there be "a lot of people crying" about it?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Who said we will need guns in the Millennium?   I don't know if we will or won't.  However, why would there be "a lot of people crying" about it?

So the plowshares part will happen, but the crying part won’t?  If I got it right, I hope you are right.

Misunderstood you were talking about plowshares not happening.

It does make sense that is they believe it is Christ telling them to melt down their guns, they might feel relief, even joy, there was no need to be concerned with self defense, etc any more.  However, those who collect guns for sport…  

Edited December 30, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

Just now, Calm said:

So the plowshares part will happen, but the crying part won’t?  If I got it right, I hope you are right.

Misunderstood you were talking about plowshares not happening.

I don't know what's going to happen.  I just can't foresee a return of Christ that results in people crying because they have to get rid of firearms.  Can you?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I don't know what's going to happen.  I just can't foresee a return of Christ that results in people crying because they have to get rid of firearms.  Can you?

I don’t see the appeal of large amounts of guns in the here and now to be clear.  I have heard some crazy reasoning for them and I am not certain adjustment to Christ governing in the Millennium will be sweetly smooth rather than rather confusing and tumultuous at the beginning, but would love it to be that way,

Edited December 30, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see the appeal of large amounts of guns in the here and now to be clear.

I don't see the appeal of a million pairs of shoes, either.  Yet my wife's closet stands testimony to the fact that some people do.

[Calm]

Just now, BRMC said:

I don't see the appeal of a million pairs of shoes, either.  Yet my wife's closet stands testimony to the fact that some people do.

I have three pairs and a couple of slippers.

Books and cool gadgets like magnets and kaleidoscopes are my vice.  Also legos, though the fun stuff is so expensive now I almost stopped the birthday and Christmas tradition, but the look on my son’s and his family’s faces were so horrified, I changed my mind.

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I have three pairs and a couple of slippers.

Books and cool gadgets like magnets and kaleidoscopes are my vice.  Also legos, though the fun stuff is so expensive now I almost stopped the birthday and Christmas tradition, but the look on my son’s and his family’s faces were so horrified, I changed my mind.

They are crazy expensive.   We got each a new lego set this year among their gifts.   Luckily the one child that loves legos also loves to be creative with them.  We have a huge bin full of legos and he's into creating his own things now, even after the intended creation has been long since destroyed.