Woodruff wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Night Strike wrote: Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?
What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?
She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should
be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"
No, is just don't believe they should be "charities" for the wealthy.
THAT is the reality now. If you have some money already, then you can invest and get returns. People who actually have to work are pretty much left in the short. Some, mostly higher skilled and specialized jobs can still make a reasonable living, but those are becoming fewer and fewer... as are training opportunities for those skilled positions.
You're going off the deep end again. Jobs that make "a reasonable living" are not at all a rarity, as you seem to be trying to imply.
No, looking at data. It is getting almost impossible to get a job that will support yourself and a family without a high school diploma, for example. That itself is not necessarily a terrible thing, except that there are plenty of jobs that should not really need a diploma. That's another discussion in itself, but it means kids who are not fully successful have fewer and fewer options other than being dependent.
For those graduating today WITH a high school diploma, the outlook is only slightly better. Even those with college degrees have a tough time of it, and particularly if they chose a degree that might be needed, but doesn't pay that well. Older workers, too have a tough time of it.
Again, one of the main reason so many people seem
to be doing better than they are is support from others. In some cases taxpayer support, be it smaller things like WIC or larger things like Section 8 housing & HUD loans, or help from family. In many cases, people are simply borrowing beyond their means and going bankrupt. I don't excuse that at all, but it distorts the picture of how people are really doing.
PLAYER57832 wrote:And, it will get worse come retirement. Unless you are making about 100K or are very lucky, truly saving enough to retire on is just fiction, though SS is still keeping people afloat for now.
Retirement is a problem for most people, I agree...but in many cases, that is due to a lack of or poor planning on their parts.
LOL'' nice try. No, the truth is that no amount of planning will turn an income of 30-40K into 100K. No amount of planning will yield people who only have a couple hundred a month after utilities, house, etc enough to retire upon.
Basically, if you are making 75K or more, then you are able to set aside enough for retirement, ride out the downturns and such, without a lot of trouble. Those in the lower income brackets do OK only as long as stocks are up, as long as they have the best fund. Fund selection is often almost outside of people's control. Even the worst company supported plan will typically pay off better than individual plans, if for no other reason than the company match. That means that, just like in health care, what happens is decided more by the employer than the individual.
Also, most people don't get even a basic financial literacy education in school. That is changing, but slowly.
Woodruff wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.
And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.
You and your "government regulations".
You and your "corporations are evil".
They can be, particularly when they control the government. They can be far more evil than individuals precisely because they lack any kind of real moral responsibility, in fact are constructed to almost force those in charge to act against what they consider moral in favor of what will benefit stockholders the most.
I have never claimed that all corporations are evil, any more than all people are evil, but to pretend that corporations are not and that the power corporations wield in today's society is not dangerous is to ignore what is happening.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The REAL problem is that people are greedy. That, in itself is nature. And, its nature that people at the top will think that the skills THEY have are "more worthy" than the skills of anyone else.
I don't think it has that much to do with necessarily thinking they're more worthy...I think it comes down to "getting what you can while you can". And to be honest, that's understandable...I would probably do the same if I had that opportunity (without leaving the job I love).
Your point is valid, but I was making a different one. People DO consider the attributes they posses more highly than those seen in other people. When you pair that fact with the natural greed to which you refer (and that I acknowledge), then you get an increased skewing where people who have more continue to not just say "its mine", but to justify why they deserve
it and why other people do not. Historically, that becomes a real problem when the elite are more removed from the populace. We had a period of relative "openness" and"sharing", to some extent (not the correct words, but I think you can get the giist). Basically, when royalty will only associate with royalty, only receive advice from other royals or possibly those just below, then its no wonder you have a princess who fails to understand that peasants who cannot buy bread certainly have no money for cake.
Today, we are not quite as bad off as that, but we do have more and more people who seem to think that the idea of work can somehow be replaced by just plopping down a bit of money... and that paying for a service means that you get to decide all the conditions and worth of the work, and therefore the person, that people have no intrinsic value.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Ask most people what the #1 contributor toward success in general is, and they will often cite "luck" as a factor.
You talk to some strange people. I don't know anyone other than you that would say that luck is the #1 contributor toward success.
Not talking personal opinion. People are willing to acknowledge that luck plays some role in other people's success, but are less likely to attribute it to their own success.
PLAYER57832 wrote:When you allow "the market" to set prices so far below what it actually takes to live in a country, then you are dooming the entire country to poverty.
Are you saying that businesses should NOT do what the customer demands? That seems like a good way to rid yourself of customers.
Depends. Business is often about creating
and.. you did cite Costco. As you have mentioned before, if you pay people more, then they can buy more stuff. "Buying stuff" is what most businesses depend upon.
BUT.. the thing is that it cannot happen in a vacuume. Too much of today's "economic" analysis is really one-sided and short sighted based on maximizing returns for a few at the top. The fact is that most people don't need to, don't really and truly aspire to be "filthy rich" (started to change the wording, but I think the fact that we still tie that label to "rich" is rather telling in and of itself), but most people do want to have enough to eat, have comfortable houses and to feel that they are doing generally as good as their neighbor.. better than their neighbor in some small way (one might have a better car, another better TVs, etc, etc.). There is "enough" to go around in our country, but not when 1% claim over 99.999% of the wealth and a huge chunk of the power. Also, when money and power are again so closely tied, it inevitably results in big errors, because the things that benefit personal wealth to often contradict what benefits society. One example is parks. A single person could have become very wealthy off of Yellowstone or Yosemite. BUT, as a public resource, we have a storehouse, a living museum that is becoming increasingly important. Its not coincidental that many have made millions from the parks. At the time each park has been created, it has been fraught with controversy.. some still object. Yet, the real fact is that each park has paid for itself many times over, once you go beyond the basic of ticket/camping proceeds versus cost to maintain, and look at the wider areas, all tangential profits, etc. If you look at projected future benefits from that biological museum/storehouse, then each park becomes among the greatest and best investment ever made in our country, possibly in humanity.
The benefits to from forests and ranges along the USDA models (states can use the same title to describe very, very different constructs) are even greater.
YET.... that takes reviewing ALL the data, not just the superficial and immediate balance sheets. That is what gets too often lost when we allow business and corporate interests to become our society's gauge of success, and even (in many respects) our morality
PLAYER57832 wrote:The part you got correct is that CEOs, stockholders and business owners won't voluntarily cut their paychecks.. no matter how high they are, to bolster the checks of the lower wage workers, no matter how low those wages are, unless they are forced to do so.
You do realize that there are business owners and CEOs who do this, right?
I can name more than a few. Sadly, many wind up going out of business for a variety of reasons. There are some that are still succeeding, but when taxpayer and government support so heavily favor traditional models of business and effectively punish responsible businesses, as happens far too often today because so much of our power structure is vested not with individuals, but those selfsame ultra greedy corporations, then they fight an uphill battle.
I love Costco, but there don't seem to be any anywhere near here. Instead we have 4 Walmarts within an hour's drive, and a plethora of stores that basically follow similar models, just maybe not entirely as extreme as Walmart. And.. they don't ship.
In fact, I suspect Amazon will be the next target for complaints akin to those lodged at Walmart. (but I DO realize Amazon is a very different model).