The Haves vs. The Have-Nots

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
the classic struggle...the haves vs the have-nots, so how bad is it really?



Now, 10% own 80% of the nation's property -- and 13,000 of its richest families have net worth equal to the 20 million poorest families.
The richest 1% of Americans own 37% of the wealth -- more than the poorest 90%.

The richest 1% paid a third of the nation's taxes but had 19% of the taxable income (in 1999).


and my personal favorite;



Now, the nation's 10 highest paid CEOs make $154 million a year as opposed to the $3.5 million made by the top 10 in 1981.
The average CEO of a major corporation makes $13.1 million a year in compensation (about $36,000 a day).

In 1974, the average CEO made 34 times as much as a production or non-supervisor worker.

In 1980, the average CEO made 45 times the pay.

In 1990, it was 96 times as much.

In 2000, it was 458 times as much.


hope.journ.wwu.edu...

so as all the world's resources and power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, what happens?

is this capitalism or feudalism? for those with a lot of time on their hands, or just looking for an interesting read...check out mypage.uniserve.ca...




posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Its feudalism we are all slaves. One day we will revolt and the cycle will start over.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
The "slaves" aren't going to do squat...sorry to say.....what enomus describes, without the numbers, is what has been happening since man began to become civilized and live in villages, towns, and cities, thus creating society and civilization.

Babylonians had religious and private caste systems.
Egypt had a religious caste systems.
India had caste systems.
Greeks, even with Democracy, had systems embodied the "have" and "have nots".
Romans called it and termed it the "Patron/Client Relationship".....aka: Patricians and Plebians....the "have" and "have nots."

This is a simple "fact" and the theory of Communism could not fix it, even in implemented form: Socialism.
More than likely, it will never change, except in "face value", but in truth, will always exist.....

So basically, "we" deal with it.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The "slaves" aren't going to do squat...sorry to say.....what enomus describes, without the numbers, is what has been happening since man began to become civilized and live in villages, towns, and cities, thus creating society and civilization.

Babylonians had religious and private caste systems.
Egypt had a religious caste systems.
India had caste systems.
Greeks, even with Democracy, had systems embodied the "have" and "have nots".
Romans called it and termed it the "Patron/Client Relationship".....aka: Patricians and Plebians....the "have" and "have nots."

This is a simple "fact" and the theory of Communism could not fix it, even in implemented form: Socialism.
More than likely, it will never change, except in "face value", but in truth, will always exist.....

So basically, "we" deal with it.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by Seekerof]


sadly, i pretty much agree with you.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I must be one of the lucky ones because I'm a hell of a lot better off than 5 -10 or 20 years ago (well I was only 10, twenty years ago but I think I would still be better off!). I live in a pretty bad area and even here, it's not slavery or feudalism -- GIMME A BREAK! There are plenty of opportunities in the USA! Quit whining.

As far as CEO salaries...Take somebody like a Cheney, for example, hire them after govt service and think of all the connections he has, both government and corp., after 30-40 years of service/CEO/COS/SecDef.--how much is that worth? and his track record of success?? I think it's fair to say it's worth far more than your typical CEO, it's pretty much 1 of a kind. If 10 other corps want to hire him he can probably almost name his price. Publicity alone may be worth millions (think sports figures whose celebrity brings publicity to ballclubs which translates into ticket sales and profits). And if it brings millions of $ to shareholders then --

I guess that salary is earned. Isn't it?

(and I'm not saying all CEOs are compensated appropriately just that a very high salary is not necessarily unjust)



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   
As the CEO YOUR ass is on the line when it comes time to see if EVERYONE performed as they were exepcted to...

As CEO, it is YOUR ability or lack of that will ultimately "win the day" or, LOSE the day, the investors and ALL the money...

The TYPICAL CEO in America started his/her company out of not much more than a vision of what it "COULD BE" and everything he/she owned at RISK to see if it could become that.

Now I ask you, have you EVER risked it ALL to make something out of nothing? Have you ever put your WORLD at risk so you could HOPEFULLY employ several other people?

These types deserve every penny they get AS LONG AS they are HONEST, HARD WORKING people. If they are setting up a scam (Enron) then they deserve to go to jail.

DO NOT begin to compare what the "average" guy makes against a CEO... It's like comparing the light in your lamp to the SUN.

IMHO

PEACE...
m,,,

[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
The Ceo of my worlplace placed a letter in the luch room.

Stating that we had to work extra hard, so the company can make more profit.

Bastards


Deep



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
As the CEO YOUR ass is on the line when it comes time to see if EVERYONE performed as they were exepcted to...

As CEO, it is YOUR ability or lack of that will ultimately "win the day" or, LOSE the day, the investors and ALL the money...
[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Springer]


their ass is on the line? i'll have to disagree with you. the hundreds of common workers who live paycheck to paycheck so their CEO can make 36,000 a day are the ones living with their ass on the line. i also disagree with your CEO "wins the day" opinion...a CEO is no more important than their employees. i could further argue that with a question...what makes america 'successful'? the people or the president?


Originally posted by Springer
The TYPICAL CEO in America started his/her company out of not much more than a vision of what it "COULD BE" and everything he/she owned at RISK to see if it could become that.
[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Springer]


do you have a source for that? either way, i don't believe the original statistics i quoted above were talking about your average mom and pop local small business. most major corporations are started with other peoples money, investors, loans, etc.

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by enomus]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Damn right Springer. THAT is what I'm talking about!



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Yeah I am sure there are alot of good ceo's like there were alot of good NAZI'S. However it torques my head gasket to see tens of thousands of folks lose their retirement plans and get laid off while a CEO gets paid a bonus of 10 million dollars for doing it.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
This cuts right into Bush's tax cut plan...The Rich have the luxury of saving their money, or they spend it on luxury/designer items, that just cycles the money amoungst the rich. When does high society cycle their money into the economy, like Kmart, Target or good ol' McDonald's...never. You know where we slaves work and can afford to take our business. I saw an ad for a new furniture store in town today.... $5,000 for a dresser
I could buy a used car (which I so desperatly need)...its selfish its extravagant, and you could help the economy soooo much more by forgoing the designer label. But why when the common man can be enslaved to the mighty dollar???



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
Yeah I am sure there are alot of good ceo's like there were alot of good NAZI'S. However it torques my head gasket to see tens of thousands of folks lose their retirement plans and get laid off while a CEO gets paid a bonus of 10 million dollars for doing it.


Generally if they were making money for the company, being productive and are considered valuable then they will not get layed off and it's unlikely they are poor--unless the company completely flames-out which is quite rare still. Most people will get severance and probably have an idea well in advance that their job is in danger. If they lost their entire retirement plan -- they were stupid not to be diversified. Most people now have 401ks that can be diversified. I feel sorry for those people who screwed up, but that's life. I'd rather have a few stupid people disappointed and temporarily on welfare or getting a student loan if necessary than live in a communist state.

On the other hand there are a ton of people making $50-60,000 (+10s of thousands in other benefits) who don't do jack for the company. Talk about hundreds of people like that and you can very easily be in the $millions of waste.

It's the CEO's job to cut this riffraff loose. Any decent CEO will tell you that layoffs and firings are normal and to be expected. Some people just don't cut it, and since this is not socialism their employment is "kaput". Other times simply the company changes direction. If a CEO saves a company $50m, keeps it in business and keeps all the rest of employees, safegurads shareholder investment--then how much is that worth?



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by superpower

Originally posted by groingrinder
Yeah I am sure there are alot of good ceo's like there were alot of good NAZI'S. However it torques my head gasket to see tens of thousands of folks lose their retirement plans and get laid off while a CEO gets paid a bonus of 10 million dollars for doing it.


Generally if they were making money for the company, being productive and are considered valuable then they will not get layed off and it's unlikely they are poor--unless the company completely flames-out which is quite rare still. Most people will get severance and probably have an idea well in advance that their job is in danger. If they lost their entire retirement plan -- they were stupid not to be diversified. Most people now have 401ks that can be diversified. I feel sorry for those people who screwed up, but that's life. I'd rather have a few stupid people disappointed and temporarily on welfare or getting a student loan if necessary than live in a communist state.

On the other hand there are a ton of people making $50-60,000 (+10s of thousands in other benefits) who don't do jack for the company. Talk about hundreds of people like that and you can very easily be in the $millions of waste.

It's the CEO's job to cut this riffraff loose. Any decent CEO will tell you that layoffs and firings are normal and to be expected. Some people just don't cut it, and since this is not socialism their employment is "kaput". Other times simply the company changes direction. If a CEO saves a company $50m, keeps it in business and keeps all the rest of employees, safegurads shareholder investment--then how much is that worth?


I guess I shouldn't let this stuff upset me so since I have only worked for one company in my 49 years of life that had a dental plan and none that I have worked for had retirement. But still I would not refer to employees as "riff-raff" and I have never known anyone who was laid off that ever collected unemployment or welfare.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
All of this because of the latest scientific knowledge, not being common knowledge as yet...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
have VS have not.

now what does this mean exactly? does it mean if i dont have a ton of money and a overly large house i am a have not?

i think the "have" and "have not" is a perception, a bad perception people buy into.

i have food

i have shelter

i have transportation

i have clothes

i have everything i want and need

am i a have or a have not?

i have what i want, i live my life my way the way i want. because i'm not rich does not make me a have not.

maybe if you're stuck in this sad mindset that not having a lot of money makes you a have not then maybe you deserve the misery you live in.


there are other ways to be rich than monetarily speaking.

so weird to see people obsessing over pieces of paper and little round metal discs and then act indignant over not having as much of it as the next guy.

is that what life means to some of you? money? does it all boil down to just money? life goes on with or without it, money cant buy everything you want. there are just some things in the world that cannot be sold or bought.




The Rich have the luxury of saving their money, or they spend it on luxury/designer items, that just cycles the money amoungst the rich.


who do you think makes those items? rich people? no "poor people" do. as they buy these luzury items they need people to make more of them. this helps keep people employed even if the money is being spent on things you view as wasteful.

you see a rich person wasting their money. i see a rich person wasting their money but helping to keep a few more people employed. the item itself may not be needed by our standards but them wanting it and buying it is needed to keep those people employed.

there is a positive to everything, you just have to find it...



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

there is a positive to everything, you just have to find it...


you mean theres a way to put a spin on everything...

no, money doesn't equate to happiness or success, to me anyway...it equates to power...the power to influence the laws in your favor, the power to break other laws and get away with it etc.


maybe if you're stuck in this sad mindset that not having a lot of money makes you a have not then maybe you deserve the misery you live in.


yes, in these days of multi-billion dollar corporations and CEOs that make 36,000 a day...you are a have not. i'm not saying you need a million dollars to be happy, but if you're not making that million dollars then you're not the one this society is set up to cater to...it's supposed to be 'for the people', but it's not...you seem completely content to live your life while the 1% keep getting control of more and more of the power in this country, i'm not.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
spin? if you want to see it as a spin go right ahead but you can find the negative or positive in anything, just depends what you want to see. you want to see the negative, thats ok, its your right and i wont bother to stop you just remember there is two sides to every coin, a negative and a positive, just try not to see only one side too often.




yes, in these days of multi-billion dollar corporations and CEOs that make 36,000 a day...you are a have not. i'm not saying you need a million dollars to be happy, but if you're not making that million dollars then you're not the one this society is set up to cater to...it's supposed to be 'for the people', but it's not...you seem completely content to live your life while the 1% keep getting control of more and more of the power in this country, i'm not.


i'm a have not? says who? society? pish posh! you? dont think so. i'm a have as i have what i want and need. you and anyone else can call me a have not but i am who i am, not who you think i am according to someone elses standards. i apply my standards to me and to me i am a have as i have what i want and need in this world. i have no use or want for money i'll never use. i have no want or desire for a huge house or expenseive cars. i just dont buy into the hype society wants to sell me. i dont "get it" and to be honest i dont want it.

so life doesnt cater to me. big deal! it doesnt cater to anyone person 100%, even the haves. i dont want society to cater to me. why should i even bother to worry about someone else's life? i have my own to live, i'm not going to waste it being concerned about someone elses.

i've been given life liberty and the pursuit of the happiness. i have my life and i have my liberty and i'm not going to forfeit my pursuit of happiness because someone else is getting theirs through material things.

and yes i am content living my life, my life isnt long enough to be overly concerned about things i cant change in my lifetime. things that have been around as long as humans have.

this goes on with animals too, each fighting for a foothold over other animals. there are factors that come into play that help bring a balance to this. you may not realize it but they are there right in front of you.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I found this news piece very interesting the other day.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The rich might be richer, but they aren't any happier.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

i'm a have not? says who? society? pish posh! you? dont think so. i'm a have as i have what i want and need. you and anyone else can call me a have not but i am who i am, not who you think i am according to someone elses standards. i apply my standards to me and to me i am a have as i have what i want and need in this world. i have no use or want for money i'll never use. i have no want or desire for a huge house or expenseive cars. i just dont buy into the hype society wants to sell me. i dont "get it" and to be honest i dont want it.


you're focused on this money doesnt equal happiness thing...which is something i'm in full agreement with you on. i don't base my happiness or self-worth on my material possessions and i would never try to argue any different. indeed, freeing yourself from money = success = happiness is a sure step towards true freedom.

but!!! as a said above...this country is supposed to be for the people and by the people, but it's not. our elected officials are supposed to protect the best interests of the masses, the people that supposedly give them their power...but they dont. it's your right to accept that this society mostly caters the 1% of the wealthiest people, but i don't accept this.

i don't believe this is just how it is, human nature and something that can't be changed. when columbus landed in the americas he wrote in his journal how surprised he was how free the natives were with their possessions, how all you needed to do was ask someone for something and they'd just give it to you. indians couldn't grasp the notion of land ownership. having a handful of people own and control a whole society for their wasteful greed is not natural...and i believe the only reason it might seem natural to some is due to the indoctrination we receive directly from the 1% that's managed to horde the power in this world generation after generation.





 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join