Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

spiritualzombie

diggindirt
I suspect that the original poster of this thread has never owned or managed a business, has not a clue as to how business actually works and was educated in "reformed" "it's everyone's fault but mine" schools. But I'm just guessing....

Wrong guess, but it's okay. Some days you might think I'm an alcoholic or a drug addict or poverty stricken. I might be gay or single or have a family. I might be on welfare or I might run my own company. It's hard to tell because I have empathy for people who struggle. I care about people in pain. I understand people make mistakes, and I think we are all strong enough to help out.

I have empathy for struggles too, been there, done that, put five kids through school without debt, and helped half a dozen others who worked to help themselves. I understand people make mistakes but how many times do you bail out those who continually throw their assets away on non-essentials then ask for funds for heating their homes? What is your help limit? $10k, $20K, $100k? What do you say to someone who just maxed out their credit card for a vacation to Disney and now needs to make six car payments or it will be repossessed? What kind of fool goes on vacation when they have 5 back payments due on their vehicle? (Hint: The kind who justifies it this way in a very whiny voice: Well, it had been almost a year since we'd been on vacation and the kids were just soooo looking forward to Disneyland. By the way, could you loan me $2 grand to catch up my car payments and keep the electric company from turning off the electricity?") Yes, I'm strong enough to help, to go to electric company and pay their bill so her kids don't go without electricity but I feel no obligation to pay for her car or vacation. Perhaps that's because I'm a bad person, after all I spend several thousand dollars each year on nice vacations. Are you saying I shouldn't have a nice vacation until I'm sure every person on the planet has been fed, clothed, given health care and a cell phone? Are you living this way? Do you live at the poverty level or below and donate all the rest of your income to others less fortunate than yourself?
What does this sentence mean? " It's hard to tell because I have empathy for people who struggle."
And while I'm asking questions I'll repeat the three you neglected to answer:
1. define wealth as in "too much wealth"
2. define who decides what is "wealth"
3. who gets to be beneficiary of the redistribution
and I'll add a couple more for your consideration:
4. how many bailouts
5. how much per bailout should be allowed

I'm serious about these definitions and amounts. If you can't define your terms and give numbers with your plan, how much reality does it contain? It's a really, really nice thought---that if we all just share our wealth nobody will be in need....but that is not how people operate and easily four out five people "in need" today will not take the necessary actions to substantially change their situations.
I know firsthand that people make mistakes, heaven knows I make my share but I also try very hard to learn from those mistakes and not repeat that foolish behavior. I suffered through the consequences of my early mistakes and have worked very hard not to make the same ones twice. I simply don't believe in rewards for stupidity. If that makes me bad, so be it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Wait, so neocons are actually liberals? I did not know this. Interesting...

I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm not a democrat or a republican... I believe in equality and some people call me a liberal for it, but I thought equality was just an American thing. I believe in gun rights, and some have thought I had republican leanings because of it, but I think Republicans today are too heavy handed with the hatred and inequality.

Conservatives.... ugh. Good people, but so wrong. Easily manipulated by nationalism. Racists who don't know they're racists, sexists who know but pretend not to be, cynics, always saying how war and torture and greed is necessary...basically if you ever hope for a better enlightened future, don't look to a conservative.

Liberals... Great when it comes to civil rights, lots of empathy for those who suffer, but blind when it comes to gun rights.

You know, they're all eff'd, but I do honestly believe conservatives are just more cynical. They all gravitate toward a police state. The leaders on both sides all make plays for a New World Order.

But as citizens of the U.S., I thought we all believed in equality. I thought we all believed in Truth and Justice. I thought we all agreed that greed and corruption was wrong, so it stuns me that we can all so obviously see that there is a super wealthy elite controlling the government, keeping us from moving forward, suppressing cleaner technologies, pushing for money to rule politics... and it's a partisan issue??? Criminal deconstruction of the United States Government is now just a partisan issue.

These guys need to be taken down a notch, their power reduced somehow... They have become insane with greed. They never have enough. And now they are buying the United States.

This effing greed, this power hungry, all controlling, greed. They fight against healthcare reform, they fight against unemployment benefits, they fight against raising minimum wage--- but they fight FOR keeping their damn tax cuts, bastardizing free speech into unlimited cash for campaigns, and demand trillions when their corrupt system threatens the economy. Effing financial terrorists.

They deserve worse than having their money taken away. Really they deserve prison or worse.

reply to post by diggindirt


I'm totally in favor of your vacations. I'm talking extremes.

I think there's a great misunderstanding of what I want to see. I take the blame. I said "redistribution" and naturally people are imagining only the worst possible solution.

1. Too much wealth... It's like defining too much alcohol. Is 6 beers too much, 20 beers? 10 shots? Does this mean we can't define alcoholism. Is it based on a disease that gets out of hand and causes suffering for others. I think that's more on the right track.

2. What is wealth... Let's say money and power. Influence. My initial thought is people who control laws by monetary influence. People who buy news media to manipulate public into supporting their greed based objectives. Wealth that controls the world. There are so many loopholes here. Lawyers are good at helping assholes abuse the system.

3. How many bailouts-- well I'm not talking about a money grab--- though if I heard about hackers emptying their bank accounts I would not shed a tear, but no, I'm talking about a shift in society, a shift in politics, not letting rich people manipulate laws to allow them to buy the government and control everything.

Basically some common sense where we look at the system they are manipulating and we say... F your lawyers, F your immunity -- we see you for what you are, and we're not going to take it anymore.

And lastly, I never said I had a plan, I simply said that greed is a mental illness and an addiction. That they are enslaving people and controlling government. They are bending laws and creating laws that only benefit themselves and they will even shut government down to get their cash. We have given them that sort of power. The corruption is so thick-- that at this point, given an option (and I see very few options) I want them to hurt. Redistribute wealth. Take their money. And you know what, I'm not a dictator, I have no power, but give me the option to vote to make these criminals penniless and I vote yes. That's just me.

Rationally, I say take the money out of politics. On the extreme side, I say freeze their funds and put them on trial for financial terrorism and plotting to take over the United States.

spiritualzombie

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

Who in the hell are you to determine what someone earns?

That's fine, Beezzer, you don't think there's a problem with greed in the country, that's your view. You don't see a problem with rich people controlling legislation, that's fine.

My conscience disagrees.

I understand many conservatives are religious, but I have yet to hear any concern from conservatives for those in need. Lots of love for the rich though.

I think I'm finally beginning to see the issue here---greed. Yes, I agree that greedy people are ugly and need to be kept in check in society. That's why we have law in society. But after reading this entire thread, each one of your responses, I see that greed is likely something you have a big battle with each and every day so you assume that this is the normal human condition. I disagree. You could be right but I don't see it that way. I think that greed is a human frailty that, if fed, will grow.
I don't hate the poor. I'm friends and family with a whole mess of 'em. I don't hate the rich. I'm friends and family with a whole mess of them, too. I despise crooks, be they poverty-stricken or billionaires.
I just spent an hour doing my monthly budget, figuring out how much money we have to spend once our basic needs are met. We planned for retirement and have lived frugally so we have disposable income in retirement. One item on that monthly budget is charity. One of my considerations this month is the fact that everyone I know is getting heating bills that are simply astronomical due to the extreme cold we've had. For lots of folks who live without an emergency fund, paying those bills will be very difficult. Some of those people will be my family members so in my budget this month I upped the amount of money I'll set aside for my family to help them get through a rough patch. But because my funds are limited that means that my usual donation to local charities will drop. Will I help every member of my family who asks? No. Those who have proven to me that they couldn't pour pee out of a boot with the instructions on the heel will get my standard reply. "Hey, man, I know it's hard. We got hit with Medicare deductibles and prescription deductibles, and a high heating bill, had to fill the propane tank. Not much left after that ya know." I can sing the "fixed income" song with the best of them....and they probably go away and say I'm just some greedy old granny that won't part with her riches.
As I was doing that budget, I thought about this thread and about my millionaire neighbor. He's over in his house doing his monthly budget too. He probably gives away ten times our income each month---right here in the community. He gives to his church, every veterans organization, the Senior Citizens center, Meals on Wheels, the Senior Transport Project....the local schools. Why would I want to have his wealth taken from him by force. He never used force to make his money. Why would you want to use force via the Congress and IRS to take his money?
I'm not a greedy person but boy, am I a rich one. I look around today and there is just nothing that evokes any little bit of greed in my soul. Not a day passes that my husband and I don't look at each other and at our home, cats, gardens and fields and say, "This is our dream we're living!"
It seems to me that you have a problem with greed and that problem is getting in the way of your dreams and your ability to follow them. Your dream seems to be to cure the human race of greed---but we don't all suffer from it. Why does your conscience bother you because a crook stole someone's money? When I think of the number of times per day that happens ---- it boggles my mind...you must really be a mess. I'm honestly not trying to be mean or snarky here, I'm just so amazed that your conscience hurts you because of what a crook did.
You think everybody needs a raise---I believe those were your words. Sooooo, what is stopping you from giving them a raise? What is stopping you from paying an extra $50/month to your landlord, another $50 to the garbage man, to your doctor, your waiter, your plumber, the clerk at the store where you buy groceries, the guy at the parking garage---you know---everybody. Just hand them an extra ten each time you see them and tell them you think they deserve a raise! Try that and see how it works and let me hear back. See if that eases your conscience just a tad.

reply to post by diggindirt



I think that was a pretty great post. You sound great.

I mentioned that people deserve a raise. All I'm saying is if the discussion is raising minimum wage, I say yes, makes sense to me.

Greed, manipulation... I just hate this stuff. I see these topics come up like should tax cuts expire for the wealthy... and the total fit that ensues... and then the topic of raising minimum wage and the fit that ensues... The topic of healthcare for all and they actually try to talk people into believing in a right to die without insurance? This kind of thing makes me so angry... Seeing good people who need this, get manipulated by people who don't want to give it, into siding with them...

And then these greedy people all clap and cheer at what a victory it is for free speech to have money equal free speech and be able to spend unlimited amounts in campaigns. As if this is a good thing.

Basically they want to take power away from the people. We the people, becomes "We the .000%"

And when I hear people defend them as hard workers, smart and worthy...

It's just not right.

Anyway, I really appreciate your post. It felt heartfelt and compassionate. Have a good night

"And lastly, I never said I had a plan, I simply said that greed is a mental illness and an addiction. That they are enslaving people and controlling government. They are bending laws and creating laws that only benefit themselves and they will even shut government down to get their cash. We have given them that sort of power. The corruption is so thick-- that at this point, given an option (and I see very few options) I want them to hurt. ...."
Right there---that last line---you actually typed that you want to cause people pain. What kind of person plots to cause another pain? So that you can turn around and give to the "needy"? Are you actually serious?

If you can't define wealth, can't give a single real example, can't say how much wealth is excessive, you actually have no idea of the results of this action you are proposing---a massive change involving a massive wealth redistribution. So you are proposing to vote for your non-plan despite the fact that you can't say what wealth is and how much wealth will fall under your redistribution non-plan or how many times a person can claim his "fair share" after frittering away his first "fair share"?
How many of his millions can my rich neighbor keep? Let's say that he owns his $2millon home/farm, a small rental house nearby, a condo in Texas, a couple of vehicles, a boat, and has investments of another $10-15 million. The cost of living in our area is very reasonable. Naturally, this fellow has a lot of expenses because he has so much wealth, insurance on all his possessions, upkeep and maintenance on same, paying an accountant and broker to handle the wealth, hiring local labor to work on the farm because he's 87 and not up to the work he once did. But other than those extraordinary expenses, the family lives much the same as our family. We grow our own gardens, shop at the farmers' market and preserve our harvest for winter. We drive "old" cars and trucks and don't have the latest gadgets hanging on our person. Yes, he has more money than he can ever spend. Why would that make me hate him and wish to cause him pain?

You are casting your vote so as to cause pain for the 1% despite the fact that you have no idea how to implement the actions for which you are voting and not a clue as to its eventual outcome. Are you then going to be able to emphasize with those whose pain was caused by you?
Is this the way you live your actual life?
It has just come to me.... are you my ex?

reply to post by spiritualzombie

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.

What will that solve ? It would just start being horded again by those in advantageous situations. I think you are aiming too small, no real change would come of that, now get rid of the concept of wealth and we are talking...

reply to post by Panic2k11


I admit it was reactionary.

It comes from hearing people scream of the dangers of socialism, when really those fears are being peddled by extremely powerful people who come up with ways to manipulate the public into supporting their greed addiction by making those people fear something worse.

So the reaction for me is... Whatever the issue... if I get to vote for anything that takes money from them, that hurts them, that makes them sad, I vote yes on that. Because these guys are looking to take over the country. They don't believe in we the people. They believe it should be all up to them.

So, yeah, reactionary... I vote yes to take their money, that which is most important to them.

If I heard about a hacker that drained the bank account of a person like Rupert Murdoch, awesome. That sounds just.

These guys see the U.S. as an exploitable system that they can control. It's not right.

reply to post by spiritualzombie

It comes from hearing people scream of the dangers of socialism

Well anyone screaming about the danger os socialism is first an American brainwashed by propaganda, that in general still equates socialism to communism with a heavy dose of state centralism (that is not part of socialism itself) a throwback from the cold war ideology. I guess that anyone that still believes that capitalism is a social order can only be expected to have other skewed views...

powerful people who come up with ways to manipulate the public into supporting their greed addiction

That is the key problem right there.

Because these guys are looking to take over the country.

Nations a so passé, they are now beyond that divisionary concept they are after the world, just before people also realize that the concept of nation does not have any meaning in a fully globalized and interdependent social and economic reality.

These guys see the U.S. as an exploitable system that they can control. It's not right.

They see all systems as exploitable...

reply to post by diggindirt


I'm not a monk. I'm not a politician. I'm not Gandhi.

I said in the OP that I remember playing Monopoly with my little sister, winning so well, and not wanting to quit because it felt so good to collect that money, that I came up with a debt system for my sister, so she could keep playing with the hope of getting her feet back on the ground, maybe even win the game... Just give me this, that, and your $200 every time you pass go. A child's greed in power. Not so different from what we have today.

There are people who want to see others suffer far worse for lesser crimes.

These people manipulate the laws to suit them, they are untouchable, unjailable.... They plot to control the U.S. and they use their power to create laws that support their ambitions. They take that little monopoly scam to the highest level and because they have the power to manipulate laws, and we are good law-respecting citizens, it really limits what we can do. Add to that their investments in media, and many people get manipulated to vote in their favor.

It's disgusting.

Sorry if it disturbs you that I'd like to see them feel pain. It's the honest lower level of me.

Ultimately there needs to be a barrier between money and government. A separation.

What they are doing right now needs to be illegal, but they have the power to decide what is legal... So... yeah, I vote tear down their tower.

reply to post by diggindirt


By the way, that's funny. I hope we're not exes. That would be awkward.

Here's a test... I'm artistic, passionate, generous, idealistic, and I rebel strongly against manipulation... and you're still in love with me. Am I your ex?

reply to post by Panic2k11


I agree on all your points.

Panic2k11
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

Time for a massive change. I vote for a mass redistribution of wealth.

What will that solve ? It would just start being horded again by those in advantageous situations. I think you are aiming too small, no real change would come of that, now get rid of the concept of wealth and we are talking...

so true. The current wealth is more in the POWER it wields. using current wealth to STEAL future wealth.

INVESTORS are PARASITES! the whole "having your money work for you"..

When the rich can invest in commodities, real estate, etc.. they are STEALING FROM EVERYONE ELSE.

the ability to take out more than you put in, ever increasing the capital means you ever increase the imbalance.

This is why the last decade, the rice have 95% of the new money.. Their percent of the pie grows because they have the POWER to continue to grow the amount they take out through profits.

When you have 1,000,000 in investments, you take out for example 5% in profits. -- 50,000
then you have 1,050,000 in investments, you take out that 5% again.. more than 50,000, it keeps growing,

like we all learned in high school about COMPOUND INTEREST.. the more you have the more you GAIN..

then in Real Estate, they have MONOPOLIZED the whole NATION.. a working guy cant have an affordable home because the INVESTORS will CAUSE the price to be INFLATED..

EVERYTHING we buy, WE are PUTTING MONEY in the rich guys pocket!

why should someone who does NONE of the work be able to reap the benefits?

Better to DESTROY the WHOLE system than have some fat HOGS hogging the trough

reply to post by HanzHenry

Better to DESTROY the WHOLE system than have some fat HOGS hogging the trough

Sadly that is the position that they (those that usurped control of our futures, even if we must admit that some of it was simply relinquished due to a systemic imperative to do so, human society is predicated in relinquishing individuality however the cookie is crumbled), even if brainwashed masses still believe that there is a way of eating the cake and still holding it, what differentiates systems is the objective, the final outcome. In a capital driven society at our level of demographics the system is doomed to come crashing on its own, there is no space to put individualism above the common good in a systems that forces us to cooperate or die due to simple biological and economical imperatives. This is properly demonstrated by game theory.

AlwaysIdeaMan

Antigod

AlwaysIdeaMan

ketsuko
reply to post by AlwaysIdeaMan

 

My husband is reasonably successful, but he worked hard to get there and took quite a few risks along the way. I suppose you can call the risks paying off LUCK, but he still had to have the gumption to take the risks in the first place.

He started with $50 and bicycle when his own father abruptly moved after the death of his mother leaving him to either move too or fend for himself. He chose the latter. Huge risk.

When he graduated, he didn't have a job opportunity. He flipped burgers and worked odd jobs in various labs until he managed to get a contract job at a nearby military base that become a GS position. Then, he got offered a temp to hire shot at a big corporation _if_ he could pull up stakes be there in a week and a half with no guarantee of permanent employment. We did it. Huge risk.

Since then, he's worked his way up the ladder by taking on positions that need fixing and taking projects that no one else wants and making them work. All huge risks.

Now, you can argue that it was all just luck, but he was never a passive actor in any of it. All of it involved seeing the opportunities and assessing his chances and going for it. It has paid off and he's more than doubled his initial salary in his time at his career. But it was an active process. No one saw his worth, he promoted it and made it stand out.

He was lucky. He had a body that let him stand all day, was selected for the job near the base (what of the guys who applied and were NOT hired?), was offered the OPPORTUNITY to pull up stakes and fill a position, had the OPPORTUNITY to take fix-up positions and jobs nobody wanted, and though he DID do things with the LUCK he had, he would not be where he is today if his body was incapable, was not the selected candidate, had no opportunity to prove himself.

Just saying.

Lucky to be healthy. Everything else seems to be acheived through constant pressure and willingness to jump at events.

If you have events with opportunity to jump at, sure. But you need luck to be in the right place at the right time to do any jumping.

There was some fascinating research done into 'luck'. The people who considered themselves unlucky turned out to be functionally blind to opportunities that arose compared to those who described themselves as lucky. The 'lucky' person spend energy checking out potential sources of gain that 'unlucky people' ignored. The luck people kept on trying even when things look bad

So people really do have a major part to play in their own 'luck'.

You should try looking at this page.
www.richardwiseman.com...

So it's wrong to invest the money that you've earned? So who's going to provide the capital for new businesses to create the wealth? Where do you think pensions come from? Investments.


quote] spiritualzombie
reply to post by diggindirt


I'm not a monk. I'm not a politician. I'm not Gandhi.

Or someone with a even basic grasp of economics or how humans react in a system the 'fairly redistributes' wealth.

LIke I said, you have the basic failure of comprehension common to most communists, you assume there's a pre-existing amount of wealth that the rich have an unfair share of. Most of the 1% create more wealth than they use. The 1% provide about 30% of taxation to support the poor already by direct taxation, and they pay wages and organise the industry that provides the overwhelming majority of other taxable income.

You also fail to grasp why raising the minimum wage is pointless. It pushes up inflation and the cost of goods to hours worked remains the same.This is a basic principle of economics. Cost push inflation. Not to mention that jobs will be lost if you have a high minimum wage (yes, it does happen).The way you improve the standard of living of the poor is by making manufactured goods cheaper, by better process and less man hours going into production. And for this you need entrepeneurs competing with each other to produce the best product at the cheapest price. To make them compete they need to be chasing a decent reward (wealth). Bad for the pay of individual workers but when a whole society does it they get the same pay but it buys a whole lot more. Which is what has been going on for the last 150 years or so in the west and is the reason for our increased standard of living.

spiritualzombie
reply to post by diggindirt

 

I'm not a monk. I'm not a politician. I'm not Gandhi.

I said in the OP that I remember playing Monopoly with my little sister, winning so well, and not wanting to quit because it felt so good to collect that money, that I came up with a debt system for my sister, so she could keep playing with the hope of getting her feet back on the ground, maybe even win the game... Just give me this, that, and your $200 every time you pass go. A child's greed in power. Not so different from what we have today.

There are people who want to see others suffer far worse for lesser crimes.

These people manipulate the laws to suit them, they are untouchable, unjailable.... They plot to control the U.S. and they use their power to create laws that support their ambitions. They take that little monopoly scam to the highest level and because they have the power to manipulate laws, and we are good law-respecting citizens, it really limits what we can do. Add to that their investments in media, and many people get manipulated to vote in their favor.

It's disgusting.

Sorry if it disturbs you that I'd like to see them feel pain. It's the honest lower level of me.

Ultimately there needs to be a barrier between money and government. A separation.

What they are doing right now needs to be illegal, but they have the power to decide what is legal... So... yeah, I vote tear down their tower.

You vote to "tear down their tower" while admitting that you have no idea who will be killed by its fall?
How does my plan for you to give everyone you deal with a "raise" by handing them the money you believe they deserve not work for you?
You don't address my concerns with your "vote" for your "non-plan" that could directly affect my nice, rich neighbor, heck, it may affect me too since I own more than some people in my neighborhood.
I've said nary a word about socialism, I've spoken of the morally correct way to conduct one's life. In my world that does not include plotting to cause my fellow human beings pain. I do believe in punishment for crimes against society but none of the rich people I know have committed crimes against society, they're out there contributing to society every day in positive ways. Why do you want to cause Oprah pain? She makes my rich neighbor look like a pauper. Heck, I knew Pat Sadjak when he was doing the midnight gig on our local radio station, fresh from Vietnam. Now he's about the richest guy I know personally. He has lived by his looks and wit, not by grinding people into dust. Why would you wish him to suffer?
See, it's hard when actual people come into the picture, isn't it? You are asking the populace to appoint you judge and jury so you can cause pain for a guaranteed few---just the top 1%---this year. That's not communism, socialism, or any other "ism" I've ever heard of. In the nicest possible way let me tell you that what you are proposing is ---just crazy talk.
You've admitted to a lack of ability to follow through with your idea and define parameters of action for this massive change. You cannot articulate any method of executing this "vote" you have cast.
Tell me what your vague terms actually mean in my life and I will consider your proposal. Until I can hear and understand the expected results of such actions, I will continue to deal with the devil I know.
I'm fully cognizant of rampant corruption in government and of the "barons in the balcony" who fully own our legislators. I watched a goodly portion of our Commonwealth legislators be led away in handcuffs back in the early '90s. I watched the FBI agent who had headed up that investigation, dubbed Boptrot, say in his closing press conference that he felt as though they had "scratched the surface" of corruption in that body. He was correct. He had plenty of evidence of corruption that didn't include the target of the investigation, horse racing. But then, Bill Clinton took over the justice department and Janet Reno didn't think cleaning the rest of the crooks out of the legislative process should be a priority. I'm fighting these devils the best I know how in a civil society.
So I will give you the same advice my grandmother gave me: Be careful what you wish for---it just might come to pass.
What would you be saying if you were a part of the 1%? Empathy?

spiritualzombie
reply to post by Antigod

 

Ok, sounds good... A little dick-ish with the communist label, but I give you a pass.

So, I want to make sure I understand this right. The rich can get richer, and that works fine, the price of goods can go up, and that's okay,.. but when the lowest paid make more money... that's where it all goes to hell? Why does that not feel right?

And what is better... Having 3 workers at poverty level... or 2 workers making better wages and 1 in need of a new better paying job?

I'm just thinking, if I'm employing 3 people at minimum wage, and I'm making decent money, then minimum wage increases... I have to ask myself... Can I take this hit? Do I have to let an employee go, or can I financially take this hit? I think it's #ty to tell people they have to pick themselves up by their bootstraps when they are unemployed, but hell no don't tell a CEO to expect a smaller profit.

edit on 1-2-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

No no, the price of goods relative to hours worked does DOWN.

Example as to why pay levels need to be kept low, and productivity per hour needs to be higher:

Say, it takes 3hrs of labour total to create, market and deliver etc a 'gizmo'. The base materials cost is negligible, so it costs 3x wages per hour (say $10 x3).

This puts the cost of a gizmo at 30 dollars.

Now increase the minimum pay of the workers to 15, and this puts the cost of the gizmo to 45 dollars.

The worker still needs to buy this gizmo and other goods so any benefit raising his pay is wiped out by the increased costs of goods and services since all the other minimum wage rises have pushed all the costs up. Then the people who spent years training for skills (middle classes) complain that they are getting the same pay as an untrained worker on the production line, and demand more money, or desert company/country to get better pay as it's otherwise unfair that they've spent 7 years training and blown tens of thousands in cash on tuition for no benefit.

One way for the company to avoid this cycle is to start automating it's process to cut down the man hours, and this will generally end up in a bunch of the unskilled workers being fired (from minimum wage to none) and hiring a semiskilled labourer who costs 30 dollars and hour but produces a gizmo in 1hr, bringing the cost down to 30 dollars again, but with two people now being unemployed. That's what raising minimum wage does. If this can't be done, everyone at the company will end up unemployed when someone else finds a way to produce Gizmos with fewer man hours.

Basically what some of the 1% do is invest money to provide capital to businesses (critical) and others have in the past had to borrow money to invest in setting up the businesses, keep them running. If we don't have a wealth reward system, people will not risk borrowing large sums and working 18hr days to set up a business. Inventors get patent fees, entertainers get royalties. These all require a degree of risking years of effort for nothing, and getting into debt.

Our modern culture with high productivity per man hour is a result of capitalism which lead to industrialisation. If there was no major reward for the organiser of the business, no one would do it. Which is what happened in the communist countries. The 1% (superproducers) basically are responsible almost all of the consumer goods, barring the very expensive hand made stuff. They constantly push to produce a better cheaper product, needing few hours of labour, making everyones standard of living better.

Take away their stuff and they'll sulk and then refuse to work, and we'll be back to the 1800's standard of living in a generation.

reply to post by diggindirt


Do you have your hand in the media? Do you own multiple news media companies, stations, or newspapers? Do you plan to introduce legislation that undercuts the power of the people to give you an advantage? Do you have plans to influence a vote using multiple news media outlets you own? Do you have meetings with world leaders and discuss issues that you care about and offer favors for their support? Have you ever been part of a meeting that discussed a new talking point to be introduced? There is more criteria, but that's an idea of what I'm looking for.

The ideas I have are related to rules regarding inappropriate gifts or exchanges, union law, or financing terrorism.

The idea could then be to freeze funds, and based on the outcome of an investigation and possibly trial, release funds into the public, which would be minimal per family, and put criminals in prison or leave them penniless, to pick themselves back up by their own boot straps.

Antigod

Take away their stuff and they'll sulk and then refuse to work

This. Thanks, by the way. That post was awesome. Very informative! But this right here. This is sh*tty human beings when we are talking about billionaires-- Unless you can tell me... How does an individual 'need' to have 'stuff' in the billions without being morbidly greedy?