Do the rich DESERVE their money?

I don't know, I think my point might be going a little deeper....

I have a house to sell, someone wants to buy it....
the appraiser was pressured to inflate the value of that home, aig went along with the load, even with the inflated price, graded the loan AAA, when it was a pretty good bet that the person being lent the money wouldn't be able to repay...a cdo is created......a cdo that has an inflated rating, on a loan for a house with an inflated value...
and this isn't happening just with the I am trying to sell, but many, many more!!
all those cdo's, all those houses, now have inflated values that one can go and use as collateral for more loans.....or sell for more cash....
stocks are about the same, inflate the value and one dollar can become 5 in a day!!!
I don't reallly see how the fed could control the amount of money that is circulating (paper along with digitized).....
because everything is being unnaturally inflated in the bubble...
then well....we hit a crisis point the fed realizes, there just isn't enough money in the world to cover all the bank accounts, all the debts, all the assetts....not even close...
do they allow the value of all this stuff to deflate back to a more "natural" value, or start up the printing presses and let the money flow???
I'm sorry if these rich guys got their money pressuring aig to grade garbage asseets triple a.....well...no, they don't deserve their wealth!! just like if they got their wealth, shortchanging their employees or shipping their jobs to countries for slave wages, all the while expecting our country to pick up the s lack though the welfare p rogram, so they can still have customers for those products...well, they don't deserve thier wealth....

Let me preface my reply by stating that by all of the government's measures, I am "Middle-upper class" due to my earnings. To some/most, my household would be considered "wealthy".

The question of "do the rich deserve their money" is ridiculous. Outside of the extreme minority, the wealthy have worked, and worked exceptionally hard for their income, made smart decisions, and had a dash of good luck.

If I can be where I am, ANYONE can. If anyone did stuff to doom their future, it was me. But I got smart and made the necessary changes and here I am.

As a kid, I dropped out of school at 16 and struck out on my own. I was a punk. No respect for my parents or their rules, and I thought I was smarter than them.

I rented a room out from someone, drove a crappy old car, and took a job as a laborer making minimum wage in a steel shop....in Florida.... the heat, and the work, was nearly unbearable. Eventually, through shadowing the welders, I learned how to weld and got a moderate bump in pay.

I was eating Ramen noodles and PBJ's and thinking I was doing ok. I did this for about 5 years. During this time I was also running with the wrong crowd and got into a LOT of trouble with the law. And I developed a drug habit.

Eventually, I found myself looking at the wrong side of a police car, and a felony charge. It was big enough to make the local news. Yay me.

I was looking at some time behind bars and I had a epiphany. I decided that I didn't want to revisit jail, and made the decision to change course.

I was sentenced to some time, and then 7 years probation. Once I got out, if I completed my probation, my record would be expunged.

I decided to go back to school, get my GED and continue in my education and learn a trade. This was done at night. Same for the NA meetings. I got clean, and got an education. I interned at a local business and started at the absolute bottom of the ladder. I am pretty sure the janitors looked down on me. Whenever someone was needed to stay late, I volunteered. When I had spare time, I shadowed someone and learned something else. When volunteers were needed to go somewhere, my name was first on the list.

In short, I did everything I could to learn as much as I could. The bosses noticed and promoted me. I continued with this work ethic for the next 17 years, and here I am.

Do I deserve my salary? Hell yes I do. I've got the scars to show for the hard work and I've paid my dues. I continue to pay them - even at my position in my job. 16-18 hour days are not uncommon and I am pushing 40.

For those that say I don't, ask yourself this question - what are you doing in your life? What are you doing NOW to further your position and status in life? What are you doing that is KEEPING you from realizing those goals - because the only one holding you back is YOU.

Not getting promoted? Why not? Have you been passed over? Why? If there simply are not any openings - start looking for another job. If there are openings and you're not getting them, then the problem is YOU. Are you the type that gets to work at 5:00 till and leaves promptly at 6? There's one problem... Are you the one that can't be found when extra work needs to get done? Strike two. Do you just show up, do your job, and go home without showing any sort of initiative or interest in other positions? Strike three.

Nobody has any 'right' to the income of the wealthy other than the person earning it. To say otherwise is speaking from your own greed or self-loathing at not being there yourself.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Oh yeah? Tell that to the starving millions all over the world, tell that to the majority of humanity who lives in relative poverty. Tell that even to those in the first world who have to work sh*t jobs for most of their lives to fill the pockets of the rich.

This isn't about one person being jealous of another, this is about the world as a whole and the gross inequities of the haves and the have-nots, and if you can't see such an obvious/simple big picture as that, then the only child here is you.

This isn't about the people in Africa or Ethiopia - this is about people in the industrialized nations. This is how the world works, pal. To think that everyone can be happy and be paid great wages is a fairy tale. It's sheer fantasy. And it's based in envy. It's not Joe American's fault that he lives in the US of A and makes a good wage - it's luck, and there's nothing he can do about it. Same for the worker in China - they didn't choose to be there, they were born there and it is their lot in life.

You're essentially blaming the shark for being a shark.

Are sweatshops a good thing? No, and that's why I decide to spend my money at places that don't encourage the activity. I don't own ONE Apple product, nor do I shop at Wal Mart, among other things. I try to purchase items created in the US. My groceries are purchased from a local Farmer's Market. I make decisions every day to avoid feeding the beast that thrives on the poor of the world.

Think about that next time you're jamming out on your iPod.

The solution to the problem lies in you.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by atlguy]

Do mosquitos 'deserve' the blood they have sucked?

It is a matter of value judgments.

Clearly THEY have none.

I wish to engage OP, but first I wish to know your definition of 'rich'. Where do you draw the line in such a definition.

Originally posted by slank
Do mosquitos 'deserve' the blood they have sucked?

It is a matter of value judgments.

Clearly THEY have none.

Poor, poor analogy. The mosquito must do what they do to survive and it is ALL they know. If they don't, they die.

If you mean "they" as in the wealthy, then that is spoken from envy. Were the shoe on the other foot, I think you'd feel differently.

It's a dog eat dog world and if you are fortunate enough to have the intellect, the ability, the timing, the connections or whatever it takes to amass a large sum of money then by all right it is yours to keep. If someone is shifty enough and crafty enough to earn that much money then who are you to take it from them?



Tell me again who said the world was supposed to be even or fair? The world will chew you up and spit you out and the best man doesn't always win. Ever heard of the law of the jungle?


Get over it.

Originally posted by FiatLux
reply to post by dawnstar

 

That was my point. Beings there is no real value in cash or computer digits, that would mean for years now, we have been paid for our toils from a valueless system.

Many will say that it is backed by the Fed. Ok then, how much value is that worth? How much value is in their word, or any word? You can`t buy anything with a word. From the moment they dropped gold and silver from backing the dollar, we have been living in a fake system, or a lie if you will. Any monetary system that will use nothing but a word to back it with, is going to fail.

I'm somewhat with you on that... HOWEVER... isn't gold/silver ultimately fictional too? I mean, of course it exists as an element, and it is somewhat rare (though artificially in many cases); but as a human monetary/trade concept, gold and silver are completely MADE UP in value, they only serve a system of trade rather than something directly useful/valuable (like barter for instance).

You say any monetary system that will use nothing but a word to back it with is going to fail... which may be true (especially as things ebb/flow, collapse/rebuild). You must ponder though- is there ANY monetary system that ISN'T based on man-made words/illusions?

Originally posted by BlackOps719


It's a dog eat dog world and if you are fortunate enough to have the intellect, the ability, the timing, the connections or whatever it takes to amass a large sum of money then by all right it is yours to keep. If someone is shifty enough and crafty enough to earn that much money then who are you to take it from them?



Tell me again who said the world was supposed to be even or fair? The world will chew you up and spit you out and the best man doesn't always win. Ever heard of the law of the jungle?


Get over it.

Stay the $ away from my kids there Johnny!


Seriously though contrary to what they believe its really not thier money I worry about.

If you took all the money away from the rich, and equally distributed it amongst the population of a country, I'd be willing to bet that most of the rich would be rich again in 5-10 years.

If you took the worlds GDP $61.06 Trillion US dollars at current prices - 2008 and gave it to everyone on the planet 6,707,000,000 July 2008 we'd all have a whopping $9,104 (rounding up) each!

In some countries that would be 2-3 or more years worth of living/salary.

In the U.S., not so much.


I think the OP should add another point. RISK.
Some people don't mind dropping $10-20,000 to start a new venture knowing that if it fails then they are the ones holding the debt. Other people refuse to take an opportunity because it will cost them a few bucks.

Also I know some successful people -- I would not want to be *that* successful. Jeesh. I like my sleep. These guys are in the office by 6am preparing all the paperwork to go meet with clients, reading hundreds of pages a week in reports to know what move to make next, they don't get to bed until midnight or later sometimes. Get up and do it again. But hey they are making 6 figures (maybe he's even up to 7 now).


People like I mentioned above -- I have no problem with that. I do agree with the OP in certain ways where people who inherit money or they have a golden path setup in their life from birth because their dad was a big CEO and sent him to a private school, and knew this guy and that guy so now his son starts making 150k off the bat right out of college. Yeah those guys are dicks because they think they are better than everyone.

I do agree that companies influence politics too much these days to get unequal benefits in their favor. It seems that its now a big circle of the "have's" who cycle through employment positions, getting experience on paper and congratulated by their peers so they could move onto another position with the same or more pay. The whole aspect of starting at the bottom and in the future becoming a CEO is total nonsense. Most of the people who become CEO's are off the bat in some type of executive position out of college. Then after years of experience and getting to know other people they switch companies to get better positions, and eventually end up as the CEO somewhere.

Ok, everybody here needs to take a look at this:

The page is a bit visually messy, but the content seems to by gold. Very eye-opening, sobering and intelligent...

What are your TRUE chances of getting rich in America?
OR
How to get rich in America

WITH REFERENCES EMBEDDED:
www.jmooneyham.com...

WITHOUT REFERENCES EMBEDDED:
www.jmooneyham.com...

MOONEYHAM'S DEFINITION OF RICH:
www.jmooneyham.com...

...
So 69% basically inherit their wealth, 4.2% marry into it, and 26.8% make it in other ways. So what sort of people exist in the 26.8%?

It's an eclectic mix representing many different sorts, from top crime lords and corporate executives to superstars among the entrepreneurial, film, and music crowds, and the biggest lottery winners in history. Steve Jobs of Apple Computer was one of the entrepreneurial breakouts of these, long ago.
...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


I believe i would rather have something I can see and is rare to back it up with, rather than empty words. How about you?

Don`t get me wrong, I do see your point in this though.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by FiatLux]

Originally posted by FiatLux
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

I believe i would rather have something I can see and is rare to back it up with, rather than empty words. How about you?

Don`t get me wrong, I do see your point in this though.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by FiatLux]

Oh definitely... on the scale of most stable/desirable money, gold/silver come before electronic/paper currency.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Since seemingly have missed my question, here it is again with a bit more substance.

What are you using to define 'wealthy' and ‘rich’? Do you have a measure based on anything other than just saying ‘wealthy’ or ‘rich’? Are you basing wealth in a relative manner based on where it is found and the environment in which it is viewed?

You stated:
“…but as a human monetary/trade concept, gold and silver are completely MADE UP in value, they only serve a system of trade rather than something directly useful/valuable (like barter for instance).”

This is true to an extent. Taking insight into Adam Smith and is study in regards to the division of labor we can see this. The baker, who makes ale and bread used to trade or barter for the nails he needed to perform general maintenance around his bakery. Where the metalsmith, with an abundance of nails wanted food, thus the opposite occurred for him.

In the most basic form, it is a pure market that works fantastically and near flawless, but as societies grew and became more complex, a form of currency other than the fruits of labor was devised. The baker maybe didn’t need nails anymore, but rather clothing. But the local tailor didn’t have any use for bread or ale as they produced their own in the amounts that they needed. The market adjusted for such situations in developing coinage in the values of certain metals.

It is also notable that when the metalsmith wishes to only obtain say a single cut of meat, but the butcher wishes for more nails than what is worth a single cut is where the market derived a system to accommodate such.

The distinction between the real and the nominal price of commodities and labour is not a matter of mere speculation…The same real price is always of the same value; but on account of the variations in the value of gold and silver, the same nominal price is sometimes of very different values

– An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations

It is in such that metals that we use as currency do not always hold the same value, as they are the means in which we buy our goods and services in which we apply a real value to. The nominal price of such are subjected to the forces of the market; the coinage or metals are subject to the forces of the market in the same manner.

What was once worth a pound of gold may now only be worth a quarter pound. But ask yourself, has the value of the item that used to be worth a pound of gold any less valuable to you if you purchased at a quarter pound?

Couple that notion, along with the fact that gold, silver, platinum, copper, etc are also effected by the forces of the natural market and economic forces such as scarcity, it is logical that such fluctuations occur may it be market forces or ‘artificial’ as you have penned.

While there is always the risk that market forces can come from artificial sources, it usually is corrected quite quickly through the very market that one is trying to artificially effect. Take for instance my example above in regards to metals. Sometimes metals are disguised to look like more desirable metals. Thus we have an artificial fluctuation within the market. The correction would occur either through a drop in the value of the metal that is tainted, an increase in the purer metals that are not tainted and the utility value of such metals dropping due to the distrust and ambiguity in regards to the said tainted metal.

“You must ponder though- is there ANY monetary system that ISN'T based on man-made words/illusions?”

This is quite the philosophical question to ponder. This highly depends on ones views upon mankind, the creation of labor, societies, ethics, and the State. It also serves that we must differentiate between utility and value. As utility is applied to what that item does for the person whereas the value is attributed to what the item is worth in exchange for some other good. The two concepts are interconnected when one enters the market place, yet are not dependant upon one another.

Also, finding distinction between manmade and market-made are needed here.

A monetary system created by man, usually is based upon the utility of such currency. The baker, in the above examples sees his product as a currency to obtain the goods he lacks. Thus the utility value is lower than the value as the baker does not see a need to retain his product, but sees it valuable to others.

Whereas a metalsmith that makes only enough for himself would see his product as high in utility and in value. It will require more of another good, nearly ‘artificial’ in terms of the market for him to relinquish his goods in exchange for another because of the utility he has placed into the item.

In regards to a monetary system I offer the following. We can have a currency created out of thin air by say, a monarch. That monarch declares that a bushel of wheat is worth a cow. Thus, the monetary system was created by Man. It was given a real value that was determined by either a single source or even Government. Most likely, the monarch or Government dictated such as a currency because of the abundance of which they hold. Thus creating wealth based on others’ scarcity of such economic commodity. Since the monarch or Government retains a large quantity of wheat, the utility of such a commodity is low, but knows the value is high. Thus an artificial monetary system is created to the benefit of a singular person and/or entity.

A market induced system is one that depends not on what one man dictates to the market the value of a currency, but rather the market itself. The creation of a more common system that could be applied more widely, without the fluctuation in value in terms of applying to the market, while the utility of such is kept separate from the market are desirable. The need to have a system that allows all to engage within the market place knowing that their product or good is worth a certain amount that is based upon the market as a whole, rather than the dictates of a singular person’s utility. The value of such a system is applied generally equal to the players within the market. Thus, the currency holds a value dictated by the market and not by the dictates of its utility.

This is where wealth is generated. Persons holding a high utility value to a currency will invariably seek to obtain more. Persons that find little utility beyond the means of which they wish to use such wealth to get by seek only that which will satisfy.

I have rambled and probably made mistakes that my proofreading didn’t catch.

I still stand by my initial question though: DEFINE wealthy and/or rich.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


For the most part, yes they do.

The same is true for the poor. For the most part they deserve being poor.

reply to post by atlguy


A lot of rich people are neurotic & arguably mentally ill, which is part of the driving need to acquire money at any expense. It is like they are trying to make up for some spiritual, psychological or ego wound.

To some degree it demonstrates a degree of uncreativity. They have bought into corporate advertising or social pressures.
One trick pony anyone? Not an intelligent nor clever animal.
Someone or something else figured out for them what is important. It is just another substitute pre-packaged religion.

The fact that we blindly celebrate & hero worship people with wealth with out even considering how they got it is a sickness of our society.

I don't mind fantasizing being rich, but i can also imagine a lot of potentially crippling effects that can have on a person as well.
Presumptive, smug egos tend to lead to a lack of intellectual exercise.

I am moderately happy. I do not subscribe to the myth that all rich people are even close to happy. They tend to be pretty neurotic.
I am sure a reasonable portion of them are relatively happy, many are however not.

As for 'deserving' of anything for anyone?
That is just a value judgment, completely subjective & totally unavailable objective criteria, especially if one has defined no [priority] frame of reference.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I can say I agree with the links I just provided that to be defined as "rich" you must make $400,000-$1 million per year PLUS. There is also a hierarchy within the $1 million-plus'ers where the SUPER-rich (who make hundreds of millions plus) are a MUCH tinier portion of the pie and especially of society in general.

Originally posted by slank
reply to post by atlguy

 

A lot of rich people are neurotic & arguably mentally ill, which is part of the driving need to acquire money at any expense. It is like they are trying to make up for some spiritual, psychological or ego wound.

To some degree it demonstrates a degree of uncreativity. They have bought into corporate advertising or social pressures.
One trick pony anyone? Not an intelligent nor clever animal.
Someone or something else figured out for them what is important. It is just another substitute pre-packaged religion.

The fact that we blindly celebrate & hero worship people with wealth with out even considering how they got it is a sickness of our society.

I don't mind fantasizing being rich, but i can also imagine a lot of potentially crippling effects that can have on a person as well.
Presumptive, smug egos tend to lead to a lack of intellectual exercise.

I am moderately happy. I do not subscribe to the myth that all rich people are even close to happy. They tend to be pretty neurotic.
I am sure a reasonable portion of them are relatively happy, many are however not.

As for 'deserving' of anything for anyone?
That is just a value judgment, completely subjective & totally unavailable objective criteria, especially if one has defined no [priority] frame of reference.

To answer your last couple questions/statements...

I am indeed asking you to make a value judgement, though we make these judgments all the time, you just did by labeling the rich as largely "neurotic" and "mentally ill". I actually don't necessarily disagree with you... it takes a certain single-minded pathology to chase monetary wealth to the point of riches, causing a person to shut out many other things in life, even family I'm sure.

I will have to point out that studies have shown that the rich are generally happier than the poor. The reduction/elimination of money troubles and the opening of doors to leisure and other desirable activities in life can erase a lot of non-pathological neurosis in people. I think unhappiness is very real in the world's poor (especially the bottom-most poor in actual poverty), it's not so much a mental illness as a scientific/understandable reaction to not having financial security or the means to do what one wants in life. Though studies also show that you're correct also... amongst people who make over $100,000 per year, they tend to be more tense/busy and ironically spend less time on leisurely activities than many of the poor.

I actually did provide a frame of reference with the final/key question of my original post:
Do rich people deserve their money OVER AND ABOVE the rest of us? The frame of reference is "the rest of us", meaning those who are not rich but work hard, provide valuable services/labor, and/or are generally no less deserving of the things money can buy than anybody who is rich.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

For the most part, yes they do.

The same is true for the poor. For the most part they deserve being poor.

So 90% of humanity deserves to be poor?

Only 10% or less of the world deserves financial abundance?

If your answer is still yes then what is your rationale? Do ALL of the rich provide us with the most wonderful/beneficial things? Are they the smartest, noblest, or holiest of humanity? Or are the rewards of money/markets simply an arbitrary result of birth, being able to play the system and/or gamble effectively and luckily?

The Navaho say that no man can become rich who takes proper care of his family.

I firmly believe that no one "earns" 200X or more per year than anyone else. They may have the capacity to take it, but that doesn't mean they've earned it, that whatever they done is 200X more valuable than anyone else's much less 900X.

What others see as "hardworking business executives" I see as workaholic emotionl cripples. To continue pursuing wealth when you have more than you, your wife, your children and cousins can spend in a lifetime is not a mark of success or superior intelligence or talent: it is a mark of deep sociopathic illness.

I advocate a wealth cap and mandatory economic retirement when you reach cap. Go play in some other sandbox then and leave some of the shared resource that the economy is to others to work and benefit from, too.