Re: Making less than dad did


"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zs-dnSSYEpWgLfnbnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sgt.Sausage wrote:



You'd be hard pressed to find anyone to classify the creation of
jobs, and lucrative jobs at that, as "useless".

How long there is demand for the products of those jobs, somebody will
create them.

And ... yet you condemn those who create them? The business
owners. The EvilRichBusinessOwners -- the very ones you
condemn as Evil?

First, you say it's evil. Then you say (as if by magic)
that "somebody will create them" as if they appear out of
thin air.

Nope. They appear out of a skill set that involves creating
a startup and making those job positions from NOTHING, where
they didn't exist before.

Why don't ya try it some time. It's quite difficult, but
I wouldn't expect you to understand since ... somehow a magical,
mythical "somebody will create them". You *need* someone with
the appropriate skillset to actually create the jobs or they
won't be there.


If the wealth is concentrated then will be one investing all the money and
grab all the profits. If the wealth is distributed, then the company will
be started in association and the profits will be distributed.

Go ahead. Start your company. No one's stopping you. Do it
on your own, without appropriating via theft a "distributed"
wealth.

Most business owners started on their own. With their own
savings.

When it's time to ramp up expenditures, and if there ain't
enough in the til, it's "go public" time and the money comes
from a "distributed" source -- the stock holders.

When I go public, you're free to buy shares if you like.


The only way to change it would be to *take* via extortion
or theft, the concentration of wealth. That would make you
nothing more than a common thug. A criminal.

Actually, the idle shareholders do just that. The wealth created by
somebody
else (worker) it is taken by the guy not working to create it (thief) by
use of violence (enforcement of asset property laws).


So ... you want to get rid of property laws now too? What's
mine is yours, free to take? It don't work that way buddy.

If you had actually created some wealth in your lifetime, you
would understand.

Nothing is stolen. It's a *voluntary* agreement between
employer and employee. If you don't like the terms of the
agreement, you don't have to work here. It's that simple.
No theft or extortion involved.

I've made offers of employment to folks who like the terms
and accept the job offer. I've made offers of employment to
folks who have turned the job down for one reason or another.
Where's the theft? Where's the extortion? The folks who don't
want to work here, or who don't think the salary (or benefits
(or whatever)) -- those who don't think it's enough decline
the offer.

I ask again: Where is this theft that you speak of?



Taxing the idle shareholders to provide a redistribution of the wealth is
therefore not theft but merely repossession of the stolen wealth.

Nothing stolen. See above. Any "redistribution" is nothing
more than theft. I'm beating a dead horse here 'cause you
simply don't get it.


Decency is not required in this world.

Sure, greed and violence is good. Are you a libertarian ?

Greed is definitely good. It's what allowed us to
progress thus far along the chain of evolution. It's
a harsh, cruel world out there and mother nature cares
nothing about compassion for the human condition.

It's nothing more than pure greed that allows you to
survive day to day. Why save that meal for yourself
(you greedy ***) -- there are litterally billions
of hungry folks around the world. Hundreds of millions
die a year from something that *you* could fix if you
just let the government take all your money and assets
and "redistribute" it. You. Greedy. ***. Why are you
hoarding your assets this way when millions of folks are
dying every day?

See. Greed allows you to survive.

To answer your question: No. I'm not a card-carrying libertarian,
but of the labelled pigeon-holes you might choose to stuff me
into, yeah ... I guess it fits. I most closely identify
with many (but not all) of the core libertarian beliefs -- but I am
*not* strictly Libertarian. I don't like labels



A PhD does not guarantee wealth. See above. The smartest
folks ususally get the best grades. Try reading for comprehension
next time. There is, in my experience, very little correspondence
between education level and amassed wealth. Folks with higher
educations generally earn more, but as far as *large* accumulations
of wealth -- a PhD does not correlate well.

Correct, because the "skill" required to accumulate large amounts of
wealth
it is hypocrisy not education, intelligence or hardwork.

Keep in mind that I am not talking here about the small business owner,
hardworking shoulder to shoulder with the employees, and having a decent
and fair relationship with them.

*** off. That's your out ain't it. Now you can say I'm one of
those guys and therefore the argument is not relevant.

I'll tell you this: While I currently *am* one of those guys,
I aspire to be the next Exxon Mobile, or the next WalMart --
showing gazillions of dollars of profit each quarter, year
after year.

I am talking mainly about the unskilled billionaires, hypocrites CEOs and
others like them that never worker for a living only cheating, grabbing
wealth by lies or similar practices.

Strictly speaking, cheating and lies are not illegal.

The folks who accumulate wealth are *exactly* those folks who
have the skill to accululate wealth. No more. No less. They
may be educated. They may have Phd. But they may not.

That skill it is: HYPOCRISY.

The hypocrisy to pay the valuable employees with lower wages just because
you know that despite their skills, they are not very good negotiators to
find a better paying job.

And as an employer -- how is that my problem? Do you not, as
a consumer, usually try to negotiate the lowest price when buying
a car, or a house? Do you not shop around to find the lowest
prices at market for your daily bread?

And the employer is somehow, morally obligated to do the
opposite? He's not free to seek the lowest prices?

Who's the hypocrite now?


The hypocrisy to make a ridiculously low offer to a valuable guy just
because you know that he is unemployed due to recession or other issues
and
is desperate to get something.

If the employee accepts, then it ain't ridiculously low.


The hypocrisy lobby against decent wages, affordable health care and
retirement system and civilized social programs just because you want to
get rich by exploiting working poor.

Decent wages, affordable healthcare, and retirement -- forced by
the coersion of jack-booted governmental enforcement thugs -- is
(a) Again, common thievery and (b) a ponzi scheme that is wholely
unsustainable in the long term.

To be able to lie, cheat and mislead others to draw business to your less
valuable service of product. The hypocrisy to patent thousands of trivial
and worthless stuff, just to build a warchest to be able to smash your
emerging competition under megatones of lawyer power if they create a
better product.

Yeah. Harsh ain't it? Funny how those who succeed learn to
play by the rules of the game and those who won't even bother
to try cry "foul" to the Nanny State to come in and rescue them
from the evil folks who have managed to learn to survive in the
world.

I've got an idea: Why don't you quit yer cryin' and start
a business or three (I'm currently running three myself).

No -- on second thought, don't even bother. When you inevitably
fail, it will only be another useless excuse for you: "Yeah ...
I tried that but the system is rigged so the 'small guy' doesn't
stand a chance and I never had a chance from the start..."


And many many many more things like this.

See -- you're making my point.

Education, intelligence -- none of it matters. All that
matters is having the skill to amass great fortunes.

That is the main skill of a "valuable businessman", this is the golden
path
to wealth: HYPOCRISY !!!

Our society prosper due to the hardwork of intelligent and educated
people.

I could give 2 shits about "our society". *I* want to prosper
through *my* own initiative. I want no one to legislate prosperity
for me at the expense of someone else's opportunity to proper on
their own.

Yes, that is the businessman interest. I agree that this antisocial
behavior
is the norm into the business community.

However, the interest of valuable and hardworking productive it is to live
a
civilized life. So, the productive must get educated to not give 2 shits
about the businessmen and use their voting power to change the rules in
their own interest.

Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.



Society is not the business persons. I imagine thes business
folks we're discussing are much like be, and couldn't give 2
shits about your society.

Yes, this is why the majority of productive must vote in their own
interest.
Not accept all the lies about "advantages of free trade" and
the "requirement to compete in wage with Chinese".

Ohhhh -- I get the Hypocracy now! It only matters when *you* get
the shaft. I see that you don't give 2 shits about the poor Chinese
either. It only matters when it's detrimental to *you*.

Tell me again about this whole hypocracy thing, please.


The businessmen eye their interest only at the expense of the majority of
the population. he majority MUST get together and use their big voting
power to reduce the businessmen looting spree.


If you don't have the LionSkills to survive in the LionWorld,
you die. If you don't have the FinancialSavvy to survive in
the FinancialWorld, you end up broke.

Nope. The broken hypocritical FinancialWorld must be CHANGED !!!

Again. Good luck with that. Check back in here in a decade
and let me know how you're doin' with that one.


The purpose of the people is not to work harder for a lower lifestyle but
to
live better with lower work if possible.

Like your exhalted "society" -- people have no "purpose". They
just are. I'm me, you're you, and Joe is Joe. Whatever I want
to do today ... that's my purpose today. It ain't none of your
business. It ain't none of Joe's business -- and I just might
change my mind and re-purpose myself before lunch today.

There is no "purpose". We are people and we just are.


If a particular socio-economic system ask them to work harder/more in
order
to accept a lower lifestyle then that system is broken and must be either
fixed either replaced.

How 'bout a little dose of reality here: In the real world, things
sometimes go backwards we don't always progress constantly forward
toward less-and-less work for more-and-more benefit. In the real world,
there are things like ... oh ... I don't know ... maybe Scarcity of
Resources that don't allow for your impossible dream.

The rest of us: we live out there in that real world. Why don't ya
try joining us for a while and see what it's like.



Good. We're in agreement. Now go take what you make, market it.
Ramp up production to millions of units. Finance the plant and
equipment necessary for such. Staff up the HR department so you
can hire the army of salesmen to sell what you made with your
own skills. Hire the army of techs to repair and work on your
product and handle the warrantee work. Hire the in-house legal
folks to handle your distribution contracts and supply-chain
agreements. Get ya some facilities managers to procure you enough
office space for all these folks.

What? You say you can't do this all by yourself? Maybe you need
someone with some wealth to finance this?

If the wealth would be distributed, the workers will be able to set up a
employee owned business.

Again: Put your money where your mouth is. Try it. I think you'll
find that you *need* someone *exactly* like those you are condemning
to pull the whole thing together. Those "useless" skills -- you'll
soon find those to be extremely valuable resources that are needed
to put it together.

I've been on both sides. I was an employee from age 15 through 29,
and have been a business owner from 30 to 38. I'm speaking from
experience. You're speaking out your ass with nothing but fantasy.


The fact that a third person (investor) is needed to start up a business
it
is due to the fact that the wealth is concentrated, and the productive do
not have enough wealth.

No. It's due to the fact that everything costs money, and money is
scarce, and not everyone has all the money they need for everything.


In the first case, the profits would be distributed to all of them, so if
they want later they can start a new business on their own or expand the
existing one.

In the second, the profit it is taken at his will by the investor,
therefore
the workers will never have the change to accumulate enough capital to
start a business. So, the investor will be needed again for a new business
or expansion of the existing.

You see, there is NOTHING that make the investor special except the fact
that he have money while the productive do not.

What makes him "special" is that he had the skill to
accumulate a sum of investment capital whereas "the productive"
did not possess this skill, and therefore have not the funds.

Then, the system perpetuate
itself. If the legislation is employed to increase the share of the labor,
then we can easily migrate to a better society where a majority of
businesses are employee owned. This is the future !!!

Amen brother! I'm in agreement. Employee owned is the way to
go ... but for one fundamental difference: You want the employees
to *steal* the startup capital. I regard that as indefensible. In
no circumstance is it appropriate to make common thievery an
acceptable investment vehicle. None.


Bank robbers are also very good at making money. The fact that we
enforce
the law and jail them it is nothing else but jealousy in your right
winger mind !!!

Ummm ... no. We jail them because there are laws allowing us
to do so.

Currently there are no laws on the books making amassed wealth
a jailable offense.

Maybe some new laws are needed ???

Yeah -- I'll check back in a few years. Let us know how
it goes. Not. Gonna. Happen.



.

Loading