A question for conservatives on restoring the middle class.

[quote name='nasum']so where's the tipping point then? When does some guy with entrepreneurial success turn into asshole CEO that is the cause of the world's ills? After an IPO?[/QUOTE]

After he starts making obscene amounts of money, moves in to a house as big as an average neighborhood and forgets the ills of the common man. When you have the ability to change things and you do nothing THAT is when you become the asshole.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do current American CEOs work several times harder than their counterparts from 30 years ago? Do American CEOs work several times harder than their European or Japanese counterparts, even those that manage larger companies?[/QUOTE]

His last comment where most of the time if you are poor its because you did not work hard said everything about his character. I really would not bother wasting any more time on him.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I just thought it would be an interesting topic, and I took offense to this notion that CEOs somehow don't work hard, and don't justify significantly higher salaries, and that the government should play a role in closing the disparity in wages. I didn't think that was such a controversial stance.[/QUOTE]

You don't have a controversial stance in modern America.

People at the top take everything they can get. A few compassionate CEOs here-and-there isn't going to change the fact that the vast majority of CEOs are looking out for their own paycheck first and the company a very distant second.

That's why I don't think a laissez-faire market is very good at determining the worth of executives and employees. Plenty of executives completely tank a company and get paid like royalty for the effort - that doesn't evoke the ethos of capitalism for me. That's why I think that income caps for exectutives is an intriguing idea.
 
[quote name='nasum']so where's the tipping point then? When does some guy with entrepreneurial success turn into asshole CEO that is the cause of the world's ills? After an IPO?[/QUOTE]

It happens whenever they start caring only about how much money they're taking home and don't care if their taking big bonuses when the companies profits are dropping hurt the company and so on..

So it's something that varies on a case by case basis.

You could have a big company CEO like Costco's that takes a small salary by executive standards and cares about growing the company and paying decent wages etc. And you can have the owner of a small business who pays shit wages, gives shit benefits and pockets as much of the profits as he can.


Maybe a solution is that executive salaries should be capped at some % of the companies profits, or some fixed ratio from median worker pay of non-executives in the company.
 
[quote name='berzirk']That's the whole thing, I truly don't know how hard they work, and I would assume it varies greatly from company to company. The one thing in all of this that I feel is a fact, is that they have greater responsibility than anyone else in the organization. They are the leader. They can be an active...[/QUOTE]
Actually, coaches have been getting raises the last few years and cutting half the team. As far as BP goes, those most able to implement safety protocols ignored warnings and milked it for all it was worth. Is it really a surprise when things like this happen? Of course not, this one made news just because of the scale, not that it was rare.

edit: argh..connection hosed up the post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']That's the whole thing, I truly don't know how hard they work, and I would assume it varies greatly from company to company. The one thing in all of this that I feel is a fact, is that they have greater responsibility than anyone else in the organization. They are the leader. They can be an active leader, or a passive leader, but ultimately, if a company goes out of business, they are to blame. It's like sports. If a team full of crappy players is crappy, the coach is gone, not the entire team.
[/QUOTE]

Kind of a cop-out answer. CEO weren't leading any less 30 years ago but didn't have the pay. And its seems that their leadership nowadays is often related to stock price and simply want to protect their bonus. (with exceptions)

As for BP when you ignore safety warning you can be that surprised when a well malfunctions.


[quote name='dmaul1114']

Maybe a solution is that executive salaries should be capped at some % of the companies profits, or some fixed ratio from median worker pay of non-executives in the company.[/QUOTE]


I would say maybe cap the amount of stock options. or extend the time they can cash them in.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']His last comment where most of the time if you are poor its because you did not work hard said everything about his character. I really would not bother wasting any more time on him.[/QUOTE]

Don't you? I know I do. I make as much as I can to support me and my family. If I can make more legally and ethically in my current position, I will. If I were rich, I would try to make more money to be able to leave more behind for my family when I'm gone, be able to spend more freely in charities I support. If I were poor, I would try to make more to better support my family, with surplus for charitable causes.

Go ahead and quote me where I said "most of the time..." I said there are times. Instances. Not that it's the norm.

Regarding usickme's post (forgot to multi-quote it) I dunno. I'd rather not make up a bunch of numbers (not saying yours were, I've got no reason to believe they aren't true), or generalize based on "this guy I know." I really don't know if CEOs are working harder these days, if they have more responsibilities. Not trying to cop out, I just have nothing to formulate an opinion on that one way or another. I'm an opinionated asshole, no doubt, but I try to at least have some basis for my assholish opinions. If I don't have a basis, I won't spout off about it.

Re: BP ignoring safety info, probably, again, I didn't really read up on the oil spill much.

Edit: Whoops, probably should have quoted camoor on this one instead of Magus.
 
[quote name='berzirk']That's the whole thing, I truly don't know how hard they work, and I would assume it varies greatly from company to company. The one thing in all of this that I feel is a fact, is that they have greater responsibility than anyone else in the organization. They are the leader. They can be an active leader, or a passive leader, but ultimately, if a company goes out of business, they are to blame. It's like sports. If a team full of crappy players is crappy, the coach is gone, not the entire team.

Edit: That list is crazy. The one thing I would say though, is that who saw the BP oil spill coming? The despicable ones are the ones who during times of bad business, are negotiating great buyouts. When business is good, of course they're going to negotiate these huge settlements. When would you go to your boss for a raise? After a terrible quarter of sales, or after the company hit record numbers?[/QUOTE]

My biggest issue is that some of these guys are making tons of money even when they aren't getting results. Some of them are even getting paid bonuses when the company is losing money! That's generally not the way it works in the lower ranks.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Don't you? I know I do. I make as much as I can to support me and my family. If I can make more legally and ethically in my current position, I will. If I were rich, I would try to make more money to be able to leave more behind for my family when I'm gone, be able to spend more freely in charities I support. If I were poor, I would try to make more to better support my family, with surplus for charitable causes. [/QUOTE]

You said two words: legally and ethically.

Time and again the executive class has not acted within these boundaries.

Legally - from Enron, Tyco, Countrywide, News Corp, on-and-on we know the executives broke the law and these are only the exectives who got caught red-handed. The government should act as a referree, but the legislative branch has purposely created a regulatory agency that is a 90-pound weakling so that big biz can do what they like.

Ethically - this is where your arguement really breaks down. We could possibly fix the legal issue with the right politicians, but how can it be an ethical thing for an executive to raid a company's capital just because he has the access and has the board of directors in the palm of his hand? Meanwhile real folks producing real product get depressed wages for their services (that exec payday has to come from somewhere).
 
[quote name='camoor']You said two words: legally and ethically.

Time and again the executive class has not acted within these boundaries.

Legally - from Enron, Tyco, Countrywide, News Corp, on-and-on we know the executives broke the law and these are only the exectives who got caught red-handed. The government should act as a referree, but the legislative branch has purposely created a regulatory agency that is a 90-pound weakling so that big biz can do what they like.

Ethically - this is where your arguement really breaks down. We could possibly fix the legal issue with the right politicians, but how can it be an ethical thing for an executive to raid a company's capital just because he has the access and has the board of directors in the palm of his hand? Meanwhile real folks producing real product get depressed wages for their services (that exec payday has to come from somewhere).[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone in the thread is suggesting all CEOs/Executives are well-intentioned, ethical, law abiding citizens. There are scum in the executive ranks, no doubt. All those you listed, some of the worst of the worst. But I think the group gets unfairly categorized as slimey, bad people. Their job is to increase the value of the company and appease shareholders. That's basically the job description of CEO. It may be a purposeless existence, but there are lots of jobs out there which serve little good.

On this board we're quite good at realizing extremists aren't representative of the whole in other situations, but it seems like when we're discussing wealth, this rich=evil generalization is applied. Bill Gates strikes me as someone who is one of the greatest philanthropists in the world. It may be for tax relief, but I've got to think some part of it is for the good of mankind.

I'm just confused about all the idealists who are in my age group, 20s-30s who view the social class above them as villians, while aspiring to join their ranks by their 40's or 50's. I hope I'm a millionaire a few times over some day. I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm not going to instantly become evil once a certain amount of wealth is acquired.
 
The quest for fast profits above all else is raping our country to death. But you think it is ok because you believe you will be a millionaire one day.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't think anyone in the thread is suggesting all CEOs/Executives are well-intentioned, ethical, law abiding citizens. There are scum in the executive ranks, no doubt. All those you listed, some of the worst of the worst. But I think the group gets unfairly categorized as slimey, bad people. Their job is to increase the value of the company and appease shareholders. That's basically the job description of CEO. It may be a purposeless existence, but there are lots of jobs out there which serve little good.[/QUOTE]
Where do you think that "extra" money comes from?

On this board we're quite good at realizing extremists aren't representative of the whole in other situations, but it seems like when we're discussing wealth, this rich=evil generalization is applied. Bill Gates strikes me as someone who is one of the greatest philanthropists in the world. It may be for tax relief, but I've got to think some part of it is for the good of mankind.
Click to expand...
How many lives do you think Bill Gates has ruined? So what if he's the biggest philanthropist. He's also one of the top five capitalists of the world. Capitalism is exploitive by nature.

I'm just confused about all the idealists who are in my age group, 20s-30s who view the social class above them as villians, while aspiring to join their ranks by their 40's or 50's. I hope I'm a millionaire a few times over some day. I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm not going to instantly become evil once a certain amount of wealth is acquired.
Click to expand...
I think you're confused, but your statement on social class is telling. Having a lot of money does not make you better than someone with less. You know what happens when you tie social class with economic class? It's called a caste system.

How many people do you think you'll need to exploit to be that multi-millionaire? You don't become evil once you reach that monetary benchmark; it's an accumulative process between being less-evil to becoming more evil.

edit: Btw, we don't need more millionaires; we need more people able to make a living wage. Which do you think is more important?
 
[quote name='Msut77']The quest for fast profits above all else is raping our country to death. But you think it is ok because you believe you will be a millionaire one day.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit.

/thread
 
Oh you two...

Look, money has to come from somewhere. While I hate the logical extremity of govt employees being ditch diggers and ditch fillers, there's a certain truth to that. Without the profit motive, there's little point in our economic transactions. To that end there is a need for a private sector AND a public sector. The tax money for the necessary programs and payroll for the public sector has to come from somewhere right?

There needs to be a certain balance and I'd say that historically the country has maintained that balance fairly well with hiccups here and there. Even at our most pro business we've never gone further than the 35 yard line in one direction, and for all this fear mongering over socialism infecting the US we've never passed the 40 yard line in the other direction.
 
Hah, there wasn't much of a balance until the middle class was artificially created, now we're in the process of destroying it. All of the things which made it possible for us to have more than just the poor and rich are slowly being chipped away.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The quest for fast profits above all else is raping our country to death. But you think it is ok because you believe you will be a millionaire one day.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. You nailed it.
 
but you can't demonize profits completely. Were it not for the concept of profit, you'd have nothing. It's the extreme end (your Gordon Gecko types) that screw things up. But the general concept of making a dollar out of fifteen cents isn't evil.
 
I still like you. But you should not resort to responding to arguments no one made. No one is saying there should be no profits or no private sector. It isn't even hyperbole, reductio or good satire.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The quest for fast profits above all else is raping our country to death. But you think it is ok because you believe you will be a millionaire one day.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Where do you think that "extra" money comes from?


How many lives do you think Bill Gates has ruined? So what if he's the biggest philanthropist. He's also one of the top five capitalists of the world. Capitalism is exploitive by nature.


I think you're confused, but your statement on social class is telling. Having a lot of money does not make you better than someone with less. You know what happens when you tie social class with economic class? It's called a caste system.

How many people do you think you'll need to exploit to be that multi-millionaire? You don't become evil once you reach that monetary benchmark; it's an accumulative process between being less-evil to becoming more evil.

edit: Btw, we don't need more millionaires; we need more people able to make a living wage. Which do you think is more important?[/QUOTE]

You guys summed it up perfectly. Rich=Evil. Neither one of you aspire to make more money in 10-20 years than you do now?

I don't think having more money makes you any better than a person living in a cardboard box. It's stunning what lengths you guys have to go to in order to justify hating wealth. Are either of you parents? I want to be able to provide for my kids the best I possibly can. If I can help them with some of their future college expenses, a downpayment on a first home, anything, I'd love to have the resources to help them with that. If I'm making my current salary for the rest of my life, that won't happen.

I dunno, not much point in arguing this one, because doh says it best:

"How many people do you think you'll need to exploit to be that multi-millionaire? You don't become evil once you reach that monetary benchmark; it's an accumulative process between being less-evil to becoming more evil."

-that's so mind-numbingly stupid, there truly is no rebuttal for it. As you increase wealth, you become more evil...:applause:

I work for a company, that among other things, makes technology so paralyzed people can use a PC based on head movements. If I hold shares, the company does great, goes public, and I have a lot of value in stock, does that magically mean that the purpose of the technology is now devious?

Bleh. Very, very different life views.
 
I'll make the argument then. Profit is inherently exploitive at every level of the game. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation. You know the cliche that says "behind every fortune, is a great crime?" Its demonstratively true.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You guys summed it up perfectly. Rich=Evil. Neither one of you aspire to make more money in 10-20 years than you do now?

I don't think having more money makes you any better than a person living in a cardboard box. It's stunning what lengths you guys have to go to in order to justify hating wealth. Are either of you parents? I want to be able to provide for my kids the best I possibly can. If I can help them with some of their future college expenses, a downpayment on a first home, anything, I'd love to have the resources to help them with that. If I'm making my current salary for the rest of my life, that won't happen.

I dunno, not much point in arguing this one, because doh says it best:

"How many people do you think you'll need to exploit to be that multi-millionaire? You don't become evil once you reach that monetary benchmark; it's an accumulative process between being less-evil to becoming more evil."

-that's so mind-numbingly stupid, there truly is no rebuttal for it. As you increase wealth, you become more evil...:applause:

I work for a company, that among other things, makes technology so paralyzed people can use a PC based on head movements. If I hold shares, the company does great, goes public, and I have a lot of value in stock, does that magically mean that the purpose of the technology is now devious?

Bleh. Very, very different life views.[/QUOTE]

Remember when Google used to have the slogan "Don't be evil"? Yeah.
 
You want to do right by your kids by making sure they never have to work a day in their life or strive for anything.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'll make the argument then. Profit is inherently exploitive at every level of the game. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation. You know the cliche that says "behind every fortune, is a great crime?" Its demonstratively true.[/QUOTE]


So what's your solution then? We all grow beans in buckets outside of our apartments and...wait a second ;)

Nah, but seriously. If making money is bad, then should we all strive to make exactly what we need to pay our monthly bills, and not a penny more? Shouldn't we cut out all entertainment, videogame, luxory purchases? Or do we dabble in evil so if an emergency arises we have the funds to cover it? As a US American, in places such as, what should we do, if the basis of our economic system is so crooked? Then specifically, what do you do personally to fight that?

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, thus the lighthearted references, but unless you're doing things to intentionally stay poor, then aren't you hypocritical in criticizing me for saying I'd like to be rich enough that I can live comfortably, afford to do nice things for my kids, and be able to retire without depending on social security as my sole source of income in 15-20 years?
 
[quote name='Msut77']You want to do right by your kids by making sure they never have to work a day in their life or strive for anything.[/QUOTE]

Holy crap, talk about a strawman. Yup, that's exactly what I'm shooting for. I want to be sure they never break a sweat, and have absolutely everything they've ever wanted, and don't work a single day in the lives for it. I hate it when I get outed on CAG!

You didn't answer earlier, but are you a parent? I'm curious.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You guys summed it up perfectly. Rich=Evil. Neither one of you aspire to make more money in 10-20 years than you do now?[/QUOTE]
I aspire to make a living wage. Do I want more than I make now? Of course I do because I'll need more to support more than just me. But I'm not talking about going from petite bourgeoise to haute bourgeosie like you. There's a fucking difference.

I don't think having more money makes you any better than a person living in a cardboard box. It's stunning what lengths you guys have to go to in order to justify hating wealth. Are either of you parents? I want to be able to provide for my kids the best I possibly can. If I can help them with some of their future college expenses, a downpayment on a first home, anything, I'd love to have the resources to help them with that. If I'm making my current salary for the rest of my life, that won't happen.
Click to expand...
You're the one that said social class, not me. How much are you really helping them by not helping the people around them? And how

I dunno, not much point in arguing this one, because doh says it best:

"How many people do you think you'll need to exploit to be that multi-millionaire? You don't become evil once you reach that monetary benchmark; it's an accumulative process between being less-evil to becoming more evil."

-that's so mind-numbingly stupid, there truly is no rebuttal for it. As you increase wealth, you become more evil...:applause:
Click to expand...
Is exploitation not an evil?

I work for a company, that among other things, makes technology so paralyzed people can use a PC based on head movements. If I hold shares, the company does great, goes public, and I have a lot of value in stock, does that magically mean that the purpose of the technology is now devious?
Click to expand...
Where do you think the raw materials come from? Where do you think the workstations that you use to design the software/hardware are manufactured? Where do you think the energy to power your devices come from? Purpose/intent is irrelevant and doesn't make what you do exploitive.

Bleh. Very, very different life views.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm not a completely selfish prick. I'm not saying you are, just that I'm far less than you. Nothing personal.
 
Exactly. I'm not a completely selfish prick. I'm not saying you are, just that I'm far less than you. Nothing personal.


-Charming. What you display in generosity is only bested by your kind words.

*nice edit :razz:

And regarding the raw materials, and who makes the desks, and where the carpet was manufactured...seriously? Unless you live in a straw hut (which let's face it, the damage that you did to that poor straw is horrible) and a dirt floor, what are you personally doing that's any better? Would it be better if paralyzed people didn't have our products so they could use the PC because some 8 year old in Mexico probably formed the metal used in my desk? fuck sake, I don't know what to tell ya. Send a postcard from Utopia.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So what's your solution then? We all grow beans in buckets outside of our apartments and...wait a second ;)

Nah, but seriously. If making money is bad, then should we all strive to make exactly what we need to pay our monthly bills, and not a penny more? Shouldn't we cut out all entertainment, videogame, luxory purchases? Or do we dabble in evil so if an emergency arises we have the funds to cover it? As a US American, in places such as, what should we do, if the basis of our economic system is so crooked? Then specifically, what do you do personally to fight that?

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, thus the lighthearted references, but unless you're doing things to intentionally stay poor, then aren't you hypocritical in criticizing me for saying I'd like to be rich enough that I can live comfortably, afford to do nice things for my kids, and be able to retire without depending on social security as my sole source of income in 15-20 years?[/QUOTE]
Easy. Eat the rich.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
I'm just confused about all the idealists who are in my age group, 20s-30s who view the social class above them as villians, while aspiring to join their ranks by their 40's or 50's. I hope I'm a millionaire a few times over some day. I don't see that as a bad thing. I'm not going to instantly become evil once a certain amount of wealth is acquired.[/QUOTE]

Who said we all aspire to join the upper class, much less be millionaires?

I don't have that goal. I certainly wouldn't be an academic if I did! Hell, I turned down a private sector job offer last summer that would have paid about $15K a year more than I make now. Sure, I'd like to make a bit more money than I do now, and I will down the road as I get tenure and promotion etc. But that's all secondary. Even now I don't really have anything I want to buy that I can't afford.

If I had more money about the only thing I'd do differently is travel a bit more than I do currently--and I already travel a good bit. So I'm pretty content. I've never been driven by material things really. I already have most everything I want and need and just enjoy my work and enjoy living and don't worry about getting the next raise or a better paying job.

Not everyone is driven primarily by money and wealth. The fact that the majority in this country are is the single biggest problem with our society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I envy you dmaul. I view financial security as freedom. The freedom to (eventually) do what I want, go where I want and knowing my family won't ever have to worry about having a roof over their heads or food on the table. Kids are expensive. I also like watching a big TV.
 
Well, I don't want kids at all, so that saves a ton of money. :D

And I've had a 50" tv for a few years now...I just saved up for it for a year or so.

I'm not saying money is evil. I do ok for myself. I'm making $60-65K a year currently depending on consulting etc. which isn't shabby at all for being 2 years out of grad school in my field.

I just don't give a rats ass about making some huge 6 figure salary, much less millions. I like my work, so I'm in no hurry to retire or anything. I have no problems working into relatively old age since I enjoy the work, and by the time I'm a full professor I won't be in the "publish or perish" phase anymore and can pretty much take the summers off anyway.

And I really don't know what I'd do with all that money if I made high six figures etc. I don't want a big house or fancy car or any of that kind of stuff. I'd travel more and just invest a bunch and make a lot of donations I guess.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Who said we all aspire to join the upper class, much less be millionaires?

I don't have that goal. I certainly wouldn't be an academic if I did! Hell, I turned down a private sector job offer last summer that would have paid about $15K a year more than I make now. Sure, I'd like to make a bit more money that I do now, and I will down the road as I get tenure an promotion etc. But that's all secondary. Even now I don't really have anything I want to buy that I can't afford.

If I had more money about the only thing I'd do differently is travel a bit more than I do currently--and I already travel a good bit. So I'm pretty content. I've never been driven by material things really. I already have most everything I want and need and just enjoy my work and enjoy living and don't worry about getting the next raise or a better paying job.

Not everyone is driven primarily by money and wealth. The fact that the majority in this country are is the single biggest problem with our society.[/QUOTE]

So if you could work a little bit harder, you wouldn't want to be a millionaire? Hunh. I dunno. I think people are conditioned to consider wealthy to equal evil, so it's difficult to think of a person making a million dollars as someone just like us because we're all so far from it. I just don't see how being rich is a bad thing. As javery said, the financial freedom to be able to take the family on a nice interstate vacation, to not have to budget carefully in order to pay for my son's upcoming preschool, to be able to purchase a home instead of rent, these are all things that cause significant stress for me. If those weren't issues I had to think about, my quality of life would be better.

I don't want to be loaded so I can roll in my money Scrooge McDuck style. I want to be wealthy so I don't have to weigh driving cross town to a store that is selling diapers for a couple bucks less vs. going to the store closer to me. Most of us here seem to be in about the same age group. I assume we're mostly professionals, and members of the middle class. If you don't see any incentive for working harder, intrinsicaly and by way of improved salaries, then what's the point? We should all just plan on making the same salary between now and retirement. I think I'm guilty of being blunt in how I say it, while others feel good about themselves by being delusional or saying I'm selfish, greedy, etc. knowing damn well they wouldn't consider themselves magically evil if someday they become wealthy, but I know the percentage of my income I spend in charity, I know the good things I do for those around me. If having more money means I can spend more time with my family, do nice things for them, and help them in the future, I'd incur personal debt to do it. My hope is that I won't have to take on debt, instead, I'll earn enough to support those goals.

What's even funnier in the accusations that are being thrown my way, is that I'm deep in the application process for two different government jobs that are about as selfless as you could imagine.
 
Well I already work VERY hard being an assistant professor in "'publish or perish" hell, I just don't care that much about money. My motivation for working harder is making a difference in my field. Doing research that others read, and cite and use to design their own studies. My main drive is generating new knowledge and building some recognition for myself in my field. Not getting a raise. You don't go into academia if money is your main driving factor as you can make more money elsewhere. You do it for love of the work and the freedom it affords you to do whatever research you want etc.

But like I said, I make ok money, and don't have kids etc., so I can pretty much buy everything I want without having to worry about shopping around for deals etc. I couldn't go by a new flat screen or some other big ticket item without saving up for a few months. But I don't have to give eating out or buying a new game or Blu-ray etc. any thought. So I'm pretty content financially.

However, I'm just very career driven and spend so much time at the office or working at home because I actually enjoy the work that I'm not eating out a ton or buying tons of hobby related crap etc. So I have plenty of money when I do want to eat out or travel etc. If I had a straight 9-5, 40 hour work week and spent more time on hobbies etc., then maybe my income wouldn't go far enough.

So part of it is just lifestyle choices. I get that guys like you and Javery are very family oriented, and don't seem to really like your jobs and just view them as income etc. Where as I'm very career driven for love of the work and don't care about having a family etc. and just like working and hanging out with my girlfriend or friends a time or two a week etc. So I don't need a huge income to have everything I want in life. Hell, a very happy Saturday or Sunday for me is making good progress on writing up a research article during the day and then relaxing in the evening watching a movie on Netflix or reading a book on my Kindle etc. I'm just pretty self content for the most part I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you 100% berzirk. Money isn't everything but it's not nothing either and the more the better.

dmaul is right - I view my job as a means to an end. I put up with the crap so I can live in a nice town and my kids can get a good education and my wife doesn't have to work so she can raise them instead of daycare (although she does still work part-time). Maybe if I got some personal satisfaction out of work that would be a form of compensation but the fact is I'm doing it all for the money so from my perspective the more I can earn the better. Of course there are limits - I could make a lot more if I went back to NYC to work but that would mean less time with the family so it's not worth it.
 
[quote name='berzirk']

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, thus the lighthearted references, but unless you're doing things to intentionally stay poor, then aren't you hypocritical in criticizing me for saying I'd like to be rich enough that I can live comfortably, afford to do nice things for my kids, and be able to retire without depending on social security as my sole source of income in 15-20 years?[/QUOTE]
That isn't really being rich, I'd say that's being smart. But then I didn't use the term.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I still like you. But you should not resort to responding to arguments no one made. No one is saying there should be no profits or no private sector. It isn't even hyperbole, reductio or good satire.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I misread the part about the quest for fast profit is raping the country to death?

I agree with that, but replace fast with ethically questionable and raping the country to death with creating questionable investment choices at the top end which causes bubble collapses and such.
 
[quote name='Javery']I agree with you 100% berzirk. Money isn't everything but it's not nothing either and the more the better.

dmaul is right - I view my job as a means to an end. I put up with the crap so I can live in a nice town and my kids can get a good education and my wife doesn't have to work so she can raise them instead of daycare (although she does still work part-time). Maybe if I got some personal satisfaction out of work that would be a form of compensation but the fact is I'm doing it all for the money so from my perspective the more I can earn the better. Of course there are limits - I could make a lot more if I went back to NYC to work but that would mean less time with the family so it's not worth it.[/QUOTE]
See, I couldn't do that. I do what I love to do, if I were like you I'd hate my job and be miserable. I'm assuming you went to law school so you could get paid, not because you really enjoy practicing law? I've never known why people do things like that, and believe me I've met plenty who did and when they're older....man what bitter people. All I can say I guess is that I hope the money was worth it.
 
[quote name='Clak']That isn't really being rich, I'd say that's being smart. But then I didn't use the term.[/QUOTE]

That was sort of my thought too. But instead, saying those were some of my goals was translated to "great, that way you can teach your kids they never have to work" or "but what about the people who manufacture the sheet rock in your office".

As dmaul suggested, I'm definitely not happy in my job, it feels like a dead end. I'm not paid all that well, and even though we do some very good things for society through our technology, I feel like I can apply my skills and abilities in a different field and make a bigger difference (thus the applications I have in to aforementioned government jobs). I also hope that if I work hard, I can earn more, and achieve financially and career-wise.

I'm not going to cap what I would like to earn though based on some CAG who thinks that a person gradually turns evil as they gain more wealth like it's some sort of gravitation to the Dark Side and the next step is eating live babies.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So if you could work a little bit harder, you wouldn't want to be a millionaire? Hunh. I dunno. I think people are conditioned to consider wealthy to equal evil, so it's difficult to think of a person making a million dollars as someone just like us because we're all so far from it. I just don't see how being rich is a bad thing. As javery said, the financial freedom to be able to take the family on a nice interstate vacation, to not have to budget carefully in order to pay for my son's upcoming preschool, to be able to purchase a home instead of rent, these are all things that cause significant stress for me. If those weren't issues I had to think about, my quality of life would be better.[/QUOTE]

If you were given control of the income could earn from your company, if you could set your own paycheck, would it ever be too much? Would you take more then you think you are worth?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Exactly. I'm not a completely selfish prick. I'm not saying you are, just that I'm far less than you. Nothing personal.


-Charming. What you display in generosity is only bested by your kind words.

*nice edit :razz:[/QUOTE]
I just wanted to be clear that I'm not calling you out to be a completely selfish prick while highlighting the point of my argument...which you seemed to have completely missed in your own edit.

And regarding the raw materials, and who makes the desks, and where the carpet was manufactured...seriously? Unless you live in a straw hut (which let's face it, the damage that you did to that poor straw is horrible) and a dirt floor, what are you personally doing that's any better?
Click to expand...
Better to make strawmen, amirite?:roll:

What am I doing? I'm learning about social and economic systems that fuck 99.99% of the population...I'm spreading the word...I try to be socially conscious about how I spend my money...

I'm not playing this holier than thou bullshit strawman; I'm talking about being conscious about what goes into what we call our lives and how we perpetuate that bad stuff to a very high degree.

Would it be better if paralyzed people didn't have our products so they could use the PC because some 8 year old in Mexico probably formed the metal used in my desk? fuck sake, I don't know what to tell ya. Send a postcard from Utopia.
Click to expand...
Would it be better to allow one rich paralyzed person to use a computer at the cost of poisoned communities, slave labor like conditions, corporate dictatorships, ghettos, climate change, etc?

I'm not talking about utopia or living off the grid; I'm talking about everything having a cost. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean it doesn't get paid somehow. Just because Gates is known for being the most financially generous philanthropist ever doesn't mean that there's a net gain, so there's no reason to suck his dick for it because long after he's gone, the system still remains.

And to answer your strawman, I think it would be better for that paralyzed person to not be able to use a computer if it costs countless lives that were coerced.

Oh, and wtf does "work harder" have to do with being a millionaire in the first place? So you're saying that if dmaul worked *that* much harder, he'd be rolling in the millions? That "hard work" canard you're throwing around doesn't mean shit when not everyone's work is considered equal even when you account for the same socio-economic status or occupations.
 
[quote name='berzirk']That was sort of my thought too. But instead, saying those were some of my goals was translated to "great, that way you can teach your kids they never have to work" or "but what about the people who manufacture the sheet rock in your office".

As dmaul suggested, I'm definitely not happy in my job, it feels like a dead end. I'm not paid all that well, and even though we do some very good things for society through our technology, I feel like I can apply my skills and abilities in a different field and make a bigger difference (thus the applications I have in to aforementioned government jobs). I also hope that if I work hard, I can earn more, and achieve financially and career-wise.

I'm not going to cap what I would like to earn though based on some CAG who thinks that a person gradually turns evil as they gain more wealth like it's some sort of gravitation to the Dark Side and the next step is eating live babies.[/QUOTE]
Well wanting to be comfortable in retirement is one thing, wanting to leave your kids a few million is another. Granted a millions dollars isn't what it once was, but I think you know what I mean. Based on interest rates you'd probably need at least a million in the bank to live off the interest.
 
[quote name='camoor']If you were given control of the income could earn from your company, if you could set your own paycheck, would it ever be too much? Would you take more then you think you are worth?[/QUOTE]

No, I would certainly set limits. I'd look at similar positions in the industry and compensate myself accordingly. We're a fairly small company, and in my position I get to see exactly how much we make in sales. I'm worth a good bit more than they're paying me.

I actually voluntarily accepted a lower salary to secure being hired on with the company because of the location and thoughts that over time if the company did well, so would I. Unfortunately the company has done a lot better than they ever have, but my salary hasn't gone up accordingly. So I'm trying to take my own advice and trying to "vote with my labor" thus the current applications.

I would be very realistic/reasonable in how I compensated myself.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I'm not going to cap what I would like to earn though based on some CAG who thinks that a person gradually turns evil as they gain more wealth like it's some sort of gravitation to the Dark Side and the next step is eating live babies.[/QUOTE]
It's our obligation to make sure that we create a system where we don't have to eat live babies and not be content with the reality that some babies will just need to be die in order for our babies to live more than comfortably. This isn't anything close to utopian and the fact that it's considered as such says something about how fucked our current system actually is.
 
[quote name='Clak']See, I couldn't do that. I do what I love to do, if I were like you I'd hate my job and be miserable. I'm assuming you went to law school so you could get paid, not because you really enjoy practicing law? I've never known why people do things like that, and believe me I've met plenty who did and when they're older....man what bitter people. All I can say I guess is that I hope the money was worth it.[/QUOTE]

I went to law school because I wanted to make more money than I was making at my then-current job (which I also hated at the time). It turned out to be a great decision although looking back I can't believe how risky it was. I got straight As in law school and got a great job at a top tier firm making 3X what I was previously making. Anything less grade-wise and I would have been making less than 1/2 of that if I was able to even find a job. Whew!

Anyway, I hate to work. I always have. There is no realistic job out there that I will enjoy getting out of bed and leaving my family all day for. Once I figured that out I decided to go for the cash grab. I don't think I'll end up bitter but there's still plenty of time for that.

[quote name='camoor']If you were given control of the income could earn from your company, if you could set your own paycheck, would it ever be too much? Would you take more then you think you are worth?[/QUOTE]

Unless you are a sole proprietor you aren't given control of the income you earn from your company. Even the CEO has to answer to the board of directors. Only the most outrageous compensation arrangements get reported by the media - most CEOs I work with on a daily basis are just trying to get by and hoping the company doesn't go belly up. A lot of them make way less than I do (and I don't make that much). That said, if I could set my own paycheck I'd make it $1 less than the amount that might get me in trouble for a breach of fiduciary duties.
 
[quote name='Javery']I went to law school because I wanted to make more money than I was making at my then-current job (which I also hated at the time). It turned out to be a great decision although looking back I can't believe how risky it was. I got straight As in law school and got a great job at a top tier firm making 3X what I was previously making. Anything less grade-wise and I would have been making less than 1/2 of that if I was able to even find a job. Whew!

Anyway, I hate to work. I always have. There is no realistic job out there that I will enjoy getting out of bed and leaving my family all day for. Once I figured that out I decided to go for the cash grab. I don't think I'll end up bitter but there's still plenty of time for that.



Unless you are a sole proprietor you aren't given control of the income you earn from your company. Even the CEO has to answer to the board of directors. Only the most outrageous compensation arrangements get reported by the media - most CEOs I work with on a daily basis are just trying to get by and hoping the company doesn't go belly up. A lot of them make way less than I do (and I don't make that much). That said, if I could set my own paycheck I'd make it $1 less than the amount that might get me in trouble for a breach of fiduciary duties.[/QUOTE]
Yes. Please regale us with tales of your immense hardships of barely being able to put food on the table while making well above $100k. And then feel free to throw in a comment about class envy. thankyouverymuch:rofl::whee:
 
[quote name='Clak']Well wanting to be comfortable in retirement is one thing, wanting to leave your kids a few million is another. Granted a millions dollars isn't what it once was, but I think you know what I mean. Based on interest rates you'd probably need at least a million in the bank to live off the interest.[/QUOTE]

Like hell, with $3m on hand just invest in high yield dividend stocks (pays higher than the 4% interest you would get from a bank account with that much capital and is taxed at 15% instead of actual income tax) and live even better.

You people can't plan for shit...

some babies will just need to be die in order for our babies to live more than comfortably
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, man as the erudite animal that is above all of it. I realize my next statement here is cold as hell and delivered in a crass manner, but limited resources create competition in the species. That's nature.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I just wanted to be clear that I'm not calling you out to be a completely selfish prick while highlighting the point of my argument...which you seemed to have completely missed in your own edit.


Better to make strawmen, amirite?:roll:

What am I doing? I'm learning about social and economic systems that fuck 99.99% of the population...I'm spreading the word...I try to be socially conscious about how I spend my money...

I'm not playing this holier than thou bullshit strawman; I'm talking about being conscious about what goes into what we call our lives and how we perpetuate that bad stuff to a very high degree.


Would it be better to allow one rich paralyzed person to use a computer at the cost of poisoned communities, slave labor like conditions, corporate dictatorships, ghettos, climate change, etc?

I'm not talking about utopia or living off the grid; I'm talking about everything having a cost. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean it doesn't get paid somehow. Just because Gates is known for being the most financially generous philanthropist ever doesn't mean that there's a net gain, so there's no reason to suck his dick for it because long after he's gone, the system still remains.

And to answer your strawman, I think it would be better for that paralyzed person to not be able to use a computer if it costs countless lives that were coerced.

Oh, and wtf does "work harder" have to do with being a millionaire in the first place? So you're saying that if dmaul worked *that* much harder, he'd be rolling in the millions? That "hard work" canard you're throwing around doesn't mean shit when not everyone's work is considered equal even when you account for the same socio-economic status or occupations.[/QUOTE]

I'm not making strawmen, I'm paraphrasing your words, and in some instances quoting them exactly. Sorry if I didn't see the double entendre in: "Exactly. I'm not a completely selfish prick. I'm not saying you are, just that I'm far less than you. Nothing personal."

So you've got your socio-economic beliefs that you think are better than everyone else's and you're educating us all. OK. Thanks. I'm getting a lot out of it. So I gather you're currently a student then?

It's one thing to be conscious of what we consume as individuals. It's another to bring up: "Where do you think the raw materials come from? Where do you think the workstations that you use to design the software/hardware are manufactured? Where do you think the energy to power your devices come from? Purpose/intent is irrelevant and doesn't make what you do exploitive."

-So what you're saying is where did the desk that the hardware engineer who designed the product come from. What about the electricity we consume to make a beneficial product comes from? That's akin to asking yourself where the cardboard from your box of cereal came from and if any indigenous peoples were harmed in the creation of it. It's bat shit craziness by putting a microscope to every single part of one's daily life. Do you think twice before you flush when you take a dump? That daily activity is just as necessary to you as having a desk to design hardware is to our company, which then pays corporate taxes...and pays a workforce who pay taxes, and so forth, so we can fund programs for the whole of society as our government sees fit.

Sincerely...who gives a fuck where the desk came from? That's so far upstream no rational person should even have to consider it. It's fundamental to every day professional life. At what point are we supposed to not sit around and feel guilty because we exhaled, drove a car, or forgot to recycle our soda can?

"I think it would be better for that paralyzed person to not be able to use a computer if it costs countless lives that were coerced."

-OK. Walk up to the next paralyzed person you see in a chin-operated wheel chair and dump them out of it and while you're doing it, explain all the oppression that was caused in the refinement of the raw materials. I think that's a brilliant world view. A paralyzed person cannot communicate in writing, because 5 guys may have been paid pennies to supply the screws in my desk and you disapprove. Those countless coerced lives.

dmaul himself said that if he were in the private sector he'd make $15k more, but he gets instrinsically rewarded to the point where the switch isn't worth it to him. The private sector job may have greater expectations out of their staff since they're paying them more in maul's industry. You'd have to ask him that, as I don't know.

I sincerely mean it, your life views are fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top