A question for conservatives on restoring the middle class.

[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]

Yeah, I'm much the same. I knew far to many people--rich, poor and in between--who hated their jobs and were always miserable.

So I made a determination early on that I wanted a career that I enjoyed and found rewarding on its own merits. If I can make a decent salary doing it, that's great, but finding something I liked doing was my driving factor in choosing a career.

We spend so much of our lives working that there's no way I'd want to be stuck in a job I hated, even if it paid a huge salary as I'd be miserable all the time and not able to enjoy the money anyway personally.

[quote name='Javery']
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]

If that's where you're coming from, then it makes more sense. I know several people like you who just flat out hate working. They could have a job doing something related to their favorite hobby and would be bitching about it within a week as they just hate working and aren't happy unless they can do whatever they want every day (be it time with family, or playing games or whatever).

I've always mostly liked working as long as I had a half way decent job that I thought was worthwhile in some way. I feel useless if I'm just sitting around doing nothing and feel like I'm wasting my life when I should be using my efforts to do something productive in some way.

So even if I won the lottery or something I'd definitely keep working. I may quit the academic job and do something like start my own research firm with the money, as I'm not a huge fan of the teaching, but I keep working as I'd feel useless just sitting around with friends and families and wasting time on my hobbies etc. I'm just the type that has to be doing something productive at least a good chunk of the time.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
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.
[/QUOTE]

No, if I went to a private research firm I'd get paid more and work less hours than I do now since I have to juggle research and teaching 9 months of the year.

They pay more to try to lure people out of academia as you don't have the freedom to research whatever you want in those places like you do in academic jobs, and many with Ph Ds are just drawn to academic jobs anyway. So they have to pay more to get good people to work there, rather than just being stuck with the people who couldn't get tenure in a research university etc.

Stress levels would vary though. In academia you have pretty solid job security after tenure, but it's stressful as hell those first 5-6 years before. Research firm stress stays around as they're mostly ran on grant funding so you have to always be chasing grants to stay employed and keep the lower level employees in jobs etc. Though with academia you have all the stress of dealing with students etc. that comes with the teaching.

Least stressful would be research wings of government agencies (which also generally pay a lot more than academia), but there you have no research freedom and just study what they tell you to and have restrictions on what you can publish etc.
 
[quote name='dohdough']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]

I would never claim I live a hard life - I will claim that I don't make enough money for what I do relative to those around me in my profession though. There is a difference.

That said, this about sums things up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c764JWVt5Fw
 
[quote name='berzirk']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."[/QUOTE]
I just want a living wage and will probably earn less than $2m my entire working life that started when I was 15. You, on the otherhand, want to be worth over $1m at any given. I can't help you understand the difference there iyou refuse to. Wanting to be a millionaire is pretty much objectively more selfish than someone that wants to just make a living wage.

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?
Click to expand...
Not at all. There are many more people well-versed than I am, but I'm far better than the ones promoting fuck you; got mine.

Oh, and one doesn't need to be a student in school to learn about things.

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.
Click to expand...
Oh Jeebus. Weren't you the one that said that government should have no role in "social engineering?" In this very thread in matter of fact?

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.
Click to expand...
Wow...you really missed my point by a long shot...again. If you can't understand the concept of cummulative effects, there's nothing I can do about it.

I could try again, but I'll just modify a quote from someone else:
Greed is raping and killing the world.
 
[quote name='Javery']I would never claim I live a hard life[/QUOTE]
Funny, I vaguely remember you makings claims very contrary to this statement. Something about the plight of making $250k a year being not well-to-do.
 
I just want a living wage and will probably earn less than $2m my entire working life that started when I was 15. You, on the otherhand, want to be worth over $1m at any given. I can't help you understand the difference there iyou refuse to. Wanting to be a millionaire is pretty much objectively more selfish than someone that wants to just make a living wage.
Click to expand...

-So again, I ask, are you a parent? I am. I've mentioned multiple times that my driving motivation to be significantly more wealthy than I am now is for the sake of my family while I'm living and to pass on something to them other than a casket bill when I die. If I could retire in 10 years so I could spend more time with them, attend more of their extra-curricular activities, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Nevermind...I'd be so evil by that point that I'd probably just start giving people AIDS pills.

Oh Jeebus. Weren't you the one that said that government should have no role in "social engineering?" In this very thread in matter of fact?
Click to expand...

-I'm baffled...what in my comment even remotely covered social engineering. I stated that the evil company I work for pays corporate taxes as do those it employs, which the government then spends. We're not talking FDR here, we're talking streetlights, education, interstate highways and the rest of govt spending, for good and bad...bleh, whatever.

Wow...you really missed my point by a long shot...again.
Click to expand...

-I know the feeling
 
[quote name='dohdough']Funny, I vaguely remember you makings claims very contrary to this statement. Something about the plight of making $250k a year being not well-to-do.[/QUOTE]

No, I was saying that making $250K a year doesn't make you rich. And it doesn't.

[quote name='dohdough']I just want a living wage and will probably earn less than $2m my entire working life that started when I was 15. You, on the otherhand, want to be worth over $1m at any given. I can't help you understand the difference there iyou refuse to. Wanting to be a millionaire is pretty much objectively more selfish than someone that wants to just make a living wage.[/QUOTE]

I can assure you that as crazy as berzirk's "beliefs" or whatever you want to call them sound to you, this paragraph sounds just as insane to me. This is definitely an agree to disagree situation - I cannot fathom why in a society where money roughly equals quality of life you would not want to accumulate as much as possible.

Maybe in the 24th century when money has been eliminated and the pursuit of personal wealth is no longer the driving force of mankind and instead the pursuit of knowledge and the attempt at bettering humanity as a whole is the driving force in our lives we can see eye to eye. /Picard.
 
[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]

I dunno, I think the more you make and comfortable you become the more you lose perspective on the value of things. There is no set number but I've seen it happen too many times to ignore.

and money doesn't automatically make you a better parent. That is a specious argument at best. It can provide for health and welfare to a point but simply earning millions to give your kid everything isn't always best (yes, I am a parent)
 
[quote name='berzirk']-So again, I ask, are you a parent? I am. I've mentioned multiple times that my driving motivation to be significantly more wealthy than I am now is for the sake of my family while I'm living and to pass on something to them other than a casket bill when I die. If I could retire in 10 years so I could spend more time with them, attend more of their extra-curricular activities, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Nevermind...I'd be so evil by that point that I'd probably just start giving people AIDS pills. [/QUOTE]
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE COST OF ACCUMULATING THAT WEALTH AND IS IT A "GOOD THING."

It's honestly a simple question when you stop looking at it from that selfish point of view. And as a father, do you think that every father should have that opportunity to do as much with their children if they wish? Is it really so hard to understand that a system based on exploitation is also what prevents you from doing that now?

-I'm baffled...what in my comment even remotely covered social engineering. I stated that the evil company I work for pays corporate taxes as do those it employs, which the government then spends. We're not talking FDR here, we're talking streetlights, education, interstate highways and the rest of govt spending, for good and bad...bleh, whatever.
Click to expand...
It's relevant because you literally said that government has no business in creating classes. Those things you mentioned are a pretty integral part of how the middle-class was created.

-I know the feeling
Click to expand...
Actually, I've been talking about your point the entire time...
 
[quote name='Javery']No, I was saying that making $250K a year doesn't make you rich. And it doesn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah yeah yeah...cause someone is always making more or some stupid bullshit like that...:roll:
 
[quote name='usickenme']and money doesn't automatically make you a better parent. That is a specious argument at best. It can provide for health and welfare to a point but simply earning millions to give your kid everything isn't always best (yes, I am a parent)[/QUOTE]

No, you're dead on, it certainly doesn't. What it could do for me though is reduce the financial stresses of costs on things like pre-school, medical insurance, I could afford to enroll them in more activities. If I were wealthy to the point of retirement, I could be there for more of their functions and help the wife out at home, although I joke that when I use PTO at work in order to be home, it's the only way I could endure being around my rugrats all day...if someone was paying me :p

SO WHAT WOULD BE THE COST OF ACCUMULATING THAT WEALTH AND IS IT A "GOOD THING."
Click to expand...

You seem to look at it as you can either get paid chump change and that somehow makes it an honest living, or you can be paid well, and that makes you a cannibal. Me getting paid twice as much as I do now, for the same job has no social cost. I would be doing the same work, just paid much better for it.

It's honestly a simple question when you stop looking at it from that selfish point of view. And as a father, do you think that every father should have that opportunity to do as much with their children if they wish?
Click to expand...

In Utopia, yes. I think every father SHOULD have the opportunity to spend as much time with their kids as they wish. Now in the real world, I understand that's not practical. It's entirely possible I'll never reach that stage. It doesn't mean I can't hold it as a goal.

Is it really so hard to understand that a system based on exploitation is also what prevents you from doing that now?
Click to expand...

Wait! It's the fuckin man that's keeping me from spending time with my kids? Ahhh shit! It's on. I'm going to rebel by ensuring I make minimum wage, don't have health care, and just barely make enough to live off of. That will show him...right?

It's relevant because you literally said that government has no business in creating classes. Those things you mentioned are a pretty integral part of how the middle-class was created.
Click to expand...

That was back on page one when someone said what should be done to prevent the wealthy from getting more wealthy. I don't think the govt should do anything to prevent that from happening. I don't see how that, and me paying taxes have anything to do with it.

Actually, I've been talking about your point the entire time...
Click to expand...

It's all perspective my friend.
 
You know what, get another reply in, then here's my olive branch. I understand that you think my desire to be wealthy is an evil, greedy, selfish intention, I feel like you're detached from reality in your view on it, soooo.....agree to disagree? Not sure either of us is really bringing anything new or interesting to the debate.
 
[quote name='berzirk']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]

First off, everybody thinks they are worth more then the company is paying them. Now for the next question - do you think the head of your company is overcompensated (the money you deserve has to be going somewhere)

Second off, good for you for having a limit. However you are not like most CEOs. I think the movie Wall Street summed it up as beautifully and honestly as anyone could:

How much is enough?
It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's all about winning. Not fairness, winning. Not following the law, winning. Not being ethical, winning. If a CEO is getting paid X, it's not enough because his CEO buddy is being paid X + 300K. If that comes out of the worker's paycheck then so be it. There's no logic to it, it's ego and greed.
 
[quote name='camoor']First off, everybody thinks they are worth more then the company is paying them.[/QUOTE]

Wow, I almost wrote those same thoughts at the end of my post, but I figured the intent would be twisted. I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's healthy to have a higher self-worth than what you're making because it drives you to be better, or find a better situation.

Now for the next question - do you think the head of your company is overcompensated (the money you deserve has to be going somewhere)
Second off, good for you for having a limit. However you are not like most CEOs. I think the movie Wall Street summed it up as beautifully and honestly as anyone could:

In other words, it's all about winning. Not fairness, winning. Not following the law, winning. Not being ethical, winning. If a CEO is getting paid X, it's not enough because his CEO buddy is being paid X + 300K. If that comes out of the worker's paycheck then so be it. There's no logic to it, it's ego and greed
Click to expand...

That's a really tough question. The CEO is also the co-founder of the company. We would be non-existant if he weren't as involved as he was, especially in the early stages. I don't know what he makes, but if I could even guess a ballpark figure for what I think he would pay himself and still be able to look in the mirror, I think it's appropriate. My complaint would be in the other compensation he uses company money for. Latest and greatest, fancy, amazingly expensive cars.

When we go on business trips, he insists on staying in a different, swankier hotel than the rest of us. Those things are uncessary, lavish expenses, and I absolutely think to myself, hey, if he's cool with dropping $800 a night in a hotel, "slum it" at the Marriot with us for a week and pay me the $2400 difference. In fairness to him, he does put us up in nice hotels, springs for very nice meals, and in general is generous on these business trips, but a nice piece of lamb on the road doesn't pay my bills. So I think he's paid appropriately if I guess even within 20% of what he's making. I think he gives himself too much in other compensation, paid for by the company, but that really gets down to his personality and management technique which I think is flawed. BUt this is a privately held company, he's the majority owner, so if I'm not happy with how money is being spent, I can put my walking shoes on and look elsewhere.

We have the money to compensate me what I think is fair. He just calls the shots and chooses not to. It might be cold-hearted, but I look at it as his job to pay me as little as he possibly can to prevent me from leaving, and my job to try to make as much as I possibly can without being told to fuck myself. He chooses to stockpile the money. The raise I would give myself wouldn't even be a full line in the balance sheet considering how much our sales have grown since I've been here.

Fairness is such a tricky concept to implement. It depends so greatly on perspective. We might think a labor deal in the NFL/NBA is fair to the players, and they should shut the hell up and accept it. But if we were a player, we'd say, it's not just about the money, it's about other issues, and what you propose isn't fair. I hate trying to determine what's fair because it varies from person to person.
 
[quote name='nasum']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...


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]
What do I look like, an investment banker?

Don't answer that.
 
[quote name='Javery']No, I was saying that making $250K a year doesn't make you rich. And it doesn't.



[/QUOTE]
Eh, problem with terms like that is you can't say it's true or not. To you it's not rich, to the guy working three jobs to get by, it's rich, all relative.
 
[quote name='Javery']I can assure you that as crazy as berzirk's "beliefs" or whatever you want to call them sound to you, this paragraph sounds just as insane to me. This is definitely an agree to disagree situation - I cannot fathom why in a society where money roughly equals quality of life you would not want to accumulate as much as possible. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't go quite as far as saying money roughly equals quality of life. That's really only true to a point IMO.

You can't have much quality of life if you can't easy afford basic bills like housing and utilities, build up some savings, and have some left over for luxuries like tv, cell phone, vacations etc.

But beyond that, I think quality of life is much more enjoying what you're doing and who your spending your life with, than it is how much disposable income you have to spend buying crap we don't need and often don't use much.

But again, that's just a different lifestyle/set of priorities. Someone like you that hates any type of work is naturally going to be money driven and want to get as much as quickly as possible and retire as young as possible etc.

But I'm also not as extreme as dohdough either, and definitely want to make more than a living wage, and do make more than that. I'm not obsessed with making as much as I can, but I want to make a decent wage and be able to keep living in the nice part of the city and take nice, foreign vacations etc.

So I'm a definitely still selfish in that aspect as I wouldn't really care if my getting a raise had ill effects on someone else, and I certainly don't donate anywhere near as much of my money (and none of my time) etc.

But money is still very secondary to me. I need more than a working wage to live the lifestyle I currently live, and it needs to go up so I can do even more traveling etc. But I don't care about making as much as I possibly can by any means either. I do what I do because I like it. If I wanted to make a lot of money I would have done like you and became a lawyer or gotten an MBA etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']Eh, problem with terms like that is you can't say it's true or not. To you it's not rich, to the guy working three jobs to get by, it's rich, all relative.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%. If I recall correctly at the time I was objecting to Obama's hard $250K cutoff for determining taxes.
 
[quote name='Javery']No, I was saying that making $250K a year doesn't make you rich. And it doesn't.



I can assure you that as crazy as berzirk's "beliefs" or whatever you want to call them sound to you, this paragraph sounds just as insane to me. This is definitely an agree to disagree situation - I cannot fathom why in a society where money roughly equals quality of life you would not want to accumulate as much as possible.

Maybe in the 24th century when money has been eliminated and the pursuit of personal wealth is no longer the driving force of mankind and instead the pursuit of knowledge and the attempt at bettering humanity as a whole is the driving force in our lives we can see eye to eye. /Picard.[/QUOTE]

$250k a year does not make you rich but it makes you very well off. It also puts you at an income that if within 10 years you cant become rich your an idiot that spends to much. Honestly give me $250,000 a year for 10 years and I guarantee I will be debt free(including student loans), have well over a million in the bank and own my own home worth at least $500,000(by this I mean OWN not actively paying a mortgage). That is in addition to living a nice life and donating $100,000s. The problem is people with money always think they are poorer then they are because they continue to spend far more then they make and buy things on credit.

Reminds me of an article that I read a year or two ago where there was a husband/wife combo that were complaining how they were sinking in their student loans....yet they were a Dr and a lawyer with a combined income of over $500,000 a year. They had the gall to whine that they had been out of school for 10 years but were still paying off their loans. Again if they would have for just two years lived like normal people, got a nice little apartment, went on vacation inside the US and made those other small sacrifices, then I guarantee they would have paid off the SLs and had enough left over for like 20-30% down on a huge house. Instead they probably lived like most Americans and right out of college had kids, bought a house, two nice cars, went to Europe etc etc.

Anyways sorry to rant. I am just sick of hearing people that are if not rich at least very freaking well off whining about their lot in life. If you make $250k a year and you are in debt or not rich withing 10 years...your an idiot.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I wouldn't go quite as far as saying money roughly equals quality of life. That's really only true to a point IMO.

You can't have much quality of life if you can't easy afford basic bills like housing and utilities, build up some savings, and have some left over for luxuries like tv, cell phone, vacations etc.

But beyond that, I think quality of life is much more enjoying what you're doing and who your spending your life with, than it is how much disposable income you have to spend buying crap we don't need and often don't use much.[/QUOTE]

Yes - this is definitely true. I was being as broad as possible and I recognize that not all things of value are in the form of cash. I could make a lot more money if I wanted to but I would have to sacrifice too much in order to do so. I place an extremely high value on spending time with my family - that is worth more than cash in hand to me. dodough does the same thing really - he seems to place an extremely high value on "bettering society" or only taking what he deems to be his fair share so to him that is worth more than cash in hand. It's all relative.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']$250k a year does not make you rich but it makes you very well off. It also puts you at an income that if within 10 years you cant become rich your an idiot that spends to much. Honestly give me $250,000 a year for 10 years and I guarantee I will be debt free(including student loans), have well over a million in the bank and own my own home worth at least $500,000(by this I mean OWN not actively paying a mortgage). That is in addition to living a nice life and donating $100,000s. The problem is people with money always think they are poorer then they are because they continue to spend far more then they make and buy things on credit.[/QUOTE]

Well, you have to factor in cost of living. He's in the NYC area so he's going to have to spend a lot more of that $250K a year on housing than you would living in whatever podunk town in Ohio you live in.

$250k is still a lot of money even in an expensive city though for sure, and is still in the top few percent of earners even in such places.

But anyway, people always complain about their own problems and issues. And I think that's fine personally. I'm going to complain about my job when something pisses me off, bitch when I get a bill increase for no reason even though I can easily afford it etc.

That's just the way I, and most humans are. I'm going to bitch about my problems and not give a shitty if they are minor/petty compared people worse of than me. I don't waste time worrying about people worse off than me beyond supporting social programming to help them.
 
It seems to follow that the more money a person has, the more they spend. Now that may seem obvious, because with more money you obviously have more to spend, but you don't have to. Yet if a person making say, $50,000 suddenly landed a job making $250,000 a year, I guarantee their lifestyle would change, and fairly quickly. Which a little change is one thing, getting rid of a crap car or something, but I bet they'd end up living just as close to ruin as they did making $50,000 a year.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, you have to factor in cost of living. He's in the NYC area so he's going to have to spend a lot more of that $250K a year on housing than you would living in whatever podunk town in Ohio you live in.

$250k is still a lot of money even in an expensive city though for sure, and is still in the top few percent of earners even in such places.

But anyway, people always complain about their own problems and issues. And I think that's fine personally. I'm going to complain about my job when something pisses me off, bitch when I get a bill increase for no reason even though I can easily afford it etc.

That's just the way I, and most humans are. I'm going to bitch about my problems and not give a shitty if they are minor/petty compared people worse of than me. I don't waste time worrying about people worse off than me beyond supporting social programming to help them.[/QUOTE]You know, people always talk about the cost of living in a given area, but pay is higher in areas with higher costs of living as well. So really it's all moot basically. If he worked in that small town in Ohio he wouldn't be making $250k a year anyway most likely.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']$250k a year does not make you rich but it makes you very well off. It also puts you at an income that if within 10 years you cant become rich your an idiot that spends to much. Honestly give me $250,000 a year for 10 years and I guarantee I will be debt free(including student loans), have well over a million in the bank and own my own home worth at least $500,000(by this I mean OWN not actively paying a mortgage). That is in addition to living a nice life and donating $100,000s. The problem is people with money always think they are poorer then they are because they continue to spend far more then they make and buy things on credit.
Whoa...how? Maybe if you're in a state with no state income tax, and maaaybe if real estate is really cheap.

That $250k is going to go down at least 35-40% so you're down to about $160,000.

Student loans of $20k to pay off? House to purchase? $500k. State of Oregon has insane property taxes, so that's another chunk. Saving for children's education, maintaining a retirement account. Every 8-10 years getting a new car or significant maintenance fees.

You should be debt free (don't know about owning your house outright), but there is no way you would have a million in the bank unless you lucked out on some incredible stock investments (then pay your capital gains taxes on those)

I think you grossly overrestimate what you could do with $250k pre-tax salary for 10 years, but since neither you nor I are anywhere close to these conditions, my guess is as good as yours.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Clak']It seems to follow that the more money a person has, the more they spend. Now that may seem obvious, because with more money you obviously have more to spend, but you don't have to. Yet if a person making say, $50,000 suddenly landed a job making $250,000 a year, I guarantee their lifestyle would change, and fairly quickly. Which a little change is one thing, getting rid of a crap car or something, but I bet they'd end up living just as close to ruin as they did making $50,000 a year.[/QUOTE]

Spending habits do most definitely change, but not everyone goes that crazy and still lives paycheck to paycheck.

My salary more than doubled when I graduated (from $25-30K my last few years of grad school to around $65K my first year out) but my spending didn't double. I spend more on rent, eat more $20+ meals, and have traveled a bit more, but that's it. As such I got my 6 month nest egg saved up in a about a year, paid extra on my loans etc.


[quote name='Clak']You know, people always talk about the cost of living in a given area, but pay is higher in areas with higher costs of living as well. So really it's all moot basically. If he worked in that small town in Ohio he wouldn't be making $250k a year anyway most likely.[/QUOTE]

That's true, but for the super pricey cities like NYC, San Fransisco etc. the pay difference doesn't off set the cost of living vs. other cities usually.

Academia really sucks on that front as big city jobs generally don't pay much (if any) more than jobs in small college towns. So if I wanted to take a job in the NYC area my standard of living would go way down as I couldn't live anywhere in a nice part of the city and would likely have to commute from far out in Jersey. Where as I'm now in smaller city and live in one of the nicest parts of it as cost of living is so much cheaper than in places like NYC and salary is about the same as I'd make there.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
I think you grossly overrestimate what you could do with $250k pre-tax salary for 10 years, but since neither you nor I are anywhere close to these conditions, my guess is as good as yours.[/QUOTE]

Oh, he could probably do it as he's the ultimate cheap ass, keeps the heat in the 50's in the winter in Ohio etc. :D

But most aren't like him. As per the above discussion between me and Clak, when you make more you spending habits change for most people. If you're working hard and making money you want to spend more and enjoy it. Otherwise what's the point?

Now some do go to far and live above (or close to above) their means which is absurd on those kind of incomes. But it's also absurd to not enjoy the fruits of your labor and buy nice things, live in a nicer area etc. as long as you're doing so under your means.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, you have to factor in cost of living. He's in the NYC area so he's going to have to spend a lot more of that $250K a year on housing than you would living in whatever podunk town in Ohio you live in.

$250k is still a lot of money even in an expensive city though for sure, and is still in the top few percent of earners even in such places.

But anyway, people always complain about their own problems and issues. And I think that's fine personally. I'm going to complain about my job when something pisses me off, bitch when I get a bill increase for no reason even though I can easily afford it etc.

That's just the way I, and most humans are. I'm going to bitch about my problems and not give a shitty if they are minor/petty compared people worse of than me. I don't waste time worrying about people worse off than me beyond supporting social programming to help them.[/QUOTE]

I always think the area you live in is a lame excuse. First off it's rare that you can't commute. Second though there Iis no reason you can't settle on a apartment instead of a house and look for a job in a less expensive area. Sorry but it's rare that someone is in a position where they are stuck in that position, more often they chose the location but want to make it sound like their lavish spending is justified by their location. Not saying this is the case with jav because I don't know him, but it's all to frequently true.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I always think the area you live in is a lame excuse. First off it's rare that you can't commute. Second though there Iis no reason you can't settle on a apartment instead of a house and look for a job in a less expensive area. Sorry but it's rare that someone is in a position where they are stuck in that position, more often they chose the location but want to make it sound like their lavish spending is justified by their location. Not saying this is the case with jav because I don't know him, but it's all to frequently true.[/QUOTE]



Oh for sure it's choice. Even for Javery, he's said before he won't move as he loves NYC and most of him and his wife's family are in that area.

Myself, I could save a lot more if I took a job in some small college town instead of working at an urban university in a big city.

But I grew up in a small town, when to undergrad in a small college town and just fucking hate that lifestyle. Those places are only suitable for homebody types that just go to work and come home and hang out with their families.

I'll never be that type of person and like having all the entertainment and dining options a city provides, so I'll happily pay the higher cost of living and work a lot longer before retiring etc. :D

As for lavish spending, that's not necessarily the case. Housing etc. is just damn expensive in some cities, so money doesn't go as far even if you aren't spending lavishly on other things. So holding all other spending equal, someone making $X in a big city is going to be able to save less of their income than a person making $X in a smaller city.

Again, big city salaries tend to be higher, but often not enough to offset that cost of living increase. So you have to be willing to take that trade off for living in a big city with more to do. And for someone that's a homebody and doesn't go out and do things all that often anyway, it's clearly not a worthwhile trade off. But it is for those of us who go out and do things around the city all the time.
 
Javery and Berzirk... let me try illustrate as briefly as possible what everyone is hollering about with an example using video games.

There's a clearance sale at Circuit City with .99 games. A bunch of people who are generally white, protestant and from a wealthy background swoop in first and take roughly 50% of the games. After the first group picks their games, everyone else is let in at once to grab as many games as they can. Some people will do okay and get a lot of great games, other people (mostly minorities, some lazy and some just plain unlucky) will get no game or a copy of Barbie Horse Adventures.
 
Boston has one of the highest costs of living in the country. I believe its in the top 5. I lived there for 30 years. If you make $100k, you can virtually live almost anywhere you want in the city. At $250k, you can literally live anywhere you want and raise a family. If you want to move to one of the ritzy suburbs, you can get a $1m house and still be fine. No reasonable person can tell me with a straight face that someone can't survive on a $100k household income. If survival means disney vacations, 2 cars, babysitters, landscapers, ski trips, and Whole Foods every night, then sorry, you just lost your credibility to bitch and be taken seriously, just like the new money millionaire that bitches about not being rich cause he can't afford a Veyron and have a talking house like Bill Gates.

Like Chris Rock said: Those that have the most shit get to say the least shit.

berzirk: You don't seem to get what I'm saying. You think that for better or worse, this is the system that we exist in, so "fuck you, got mine, and maybe I'll toss some scraps if I'm feeling charitable...ps. don't you dare tax me either" might seem acceptable to like minded people like Javery and make me sound like a socialist hippy leech(edit: I'm exaggerating...at least I hope so), but that doesn't change the fact that the pursuit of wealth at the level you talk about isn't extremely damaging. I'm not professing to be the model of an ideal activist, but I also don't summarily dismiss all the ill effects of my participation in a capitalistic system while wrapping myself in the flag of "doing it for my kids" to justify the exploitation and oppression that I perpetuate. In my insane mind, I call that denial. It doesn't matter if you want to agree/disagree as it has no bearing on the effects of our actions/participation or how the increased participation increases accumulative effects of exploitation and oppression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh for sure it's choice. Even for Javery, he's said before he won't move as he loves NYC and most of him and his wife's family are in that area.

Myself, I could save a lot more if I took a job in some small college town instead of working at an urban university in a big city.

But I grew up in a small town, when to undergrad in a small college town and just fucking hate that lifestyle. Those places are only suitable for homebody types that just go to work and come home and hang out with their families.

I'll never be that type of person and like having all the entertainment and dining options a city provides, so I'll happily pay the higher cost of living and work a lot longer before retiring etc. :D

As for lavish spending, that's not necessarily the case. Housing etc. is just damn expensive in some cities, so money doesn't go as far even if you aren't spending lavishly on other things. So holding all other spending equal, someone making $X in a big city is going to be able to save less of their income than a person making $X in a smaller city.

Again, big city salaries tend to be higher, but often not enough to offset that cost of living increase. So you have to be willing to take that trade off for living in a big city with more to do. And for someone that's a homebody and doesn't go out and do things all that often anyway, it's clearly not a worthwhile trade off. But it is for those of us who go out and do things around the city all the time.[/QUOTE]

See and thats the thing, I have no pity for people that chose to live in expensive areas for those reasons. The family we care about lives in Ann Arbor and we also just flat out loved Ann Arbor. There are parks and lakes everywhere in it and the surrounding cities. Because of the multiple colleges in the area restaurants are everywhere and dirt cheap. We can find all sorts of exotic foods and dirt cheap prices and the restaurants dont seem to go under! My wife had a job opportunity in the Toledo area so we moved though. We hate it around here and talk about moving back all the time. We could sell our house at a lose, quit our job and move to Ann Arbor because that is where we want to be(or Maine!)but we know its stupid so we do the responsible thing.

Living in places like NYC is no different. People complain about how expensive it is there and how their family is there so they dont want to leave...but ultimately you are choosing to put those hardships on yourself to live in that overpriced city. Its no different then people who complain about the fact that they work long hours, but they refuse to get a different job because it wont pay as much. In life usually you have to pick and chose. Not many will be so lucky as to have a hand dealt where they make lots of money, live where its cheap and dont work long hard hours.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Wow, I almost wrote those same thoughts at the end of my post, but I figured the intent would be twisted. I wholeheartedly agree. I think it's healthy to have a higher self-worth than what you're making because it drives you to be better, or find a better situation.



That's a really tough question. The CEO is also the co-founder of the company. We would be non-existant if he weren't as involved as he was, especially in the early stages. I don't know what he makes, but if I could even guess a ballpark figure for what I think he would pay himself and still be able to look in the mirror, I think it's appropriate. My complaint would be in the other compensation he uses company money for. Latest and greatest, fancy, amazingly expensive cars.

When we go on business trips, he insists on staying in a different, swankier hotel than the rest of us. Those things are uncessary, lavish expenses, and I absolutely think to myself, hey, if he's cool with dropping $800 a night in a hotel, "slum it" at the Marriot with us for a week and pay me the $2400 difference. In fairness to him, he does put us up in nice hotels, springs for very nice meals, and in general is generous on these business trips, but a nice piece of lamb on the road doesn't pay my bills. So I think he's paid appropriately if I guess even within 20% of what he's making. I think he gives himself too much in other compensation, paid for by the company, but that really gets down to his personality and management technique which I think is flawed. BUt this is a privately held company, he's the majority owner, so if I'm not happy with how money is being spent, I can put my walking shoes on and look elsewhere.

We have the money to compensate me what I think is fair. He just calls the shots and chooses not to. It might be cold-hearted, but I look at it as his job to pay me as little as he possibly can to prevent me from leaving, and my job to try to make as much as I possibly can without being told to fuck myself. He chooses to stockpile the money. The raise I would give myself wouldn't even be a full line in the balance sheet considering how much our sales have grown since I've been here.

Fairness is such a tricky concept to implement. It depends so greatly on perspective. We might think a labor deal in the NFL/NBA is fair to the players, and they should shut the hell up and accept it. But if we were a player, we'd say, it's not just about the money, it's about other issues, and what you propose isn't fair. I hate trying to determine what's fair because it varies from person to person.[/QUOTE]

First off I want to say I appreciate your candor. Too many folks on this board will obfuscate the truth in an attempt to score debate points.

One thing I find interesting about your post is that you, like any skilled worker, feels somewhat empowered. After all if your CEO dicks you over too much on your salary you can walk, much like an NBA player can afford to strike and miss a few games because he's got the skills to pay the bills. It's a check on your CEO's takehome pay and I have no doubt that it gets factored in on payday.

Do you think Wall Street CEOs feel the same pressure? Sure they have to payoff their Praetorian guard lest they get dethroned, but do you think they give a shit about the workers? As the Enron guy said "if I step on somebody's throat and that doubles my compensation? Well, I'll stomp on the guy's throat!"

I'm just asking you, as someone who gets nuance, to think about that. I think Captalism is great but I'm not a laissez-faire Capitalist. Isn't it a little ridiculous how vehemently we can be attacked for having the audacity to suggest that American CEO pay has gotten out-of-control and proposing policy to realign it?
 
[quote name='Javery']I agree 100%. If I recall correctly at the time I was objecting to Obama's hard $250K cutoff for determining taxes.[/QUOTE]

You're probably a pretty good lawyer but opposing Obama's hard $250K cutoff for determining taxes is still complete bullshit. Sorry.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']See and thats the thing, I have no pity for people that chose to live in expensive areas for those reasons. [/QUOTE]

Oh I wasn't saying you should pity people. Like I said, it's a choice to live in such areas and people shouldn't bitch about the cost of living as they choose to live in the city.

I was just giving the reasons why some of us prefer city living even if it means being able to save less and not retire as early etc.

I can't stand the people that whine about it either. I willingly note that I'm not saving as much or paying off my student loans etc. as quickly as I could because of living in the city. I acknowledge I'll work longer before retirement because of all that.

That's my choice as I'd rather live a life where I'm truly happy and work longer etc. than live somewhere cheaper where I'm bored and miserable all the time. And again, that's an easier choice to make when you actually enjoy your career and thus aren't constantly counting the days until retirement! :D
 
[quote name='dohdough']No reasonable person can tell me with a straight face that someone can't survive on a $100k household income. If survival means disney vacations, 2 cars, babysitters, landscapers, ski trips, and Whole Foods every night, then sorry, you just lost your credibility to bitch and be taken seriously...
[/QUOTE]

Well, I agree it's not reasonable to say you need that kind of stuff to survive. But I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting that kind of lifestyle.

But I'm with you (and Chris Rock!) that people who are whing about that kind of stuff don't have much credibility to bitch.

As I said earlier, everyone bitches about their own problems...however petty they may be to people who are truly hard off. But that doesn't mean other's have to give their bitching any credibility.

I try to keep my bitching to a minimum since I know how well off I have it compared to many....but at the same time it's human nature to bitch and want more etc. :p
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh I wasn't saying you should pity people. Like I said, it's a choice to live in such areas and people shouldn't bitch about the cost of living as they choose to live in the city.

I was just giving the reasons why some of us prefer city living even if it means being able to save less and not retire as early etc.

I can't stand the people that whine about it either. I willingly note that I'm not saving as much or paying off my student loans etc. as quickly as I could because of living in the city. I acknowledge I'll work longer before retirement because of all that.

That's my choice as I'd rather live a life where I'm truly happy and work longer etc. than live somewhere cheaper where I'm bored and miserable all the time. And again, that's an easier choice to make when you actually enjoy your career and thus aren't constantly counting the days until retirement! :D[/QUOTE]

Exactly. My wife a few years ago said she wanted kids, to travel, she said she wanted to retire early(at about 55-60) and her traditional dream had been a very large and gorgeous house in a secluded area. She got mad at me intially but understood over time after I talked with her and said hon less we are incredibly lucky there is a good chance that only 1 or 2 of those come true. In life in general we all have really big dreams and we expect for all of them to happen. We want to live in the city, in the big house, with a few kids, travel the world etc etc.

For now while we would like to live in the city and we would like to have kids we have put those on the back burner. We have decided we can always adopt in a few years if we change our mind, but for now retiring early or buying a nice sized house in the woods somewhere(maybe Maine!). We have put our nose down and every month pay double our mortgage and put 20% to our 401k. We are working and sacraficing now to reap benefits later which is incredibly hard.

I think thats why the conservative myth berzirk paints pisses me off. Conservatives like to say if you work hard you can have it all, and for 90% of Americans its just not true. Most Americans have kids too early and bam your trapped for life the majority of the time. Yes some work hard and prosper, but more often the wife and husband both work hard but end up middle class for life. Not saying thats a bad thing, just saying its a myth for most people that you can have kids early, work hard and then still end up with the fat paying job with the big house.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I think thats why the conservative myth berzirk paints pisses me off. Conservatives like to say if you work hard you can have it all, and for 90% of Americans its just not true. Most Americans have kids too early and bam your trapped for life the majority of the time. Yes some work hard and prosper, but more often the wife and husband both work hard but end up middle class for life. Not saying thats a bad thing, just saying its a myth for most people that you can have kids early, work hard and then still end up with the fat paying job with the big house.[/QUOTE]

I'd be happy if all of the working folks could afford healthcare and a decent place to live. That's what pisses me off about rich people whining, they really don't have compassion or empathy for what a poor guy goes through every day.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'd be happy if all of the working folks could afford healthcare and a decent place to live. That's what pisses me off about rich people whining, they really don't have compassion or empathy for what a poor guy goes through every day.[/QUOTE]

/nod as I said before both my parents were working class stiffs and both have a ton of health issues from working far too hard and feeling they couldn't afford a Dr all the time. At the same time though as I said it pisses me off that the working class stiffs are ignorant and accept their lot in life vs fighting for something better. My father never voted a day in his life and my mother voted out of ignorance not knowledge. This is common now days, for every person I know that votes and does so after studying the issues I know 100s that dont. With that being the case they have just as limited a right to whine as the rich do IMO.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']
I think thats why the conservative myth berzirk paints pisses me off. Conservatives like to say if you work hard you can have it all, and for 90% of Americans its just not true. Most Americans have kids too early and bam your trapped for life the majority of the time. Yes some work hard and prosper, but more often the wife and husband both work hard but end up middle class for life. Not saying thats a bad thing, just saying its a myth for most people that you can have kids early, work hard and then still end up with the fat paying job with the big house.[/QUOTE]

I'm a registered independent. I too don't believe that just hard work will get you there. You need to hit some lucky opportunities, hope that no family calamities strike, health is good, general economy is strong enough that as an employee you have some bargaining power. It's not just working 18 hours a day. Being passive and not working hard also generally does not get you advancement in your career.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Being passive and not working hard also generally does not get you advancement in your career.[/QUOTE]

How do you explain Dubya?
 
[quote name='camoor']First off I want to say I appreciate your candor. Too many folks on this board will obfuscate the truth in an attempt to score debate points.

One thing I find interesting about your post is that you, like any skilled worker, feels somewhat empowered. After all if your CEO dicks you over too much on your salary you can walk, much like an NBA player can afford to strike and miss a few games because he's got the skills to pay the bills. It's a check on your CEO's takehome pay and I have no doubt that it gets factored in on payday.

Do you think Wall Street CEOs feel the same pressure? Sure they have to payoff their Praetorian guard lest they get dethroned, but do you think they give a shit about the workers? As the Enron guy said "if I step on somebody's throat and that doubles my compensation? Well, I'll stomp on the guy's throat!"

I'm just asking you, as someone who gets nuance, to think about that. I think Captalism is great but I'm not a laissez-faire Capitalist. Isn't it a little ridiculous how vehemently we can be attacked for having the audacity to suggest that American CEO pay has gotten out-of-control and proposing policy to realign it?[/QUOTE]

Cool, appreciate it. I try to be pretty forthright in my positions. Occassionally people think it's too blunt and instead would prefer flowery words over substance, but I stand by my opinions (unless facts prove otherwise), even when they are unfavorable in present company.

There is no question. There are lots of people in great positions of power economically, socially, that got there from chopping people down, stabbing people in the back. Heck, in our own little ecosystems, we've probably worked with people that try that mess. It's a shame that it works occassionally, but I think of it like I view the news. For every illegal immigrant that rapes and kills someboday, there are several thousand that live productive, good lives. For every Muslim terrorist that bombs a building there are millions who live good lives. Those aren't the newsmakers. The folks that do bad stuff are. So we see more about the evil CEOs, when in reality, I'd wager that many are good folks not that much different from you and I.

I wouldn't say I have THAT much power in my current employment. Heh. I have enough where apparently I can almost get in a fist fight with my boss (which happened) and not get fired over it, but if the quality of my work dropped off, or if I rocked the boat one too many times, he would fire me that same day.

I had a bit of an epiphany a few years back. Career-wise, pretty much all of us are expendable. You might think you're not, but those are usually the ones that are the most expendable. They threaten to quit over something petty, the bluff is called, then they either quit and remain unemployed for months (or years), or they get shot down and walk back to their cubicle with their tail between their legs. If I walked today, there would be a period of time that the company had to recover, folks would scramble to take on my tasks, certainly several balls would be dropped, but over time they could replace me, maybe find someone better than me.

Part II of the epiphany is that likely through good, supportive parents, all throughout school, most of college, I was convinced I was really smart. Then my senior year I worked on a fascinating research project under internationally renown scientists and grad students. I was the only undergrad. They understood concepts and theories I couldn't even spell. I quickly realized that I'm not as smart as I thought I was, but probably smarter than most people think I am. When I did stand up comedy, the same. Not as funny as I thought I was, but funnier than other comics expected. It applies to physical attributes too. I'm a skinny guy, but I've got a decent bit of applied strength. I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and every so often somebody assumes I'm a weakling. We grapple, and they learn that I'm stronger than they assumed. I see a bigger guy, grapple with him thinking I'm Jr. Hercules, and get my ass kicked because while I'm stronger than most people think I am, I'm not as strong as I think I am.

Anyhoo, long story short, I try to look at things realistically and try not to BS myself or BS others. There's a very good possibility I'm wrong often, but it's through ignorance, not deceit
 
[quote name='camoor']How do you explain Dubya?[/QUOTE]

Touche. Haa haa.

Even though he turned out to be a pretty lousy president, you've gotta admit he worked hard to get there. Becoming a governor, even if daddy was a President isn't something all of us could do, and to become President, going through two campaigns, the guy did have to work hard. Probably misguided in many of his efforts, but I don't belief his failures were due to sloth.

His pops was actually the much better President IMO.
 
family influence.

I get this vibe of Matt Damon's "honorable bricklayer" speech in Good Will Hunting from dohdough. Or maybe that "Live simply so that others may simply live" bumpersticker?

Either way, wanting to advance your position in life is not greed. If it were, your position on desiring to advance the position of minorities within our exploitive system essentially means you want to create a vast quantity of new consumers who wish to be greedy capitalists so that they can live the dream like the rest of the filthy wealth seekers. Here's some cake, do you want to have it or eat it? Only one. Unless you don't want everyone to do better, just the minorities? Because that'll certainly go over well.

berzirk: there's a delightful irony in wanting to accumulate the desired wealth that you can spend more time with your family, while realizing that desire in turn removes you from your family isn't there?

In hindsight, I've now realized that my dad worked 10+ hour days most of his life not to give his kids some kind of advantadge, but mostly because he didn't like us all that much.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Cool, appreciate it. I try to be pretty forthright in my positions. Occassionally people think it's too blunt and instead would prefer flowery words over substance, but I stand by my opinions (unless facts prove otherwise), even when they are unfavorable in present company.

There is no question. There are lots of people in great positions of power economically, socially, that got there from chopping people down, stabbing people in the back. Heck, in our own little ecosystems, we've probably worked with people that try that mess. It's a shame that it works occassionally, but I think of it like I view the news. For every illegal immigrant that rapes and kills someboday, there are several thousand that live productive, good lives. For every Muslim terrorist that bombs a building there are millions who live good lives. Those aren't the newsmakers. The folks that do bad stuff are. So we see more about the evil CEOs, when in reality, I'd wager that many are good folks not that much different from you and I.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to believe that but it doesn't explain the bail-out fiasco. Apparently we have some of the smartest folks in the world helming these companies and yet the whole system melts down. Furthermore these rich fucks need a bailout placed on my back and the back of every taxpayer? It's like a James Bond movie where the villians threaten financial armageddon unless their demands are met, except in this movie the villians win. Read an article like this and then tell me that those guys are like little ol' you and me, just working a job and hoping to make a positive contribution as well as a paycheck. I don't think so.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-bailout-hustle-20100217

[quote name='berzirk']I wouldn't say I have THAT much power in my current employment. Heh. I have enough where apparently I can almost get in a fist fight with my boss (which happened) and not get fired over it, but if the quality of my work dropped off, or if I rocked the boat one too many times, he would fire me that same day.

I had a bit of an epiphany a few years back. Career-wise, pretty much all of us are expendable. You might think you're not, but those are usually the ones that are the most expendable. They threaten to quit over something petty, the bluff is called, then they either quit and remain unemployed for months (or years), or they get shot down and walk back to their cubicle with their tail between their legs. If I walked today, there would be a period of time that the company had to recover, folks would scramble to take on my tasks, certainly several balls would be dropped, but over time they could replace me, maybe find someone better than me.

Part II of the epiphany is that likely through good, supportive parents, all throughout school, most of college, I was convinced I was really smart. Then my senior year I worked on a fascinating research project under internationally renown scientists and grad students. I was the only undergrad. They understood concepts and theories I couldn't even spell. I quickly realized that I'm not as smart as I thought I was, but probably smarter than most people think I am. When I did stand up comedy, the same. Not as funny as I thought I was, but funnier than other comics expected. It applies to physical attributes too. I'm a skinny guy, but I've got a decent bit of applied strength. I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and every so often somebody assumes I'm a weakling. We grapple, and they learn that I'm stronger than they assumed. I see a bigger guy, grapple with him thinking I'm Jr. Hercules, and get my ass kicked because while I'm stronger than most people think I am, I'm not as strong as I think I am.

Anyhoo, long story short, I try to look at things realistically and try not to BS myself or BS others. There's a very good possibility I'm wrong often, but it's through ignorance, not deceit[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with your first epiphany, I guess I would turn it on it's head. Good workers, particularly good skilled workers, are hard to come by and if you don't give them as good a deal as the competition they will leave. Lose enough of your best and brightest and your company or project will fail.

Good management often sees the warning signs early and starts planning for an employee's departure in advance. My theory is that you have a good manager who knows how to spot a employee who's about to leave and starts planning a backup. That's why when someone leaves it's just a scramble instead of a nightmare.

All this is kinda OT, but hopefully it shows that I understand (and enjoy) business. I'm not just some communist hippie, I just think that folks, especially working folks, deserve a fair wage and healthcare. Maybe it's just me but I don't want to live in an America where a truck driver working 39 hours-a-week has to live with a pinched nerve in his back so his company's CEO can earn an extra 10 grand.
 
[quote name='nasum']berzirk: there's a delightful irony in wanting to accumulate the desired wealth that you can spend more time with your family, while realizing that desire in turn removes you from your family isn't there?[/QUOTE]

Living well is the best revenge (this isn't directed at berzirk, just sayin')
 
[quote name='camoor']
I can't agree with your first epiphany, I guess I would turn it on it's head. Good workers, particularly good skilled workers, are hard to come by and if you don't give them as good a deal as the competition they will leave. Lose enough of your best and brightest and your company or project will fail.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the current job market makes it harder for people to leave and go elsewhere than it was in the past. And as slow as unemployment rates are dropping, that looks to be true for a while.

So workers have very little power in this current job market as if they quit their are probably a bunch of equally (or more) qualified people dying to find a job in their field right now.

And it's still kind of a class barrier thing as the people furthest down the job market food chain have the least power to switch jobs as they have the least marketable skills, while the people at the top have the easiest time moving around to jobs that pay more etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']Touche. Haa haa.

Even though he turned out to be a pretty lousy president, you've gotta admit he worked hard to get there. Becoming a governor, even if daddy was a President isn't something all of us could do, and to become President, going through two campaigns, the guy did have to work hard. Probably misguided in many of his efforts, but I don't belief his failures were due to sloth.

His pops was actually the much better President IMO.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Bush Jr came from a wealthy family with DEEP political and powerful connections due to his grandfather, Prescott Bush(who also got some from his own father), who then passed more power and wealth to Bush Sr. Jr pretty much coasted through life to fail at every business he was literally given, not earned, while being a drug addicted alcoholic. His campaign, an most other campaigns that win for that matter, were organized that the best that money could buy as well as being connected to Bush Sr. Karl Rove didn't come out of nowhere and neither did Lee Atwater.

It has less to do with daddy being president and everything to do with coming from a generationally rich and powerful family. If you do some light research, you'll see how deep and important the connections actually go.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is the current job market makes it harder for people to leave and go elsewhere than it was in the past. And as slow as unemployment rates are dropping, that looks to be true for a while.

So workers have very little power in this current job market as if they quit their are probably a bunch of equally (or more) qualified people dying to find a job in their field right now.

And it's still kind of a class barrier thing as the people furthest down the job market food chain have the least power to switch jobs as they have the least marketable skills, while the people at the top have the easiest time moving around to jobs that pay more etc.[/QUOTE]

I guess I was trying to argue this in a roundabout way.

A skilled and specialized worker might think that everyone is expendable but has no doubt that he'd eventually score another job. Someone further down the food chain knows exactly what expendable really means. IMHO those folks work hard, provide a valuable service, and deserve a living wage.
 
[quote name='nasum']family influence.

I get this vibe of Matt Damon's "honorable bricklayer" speech in Good Will Hunting from dohdough. Or maybe that "Live simply so that others may simply live" bumpersticker?[/QUOTE]
I've never seen that movie, but I'll take your word for it.

edit: Now I fully intend to see it due to this scene alone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOtVg05JLPc

Either way, wanting to advance your position in life is not greed. If it were, your position on desiring to advance the position of minorities within our exploitive system essentially means you want to create a vast quantity of new consumers who wish to be greedy capitalists so that they can live the dream like the rest of the filthy wealth seekers. Here's some cake, do you want to have it or eat it? Only one. Unless you don't want everyone to do better, just the minorities? Because that'll certainly go over well.
Click to expand...
I don't care whether or it goes over well with whites or not. They, as a racial group, didn't give a shit when they were doing better then, and don't really give a shit now.

Here's what you don't get: You can survive and even thrive as a capitalist in a capitalist system without buying into the bullshit that they try to feed you with all the bootstraps and hard work tripe. And yes, its extremely problematic because of the issues caused by the attainment of that wealth. Does it mean that if some Latino kid from the hoodiest hood part of South Central becomes the next George Soros, that it's ok that he bankrupted governments and killed hundreds of thousands of people by proxy? Of course not. What I'm saying is that we should be building a system in which one doesn't doesn't equal the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top