What is this obsession Americans have with the rich ?

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (108 posts)

0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Is it just liberals here in forums or does everyone just love to hate a rich person , the wealthy , the famous , celebrities ,.........I mean most rich or famous people earned their way to where they are right ? And yet , there is a lot of talk about taking more from the wealthy , almost as if somehow we all deserve what they have ? Seems strange to me that there is definitely a hatred of the rich . When in truth , these wealthy probably contribute more to others already simply by consumerism , travel , spending , hiring . Don't you think we really need the wealthy , rather than bashing them ?
reply report
1. 0
  Karilyn R Kingposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I agree. The wealthy do give more than the rest of us to charity because they have more to give.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  There definitely seems to be an envy which is good , but also a dislike ! They do contribute much to others , simply by being wealthy .
  reply report
  0
  Karilyn R Kingposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  True.
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ahorseback, what you have stated is so true. There is an immense hatred of the rich. There are even blogs by some liberals who decry the rich, indicating that they are somehow corrupt because if they were not corrupt, they would not be wealthy. Wealthy people worked smart to get where they are. They do not need to apologize to others regarding their wealth. In many American eyes liberal and otherwise, wealth is seen as evil, even satanic. This hatred of the affluent, successful, and wealthy has reached insane proportions. This hatred is analogous to hatred of the A student in school because h/she studied while the other students partied and looked at television more than they applied themselves.
  reply report
2. 70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "When in truth , these wealthy probably contribute more to others already simply by consumerism , travel , spending , hiring."
  
  What a load. The "truth". The wealthy don't even touch what the rest of the country spends in consumerism. The top 1% spends more than the rest of the 99%? Consumerism is what drives the marketplace in this country and that is what creates jobs. This is the biggest lie the country has ever been sold. Why are we in a slow economy while the stock market soars to levels never seen before? Because the jobs that are not sent overseas have flattened wages and credit is at a standstill. The housing market has never recovered. Why, because no one other than the rich can get credit. If that is the case and the rich can get credit why aren't they buying homes left and right? Because they don't need them and the middle class can't afford them.
  
  No my friend the rich don't drive the consumerism in this country. Personally I have nothing against the rich. Many are my customers and some are friends while I eek out a sub middle class existence.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You can't truly believe that proportionately , rich people do not spend more than you or I in day to day living . ? They have no obligation to share there's with anyone else !
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely they can't even come close to spending what the rest of the country spends. How can 1% of the population spend more than the rest of the 99% of us? The economy is based on consumerism. That is what makes the rich, rich. The wealthiest of the population income decreases when we stop spending. According to some studies the wealthiest 1% hold 40% of the wealth in the US. The other 60% of us spend more than they can hold onto even if they spent it all every year.
  reply report
3. 60
  Live to Learnposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't perceive a hatred of the rich in America. I see many of being jealous of what they have and many dream of achieving the same financial wealth. I have a problem with the obsession America has with money. We have ample evidence that wealth has nothing to do with happiness, nothing to do with self esteem, nothing to do with being a 'better' person. It is simply money.
  
  If we want to support such endeavors as enriching people like the Kardashians whose only claim to anything is a more audacious desire to be in the public eye; they should be allowed to rack up the bucks without others wanting to redistribute their not hard earned gains. But, I think it is rather naive to look at those who have gained in the corporate world with the same blinders. I don't really relish bailing out companies who have enriched some with hundreds of millions as compensation for running a company so far into the ground that it needed a bailout. I don't appreciate seeing golden parachutes for CEO's who would have been fired for similar performance running a company not traded on the stock exchange. I am appalled by the idea of banks using toxic funds to line the pockets of some; while the rest of us are expected to foot the bill.
  
  I don't hate the wealthy. I would simply like to hold them to the same standards we are held to.
  reply report
4. 61
  GNelsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think that you need to look at the facts. Hate has nothing to do with it. The very wealthy can hide their money overseas and avoid paying taxes on it while most working people pay the taxes before they get a check. That is not fair and it is true. Just one of many examples that many people seem to ignore because it doesn't fit their fantasy.
  reply report
5. 81
  Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it's not so much a "hatred of the rich" but a concern about the extent of economic materialism. We are in a situation where a printed piece of paper with no intrinsic value, is the difference between someone eating or being hungry, someone having shelter or being homeless, someone living or someone dying. You don't even need the paper any more. $100 is created by a bank literally changing a 0 to a 100 in someone's account. So lives are fundamentally transformed (for good or for bad) by this virtual money. Personally I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but that doesn't mean I hate the rich. I think it just means I have a mind.
  reply report
6. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is a negative consciousness, mentality, mindset, philosophy, and psychology. There are people who glorify, even deify being poor and impoverished. Such people contend that being poor and impoverished is somewhat "richer" than being wealthy. These people staunchly avow that wealthy people have askewed values and priorities. They would rather struggle and live abysmally "as long as they have 'family'", " they will be so alright". This thinking is totally inverse logic. If one is struggling, poor, and in poverty, they are not happy. No mentally healthy person is happy being poor and/or impoverished, living a paycheck from homelessness. Such thinking is illogical in its premises. They down the wealthy, the pursuit of wealth, and the accumulation of wealth as somewhat evil, even materialistic. However, the wealthy are always better off, if there is an economic swoop, it is not the wealthy who will be homeless and wanting but the poor and impoverished. Ahorseback, as my late father indicated that some people are HARD to learn. It is pointless and an exercise in futility to convince such people that wealth is good and that being poor and impoverished is a negative condition to live in. There seem to be people who espouse being poor and impoverished. I never heard of such a presentation of lack of logic and reason in my sixty years of existence. People with such a mindset, I AVOID like the plaque.
  reply report
86
Stacie Lposted 9 years ago
The majority of society may feel cheated somehow because the god of fortune has not smiled on them. But liberals as you state, as well as others, may despise those with disposable income due to the fact that money buys influence and power. If you don't have money in the American society, you don't have a voice. Many feel disenfranchised and unheard, especially by the elected officials who wooed our vote and then turned their backs on us when in government.
The rich have always had a stronger voice and that does lead to envy and hatred by many.JMHO
reply report
1. 0
  Karilyn R Kingposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's also true, what you said: "If you don't have money in American society, then you don't have a voice." It reminds me of something that my great grandfather once said, back when he was living and I was a child, "Money talks. Bull s**t walks."
  reply report
  86
  Stacie Lposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Money talks. Bull s**t walks."
  My dad said the same thing...;-)
  reply report
  0
  Karilyn R Kingposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It's a popular saying so I'm not surprised. The language is a bit colorful but it's true.
  reply report
0
sandrawelchposted 9 years ago
Coming from less than humble beginnings, I am a member of a family, that was too poor to be 'Piss Poor'. Meaning, we didn't have a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out. I have a public school education, but realized early, that it was a matter of grooming us to work for someone else. I have always at least dabbled in self employment, just to make sure my children had not only what they needed, but most of what they wanted. I have never hated anyone for their good fortune. Some get by luck, some get it handed to them, some work hard for it. I have watched a lot of people try to make it rich, and miss the important things in life. We seem to fixated on the idea that enough is never enough. We got to make that extra buck, we have to have what the family down the street has, and drive the newest cars. Somewhere, there has to be a middle ground. Some time we have to settle, accept our role in our own destiny. When is enough, enough? When there are no hungry bellies at bed time. When every one has adequate clothing. When everyone has the opportunity to attend school. I found my enough level. And I am happy. No, I am not rich. I don't have a lot to share. But, I can take pride in having worked for everything I own. By knowing there are more of us in the working class, than in the poor or the rich, I realize, enough is enough for me.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
The rich are hated because they don't pay their "fair share" and "the trickle down theory didn't/doesn't work."
Liberal type People HATE our past President, Ronald Reagan. They hate the rich and they hate Reagan because they don't understand where Reagan was coming from. They don't understand where Reagan was coming from because … ??????
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Because it didn't work.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  … could you please explain that? I always forget how.. ( and its always so entertaining to hear it again.)
  reply report
76
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
Hate is a very strong word in my vocabulary, its a word I use sparingly.

I do not like being in my own skin when I feel hate toward others.
reply report
57
C.J. Wrightposted 9 years ago
It's a popular theme today. Popular culture is obsessed with two things, fame and being a victim. It's very liberating to convince yourself that your failures are caused by others. The fact that those supposedly responsible have lots of resources is just good business. That way if the offenders ever feel guilty they have the means to provide tangible tokens of their contrition.

....tongue firmly planted in cheek;)
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
<"I don't really relish bailing out companies who have enriched some with hundreds of millions as compensation for running a company so far into the ground that it needed a bailout. I don't appreciate seeing golden parachutes for CEO's who would have been fired for similar performance running a company not traded on the stock exchange. I am appalled by the idea of banks using toxic funds to line the pockets of some; while the rest of us are expected to foot the bill."> Live to Learn
THIS!
<"The very wealthy can hide their money overseas and avoid paying taxes on it while most working people pay the taxes before they get a check."> GNelson
AND THIS!
reply report
1. 61
  GNelsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You made some good points and there many others that some people tend to ignore. Back in the 60's when working people made an decent wage America was better off. Today many workers do not make a living wage and qualify for food stamps. America is not doing well compared to other industrial countries. Many of our children die because they don't have access to medical care. Many of our children don't have enough to eat. Many of our children don't get a good education. As the middle class shrinks America falls down. Just look at our infrastructure. We would fight a useless war than take care of our children because war creates a profit for corporations and taking care of children does not.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago
Us liberals get tired of the black-and-white viewpoint of some conservatives. Criticism does not equal hate. I do not hate the wealthy, I don't think they are evil, and I don't wish to take all their money and give it to lazy do-nothings. I do, however, believe they wealthy should pay more taxes, especially on unearned income. I also believe they should not be able to buy politicians with their money. Oh my, how hateful is that?
reply report
1. 57
  C.J. Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Different viewpoints I guess. You say:
  "I do, however, believe they wealthy should pay more taxes, especially on unearned income. I also believe they should not be able to buy politicians with their money."
  
  Others would say. The poor work for money. The rich make money work for them. We should elect politicians that can't be bought.
  
  The latter is something we all should be paying more attention to. Its astonishing how many politicians increase their net worth by 10 fold during their careers.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  There is this little thing called reality. Sure, one can say "only elect those who can't be bought," but if a wealthy person is legally allowed to fund super PACs and funnel massive sums of money to politicians, then they will always find a politician willing to be bought.
  
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "We should elect politicians that can't be bought."
  
  The system is far to broken to allow politicians who can't be bought. To be elected you need a lot of money. Whoever donates it to you wants something in return. The something is not fair government.
  
  The other problem is who works for them to get elected. One of Bush's campaign workers was Michael Brown and as a reward for his hard work he was appointed head of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. Unfortunately he was not able to execute the office very well as his background in executive management was running horse shows. The cronyism of the elective process is broken as well.
  reply report
0
sandrawelchposted 9 years ago
When was the last time any of us, spent more to get a job, than the job would pay? Does this make sense? No, of course not. But that is exactly what politicians do. They spend millions of dollars on ads, tv, the media, and special interests. Even the highest office in the land, pays less than $ 1,000,000 for four year term. It is a matter of pushing their own agenda. Be it religion, war, social issues, climbing the ladder, special interests, insurance, health care, education...what ever is going to line their pockets in the future. I have always been suspicious of anyone spending more money to get in,then they will make in that office.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Perhaps Americans are simply not good at separating the popular negative image of wealthy from the actual spending habits of , and the earning accomplishments of the wealthy . It's obvious to those who are real that the rich do spend more , or are in the position to create a larger spending environment in this economy by the employment or other supportive habits of the richer part of the population .
Think about it , if you had a few million what would you do with it ?
Hide it in your mattress ? Doubt it .
Vacation ?
Buy a second third or forth home ?
Create college funds for your great , great grand kids ?
Either way , you would spend or be directly responsible for the spending of more -BY Others , and how is that not helping our economy ? Do they pay more or less taxes than you , probably more , If one has twenty eight employees or four thousand employees , one is paying more taxes , believe me . For example , Each of you that are employed by a company pay a certain amount to social security funds - the employer pays the other half ! I know that because I am self employed and have to pay both halves ! So double the amount that shows on your pay stub - that's what the employer pays.. Yet we all love to despise the guy driving through town in a Mercedes wearing nice clothes .
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sigh … I wish I was wealthy.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ++++ you'd be great at spreading wealth !
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  why, Yes!~ I believe I would. Thank You, ahorseback!
  I would start my school called New Direction Education!
  The direction is inward where interest is. Reading, Writing and Research would be the focus. I would create the environment to … well, all that ...
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Most thinking, aware people do..............However, there are those who seemingly have an inverse consciousness, mentality, mindset, philosophy, and psychology who glorify being poor, even poverty. How STRANGE is THAT?!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Looking at that comment of mine made back then, I see how utterly pathetic it sounds.
  There is wish, hope and will, One can say "I wish I was wealthy," One can say "I hope to be wealthy someday." Or one can say, I WILL be wealthy. Which attitude will get you there?
  If you have the will, you will figure out which steps to take, as Susie Orman, for one, did. Now, not everyone who tries to become wealthy is going to become wealthy, but to at least take steps toward this goal on some level will bring you more wealth than if you just sat around sighing about it.
  I am not sighing any more.
  I am taking steps. I am taking up painting again.
  I will find a gallery. I will market my Art.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandrawelchposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I worked as a waitress, a job with long hours, that required patience, honesty, and the willingness to be 100% committed to my job. There were rules, a lot of rules. But, when I started there at 16 with siblings to keep a roof over their heads, even at $ 1.87 an hour, I did well. The business grew from 1 store to 13 in 15 years. All with in 20 minutes of each other. I never had a pretense, and had no plans of climbing the ladder there. I did however, bring home 25,000 my lowest year, and 51,000 my best year. How many waitresses make $ 51,000 a year? Not many. But the fact that we were allowed to work over time, had percentage sharing after 5 years, Christmas accounts, saving accounts were required, and stock options pushed that slave wage to higher than some professionals I knew. It wasn't unusual to be given the chance to pick up extra hours, around any holiday. The boss and his family always enjoyed the holidays off. I put myself through college, helped my siblings work their way through too! I financed two homes and two new cars on my way. My boss knew my name. And later knew my children at sight. Employed my siblings, and would hire someone on the spot if they used me for a reference. My career would take me out of the food industry. But I am always grateful for the start of my working years, for being taught work ethics. Just their knowing that at 16 I had siblings dependent on me, was enough for them to send home leftovers to feed the brood. Many suppers weren't served until after I arrived home, often past 10 at night. I am grateful, they meant the world to my being able to grow up, work, attend college and own a home. They not only wanted to do well for themselves, but wanted their employees to do well too. Today's world sure is different. I don't know it was Dan Quayle's speech that turned waitresses and tipped employees into 'Welfare Queens' that created the idea that every person who works a tipped job is on the take, or maybe they are padding their pockets. But things sure have changed, and not for the better.
  reply report
76
colorfuloneposted 9 years ago
It could be totally rewarding and fun being wealthy by putting smiles on many faces.

I would enjoy it.
reply report
1. 0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +++++
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
I agree , and I believe that as more and more Americans do become wealthy ....so do we all !
I know I would simply spend more , consume and travel more . there-by supporting the growing economy much as supported by the all wealthy . I do a lot of work for a wealthy , self -made man , the greatest part of his wealth - IS that he spends more and more as he makes it .

He also employs about three hundred directly , countless more in-directly and continues to do so . Traveling America and the world as well , all kidding aside I'm sure he has spent hundreds of thousands simply traveling America . That contributes !
reply report
1. 76
  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that does contribute to spreading wealth by traveling in America. There are plenty of wealthy people who don't get all they can and can all they get.
  reply report
2. 80
  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I would not want to compare the unprecedented transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, the outright theft by Wall Street and the finance markets nor the corporate subsidies provided by tax payer dollars and say that they are all compensated for by plutocrats that take road trips?
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Some things to ponder, ;

#1 Not any where near most of the wealthy get rich from transferring from the poor or middle class .

#2 Nor did that steal it from wall street or your retirement funds

#3 They do spend proportionately more than you or I into our economy

#4 How in the world can anyone justify re-distributing the wealth's money , for others , no matter how they attained said wealth , unless illegally .

5# It is probably the wealthy that will maneuver an upturn in our economy in the end .
reply report
93
peeplesposted 9 years ago
http://fortune.com/2015/01/19/the-1-wil … port-says/

I have no issue with rich people. I have no issue with people who have in one way or another worked their a$$es off to gain wealth, nor their children who do little to nothing to get it.
What I do have an issue with is the idea that "spreading wealth" or as you said it "re-distributing the wealth" is all that bad. Do I think the government should do it? No, but what do we do when without money you can not have a voice, without money you can not control your government, without money you have no say in the food that shows up in the grocery store, you really have no way to contribute outside of your own community, and even then it's minimal. My question is, if 1% has more than 99% combined, why are they not willingly making a REAL difference in this world. And I don't mean their $hitty tax right off non profit organizations trying to get money from the poor to help the poor. I mean why aren't they willingly going in and changing cities?
If I were the 1% and had more than I could ever functionally use (which they all have) I couldn't imagine keeping the majority of it. They have enough to pass down to multiple generations and still change the world, but instead many put that money towards buying the government! Why don't they just fix the freaking world!?
I guess people have an issue with the rich because we don't understand how that much wealth is in 1% when the majority of the other 99% works their butts off to never be able to make a difference. And for the record, lucking up and working to get an acting gig that turns out to make you millions isn't exactly the kind of "work" the other 99% are doing. It's frustration, simple frustration without being able to grasp the things we don't understand and we won't ever understand it because we won't ever be part of it.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Peeples , I believe that you might find that the 1 % of those who have the most , in one way or another , give the most !. Philanthropy is a huge and un spoken part of all such wealth . I truly don't know the numbers statistics ] , but I do know that America is known , worldwide , for giving ! It's simply not a popularly known facet of acceptance in our understanding of America's wealthy. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think so . Now Is there enough wealth to go into our inner cities and "give away" enough ?

No !I believe there is a crucial part of our culture that could never receive enough to change all that they know or could ever know about raising themselves up from poverty . Give most people instant wealth and most probably would falter with the cultural changes.
reply report
1. 93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I certainly don't think they should go around passing out their money to people for nothing. There are so many other things they can do. I just don't understand how we have so many people worth billions, yet we still have starving kids, homeless families, children sitting in foster care getting no gifts at Christmas, or people being paid $7.25 an hour to sweat their butts off doing hard manual labor all day. I know fixing everything isn't possible, but with the amount of wealth in such a few people, even with what they do, it simply isn't enough in my opinion. I've done the math. I know how much it costs to provide every foster child $100 in Christmas presents, and my friend, I promise you, if they wanted to they could and it would barely put a dent in their wealth. They could pay it with just a small portion of their yearly bonuses. I don't expect them to fix lazy people who refuse to work for a living, I just expect them to have more empathy than most of them do.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Amen peeples ~ I can't argue with that ~
  
  I'll give you one example why individuals like Bernie Sanders, Democratic Presidential Candidate who is a proud Socialist, is using his time to educate Americans on the Income & Wealth Injustice which has been ocurring for decades ~
  
  Right now as we speak, there are "Hedge Fund Managers on Wall Street who are raking in BILLIONs without paying a dime in taxes, or paying a miniscule amount ~ It's unethical, Immoral, and in some cases Criminal and it must end ~
  
  Even Donald Trump recognizes this abuse and said he'd address this critically important issue ~
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Hedge Fund Managers on Wall Street who are raking in BILLIONs without paying a dime in taxes, or paying a miniscule amount ~ It's unethical, Immoral, and in some cases Criminal and it must end"
  
  Can you name names and provide proof or is this just another wild liberal attack without basis in reality?
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Eveyone understands the fact that Hedge Funds pay very little or ZERO Taxes ~
  
  Educate yourself wilderness, I'm a teacher but I really don't have the discretionary time to give you lessons every 5 minutes ~
  
  You should insert as much fervor, venom and allegiance in a defense for our Working Class, Senior Citizens, Minorities, and Income Challenged as you do for sleazy Billionaires and Wall Street Swindlers ~ Then your cause would be Admirable ~
  reply report
  82
  GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "...Income Challenged..."
  
  Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.
  
  Yes, I know this is a shallow response, but sometimes temptation gets the better of me. And it does seem to fit in with your flow of comments. Com'on, `income challenged'? I bet you even have a PC badge.
  
  GA
  reply report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness asked a valid question: “Can you name names and provide proof or is this just another wild liberal attack without basis in reality?"
  
  To which you replied. "Eveyone [sic] understands the fact that Hedge Funds pay very little or ZERO Taxes ~
  
  Educate yourself wilderness, I'm a teacher but I really don't have the discretionary time to give you lessons every 5 minutes ~
  
  You should insert as much fervor, venom and allegiance in a defense for our Working Class, Senior Citizens, Minorities, and Income Challenged as you do for sleazy Billionaires and Wall Street Swindlers ~ Then your cause would be Admirable"
  
  Hi Alternate,
  
  If you do not think your claims and opinions are important enough to merit citations or some other supporting authority, then why should anyone reading them take you seriously? Why would anyone research your assertions because you are unable or unwilling to back up your own claims with verifiable facts? On the other hand, using the excuse that the effort is too much to bear, is the same as saying you just do not have any facts.
  
  Every good teacher knows the originator of a positive assertion carries the burden of proving the claim is valid. {1}
  
  {1} http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ … -Proof.htm
  {See “Shifting the Burden of Proof.")
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  From which I conclude that you do NOT have any facts or figures - that you are once more making wild claims you cannot support with factual data. As Quill points out, why should anyone believe anything you say when you refuse to provide support for it?
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Those who have free will are rich with free will. In this respect, we are all rich, equally rich ... unless free will is DIMINISHED in some by others who demand, whine, connive, scam, steal, rob, and expect
  their ASSISTANCE!
  reply report
  83
  gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, it is very ironic that those who love being poor and impoverished, complain about their condition. They profess that although they "love" being poor and struggling from day to day to day ad infinitum, they want that good life. When one logically present the fact that in order to achieve a better lifestyle, one has to make wise, informed lifestyle choices. Well, they are aghast at such a suggestion.
  
  They do not want to make the sacrifices required to achieve a more socioeconomic affluent lifestyle. They do not want to go to school at night to further themselves or obtain that promotion. Oh no, that's TOO HARD. They would rather party, watch television, and yet complain about their "struggle". Better yet, they ask the more affluent relatives to support them in the way they believe they should be supported. I have seen this with my own extended large families-aunts, uncles, and ......cousins. They don't want but WANT through affluent relatives. Yes, there is another side to the poor and impoverished-they want better but NEVER through their OWN EFFORTS. Spot on analysis, Kathryn as usual! Good night!
  
  In order to live a socioeconomically good life, one has to make intelligent choices. One cannot make negative, stupid, and thoughtless choices and expect to be socioeconomically solvent and affluent. One has to make smart educational and economic choices not only for themselves but for their future descendants. One cannot approach life helter skelter and expect to be socioeconomically successful!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, gmwilliams. Good night 2 U 2!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  +++++
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  gmwilliams ~ Always Remember
  
  Most Billionaires and even Millionaires other than great inventors, acquire this grotesquely massive wealth by Shady or Illegal Means, Inheritance or Shear Luck, not by "Wise Choices" or "Hard Work" or any other ridiculous scenario ~
  
  Mutt Romney & Jeb Bush both inherited small fortunes, just to name a few ~
  
  So don't think Billionaires are Smarter, Wiser, or even Work Harder to Amass & Stockpile our Wealth because their not ~
  
  P.S. ~ Nobody that I know of has an "Obsession" with the Wealthy or Rich, however, an Extremely Bright Light must be shined on these individuals at all times ~ An inducement to extracting a Fair Tax from Hedge Funds etc ~
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Most Billionaires and even Millionaires other than great inventors, acquire this grotesquely massive wealth by Shady or Illegal Means, Inheritance or Shear Luck, not by "Wise Choices" or "Hard Work" or any other ridiculous scenario ~"
  
  Do you have a link or study or any proof that "MOST" billionaires and millionaires acquire their wealth this way?
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No rhamson, I'll just believe you and take your word that all billionaires & miliionaires simply work "REALLY REALLY HARD" to make their fortunes ~
  
  Actually, I have more experience in this subject than any "Link" you could possibly post here ~ Furthermore, just because you post a link dosen't mean it's accurate ~
  
  I gave you two and here's three perfect examples of High Profile millionaires and billionares who are not self made ~ Mutt Romney inherited and started with at least a million in equities, Jed Bush inherited and started with a dirty oil fortune, and even Donald Trump inherited and started with significant real estate holdings ~
  
  Many "Admirable Fortunes" were made in this modernization era of technology ~ Two of the most notable would be Bill Gates & Steve Jobs who invented essential components to information delivery therefore, legitimatelly earned their wealth ~ Although BILLIONs just sitting in dungeons even though legitimate could be considered immoral ~
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, although it would mean quite a bit more were there some hard proof of these inheritances.
  
  But what about the "shady" or "illegal" means? Can you provide nothing there? Were they just spin to distract the reader or do you have proof of such criminal activities?
  reply report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  
  An example of an Appeal to Authority Fallacy:
  1. Person A claims to be an authority a subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.
  
  Also Known as Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam {1}
  
  But, Alternative, have you any facts???????????
  
  {1} http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … ority.html
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your answer is typical of one that makes all or nothing references to their assertion. Your offer of three examples based on how many makes it even plausible? Am I to accept your assurances of vastly more experience based on your three examples?
  
  Your straw man tactics are well noted and do invalidate your answer to my inquiry.
  
  Once again do you have any proof that millionaires and billionaires do not work hard to attain their wealth? A study, thesis or maybe an article could help. Yet you provide nothing but your authority and experience to justify your claim? May I ask what are your references based on your answer?
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Trust me rhamson, you nor anyone else will ever become a billionaire or even a millionaire by working REALLY REALLY HARD at mowing lawns, or as a construction worker building houses, or cleaning hotel rooms as many un-documented immigrants do, or data entry, or fighting fires, or nursing at the local hospital ~
  
  Although these are just some of the occupations or “Jobs” which truly define the “American Spirit“, as admirable as they may be, “Slaving” at any of the above activities for a lifetime might guarantee you possible “Survival” here on Planet Earth, albeit with a Severe Chronic Arthritic Medical Condition to Manage, but will never ever result in vast fortunes or great riches, and that’s a fact ~
  
  Do you honestly think Bill Gates WORKED REALLY REALLY HARD to attain a massive idle fortune of approximately 50 BILLION in ASSETS? Or Steve Jobs? Or numbskull Jeb Bush? Or Mutt Romney? ~
  
  How about Bill O'Reilly who sits around making a horses rear out of himself nightly? Yeah, I mean it's really really hard work ~
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thir … elves.html
  
  Interesting article Alternative. States "A 2012 analysis by the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy said that 40 percent of today's American billionaires inherited a "sizeable asset from a spouse or family member."" It also brakes down the 1-10 scale showing that some are considered self made even though they came from upper class families. It also mentions how out of the top 400 Forbes Billionaires, 34 came from poor families and only 64 from working class families . I'd say it kind of points out how the majority of people who become the 1% get a head start through there family, while only a small amount coming from the poor or working class have the chance to excel to that degree.
  I just thought it was an interesting read though I am sure some will manage to interpret the numbers differently.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, some will interpret the numbers differently. You're looking at 400 of the 3,188,600 people that make up the 1% (.01% of the group), all taken from the very tip of the wealth curve, and drawing conclusions about the whole group. It doesn't work very well. You also rush past the fact that well over half of that esoteric group did NOT begin with a "sizeable asset from a spouse or family member".
  
  The insinuation that it is nearly impossible to join the 1% without a huge inheritance and/or being from an upper class family is not supported by the figures. Especially as a quarter of that very specific tip of the curve did just that!
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The article plainly shows that out of the 400 (for the record all survey/statistics information usually uses a small portion of said group to gather approximate figures on the whole group) that everyone except those who score a 9 or 10 came from the parents more well off than poor parents. The self made section includes those who "got a head start from wealthy parents and moneyed background" (is that really self made) and "came from a middle- or upper-middle-class background". It's not unknown that people who come from lower class families are less likely to be able to succeed in this world.
  My point to posting wasn't to prove someone else's post. My point was that the differences of simply being born to the wrong parents shouldn't determine a person's future. We can't stop people from having children, so why can't we work on leveling the playing field so that everyone has a fair chance. Coming up from poor and becoming a billionaire is possible, it just isn't very probable due to the inequalities among different income brackets. When everyone isn't playing on a level field from birth what are we suppose to do to help the poor get a hand up and stop the rich from crushing them on their way up?
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I know we all extrapolate from a limited data base, but .01% just isn't enough to give a reasonable figure. Doubly so when you are looking at only billionaires and trying to apply it to a much, much wider group of the 1%.
  
  I also disagree that having the "wrong" parents should not affect a person. The field is never level, whether we're looking at income potential, artistic bent, music, math/science or whatever. Religion is a huge factor as well. Parents will always affect children's potential, and poverty stricken parents will more likely produce poor children than rich ones will.
  
  And we do try to level the field as much as possible. As equal an education as we can. As equal an opportunity for sports, music or anything else as we can. But there is only so much we can do without simply requiring that all children be raised by the state without any parental input.
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We aren't going to agree on this, but I would like to encourage you to read up on the inequalities in schools in poor areas vs schools in wealthy areas (including the amount of education the teachers have in each area also the level of training) or the cost of child sports these days. Actually I can't think of a single thing poor children have that is on a remotely level field, though it's early maybe I'm forgetting something. I understand parents are responsible for the outcome, but when INCOME is responsible for so much it really is detrimental to the future considering this is what we are going to leave our world to.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This may shock you, but there is no disagreement. But what would you have done? Should we refuse parents the ability to improve their kid's schooling? Make them hire inferior teachers? Disallow any parental contributions to sports? Not allow PTA programs with dedicated and caring parents? Would you remove any and all "troubled" kids from inner city schools, vastly improving them for the handful that's left?
  
  We try but we will never produce a level field unless we remove all children from any form of parental control or contribution, leaving it to the state to bring them up. A fate far worse than what we have now.
  report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This is my point about the super rich. Why don't more of them care enough to level the field for future generations? Why don't more donate to our school systems? I just don't understand having that much wealth and keeping that much of it while knowing there are children out there being held back in this world through no fault of their own. There will always be downsides, but when people are worth billions and get a 20 million bonus, I don't even understand their need to keep it. Maybe I am naive, maybe I am uninformed, but I just think if I were worth billions, I could continue to grow wealth even if I gave half of it to better the country I live in. Again, I'm likely naive, just seems there has to be a way of encouraging people to do more.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Our schools don't need more money - they need more parental involvement. They need students that understand how to behave. They need less government interference. They need a lot of things but money isn't very high on the list.
  
  As to why the rich don't simply shovel money out, I cannot say. I DO know that if I were one of the super rich I'd hate to think that the best I could do is to pile money onto failed school plans or even simply give it away to the poor. That doesn't help the country (although it certainly SOUNDS nice); in the long run it destroys initiative and moral by enslaving people to charity.
  report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think we need a middle point where we have more parental involvement and schools getting more money. The system needs more money to afford the best teachers, to create more enthusiasm for new teachers to have something to work for. These teachers often spend more time with the children than the working parents get with the children.
  I also don't think ANYONE should just shovel money to people unwilling to prove they deserve it (ie working, disabled, caught in a layoff but actively working towards better). No one deserves to have their money taken and given to people unwilling to try. There is such thing as a hand up instead of a hand out. I don't think the system should encourage by "enslaving people to charity" but I do believe it is possible to help people without them becoming use to charity. MOST people WANT to earn what they have. It is a hit to the ego for most people to get help. I think the mentality that the rich helping the poor hurts the poor or society is flawed.
  All in all it's a balancing act that I doubt will ever happen, but it is possible to help the poor without making them dependent.
  report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Correction wilderness ~
  
  In Reality, PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS are Striving to LEVEL the playing field while Conservative Republicans such as Jeb, Mitt, Marco, Rand and the list goes on, continue to Immorally and possibly unlawfully OBSTRUCT Ideas, Plans. Legislation etc which are designed to "Enrich the Quality of Life" for the MAJORITY of Americans ~
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but "enriching the quality of life" for the majority of Americans does not mean throwing buckets of "free" money at the poor. It means more jobs, better job training, etc. - the very antithesis of "progressive" plans. All I've ever seen of those wonderful "progressive" planning is to take from one to give away to another and it no affect or a negative one on the quality of life for the MAJORITY of Americans that are supporting a large minority.
  report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Actually wilderness, "Buckets of Free Money", which Jeb Bush's Oil & Gas Buddies now receive from taxpayers to the tune of BILLIONS, is exactly what it will take to raise the Income Challenged or "Poor" to above poverty levels ~ It will also take the following ~
  
  *Raising the Minimum Wage ~ Progressives Support / Conservatives Obstruct
  *Providing FREE and or LOW Interest Rate Loans to Prospective Students for College or University Study ~ Progressives Support / Conservatives Obstruct ~
  *Equal Pay for Women ~ Progressives Support / Conservatives Obstruct
  *Funding Women's Health Care ~ Progressives Support / Conservatives Obstruct
  
  And the LIST goes on and on into the parallel universe ~
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Can you name the names of "Jeb Bush's oil and gas buddies" that received money from taxpayer pockets, along with how much? And, of course, document it?
  
  No? Just more rhetoric, made up stories, from you then.
  
  Raise the minimum wage any time you wish...as long as productivity and the market value of the labor raises with it. Until then it won't fly except as another fine liberal method to give away cash.
  
  Provide low interest/free money for school loans...as soon as you find a donor to provide it. Keep out of my pockets for your give-away programs.
  
  Equal pay for women - already in place. It is illegal to pay based on sex or any other of a dozen or so attributes. Not a "progressive" thing at all, it has been so for many years.
  
  Women's health care is already funded. You want more, find a donor but keep out of my pockets for more of your fine give away programs.
  
  And the list goes on forever. All the wonderful give-away "progressive" programs to bankrupt the country. Keep them to yourself or to those that wish to voluntarily fund them. The owners of the money wish to give away disagree with your uses and neither you nor any other socialist have a moral right to it.
  report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  He should appreciate your calmness.
  I myself am screaming all sorts of …
  
  not really.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if you read all of it but I found this statement rather interesting compared to the conclusions. "The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69 percent of the 400 created their own fortunes."
  If we are to believe the statistics 69% being self made are more than those who inherited their wealth.
  
  I don't know if the question should be how these people got their money but perhaps how the lower income groups can move up. Is it the contention that those at the top repress or make it harder for the lower income earners move up? Can it be earned through hard work that has always been the story for those wishing to improve themselves? Is the increase in the population making it harder than in the past? I don't know and these things need greater study if they are to be proven.
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your second paragraph...I am in complete agreement! I won't pretend to know more than I do about how to fix the problems. All I do know is that for 40% of the population no amount of "hard work" is going to get them anywhere. You can work at places for many years these days and still make $8 an hour, and the places that pay better never have openings. If they do it's through a temp service for 90 days then you get laid off. Large portions of USA are like this. The places outside of the big cities are much different. The average income in my state is $23,000 while in DC it is $90,000. Yet a decent home in a decent neighborhood in my city is $1,400 a month. That is $16,800 of the yearly average income of $23,000.
  Maybe it is the population, I don't know. What I do know is we can't keep pretending that hard work pays off for everyone. It doesn't!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No amount of hard work is going to make up for the evacuation of our manufacturing sector. The middle class was founded firmly on it after WWII. What has happened is that we allow illegal immigrants to fill the jobs at the bottom and then let the Chinese take care of the rest. Demanding the rich to make up the difference is like pi$$ing up a rope. We need to stop the loss of jobs that supported a strong work ethic.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This is exactly what backward conservatives want Americans to think, but in reality, Greed Driven Wall Street shoulders the entire burden & blame for moving manufacturing plants to other countries PERIOD ~
  
  This is a primary example of why more "Socialistic Tendencies" must be inserted here in the United States ~ A closure or SEVERE Regulation of Wall Street must occur, and if not achieved, at the very least the termination of "Earnings Frenzy" driven financial reports ~
  
  The very definition of "Un-Patriotic" is the decision by a Corporate CEO to move a plant(s) to another communistic country due to the primary fear that his company might just accumulate a mere 20.5 BILLION in annual revenues versus 20 BILLION in annual revenues if she/he keeps the plant in the United States ~
  
  This Un-Patriotic, Greed Driven, Appauling behavior practiced daily by bought and paid for ceo's must end as well ~
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Correction! We bare the burden of the greed that runs Wall Street and our country. Your shortcut of abandoning the structure of our economy is very unrealistic and impractical. We voted in the people that make the sell out possible. What you suggest is a bullying out those that own something totally legal. Distributing other peoples assets based on your take is ridiculous. Typical of oversimplified answers to complex issues. Do you even understand what you are talking about?
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We also bear the burden of consumer greed that demands the lowest possible price for everything we buy. We refuse to purchase American made as too expensive, turning instead to products from third world countries with low labor costs.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  As our wages remain stagnant and lower paying jobs being offered as career choices we have little choice. That is the plan of the corporate bullies. It is the response to weakening the unions and buying political remedies to import taffifs.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course we have a choice. We could buy a 30" American TV instead of a Japanese 50". We can buy a Ford Escort instead of a Toyota Prius. We can buy a 16 ft^3 American refrigerator instead of a 23 ft^3 Chinese monster. (all just grabbing, but you get the idea)
  
  But we don't. Instead we buy imports because we get more bang for the buck and pretend it doesn't affect our neighbor that makes refrigerators. And whine because others do the same thing and pretend that it isn't a major factor in our drawing unemployment.
  
  As far as weakened unions being to blame - ask Detroit why they don't make cars anymore. Why the entire city is one giant slum, with manufacturer after another leaving for greener (non-union) pastures.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  So given the circumstances I just allayed with stagnant wages and loss of jobs completely we should switch our purchasing of items based on smaller items made in the USA? This would raise the wages of our workers and create more jobs is what you are saying? The grass root movement of buy American till it hurts? Your offering is not particle nor close to solving the problem.
  
  There is only one television manufacturer in the US and they are assembling their products only. There is only one major sneaker manufacturer in the country. The textile industry has all but left the south and flooring is almost exclusively made in China. The list goes on and on while the completion of our manufacturing sector exodus will happen with the TPP.
  
  Look how the cable companies have split up the country and monopolized service to what it is. Just try to arrange an appointment or talk to somebody about a problem and you will see how non existent service really is.
  
  The wages went stagnant because it was far easier to pay 10% of the wages to a foreign labor pool and pocket the billions for the corporations. Sharing the proceeds of the company is now an abhorrent idea with modern corporate America. The shareholders demand it has nothing to do with consumer choices. Only control of the market.
  
  "As far as weakened unions being to blame - ask Detroit why they don't make cars anymore."
  
  Better yet ask Honda and Toyota how they were able to import their parts at reduced duty and crash the union wages by offering the only jobs left in the country. The unions were the only voice the American Workers had in this country and when the Corporations were able to buy the trade agreements through Congress they were able to take the jobs to a new lower level and eliminate the Unions in the process. Detroit died because Congress killed it all the while getting re-elected with their lobbying relationships.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OK - let's look at it this way. Labor is generally at least 50% of the cost of a product. If labor costs go down 90% (as you claim), profit should go up by at least half that, leaving a corporation to earn a net profit of around 50% (45 plus the original 5 before outsourcing). Do you think corporations are operating on a 50% profit margin? Half of each dollar goes to net profits?
  
  It's a perennial cry - that big corporations make megabucks off the poor consumer - but it simply isn't true. The profits are about the same, percentage wise, as they were before outsourcing. As the company grows, so do profits, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but it DOES produce some startlingly large total profits. Not so much considering the number of employees, the total investment or number of stockholders, but that's never mentioned, is it?
  
  And very sorry, Rhamson, but Detroit died because unions priced the cost of their product (labor) beyond anything the rest of the country could afford to buy. It's kind of hard for a worker earning $5 to buy the production of someone earning $30.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I market a product that is 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of the retailers pricing and this is a pretty general practice. Of that 1/4 to 1/3 cost to the retailers about 10% is the labor cost for my product made in China. Home Depot, for instance, dictates costs based on what they can buy and sell competitive product for. If you want into this powerful distribution network you have to accept their terms and you have to make it in China. They require it as policy. The money is made in sales volume. They don't treat all products the same and margins are on sliding scales based on volume.
  
  Corporations constantly squeeze their manufacturers for their profit margins while working to keep the prices down. The great exodus of jobs overseas in the past twenty years have now established the pricing structures based on overseas labor markets and lack of environmental restrictions. I have colleagues who travel to China regularly and come back telling me what a cesspool their rivers and lakes are and the health issues associated with it. The corporations operate under the same formula as used car salesmen. They make their money by what they pay for their inventory. Bought cheap and sold at the going rate is where they make their profits.
  
  Overhead is another topic entirely but these big box stores littering the landscape are notorious for not paying enough hours, no health insurance and low wages while their CEO's and elitist board members make 1000 and up times what their employees make.
  
  You blame the unions who made the best deals they could for their members and hold the CEO's and negotiators harmless for accepting the deals while they robbed the kitty blind. The management always held the reigns in the negotiations and caved to retirement and health insurance packages that accrued to astounding amounts no company could pay. When things started going south they paid these CEO's huge amounts of money in "Golden Parachute" deals as severance pay. You blame the employees for this? GM, Chrysler and Ford all could have scabbed their way out of the contracts and sometimes did. But the management never wanted to face their shareholders with down time, lawsuits and losses. They now have, through introducing overseas labor and materials, created a culture that has decimated the working middle class through their "friends" in Congress. I wouldn't call that faithful negotiating nor the fault of the Unions.
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The first half of your statement I agree with, but don't see it has much to do with anything. It remains that as more and more of the competition in most fields moved overseas it is required of everyone. And the reason for that move is not that the evil corporations simply pocketed all the savings (competition has dictated that their profit margin remain nearly constant); it is that the consumer demanded ever lower prices.
  
  WalMart is a great example of this: the company has become the biggest corporation in the world because it sells at the cheapest price. Not because people are angry WM pays low wages (and they are constantly vilified for doing so but people still flock to the stores), but because they have the low prices people want. They can't have low prices when labor rates are high, so they buy almost all imports - the production of WM merchandise is from cheap overseas labor and without it their niche is lost as the cheap-a$$ American consumer won't pay any more.
  
  But unions - you bite your own tail by saying that management holds all the reigns in negotiations and caved in to exorbitant union demands. UNIONS demanded, and got, those bennies and wages - the very things that caused the demise of union jobs.
  
  Here's the thing with unions - they require labor rates well above what the non-union laborer earns or they have no reason for existence. No one will pay dues when they get nothing from it. But that means the majority of earners, making considerably less, must buy union products for the unionized company to remain in business. As union packages continue to rise it becomes obvious that the companies paying those packages cannot survive as only a small portion of the country can afford to buy union products. It's called Greed, with a capital G - union greed, feeding off the lower paid workers in a system that depended and required those workers in order to survive and it was the cause of their downfall.
  
  Unions have done an enormous amount of good in this country but just like the grossly overpaid CEO's, greed overcame them and has caused their near-demise. Had they stuck with truly unfair wages to vent their ire on they would be flourishing (although that is rare compared to what it used to be), but they didn't. They chose large, vibrant companies and ran costs up until those companies were no longer large and vibrant (or until management simply refused to comply with outrageous demands any longer). Until competition overtook them and the very reason for their existence (jobs) began to be lost to cheaper competition.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your argument of consumers directing the market to demand lower prices is a chicken or the egg argument. Prices were constant and competitive at the time of the move towards overseas labor markets. The competition was equally based on US labor and supplies. The first to jump ship and seek overseas labor markets gained an advantage. To get around import and duty fees they went to Congress and supported Presidents that would make the import cheaper and easier. This move over time also restricted the amount people who could afford the products being sold from these foreign made products due to loss of incomes and stagnant wages. Credit was made easier to allow the marketplace to continue to prosper. Before you say anything I am talking about people who had to buy groceries and medicine due to the lack of being able to maintain their standard and stuck in mortgages they had to pay without an income. With China losing it's grip and competition being what it is with lower wages over here and slumping sales that the corporations which are now even able to leverage lower prices out of China. I have witnessed this personally with conversations with manufacturers I have talked with from China.
  
  Your example of Walmart is a horrible example of what the situation is. Recently Walmart made the announcement that it would be increasing it's wage structure because of the inability to retain employees. This is not a new concept. Henry Ford actually thought of it first. But now Walmart has announced it is going to cut back hours because of lagging sales. What a bunch of PR crap! Walmart sales are up 1.5% this year! They are not driven to succeed by their responsibility to their shareholders. They don't have any. Greed is the only thing that drives this business.
  
  As far as the unions being the cause of their own demise you miss the point of the power of the negotiated compromise subverted through the foreign labor pool initiative partaken by the Corporate structure. Instead of a negotiated settlement and dealing with the union demands they bought their way out of it with Congress. NAFTA, CAFTA, MEFTA, TAFTA etc. have all undermined the ability for Americans to maintain a standard of living by leveraging their ability to earn the necessary wages to do so. The Unions stood as a voice for the American worker which happened to be fighting against it's very own compromised government. That is why unions got into supporting candidates for elections to try and fight back. They lost because of their limited deep pockets and the slippery, slimy crap we have representing the people is really the reason for this mess. As a result we have a sliding middle class that is not represented and moneyed interests are in charge. Money is at the root of all of this and it wasn't the consumer driven farce of lower prices that made it happen.
  report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness ~ --------> "Consumer Greed" --------> ABSURD <-------
  WoW ~ That's almost the equivallent of calling an African American a Racist ~
  
  Once again, there is no valid reason why corporations that pay a decent wage to employees or should I say "Slaves", cannot compete with foriegn companies with regard to "Price" ~ It all STEMS from Wall Street "Corporate Greed" and unrealistic "Earnings Expectations" ~ Don't blame Labor Unions or any other conservative excuse, place the blame where it belongs, on the CORPORATION ~
  
  Believe it or not, an execuitive from United Technologies recently retired with a package valued at around 107 MILLION ~ Beautiful, while the employees, I mean "Slaves" can barely survive on $107 dollars ~ Appauling ~
  
  Once you understand the mechanics of Wall Street and how this sleazy industry operates, you will understand just about EVERYTHING ~
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously aren't a businessman. A quick tutorial: selling price cannot be more than purchase price or the business fails. When labor cost is higher than the competitors (by a large margin) a business cannot compete as their sales price would have to be lower than their purchase price.
  
  Does this help you understand why American business must hire foreign labor in order to satisfy the American consumer demand for the lowest possible price? Or do you think that corporate pockets are as unlimited as you believe the taxpayer pocket is and they can operate as indefinitely at a deficit as the liberals think the country can?
  report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Typical Backward Republican ~ Obviously you live where business-women/men sell at such a DEEP Discount it's less than what they bought the item for ~ No wonder you can't be reasoned with ~
  
  wilderness ~ SELLING Price MUST BE HIGHER than PURCHASE PRICE or the BUSINESS FAILS ~
  
  Furthermore, when refering to Wall Street everyone understands the fact that we are talking about the LARGEST Corporations in the WORLD, not Herb's Corner Barbeque Supply & Doggy Bubble Bath ~
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  My apologies - I misspoke (or misstyped ), for you are exactly right. Selling price must be more than purchase price.
  
  So you DO understand! A business cannot compete when labor costs rise to the point their sales price cannot be low enough to compete with another business. They must either follow suit and lower costs or go under.
  
  But I'm not sure what the size of the business has to do with anything. Yes, huge corporations have a huge profit. They also have a huge employee force, meaning a huge cost increase to pay even a part of what you want them to. More than their profit, even, and without that unlimited liberal well of money they cannot remain in business.
  report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Appology Accepted wilderness ~
  
  None of us are perfect and I know it's extremely difficult to believe, but I occassionaly Mis-Speak & Mis-Spell as well ~
  
  SIZE does indeed matter wilderness, when you compare a small operation trying to generate thousands in annual revenues versus large publically held corporations generating BILLIONs, there are tremendous Management, Logistical, Financial, and Philosophical Differences ~
  report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Of course size matters. There are major savings to be had through being large, and some of those savings go to consumers, some to labor, some to management and some to investors. It doesn't simply go under a mattress somewhere, and that's the point. Profit margins go up slightly, but with a huge corporation that means big bucks, but those big bucks don't simply go to either management OR investors.
  report
  70
  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Alternative,
  
  Please provide data that proves this statement is fact and not just your personal opinion.
  
  Thanks.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh Really Kathryn??
  
  Go see how many sandiches FREE WILL can buy at the local Deli ~
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Free Will does not steal. Free Will goes to Subway and asks if they need help. If the staff says no, Free Will goes across the street to see if the shoe repair shop needs help. Of course, they say to apply on-line. So Free Will goes to the library to do so, (since his friends won't let him use their computers for such nonsense.) Lo and Behold, Free Will finds many companies/jobs to apply for! Free Will decides to stock at the Ralph's down the street, (since Free Will doesn't have a car yet.) Free Will decides to work at night, (since he is not in the habit of waking up early … and after all, has a real life during the day: computer gaming at various friend's houses! )
  Ralph's needs stockers badly, so they hire him even though he has tattoos, ear piercings and an orange mohawk. At first Free Will loves stocking shelves. Its easy and he is good at it! No one puts him down for his appearance because he is just so fast and helpful. In fact, they call him Orange Lightening.
  Eventually, Orange Lightening gets tired of the color orange and grows out his hair and decides he would like people call him by his real name, Will.
  Now his hair is brown again and a nice length. He sees that he is a handsome bloke after all and decides to take out the earrings too. But, he is notices he is looking a little pale and haggard from no sun and too little sleep.
  So, Will applies to work in the Deli department at Ralph's. Now why didn't he think of that in the first place?! He in heaven making deli sandwiches for Ralph's customers. Being entitled to one deli sandwich a day, he begins eating lunches with Raven, the Deli Clerk. They discovered they have something in common: They both love deli sandwiches!
  FF Today they make them for their two kids.
  
  And thats a lot of deli sandwiches that Orange Lightening, uh, I mean ... Free Will bought!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If you really want to see some ignorance of blight look at the Vatican. Recently there has been a change but it nowhere near makes up for the absolute affluence that these people live in while children who suffer starvation who don't even have enough strength to wipe the flies from their eyes.. There is all kinds of unequal giving in the world but greed is a disease and is only cured with dealing with poverty, whether giving to help quell it or experiencing it first hand for yourself.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'd be interested in seeing how much you think it would cost to give $100 worth of Christmas gifts to all the 400,000 foster children. Did you include the costs of delivering some 1.6 million gifts (4 per child)? UPS has operating costs of about $233 million to deliver 1 million packages. The labor costs of purchasing and wrapping them (at 2 minutes to wrap one gift it will take 25 man years of 40 hour weeks and purchasing 4 personalized gifts for each child will be considerably more)? The costs of managing the program (70% of all charities give less than $.25 of each dollar to recipients)?
  
  The total is going to be well into the billions of dollars - seemingly far beyond any "bonuses" the wealthy might receive.
  reply report
51
Ketannaposted 9 years ago
Well not all people "hate" wealthy people, and not all rich people earned their riches, they were somewhat born in it or given it. It's Not really a matter of people hating them or taking from them, its just simply an imbalance going on because some of the wealthy are handed a silver platter without earning it. And the wealthy is not as needed as you make it seem, even middle class earning people travel, spend & hire, so either way it goes money will always travel into different hands weather wealthy, middle class, or poor.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
The hyper-envious of the wealthy just simply cannot make ANY sense of defending themselves in this debate , For those of you who simple despise the wealthy , get up , get going and earn your own , inherit your own or learn how to live envious ! What Thiers's is Thiers's , what's your's is all you get !
reply report
1. 58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  YEAH, and if there are any young adults reading this, if you're interested in a HIGHER EDUCATION at a reputable college or university, do what Mutt Romney, Jed Bush, and ALL other conservatives recommend you should do ~ JUST SHUT UP & GO BORROW THE MONEY FROM YOUR PARENTS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A HIGHFALUTIN, FANCY, SNOBBISH EDUCATION ~
  reply report
93
peeplesposted 9 years ago
"Allen Stanford - Former billionaire financier was convicted of running an estimated $7 billion Ponzi scheme and sentenced in June to 110 years in prison. He’s been in jail since 2009."

"Raj Rajaratnam - Former hedge fund billionaire, Rajaratnam, who once ran the Galleon Group, was found guilty of 14 counts of fraud in what’s been called the biggest insider trading ring of all time."

Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev - convicted on fraud charges, tax evasion, and embezzling more than 200 million tons of oil and laundering the proceeds.

Mahafarid Amir Khosravi, Jimoh Ibrahim, Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, Jordan Belfort, Kim Dotcom, Sean Quinn, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, Ephren Taylor, and Bernie Madoff.

That is just couple of the billionaires/millionaires who have been arrested because of their fraudulent ways of getting money, using money, or losing money.

It happens, a LOT!! This isn't some rare thing, and anyone who thinks it is, well they are choosing to ignore the facts. I don't think anyone thinks all rich people get rich by doing something wrong, but no one can say it doesn't happen enough for us to be suspect. On top of that, the number of countries we have pushed ourselves into to gain power and financial control over. How can so many not be a little annoyed by these people? So much power and look how they choose to use it. They certainly don't live by "what's your's is all you get !" when it comes to their money.
reply report
1. 0
  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Peeples ., who isn't annoyed by rich people who take from others , Yet what about poor people with the same mentality ? Does it mean that the only the rich should be punished ? Are you suggesting re-distributed wealth ? What's the difference between a rich crook and a poor crook ?
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I certainly think ALL criminals should be held accountable, however poor people are not responsible for causing the bank crisis, the majority control over government, the number of bombs we have dropped in the name of lobbyists. To compare the crime of the rich to the crime of the poor is like comparing the crime of murder to dealing marijuana. Can we really keep blaming people who have no control over the system/government for all the worlds problems while screaming "you should have worked harder" or are we at some point going to admit that not all people are given an equal chance in this country to succeed and the few who are given a head start refuse to help fix those inequalities?
  Call it what you like, I think that any time a billionaire finds themselves in a position of being arrested for gaining their money in fraudulent ways we should take the money they started with/inherited/worked hard for and hand it over to our schools, universities, and so on. I think we should exchange taxes for doing charitable works and giving. Since these people only look out for themselves, I think we should all get creative and find ways for the rich to be motivated into donating their money without it having to be taken.
  I have an opinion on the poor, but this thread was about the rich so I will spare you another article length forum post, but to answer your question, "What's the difference between a rich crook and a poor crook ?" One can only control themselves while the other can influence the masses. Equally as wrong, but different impacts.
  reply report
2. 58
  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  peeples ~
  
  THX for illustrating the common sense fact that there are more than a few "SWINDLERS" & "Fraudsters" who lurk in the shaddows and even within the bright lights of Wall Street & of course Main Street ~ They LURK & Steal all day long and into the night ~ Constantly scheming their next big SCORE, until they get caught, but of course then it's way too late when millions in our taxpayer funds must be drawn upon to finance prosecution of these corrupt individuals ~
  
  I'm really not trying to be antagonistic to anyone here, but there always seems to be a group of "Sight Challenged" republicans or conservative leaning individuals who apparently are either in denial that their "Billionaire Saviors" are not the sweet little patriotic angels they think they are ~ ASTONISHINGly Naive ~
  
  Or, it's quite possible they might be "Information Deficient" due to non-access or ownership of modern technology ~ Or perhaps they live in a very remote location like Montana or Idaho or wherever and it might be impossible for them to piece together a reliable connection to reach the outside world ~
  
  In any event, when you are asked, or should I say "Proded" by conservatives to prove something as painfully obvious as the existence of "Swindlers on Wall Street", it just re-affirms my assertion and belief that the obstructionist republican party is really extinct, gone as it should be ~
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
Perhaps we need to think about this , Most crime in America , is probably perpetrated by the poor !. Just a prediction of mine . But when you consider the percentages of poor to rich , common sense "should " take ahold. Who seriously benefits more from the legal system , my guess the poor !........Now I'm not saying that the rich go unpunished . But please people , keep a check on reality ..........Prove me wrong !
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

What is this obsession Americans have with the rich ?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

What is this obsession Americans have with the rich ?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies