[Politics]How long until we eat the rich?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

Occupy Wall Street was kinda like that, but it got shut down because there was no good organization behind it.

It's been like that for ages, and the rich remain uneaten. People tend to want (and sometimes even expect) to become rich, not to eat them and have a genuinely fair society. That's something hard to imagine.

Depends, how long will they take to marinade?

Rich people keep paying off the people in power, all the poor people in America live under the delusion that one day they'll be rich too ( they won't ), so they keep putting up with crap because one day they'll be on top and can deal out the crap ( spoiler: they'll die a "poor" person ).

It depends. How well can the people organize and educate each other, and how well can the propaganda that says the people who are on top are somehow 'necessary' or 'rightful' counteract that organization?

We proceed from widespread discontent to the knowledge among those who are not content that there is widespread discontent, and then from that knowledge to organizing around that discontent, formulating strategy and demands. The class war is ongoing, but it is for the most part being fought only by one side. On the other side, the people vastly outnumber the ruling class. The employees outnumber the employers. And the thin rationale that those who exploit labor and appropriate the surplus for themselves are 'job creators', or are otherwise necessary or helpful is vulnerable to a mere moment's clear thought.

But what is the form of the new society we might create? What question are we answering? Are we talking about planning vs. markets? Or are we talking about democracy in the workplace vs. the autocracy of our current capitalism? Personally, I like Richard Wolff's view (the latter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBRhTnswnv0

Drathnoxis:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless. While we could question whether the feats of starting up successful companies deserves the billions their creators now own, I think we can agree these people didn't acquire their wealth without being productive? They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I and their companies have become part of the lives of millions of people.

But off course when you see CEO's getting huge bonuses for taking absurd financial risks (banking crisis) or laying off thousands to slightly increase the already profitable margins we can ask ourselves if they truly deserve all that money. I think we really need to start distuingishing the rich who have become rich through innovative entrepreneurship and those who have become rich by making others poorer.

generals3:

Drathnoxis:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless.

Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)

Seanchaidh:

generals3:

Drathnoxis:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless.

Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)

So convince humanity to go against its natural inclination to continue to support the things that makes life more convenient for itself. If the power is corrupt and the money is corrupt then the only solution is the people right? But the people like convenience too much to actually give any kind of real effort for stopping such a thing (People still bought and continue to buy Nike products despite everything surrounding their production) so what exactly does everyone suggest be done other than "It's the responsibility of someone else"?

Seanchaidh:

Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)

Well, it depends, how do you determine how much value a worker produces? Because in that equation you're forgeting the value of capital. A worker using solely his own brain and hands will produce less value than one who has access to machinery, IT, ... Capital has become increasingly important and valuable and therefor also deserves its remuneration (which is done using profits). Maybe Capital is currently being overpaid, and based on dividend rates which tend to increase that may be a good point. But pretending that making a profit de-facto means that workers are underpaid is wrong and assumes only labor created value.

generals3:

Seanchaidh:

Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)

Well, it depends, how do you determine how much value a worker produces? Because in that equation you're forgeting the value of capital. A worker using solely his own brain and hands will produce less value than one who has access to machinery, IT, ... Capital has become increasingly important and valuable and therefor also deserves its remuneration (which is done using profits). Maybe Capital is currently being overpaid, and based on dividend rates which tend to increase that may be a good point. But pretending that making a profit de-facto means that workers are underpaid is wrong and assumes only labor created value.

Definitely disagree with this. Those big, professional companies are making record billions of dollars of profit and most of this ends up in the hands of(often foreign) shareholders. Very little is for the company, let alone the workers. In public companies the CEO is mostly just a puppet. Even the tax man receives relatively little when profits are written off on some sister company in the Bahamas that makes 1% of the revenue(like with Starbucks). In the case of Amazon there is absolutely no reason to exploit their suppliers(like USPS) like that, or underpay their workers just so Bezos can have 200(!) billion dollars. That doesn't take away Bezos' accomplishment(which is huge) or that he invests like a billion per month in Blue Origin, but just reserving one billion(which he won't even notice) to give his workers a raise and not undercut his suppliers would go a long away. Now his strategy is one of pure greed, which he is allowed to do but does give capitalism a bad rep and can also ferment distrust among the public(which can hurt a company in the long run). But ofcourse people vote with their wallet and as long as Amazon can provide low prices with very effective customer support they will remain to have the competitive edge.

The book 'superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making' by David Rothkopf is a very good read on the matter.

stroopwafel:

Definitely disagree with this. Those big, professional companies are making record billions of dollars of profit and most of this ends up in the hands of(often foreign) shareholders. Very little is for the company, let alone the workers. In public companies the CEO is mostly just a puppet. Even the tax man receives relatively little when profits are written off on some sister company in the Bahamas that makes 1% of the revenue(like with Starbucks). In the case of Amazon there is absolutely no reason to exploit their suppliers(like USPS) like that, or underpay their workers just so Bezos can have 200(!) billion dollars. That doesn't take away Bezos' accomplishment(which is huge) or that he invests like a billion per month in Blue Origin, but just reserving one billion(which he won't even notice) to give his workers a raise and not undercut his suppliers would go a long away. Now his strategy is one of pure greed, which he is allowed to do but does give capitalism a bad rep and can also ferment distrust among the public(which can hurt a company in the long run). But ofcourse people vote with their wallet and as long as Amazon can provide low prices with very effective customer support they will remain to have the competitive edge.

The book 'superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making' by David Rothkopf is a very good read on the matter.

This doesn't necessarily mean you disagree with me. I have never said that shareholders should get an unfairly big part of the pie, I have even pointed out the dividend rate may be getting too high nowadays. My point was simply that capital does provide value and therefor needs to be remunerated. Just like a CEO deserves a salary too, doesn't mean it has to be 50 million a year.

This said a lot of people sometimes overestimate just how much investors get from a company. To take Amazon as an example, as of now they have yet to pay a single dividend. All the profits investors have currently made are from other investors. No single worker was underpaid to fund investor (which doesn't make Amazon's policies towards suppliers or employees any more ethical)

I've had the barbecue sauce ready for a few years.

Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.

Make me rich first and I'll give an estimate for free. Also I taste bad.

Chimpzy:
Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.

.........I'll give you points for the Warren Buffet pun.

generals3:

Drathnoxis:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless. While we could question whether the feats of starting up successful companies deserves the billions their creators now own, I think we can agree these people didn't acquire their wealth without being productive? They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I and their companies have become part of the lives of millions of people.

But off course when you see CEO's getting huge bonuses for taking absurd financial risks (banking crisis) or laying off thousands to slightly increase the already profitable margins we can ask ourselves if they truly deserve all that money. I think we really need to start distuingishing the rich who have become rich through innovative entrepreneurship and those who have become rich by making others poorer.

First of all, no the wealthy do not work harder than most people. Most people work harder than the wealthy. Second, Most wealthy gain their money by taking part of what other people should have earned rather than doing the work themselves. They earn money from other's work so that they do not have to do the work themselves. By underpaying people for their work, they essentially create a siphon draining the wealth from those households, communities and cities where these people live and work and accumulate it into fewer and fewer hands. The CEO taking financial risks is not any riskier than the average person taking out a mortgage or putting a lien on their car or home to be able to survive. Although it involves less money due to them having less money, it is a higher risk because if it doesn't work out they can lose everything and become Homeless, starving and destitute if things do not work out for them. The CEO usually has enough money put back that they would be considered wealthy regardless if their risks flop, they will still not lose their ability to provide food, shelter or transportation for themselves. The risks that the poor take every day are MORE than those that are taken by the wealthy due to what is at stake if they lose.

People also tend to forget that even though Bill Gates tries to do some nice things now, when he was getting started he screwed people over, fired them and stole their work, took credit for their work and was taken to court repeatedly for his malignant actions. Years ago, when discussing Bill Gates with an old programmer father of a friend, I too though that the "cleaned up version" of the " Bill Gates Story" was reality, then he proceeded to show me numerous documents that told the truth about what happened. Bill Gates harmed the people responsible for his success to become successful himself. The vast majority of the time, for someone to breach the financial barriers to become successful, they are screwing people over and taking from them to be able to get to that point. It is extremely difficult for people to gain the capital needed to break the barrier to be successful without taking it from someone else.

Chimpzy:
Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.

*Sigh* I guess that would be the environmentally beneficial best choice, though I was so looking forward to launching them into the sun for the entertainment value, as that would be more entreating than a moon landing for sure.

Never. They keep managing to manipulate to general populus into dividing each other into tribes so that they never turn on their puppet masters. Its especially obvious these days with the blacks vs whites vs gays vs men vs women vs trans vs pro-Trump vs anti-Trump vs immigrants vs muslims vs christians vs jews vs nazis vs fat people vs thin people vs socialists vs conservatives vs democrats vs Europe vs Brexit vs Remain vs Isreal vs Palastine vs ISIS vs Russia vs China.

It utterly baffles me how people will buy into and even DEFEND corporations because Apples twitter PR bot once said "Nazis are pretty bad guys. Buy this limited edition rainbow striped iPhone only $699.99" and think that they're still raging against the machine.

Never. We all get just enough compensation being part of their system to survive in relative comfort so we go along with it.
So presumably when that stops being the case.

And when they can't just pay a few people to protect them from the masses they're hoarding all the resources from.

But then they will have the money and resources to make robots to do that instead.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Never. They keep managing to manipulate to general populus into dividing each other into tribes so that they never turn on their puppet masters. Its especially obvious these days with the blacks vs whites vs gays vs men vs women vs trans vs pro-Trump vs anti-Trump vs immigrants vs muslims vs christians vs jews vs nazis vs fat people vs thin people vs socialists vs conservatives vs democrats vs Europe vs Brexit vs Remain vs Isreal vs Palastine vs ISIS vs Russia vs China.

It utterly baffles me how people will buy into and even DEFEND corporations because Apples twitter PR bot once said "Nazis are pretty bad guys. Buy this limited edition rainbow striped iPhone only $699.99" and think that they're still raging against the machine.

I will never understand why people buy any apple products period. Even if people are not aware that they had horrendous working conditions even by China's standards and failed numerous inspections, the fact they tried to tell people what they can and cannot put on their devices and who can and cannot repair them should have been more than enough for people to tell them to shove off.

nought against cannibalism here, but I do think using their cells for sustenance is probably giving them too much credit. if someone killed and ate me, I'd be saying "well, at least they didn't hate me entirely." except being totally dead, it wouldn't be said, it would be subtly whispered down some asshole's corridor at night-time in a newfound mission to haunt people into insanity

it'd be much preferred to abandon them all on a tiny island to fend for themselves, so they cannibalise each other for our own entertainment while we eat all their tasty food instead

Lil devils x:

First of all, no the wealthy do not work harder than most people. Most people work harder than the wealthy. Second, Most wealthy gain their money by taking part of what other people should have earned rather than doing the work themselves. They earn money from other's work so that they do not have to do the work themselves. By underpaying people for their work, they essentially create a siphon draining the wealth from those households, communities and cities where these people live and work and accumulate it into fewer and fewer hands. The CEO taking financial risks is not any riskier than the average person taking out a mortgage or putting a lien on their car or home to be able to survive. Although it involves less money due to them having less money, it is a higher risk because if it doesn't work out they can lose everything and become Homeless, starving and destitute if things do not work out for them. The CEO usually has enough money put back that they would be considered wealthy regardless if their risks flop, they will still not lose their ability to provide food, shelter or transportation for themselves. The risks that the poor take every day are MORE than those that are taken by the wealthy due to what is at stake if they lose.

People also tend to forget that even though Bill Gates tries to do some nice things now, when he was getting started he screwed people over, fired them and stole their work, took credit for their work and was taken to court repeatedly for his malignant actions. Years ago, when discussing Bill Gates with an old programmer father of a friend, I too though that the "cleaned up version" of the " Bill Gates Story" was reality, then he proceeded to show me numerous documents that told the truth about what happened. Bill Gates harmed the people responsible for his success to become successful himself. The vast majority of the time, for someone to breach the financial barriers to become successful, they are screwing people over and taking from them to be able to get to that point. It is extremely difficult for people to gain the capital needed to break the barrier to be successful without taking it from someone else.

First of all, nobody said "wealthy people" work harder than... That would be an absurd statement because being "wealthy" doesn't say anything about your occupation. Which was entirely my point, you can't just lump "wealthy" people together as one monolithic and parasitic group. This said, top corporate executives do work more than your average worker, a lot more.

Secondly wealthy people being a very diverse group also means their source of income is diverse. A succesful entrepreneur who sold his company for a billion didn't become a billionaire from syphoning wealth from his employees. He became one by finding someone or a company willing to give him that money in exchange for his company. A rich actor doesn't get to decide who is paid what in the movie industry and can hardly be blamed for a company willing to pay him millions at the expense of the technical staff. Soccer players also earn way too much money, but not by purposely syphoning anything from anyone.

As for risk, it depends to which type of wealthy person you compare it. A CEO shouldn't be given extra remuneration based on the risk he takes for himself, that's an absurd notion some very pro-rich people use. Golden parachutes have pretty much rendered those jobs financially riskless. The risk however lies with the company. A simple employee making a mistake is unlikely to cause the company a lot of harm, a wrong strategic decision can have catastrophic results. Hence the idea a company has to attract "the best of the best" and be willing to pay the money for it. But as I doubt the skills & competences of CEO's have drastically increased the past hundred years I'm going to assume they're currently extremely overvalued and paid too much for what they offer. On the other hand an investor does risk more than an average employee. Not only does an investor risk not earning anything in the future but he also puts all the invested wealth at risk. Employees merely risk future income. You may say that the lost wealth will harm the investor less, perhaps, but the absolute risk is still much higher. This is also why many low/middle income households are not investing a lot on the stock market, they're not willing to take that extra risk.

As for Bill Gates, I don't doubt he has done some unethical things during his careers to get where he is now. But it doesn't change that microsoft is a company that provides software widely used and useful and has created value for millions of people and probably billions indirectly.

People don't even want to hold the police responsible for their actions. Hell, people dont even want to hold Nazis responsible for their actions.

Most people are shelfish shills who dont give a fuck about anyone. The rest of us are screwed.

Gordon_4:

Chimpzy:
snip

.........I?ll give you points for the Warren Buffet pun.

The (t)rump steak pun was too on the nose. Dammit, knew it.

generals3:

Lil devils x:

First of all, no the wealthy do not work harder than most people. Most people work harder than the wealthy. Second, Most wealthy gain their money by taking part of what other people should have earned rather than doing the work themselves. They earn money from other's work so that they do not have to do the work themselves. By underpaying people for their work, they essentially create a siphon draining the wealth from those households, communities and cities where these people live and work and accumulate it into fewer and fewer hands. The CEO taking financial risks is not any riskier than the average person taking out a mortgage or putting a lien on their car or home to be able to survive. Although it involves less money due to them having less money, it is a higher risk because if it doesn't work out they can lose everything and become Homeless, starving and destitute if things do not work out for them. The CEO usually has enough money put back that they would be considered wealthy regardless if their risks flop, they will still not lose their ability to provide food, shelter or transportation for themselves. The risks that the poor take every day are MORE than those that are taken by the wealthy due to what is at stake if they lose.

People also tend to forget that even though Bill Gates tries to do some nice things now, when he was getting started he screwed people over, fired them and stole their work, took credit for their work and was taken to court repeatedly for his malignant actions. Years ago, when discussing Bill Gates with an old programmer father of a friend, I too though that the "cleaned up version" of the " Bill Gates Story" was reality, then he proceeded to show me numerous documents that told the truth about what happened. Bill Gates harmed the people responsible for his success to become successful himself. The vast majority of the time, for someone to breach the financial barriers to become successful, they are screwing people over and taking from them to be able to get to that point. It is extremely difficult for people to gain the capital needed to break the barrier to be successful without taking it from someone else.

First of all, nobody said "wealthy people" work harder than... That would be an absurd statement because being "wealthy" doesn't say anything about your occupation. Which was entirely my point, you can't just lump "wealthy" people together as one monolithic and parasitic group. This said, top corporate executives do work more than your average worker, a lot more.

Secondly wealthy people being a very diverse group also means their source of income is diverse. A succesful entrepreneur who sold his company for a billion didn't become a billionaire from syphoning wealth from his employees. He became one by finding someone or a company willing to give him that money in exchange for his company. A rich actor doesn't get to decide who is paid what in the movie industry and can hardly be blamed for a company willing to pay him millions at the expense of the technical staff. Soccer players also earn way too much money, but not by purposely syphoning anything from anyone.

As for risk, it depends to which type of wealthy person you compare it. A CEO shouldn't be given extra remuneration based on the risk he takes for himself, that's an absurd notion some very pro-rich people use. Golden parachutes have pretty much rendered those jobs financially riskless. The risk however lies with the company. A simple employee making a mistake is unlikely to cause the company a lot of harm, a wrong strategic decision can have catastrophic results. Hence the idea a company has to attract "the best of the best" and be willing to pay the money for it. But as I doubt the skills & competences of CEO's have drastically increased the past hundred years I'm going to assume they're currently extremely overvalued and paid too much for what they offer. On the other hand an investor does risk more than an average employee. Not only does an investor risk not earning anything in the future but he also puts all the invested wealth at risk. Employees merely risk future income. You may say that the lost wealth will harm the investor less, perhaps, but the absolute risk is still much higher. This is also why many low/middle income households are not investing a lot on the stock market, they're not willing to take that extra risk.

As for Bill Gates, I don't doubt he has done some unethical things during his careers to get where he is now. But it doesn't change that microsoft is a company that provides software widely used and useful and has created value for millions of people and probably billions indirectly.

I was addressing this quote above "They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I". the issue is that most of the working class and lower middle class actually have to work multiple jobs. They may only work 30 hours at one job, but then they work at another job for 30 hours as well. My father worked 3 jobs his entire life before he became paralyzed. I used to work 123hr work weeks working 2 full time jobs and a part time job, yes you read that right, I worked ridiculous hours at one time. In the US due to cost of living so greatly outpacing incomes people are forced to work multiple jobs to keep a roof over their heads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/07/22/more-people-probably-work-multiple-jobs-than-the-government-realizes/#1ed1ad862a21
https://www.businessinsider.com/more-americans-working-more-than-one-job-to-make-ends-meet-2017-8

Due to their not being a social safety net in the US, and not having adequate housing protection, here in Texas, for example, people can become homeless within 24 hours of not paying their rent, so when an employee takes risks, they are not just losing future income, they can become homeless very easily. This does not just affect their present ability to provide shelter mind you, if they are evicted, they may not be able to find any other place to live even once they have income again because they will have that eviction on their record and you have to have good credit and recommendations from previous land lords in order to become qualified for a new apartment. So when an employee takes risks, they lose their ability to provide shelter for themselves and their family presently and for the foreseeable future. They can lose their home transportation, access to food and anything else they need to survive if things do not work out. The reason why so many lower income people do not invest in stocks is they do not have enough to make ends meet each month as it is so they would be using existing grocery money or money to pay utility bills or housing payments to do so. For them to have money to invest at all, they would have to put a lien on their car or home and their risk would be actual homelessness if it didn't work out. That is the reality that exists in the US. Lower income people in the US take risks every day in that they hope they do not get hurt because they would lose their home if they were put into the hospital.

I strongly disagree that the investor is risking more than the employee. Your typical investor is not worried about becoming homeless and having their family starve if their risk doesn't work out, the employee does. One missed paycheck can mean homelessness within 24 hours. How many investors have to deal with that compared to how many employees? The absolute risk is far higher for the employee, and anyone who depends on them getting that next paycheck. Hell many cities in the US do not even have homeless shelters or any help at all for those who become homeless, people are just expected to make do without being sheltered at that point. If an investor is not risking homelessness if things don't work out, they are not taking the greater risk.

generals3:
But as I doubt the skills & competences of CEO's have drastically increased the past hundred years I'm going to assume they're currently extremely overvalued and paid too much for what they offer. On the other hand an investor does risk more than an average employee. Not only does an investor risk not earning anything in the future but he also puts all the invested wealth at risk. Employees merely risk future income. You may say that the lost wealth will harm the investor less, perhaps, but the absolute risk is still much higher. This is also why many low/middle income households are not investing a lot on the stock market, they're not willing to take that extra risk.

Large shareholders like investment firms, pension funds, foreign investors or private equity put tremendous pressure on CEOs to bump short term stock price so the 'strategy' of most CEOs is usually no more than cutting costs, selling parts of the company, undercutting suppliers, laying people off, outsourcing most of their activities and saving on personnel costs. Mostly corporations are like an oil tanker for short term gain. The shareholders want immediate share increase and high dividend rates and the corporate fat cat wants his bonus that is usually linked to the bump in stock price. And since most CEOs are ousted as soon as share price starts to drop it's no surprise where their priorities lie; in the short term ie cost reduction. Sure every once in a blue moon there is this visionary talent like Steve Jobs but really they are the exception to the rule.

I'd say the risk between employees and investment firms isn't really comparable. Employees are dependent on the company for their income while investment firms calculate the risk and still have billions of dollars in reserve. When a company has to downsize for loss in share price my sympathy would go out more towards the average joe who gets laid off and now has trouble paying the mortgage than the Carlyle Group. Stock markets have also become so insulated it seems that they often don't even reflect the actual value of the company anymore, so investment firms can often just ride it out unlike small investors let alone employees.

Saelune:
People don't even want to hold the police responsible for their actions. Hell, people dont even want to hold Nazis responsible for their actions.

Most people are shelfish shills who dont give a fuck about anyone. The rest of us are screwed.

Weirdly enough though we seem to love to hold black people, women and muslims responsible for their behavior and the behavior of others who seem to believe similar things.

Kwak:
Never. We all get just enough compensation being part of their system to survive in relative comfort so we go along with it.
So presumably when that stops being the case.

Do we? Last I checked there was a global poverty epidemic.

We never will because thanks to our new 'Always be happy, embrace your best self' age, poor people don't view themselves as poor, but as temporarily inconvenienced rich. So we can't eat the rich because BillyBob is one scratch off away from being rich.

Lil devils x:

I was addressing this quote above "They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I". the issue is that most of the working class and lower middle class actually have to work multiple jobs. They may only work 30 hours at one job, but then they work at another job for 30 hours as well. My father worked 3 jobs his entire life before he became paralyzed. I used to work 123hr work weeks working 2 full time jobs and a part time job, yes you read that right, I worked ridiculous hours at one time. In the US due to cost of living so greatly outpacing incomes people are forced to work multiple jobs to keep a roof over their heads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/07/22/more-people-probably-work-multiple-jobs-than-the-government-realizes/#1ed1ad862a21
https://www.businessinsider.com/more-americans-working-more-than-one-job-to-make-ends-meet-2017-8

Due to their not being a social safety net in the US, and not having adequate housing protection, here in Texas, for example, people can become homeless within 24 hours of not paying their rent, so when an employee takes risks, they are not just losing future income, they can become homeless very easily. This does not just affect their present ability to provide shelter mind you, if they are evicted, they may not be able to find any other place to live even once they have income again because they will have that eviction on their record and you have to have good credit and recommendations from previous land lords in order to become qualified for a new apartment. So when an employee takes risks, they lose their ability to provide shelter for themselves and their family presently and for the foreseeable future. They can lose their home transportation, access to food and anything else they need to survive if things do not work out. The reason why so many lower income people do not invest in stocks is they do not have enough to make ends meet each month as it is so they would be using existing grocery money or money to pay utility bills or housing payments to do so. For them to have money to invest at all, they would have to put a lien on their car or home and their risk would be actual homelessness if it didn't work out. That is the reality that exists in the US. Lower income people in the US take risks every day in that they hope they do not get hurt because they would lose their home if they were put into the hospital.

I strongly disagree that the investor is risking more than the employee. Your typical investor is not worried about becoming homeless and having their family starve if their risk doesn't work out, the employee does. One missed paycheck can mean homelessness within 24 hours. How many investors have to deal with that compared to how many employees? The absolute risk is far higher for the employee, and anyone who depends on them getting that next paycheck. Hell many cities in the US do not even have homeless shelters or any help at all for those who become homeless, people are just expected to make do without being sheltered at that point. If an investor is not risking homelessness if things don't work out, they are not taking the greater risk.

Well off course, that tendency of some/many Americans to take up multiple jobs can make it harder to compare hours worked. But here, in the developed nations that have a social security worthy of developed nations most people only have one job and work 9 to 5. And I'm sure plenty of Americans do too. Compare that to your average Executive who probably works from 8 to 8 and extra hours during the weekend and you have a higher average workload.

As for risk in my first post I was specifically referring to people like Bill gates or Jeff Besos, entrepreneurs who became rich by making a succesful company. These people did take a lot of risks, I know sufficient entrepreneurs to know it's a hard & stressful path with potentially nothing at the end of the road.

And as I said, I agree that the relative risk for low/medium income employees is larger than wealthy investor due to their lack of reserves to face a loss of revenue. But on an absolute term the only wealth they risk is future revenue. An investor can lose future revenue and invested capital. While a rich person would be less affected even by a larger loss you have to understand that from their point of view putting that money at risk deserves remuneration. Why would someone (or a fund/company) invest millions which they could potentially lose for marginal returns? But again, I don't think this justifies ludicrous returns on investments and that employees need to be exploited to fund that. A balance has to be found because both capital and labor are needed to create value. And Yes I would agree that based on current data the "investing class" has been receiving an unfairly large portion of the pie.

Worgen:

Saelune:
People don't even want to hold the police responsible for their actions. Hell, people dont even want to hold Nazis responsible for their actions.

Most people are shelfish shills who dont give a fuck about anyone. The rest of us are screwed.

Weirdly enough though we seem to love to hold black people, women and muslims responsible for their behavior and the behavior of others who seem to believe similar things.

'Sexism and racism is a myth; also everyone is sexist and racist against white men!'

(Right-wing) Christian: 'Islam oppresses gays and women; also gays shouldnt get married and women should do what men tell them'.

Silvanus:

Kwak:
Never. We all get just enough compensation being part of their system to survive in relative comfort so we go along with it.
So presumably when that stops being the case.

Do we? Last I checked there was a global poverty epidemic.

Yes but it's other people who are poor and they're only poor because they don't work as hard as I do. And also it's the Poor's fault that there's poor people because poor people keep doing things like claiming the Dole and needing shelter. So if I ever do go poor it's not my fault because if I ever had to engage with social services it's because I really needed to but everyone else on it is just sponging.

bluegate:
Rich people keep paying off the people in power, all the poor people in America live under the delusion that one day they'll be rich too ( they won't ), so they keep putting up with crap because one day they'll be on top and can deal out the crap ( spoiler: they'll die a "poor" person ).

Silentpony:
We never will because thanks to our new 'Always be happy, embrace your best self' age, poor people don't view themselves as poor, but as temporarily inconvenienced rich. So we can't eat the rich because BillyBob is one scratch off away from being rich.

That's the optimist way to see it. But really a lot of poor people in America think being poor is their place, an inescapable existence they had the bad luck to be born into. But are they happy with it? Before the rich at least tried to make themselves look philanthropic, and promote a more humanitarian view of capitalism, one that appeared to have social awareness. The first sign of the end of that facade was when pensions for life for retired blue-collar workers disappeared or were replaced by 401k.

generals3:

As for risk in my first post I was specifically referring to people like Bill gates or Jeff Besos, entrepreneurs who became rich by making a succesful company. These people did take a lot of risks, I know sufficient entrepreneurs to know it's a hard & stressful path with potentially nothing at the end of the road.

Yes and no.

There's some truth in the idea that these guys would never have lost everything. At worst, Gates and Bezos would have just had to get a day job like the rest of us, and no doubt done fine. They work on a very different order of risk from your average modestly paid employee. Bezos and Gates were affluent, albeit hardly super-rich, before they started their companies.

Bezos had a top degree from a top university, and had held high level management positions prior to Amazon. He could have gone back to that had it failed. He started Amazon with hundreds of thousands of dollars from his parents (how many people have that sort of backing?) and plenty other investors who took a big chunk of the risk. Gates had wealthy parents and was expensively educated, likewise got into a top university (although did not complete his degree), etc. Had MS failed, he still had plenty to fall back on and every opportunity for a very strong career anyway (plus his parents' wealth to fall back on).

The thing about investors, certainly at the higher end, is they invest their spare money. They don't mortgage their houses, empty their savings: this is a completely different order of risk we have to consider when we assess them compared to the masses.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here