Millionaires say inequality a problem, support higher taxes

Had they said anyone who works hard will become wealthy, that would have been wrong and your comment would be justified.

But they said can indicating that it's a possibility, not a certainty.

Bob

No relation? Then a majority of the richest 1% in the USA, for example, didn't get there by working hard. Is that your claim?

Bob

Yes. There is no causal relationship between "working hard" and being part of the 1%.

Here, Mcans, use this one. 

Big Company CEOs Just Aren't Worth What We Pay Them

(there were two http's in the link)

Hold your horses! This topic is about the wealthy. You're the one who turned it into the 1%. 

Where is the causal connection between working hard and becoming a doctor?

Doctors are wealthy because they are doctors. And you become a doctor by choosing the correct education and by being able to afford that education until you can support yourself as a physician. "Working hard" only factors into it if you count studying for exams as "working hard" - and in that case, why are PhDs in Anthropology or Marine Biology not making the same kind of money as doctors or lawyers?


Complex question fallacy. I never said that lawyers don't work hard.

Working hard doesn't turn you into a lawyer no matter how hard you try - going to law school does.



Yes, I am saying that work ethic is not the primary cause of socioeconomic status. What about you, are you claiming the opposite? Are you genuinely trying to argue that the only reason wealthy people are wealthy is because they worked harder than anybody else?

Do you believe that the 1% work thirty times as hard as the bottom 90% ? (from your link)

You have to be joking here. To even get into medical school requires high grades and that takes a lot of work. To get through medical school takes more hard work. Once you get the medical degree, you have to be an intern. Interns are required to put in several 36 hour shifts! This tests their endurance. And once you become a doctor, you are frequently on 24 hour call.

PhD's in Anthropology and Marine Biology do not make the same kind of money because there is not as much demand for their services. When you get sick or are injured, you don't go to a Marine Biologist, do you?



But you did say there was no connection between hard work and becoming rich. Therefore rich lawyers don't work hard to become rich.



Yes. Hard work itself does not necessarily make a person rich. But hard work is an important factor for most people becoming rich. BTW, getting through law school and passing the bar isn't easy either.



We are not talking about socioeconomic status. And we are not talking about a "work ethic." We are talking about hard work as a factor in becoming wealthy.
 

No, not the only reason, but an important reason. There is a connection. The tables show that most of the 1% are professionals, and professionals make money by working.

No, but they point s that most of the 1% do work hard and long, which was the point you originally denied. Did you happen to notice the large fluctuations in that graph for the top 1%? People don't stay there automatically. They loose jobs. They go broke. Those numbers are only averages. There is downward income mobility too.

Bob

Good points Lily. For "wealthy", I thought we should concentrate on the richest 1% because they have been in the news a lot over the past couple of years. As a result, there is more information about them. "Working hard" means putting in overtime on a regular basis. For example, here is some data on how many hours a week doctors work:



Bob

This is a lot trickier than it appears. When you say "rich", do you mean liquid assets? In other words, cash in a current bank account? Or do you mean owning property that has a high value? Just yesterday there was an article in The Guardian highlighting the fact that one in ten British households has property valued at more than a million pounds ($1,690,000). Technically, these people are millionaires. But many of them are hard up for cash.

I know people in Ireland who own a 30-room castle with a courtyard, stables, orchards and god knows how many acres of land. The property is probably worth upwards of EUR10m - but the people who live there struggle to pay their electricity bill! The castle is their family home, and has been in the family for hundreds of years. Are these people rich because they have valuable assets? (They also have paintings, antiques etc.)

Many people live in properties that they inherited from their parents. Not necessarily castles, but houses that may be worth a million or two.

And then there are people who run their own business who have millions tied up in their company. Many, if not most, entrepreneurs invest their earnings back into their business. So technically they might be high earners, but most of their money goes back into their business.

And finally there are people who accumulate a large amount of money by saving part of their earnings. I know an elderly couple here in Granada, for example, who between them have saved over EUR2m (I guess that would be close to $3m). They're both well-paid professionals with no children, and they have no extravagant vices or hobbies. So yes, they're millionaires if you're talking about amassed wealth - but it took them 40 years to acquire that wealth. And now they're both retired and they have very little income. Are they wealthy? They don't even have a car.

Wealth can be defined in a number of different ways. People can have a lot of cash, but little or no income. People can have valuable assets, but no cash. And people - especially people who run their own business - can be millionaires one year, broke the next, and millionaires again the year after that. Wealth is not always static.

I'm just saying you really need to define what you mean by "wealthy" before you can argue about whether wealth can be acquired through hard work, or whatever. And it might also be useful to know what percentage of wealth is acquired through earnings v inherited or earned from inherited/gifted investments.

I'm talking about high income, about people who earn the most, the top 1%. McAnswer says that there is no connection between the amount of work they do and their income. So far, the data seem to refute that view.

Bob

I'm glad you mentioned interns. In the medical field, people tend to work a lot harder in their internships and their first few years as doctors, than at any later point in their career - and yet, their wages are a small fraction of doctors near the end of their career. Shouldn't it be the other way around, according to your claim?


(my emphasis)

Exactly! That is the point I am argueing!

They make less money because they chose a field where people don't make much money, not because they work less hard than people in other fields.

Strawman. I never said that.

What I did say isd that hard work is not the cause of wealth, and until you come up with something that manages to establish a causal link between the two I don't need to deny anything.

Not at all. Who would you rather treat you if you were sick, an intern or an experienced doctor? The doctor gets paid on the basis of experience, on the basis of the number of hours already worked in the past. And you have not presented any evidence that experienced doctors work less as time goes on. In fact, they still work well over 40 hours per week as the is clearly shown in the link I posted.

(my emphasis)

Then your point has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Is hard work AN IMPORTANT FACTOR in the wealth accumulation of rich people? The answer is yes! Of course other people can work hard in jobs that do not pay well. But that has nothing to do with the fact that hard work is a major factor in the wealth accumulation of most rich people.

Bob