|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 15:09:09 GMT -5
No, but they point s that most of the 1% do work hard and long, which was the point you originally denied. 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. But hard work is one of the main causes of wealth. Unless, of course, you are claiming that it's only a coincidence that so many rich people work much longer than a 40 hour week. That is a strange coincidence, isn't it? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 15:11:37 GMT -5
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. And yet, they own 850 times as much as the bottom 10%. Go figure. I figure that shows hard work pays off. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 15:45:58 GMT -5
I don't know about you, Bob, and maybe also Mcans, but you don't seem to be considering demographics. And that's what the Democrats in the article are considering as well, I'm sure. Hard work, sure that's one thing. But how about educational background, supportive family and community, opportunities. Yes, we've heard about the homeless girl who fought her way to Harvard. But we hear about that because it's so rare. It's the mindset like yours that thinks every single person just needs to want to success that can.
Family support and encouragement are really very important factors. You hear about Asians, for instance where their children have high success in school. Why? Because education is a value for them. And you hear of immigrants who start businesses such as small restaurants or little grocery stores because that's one of the easier type businesses for them to start. They work hard and for many hours, but they don't get rich from it. Yes, there are some that make it big, but that is the minority. Not everyone who works hard so-called "makes it". There needs to be others who believe in them, such as from banks or other investors.
I'm just saying...you can't just say work hard and you'll get rich. It takes people working together to raise people up. If the greatest thing is the 1%, then I would question what values are being considered to be the highest. No, not would--I do question those values. And that's why we'll never agree.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 16:36:48 GMT -5
I don't know about you, Bob, and maybe also Mcans, but you don't seem to be considering demographics. And that's what the Democrats in the article are considering as well, I'm sure. Hard work, sure that's one thing. But how about educational background, supportive family and community, opportunities. Yes, we've heard about the homeless girl who fought her way to Harvard. But we hear about that because it's so rare. It's the mindset like yours that thinks every single person just needs to want to success that can. Family support and encouragement are really very important factors. You hear about Asians, for instance where their children have high success in school. Why? Because education is a value for them. And you hear of immigrants who start businesses such as small restaurants or little grocery stores because that's one of the easier type businesses for them to start. They work hard and for many hours, but they don't get rich from it. Yes, there are some that make it big, but that is the minority. Not everyone who works hard so-called "makes it". There needs to be others who believe in them, such as from banks or other investors. I'm just saying...you can't just say work hard and you'll get rich. It takes people working together to raise people up. If the greatest thing is the 1%, then I would question what values are being considered to be the highest. No, not would--I do question those values. And that's why we'll never agree. Lily, I agree with you. Everything you said here is true, except for "It's the mindset like yours that thinks every single person just needs to want success that can" and "you can't just say work hard and you'll get rich." I never said either one. And I don't believe either one. Of course not everyone who works hard will get rich. That is an obvious fact. What I did say is that the majority of rich people worked hard to get there. McAnswer seems to think that hard work is not a factor. I presented evidence that shows otherwise. What do you think Lily? Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 22, 2014 16:53:42 GMT -5
I still see a problem with this definition of rich. You can talk about the richest 10%, or even the richest 1%, but within these groups there are people who are rich, people who are VERY rich, and people who are MEGA rich. In my experience, most of the people who have a million or two in the bank got their money by working hard running their own business. But when you look at the VERY rich bracket - people with, say $100m in the bank (or in readily redeemable assets), these people tend to have inherited their wealth. As for the MEGA rich - people with upwards of, say, $500m in their bank account - these tend to be members of families with "old money" and investments in property, franchise companies etc. In other words it tends to be the "poorer rich" who work for their money, whereas the super rich usually don't have to work at all. If you talk to any self-made millionaire with just 2 or 3 million in the bank they will tell you that it's relatively easy to make a couple of million (by "easy" I mean feasible) if you work hard enough, but it is extremely difficult to rise to a higher level of wealth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 16:53:57 GMT -5
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. But hard work is one of the main causes of wealth. Unless, of course, you are claiming that it's only a coincidence that so many rich people work much longer than a 40 hour week. That is a strange coincidence, isn't it? Bob Is it? I know plenty of people who work much longer than 40 hour a week. None of them are what I would call "wealthy", either in income or property. Do you think it is also a "strange coincidence" that the majority of wealthy people happened to be born into wealthy families?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 17:09:55 GMT -5
Yes, there are some that make it big, but that is the minority. Not everyone who works hard so-called "makes it". There needs to be others who believe in them, such as from banks or other investors. And even then the majority of businesses fail, and the majority of those failures are due to bad management decisions, not because the owners were lazy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 17:57:59 GMT -5
But hard work is one of the main causes of wealth. Unless, of course, you are claiming that it's only a coincidence that so many rich people work much longer than a 40 hour week. That is a strange coincidence, isn't it? Bob Is it? I know plenty of people who work much longer than 40 hour a week. None of them are what I would call "wealthy", either in income or property. But I never disputed that. That is not the question. The question is: Is hard work one of the requirements for becoming rich? The data say yes. Do you have any reason to believe the data is wrong? And your evidence for this is...? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 18:00:56 GMT -5
Yes, there are some that make it big, but that is the minority. Not everyone who works hard so-called "makes it". There needs to be others who believe in them, such as from banks or other investors. And even then the majority of businesses fail, and the majority of those failures are due to bad management decisions, not because the owners were lazy. Yes. But the question is: Is hard work one of the factors in the wealth accumulation of those who succeed? Based on the data, the answer is yes. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 18:04:37 GMT -5
Bob, you're asking for evidence. But how about evidence for this:
What data are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 18:08:43 GMT -5
Bob, you're asking for evidence. But how about evidence for this: What data are you talking about? The links I already posted in this thread. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 18:19:32 GMT -5
Bob, your link does not show number of hours that these individuals work each day or week, which is your definition of "working hard". You're using circular reasoning, which is that if someone is rich, they must work a lot of hours. Attorneys start off working a lot of hours until they get partnership and then use law clerks to do all the work. Believe me, that's how it is, but that's really beside the point. Anyway, your link is not data. And how about the attorneys and doctors and other professionals that don't work many hours a week? How about that? You're making a lot of assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2014 21:03:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 21:58:57 GMT -5
Bob, that is not data.
Are you still using the rich 1% or just wealth in general? If wealth, what criteria are you using?
And, by the way, why are you only using people working in professions as examples? Is that because those are the only jobs where people usually go to work at a certain location for certain hours and can be tracked more easily?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 8:26:55 GMT -5
How is it not data? Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, and Accountants make up a good portion of the richest 1%. They also make up a sizable proportion of the richest 10%. The data show that they all work long hours. Yes, I'm still using the 1%. The data from the NY Times interactive graph shows that there are a lot of lawyers, doctors, investment bankers, and accountants in the top 1%. The other links show that people in these professions work hard. Yes. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 11:29:44 GMT -5
Well, if you're so set on selecting your own parameters to suit the argument you want to have, you should have started a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 12:54:46 GMT -5
Well, if you're so set on selecting your own parameters to suit the argument you want to have, you should have started a new thread. Huh? Lily, you asked me what parameters I was using. And I told you. McAnswer said that hard work had nothing to do with how much wealth people accumulated. I presented evidence to show that this was wrong. That's all. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 13:13:45 GMT -5
Bob, if you are insisting to use the 1% as your example of how people can reach that goal by only working long hours then the following (article from Forbes) is what you're saying all people can realistically aspire to. That was NOT what the article that originated this thread said. You were the one who added your use of the parameters you decided on and expect the rest of us to go along with. I don't and neither did Mcans. Anyway, here's the article. I know full well you will keep arguing the same thing anyway, and I don't intend to make this thread into a career. So take it or leave it. I don't care because as I said, marathon threads are not my thing when all they do is go round in circles. The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest As the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam International has released a new report called, “Working for the Few,” that contains some startling statistics on what it calls the “growing tide of inequality.” The report states: Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population. The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world. Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years. The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer. The Forbes eBook To Succeed In A Brutal Job Market Don’t let a rotten economy spoil your goals. Use the career and money advice in The Millennial Game Plan to get and stay ahead for good. Asserting that some economic inequality is necessary to foster growth, it also warns that extreme levels of wealth concentration “threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.” Tables From Oxfam’s ‘Working For The Few’ Report [Go to the link to see this] Additionally, the report says that high levels of wealth concentration can harm democracy and reduce equal opportunity, as the wealthy begin to have an undue influence on government policy making: When wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else. Oxfam also conducted polls in six countries — Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the U.K. and the U.S. — showing that a majority of people believe “laws are skewed in favor of the rich” in areas ranging from financial deregulation, tax laws favoring the wealthy and facilitation tax evasion, austerity economics, policies that disproportionately harm women, and oil and mineral revenues. The report states that the trend can be reversed, as it has at other times in history, such as in the U.S. and Europe after World War II and in Latin America in the last decade. Oxfam calls on the leaders at the World Economic Forum to not dodge taxes in their countries or countries where they invest and operate, not use their economic wealth to seek political favors, and support progressive taxation on wealth and income, among other things. It also quotes Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 23, 2014 13:16:26 GMT -5
Like a circle in a spiral Like a wheel within a wheel Never ending or beginning On an ever-spinning reel...
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 13:39:22 GMT -5
That's right Lily. I wasn't responding to your article. I was responding to McAnswer's comment, which also had nothing to do with your article. You're right though. I should have started a new thread.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 15:46:05 GMT -5
And even then the majority of businesses fail, and the majority of those failures are due to bad management decisions, not because the owners were lazy. Yes. But the question is: Is hard work one of the factors in the wealth accumulation of those who succeed? Based on the data, the answer is yes. Bob Your data does not say that businesses fail because of laziness. What available data there is for these phenomena suggest, in fact, that the primary reasons for failure are orthogonal to the supposed work ethic of a business's employees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 16:01:48 GMT -5
How is it not data? Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, and Accountants make up a good portion of the richest 1%. They also make up a sizable proportion of the richest 10%. The data show that they all work long hours. The data also shows that a lot of them already come from well-to-do families. From that socialist rag, the Economist: and:
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 16:04:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 16:07:21 GMT -5
How is it not data? Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, and Accountants make up a good portion of the richest 1%. They also make up a sizable proportion of the richest 10%. The data show that they all work long hours. The data also shows that a lot of them already come from well-to-do families. From that socialist rag, the Economist: and: None of which offers any support for original claim that hard work is not a factor in becoming wealthy. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 23, 2014 17:30:27 GMT -5
From that socialist rag, the Economist: and: McAnswer, did you bother to take a close look at your own data? 37% of those born in the top fifth remained there. That means that 63% did not! 42% of those born at the bottom stayed there? That means that 58% improved their position. Upward mobility is alive and well. And being born at the top is no guarantee you will stay there. There are millions of people in the bottom fifth. Yet, by your own figures, 6% made it to the top fifth. Let's see. There are 300 million people in the USA. 16% are at poverty level (according to government statistics). 16% of 300 million is 48 million people. Of these 48 million, over half (58% according to your figures) will move to a higher income group. 6% will reach the top, again according to your own figures. What's 6% of 48 million? 2.88 million will reach the TOP. Quite a lot of people, isn't it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2014 7:21:04 GMT -5
No, but it makes it likely that you will, and even if you don't it's extremely unlikely that you will ever fall to the bottom.
Conversely, being born at the bottom you are extremely unlikely to ever make it to the top, and there's an almost 50-50 chance you'll stay at the bottom for the rest of your life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2014 7:35:00 GMT -5
2.88 million will reach the TOP. Quite a lot of people, isn't it? 2.88 out of 60. That's not a whole lot, considering that more than 10 out of these 60 have been born there. Also, keep in mind here that "the top" means "more than 100k yearly household income." We're not talking dishwasher to millionaire stories here, more like dishwasher to accountant.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 24, 2014 9:29:44 GMT -5
No, but it makes it likely that you will, and even if you don't it's extremely unlikely that you will ever fall to the bottom. Which is a nice way of ignoring the fact that almost 2 out of three people born into the top tier don't stay there. This is according to the data that you posted. Conversely, being born at the bottom you are extremely unlikely to ever make it to the top, and there's an almost 50-50 chance you'll stay at the bottom for the rest of your life.[/quote]Which is a nice way of ignoring the fact that more than half of the people at the bottom moved up. Again this is according to data that you posted! For some reason, you seem to think that unless the majority of people at the bottom move up to the top, that this is some sort of social failure? Why would you think that? You are also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the "poor" are not in dire poverty. Most of them own cars, TV's refrigerators, etc. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 24, 2014 9:38:44 GMT -5
2.88 million will reach the TOP. Quite a lot of people, isn't it? 2.88 out of 60. That's not a whole lot, considering that more than 10 out of these 60 have been born there. Huh? 60 out of 60 were born there. 2.88 million reached the top! Most of the rest also moved up. Again this is according to your own data. LOL! When you compare the salaries of dishwasher to accountant, that is quite an accomplishment, isn't it? They moved up. What you say here reminds me of what a school principal said once about her students. All of them, she said, were above average. By definition, not everyone can be above average. It seems that you want everyone to be rich. What you ignore is that even then there will still be a top fifth and a bottom fifth. What you also haven't taken into account is that many if not most in the bottom fifth are not in dire poverty. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2014 21:28:31 GMT -5
I'd like to ask of question to you, Bob. Okay, you say that the very rich are deserved of this very high income, of a high, high percentage of the workers under them. And we're not talking about Bill Gates and the like, okay? We talking about CEOs. Do you see any problem as to why the very rich's wages can't be lowered a bit more so that those under them can be paid somewhat better? You do realize that over the years the wage discreptacy has been widen by a huge, huge amount between the riches CEO's and the mddle class. So what do you say?
|
|