|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 25, 2014 18:45:10 GMT -5
Why are you discussing wages? Very few workers become millionaires by working for a wage (unless they're in really well-paid jobs and they save up for 30 or 40 years).
It's also meaningless to talk about a "fair wage". This is entirely subjective. There aren't many workers who don't think they aren't paid enough. Practically every worker feels they deserve a raise.
"You want to give me a raise? Well, thanks, but I'm perfectly happy with my current salary, so I'm going to decline." is a conversation you're not likely to hear very often.
The only realistic approximation of a "fair wage" would be one based on the cost of living, taking account of "basic" needs like food, electricity, clothing and so on. "Basic" these days usually includes a TV, a telephone and a washing machine.
And again, you are missing a very important point, which is that wealth is relative. A "super rich" person isn't just slightly richer than your average self-made millionaire. They can be thousands of times more wealthy. The gap between the super rich and the merely rich (eg, someone with a million or two in the bank) is far wider than the gap between a just-about millionaire and the "wealth" of someone working at McDonald's flipping burgers. And, again, while many "poor" millionaires get where they are through hard work, the super rich almost never work. They "earn" their money through inherited wealth, investments etc.
You really can't have a meaningful debate on this subject without making a distinction between rich, very rich, and super rich.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 25, 2014 19:32:29 GMT -5
Why are you discussing wages? Very few workers become millionaires by working for a wage (unless they're in really well-paid jobs and they save up for 30 or 40 years). Right. Because of the tax laws in this country, many get rich through stock options. Thanks for pointing that out Zak. The problem is when people ask the government to force wages higher. But even then, people will feel underpaid, so they will ask the government to force wages even higher. This cycle will never end because, as you pointed out, few ever feel they are being paid enough. Most people in the USA already have that, even many of those classified as "poor." How many people will the proposed minimum wage law affect? How big is the labor force? According to Wikipedia, 154,900,000. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_forceThat's a little more than 1%. Right. Many millionaires get where they are through hard work. As far as the super rich, we really aren't talking about them. We are looking at the top 1% and that includes a lot of mere millionaires. Right. So I was focusing on the top 1%. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 14:24:07 GMT -5
And so far I've seen no evidence that it is. Then you haven't looked. What you are saying is that the links I posted showing that doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, and accountants work much longer than a 40 hour week. So far you haven't refuted even one of those links. Why don't you explain why this is even relevant to this issue? Working very hard does not automatically turn you into a high-income earner. It doesn't matter how hard you work, you are never going to be a doctor if you don't graduate from med school, and you'll never become a top manager without some serious networking. Did you get your university degree by working at Walmart, Bob? However, a much larger percentage of rich people were already born rich. Are you claiming that if I inherit a million, that inheritance was directly caused by my hard work?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2014 15:39:38 GMT -5
Then you haven't looked. What you are saying is that the links I posted showing that doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, and accountants work much longer than a 40 hour week. So far you haven't refuted even one of those links. Why don't you explain why this is even relevant to this issue? Working very hard does not automatically turn you into a high-income earner. I have already explained this many times. Perhaps you didn't notice. I never said that working hard automatically turns you into a high income earner. What I did say is that most high income earners work hard and that this is an important factor in their success. And it doesn't matter how much you network. You won't succeed without hard work. You think getting a University degree isn't hard work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 18:32:50 GMT -5
Bob, has it occurred to you that working smart is more important than working long hours when it comes to getting ahead? You keep emphasizeing working hard, but so does a chain gang doing hard labor.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 26, 2014 20:03:20 GMT -5
Bob, has it occurred to you that working smart is more important than working long hours when it comes to getting ahead? You keep emphasizeing working hard, but so does a chain gang doing hard labor. You're right Lily. Working smart is very important. But it is also the case that most successful people work hard as well. There are a lot of smart people who are poor. McAnswer seems to think that all wealthy people make their money through connections and being born to rich parents and that hard work plays no part at all. This is simply not the case and the links I posted show this. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 21:05:34 GMT -5
Bob, has it occurred to you that working smart is more important than working long hours when it comes to getting ahead? You keep emphasizeing working hard, but so does a chain gang doing hard labor. You're right Lily. Working smart is very important. But it is also the case that most successful people work hard as well. There are a lot of smart people who are poor. A lot of hard working people are poor, too. Bob, what you are doing here is observe that a number of wealthy people work hard, and from that observation you conclude that hard work makes people wealthy. But you are mistaking correlation for causation. There is zero evidence that working long hours will turn you wealthy, or even help you in becoming wealthy. Why do you insist on clinging to this stupid idea of work ethic as the primary determinator of personal fortune? It's certainly not for your belief in libertarian virtue ethics - those are perfectly satisfied by acknowledging the influence of education, business acumen, and financial ability (Which I have done repeatedly! And please note that I am not denying that people can climb to high social status from humble beginnings - I am simply denying that hard work will take them there).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 30, 2014 21:29:55 GMT -5
You're right Lily. Working smart is very important. But it is also the case that most successful people work hard as well. There are a lot of smart people who are poor. A lot of hard working people are poor, too. I agree. And it is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is "Is hard work an important part of financial success?" No. I conclude that hard work is an important factor in making people wealthy. Then why do all those wealthy doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, accountants, and entrepreneurs put in such long hours? Perhaps they are masochists? Why don't you write an article telling them that they could take it easy and still be wealthy? Why do you insist on clinging to this stupid idea that you can misquote me and still make a valid point? Once again you are erecting a strawman. I never said that the work ethic is a "primary determinator of personal fortune". What I did say is that hard work is a highly important factor in building wealth. I never said that hard work alone will take people to financial success. All I am claiming is that it is an important factor. The proof is that the majority of the top 1% put in long hours. The several links I have posted above clearly demonstrate this. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 14:31:03 GMT -5
A lot of hard working people are poor, too. I agree. And it is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is "Is hard work an important part of financial success?" It is relevant insofar as to point out that hard work is not a sufficient part of financial success. Based on... the complete absence of evidence of people being made wealthy through their hard work? a) Because those who didn't inherit their wealth would have to take out significant loans to pay for the education necessary to become doctors, laywers, investment bankers etc. in the first place. They have to pay back those loans or risk losing all they built up. b) Because these long hours are an expected and accepted part of working as a doctor, lawyer, banker, or entrepreneur. Note that the higher they rise in their respective careers, the more money they earn, while needing to put in less and less work. Which is, again, utter hogwash. You don't build wealth by working overtime in a terrible low-paying job, you build wealth by getting a better job. Nobody ever became wealthy by "working hard" as a waiter, or a supermarket cashier, or a farmhand, or an unskilled factory worker. And again, your "proof" is the result of circular reasoning. "Some wealthy people work long hours, therefore they became wealthy by working long hours." All your evidence has focused on the fact that a lot of wealthy people work long hours. I don't deny that. But wealthy people working long hours is not proof that their work hours are the cause of their wealth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 14:40:46 GMT -5
If you want to prove that long work hours cause individual wealth, then you'd have to come up with a statistics that shows that more people who worked long hours in low paying jobs because wealthy than people who didn't.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2014 15:27:18 GMT -5
I agree. And it is totally irrelevant to the point at issue, which is "Is hard work an important part of financial success?" It is relevant insofar as to point out that hard work is not a sufficient part of financial success. But I agree with that!!! What I am saying is that hard work is an important component of financial sussess. No. Based on solid evidence which I have posted and witch you simply ignore. I will give you this though. It is much easier to simply ignore evidence rather than go through the hard work of refuting it. You don't seem to like hard work, do you? That would be true except that we are talking about people who are very wealthy, the top 1%. Presumably they would have paid off their loans long before they became wealthy. Or are you claiming that doctors rich enough to be in the top 1% are still paying off their student loans? And they know this going in. No one, except a few masochists, enters a profession because they have to work long hours. They go into these professions to become rich. And your evidence is...your say so. Actually, if you look at some of those links I posted, it turns out that the wealthiest doctors still put in long hours. Bill Gates famously said (after he became the richest man in the world) "I can do anything I want when I get up in the morning, and I want to go to work." It would be better is you actually provided some evidence rather than resorting to name calling. If you want to prove that it is hogwash that most rich people work hard, all you have to do is refute the evidence I posted or provide counter evidence. I never claimed otherwise, did I? So I don't know whom you are arguing with here. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, and entrepreneurs did get better jobs, didn't they? They got jobs where their hard work was rewarded. True. And once again, I never claimed otherwise. I never once claimed that hard work alone would make anyone rich. If I had, you would have cut and pasted the quote in your posts long ago. And again, your "proof" is the result of circular reasoning. "Some wealthy people work long hours, therefore they became wealthy by working long hours." All your evidence has focused on the fact that a lot of wealthy people work long hours. I don't deny that. But wealthy people working long hours is not proof that their work hours are the cause of their wealth.[/quote] LOL! So you are saying that doctors don't get paid for office visits and the number of operations they perform? You are saying that lawyers and accountants don't get paid by billable hours? And people applying for a job as an investment banker tell the interviewer "I want you to pay me that big salary but I don't want to work long, hard hours"? In these professions, the more clients or patients you see, the more money you generate and the more money you make. What next? Will you now deny that the money people pay to doctors, lawyers, accountants, and investments bankers have no relation to the work they do? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2014 15:32:01 GMT -5
If you want to prove that long work hours cause individual wealth, then you'd have to come up with a statistics that shows that more people who worked long hours in low paying jobs because wealthy than people who didn't. You may want to reword that. I think you meant "became" instead of "because." Once again for the umpteenth time, I never said that hard work alone makes anyone rich. What I did say is that it is an important component. Obviously one has a better chance of becoming rich working as a doctor rather than a dishwasher. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 13:25:50 GMT -5
I never claimed otherwise, did I? So I don't know whom you are arguing with here. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, and entrepreneurs did get better jobs, didn't they? They got jobs where their hard work was rewarded. LOL. It's amazing how you can take the simple fact that bankers earn far more than cashiers per hour and spin it into some propaganda about the superior work ethic of rich people. You really are a riot, Bob!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 15:35:23 GMT -5
I never claimed otherwise, did I? So I don't know whom you are arguing with here. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, and entrepreneurs did get better jobs, didn't they? They got jobs where their hard work was rewarded. LOL. It's amazing how you can take the simple fact that bankers earn far more than cashiers per hour and spin it into some propaganda about the superior work ethic of rich people. You really are a riot, Bob! LOL right back at you. It's amazing how you can equate the simple bookkeeping jobs that cashiers do with the job investment bankers do where they work 60 hours a week on financial deals that can either bring millions of dollars into the company and can literally make or break the business. For some reason McAnswer, you seem to think that all jobs have the same value, that the job clerk does is equivalent to a life-saving operation performed by a skilled surgeon. Why is that? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 22:02:43 GMT -5
LOL. It's amazing how you can take the simple fact that bankers earn far more than cashiers per hour and spin it into some propaganda about the superior work ethic of rich people. You really are a riot, Bob! LOL right back at you. It's amazing how you can equate the simple bookkeeping jobs that cashiers do with the job investment bankers do where they work 60 hours a week on financial deals that can either bring millions of dollars into the company and can literally make or break the business. For some reason McAnswer, you seem to think that all jobs have the same value, that the job clerk does is equivalent to a life-saving operation performed by a skilled surgeon. Why is that? Bob So what you are saying is that poor people are not only lazy, but also worthless. Do I have that right?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2014 22:39:59 GMT -5
LOL right back at you. It's amazing how you can equate the simple bookkeeping jobs that cashiers do with the job investment bankers do where they work 60 hours a week on financial deals that can either bring millions of dollars into the company and can literally make or break the business. For some reason McAnswer, you seem to think that all jobs have the same value, that the job clerk does is equivalent to a life-saving operation performed by a skilled surgeon. Why is that? Bob So what you are saying is that poor people are not only lazy, but also worthless. Do I have that right? No. You are totally wrong. I never said that or implied it. Your claim above is a cheap insult, not an argument. I expected better from you. Of course many poor people work hard and are not worthless. What I did say is that not all jobs are equal. Are you claiming they are? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 20:47:28 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that poor people are not only lazy, but also worthless. Do I have that right? No. You are totally wrong. I never said that or implied it. Your claim above is a cheap insult, not an argument. I expected better from you. Of course many poor people work hard and are not worthless. But not as many poor people as rich people. Isn't that what you've been argueing all this time? That there are more hard working rich people than there are hard working poor people?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2014 20:59:17 GMT -5
No. You are totally wrong. I never said that or implied it. Your claim above is a cheap insult, not an argument. I expected better from you. Of course many poor people work hard and are not worthless. But not as many poor people as rich people. Isn't that what you've been argueing all this time? No. Absolutely not. All I said was that most rich people worked hard to build their wealth. That claim says nothing about how hard poor people work. I certainly did not say that at all. What did I say that gave you that false idea? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 5:22:52 GMT -5
But not as many poor people as rich people. Isn't that what you've been argueing all this time? No. Absolutely not. All I said was that most rich people worked hard to build their wealth. Which is wrong unless you want to claim that inheriting a lot of money or property is hard work. QED.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2014 9:58:10 GMT -5
No. Absolutely not. All I said was that most rich people worked hard to build their wealth. Which is wrong unless you want to claim that inheriting a lot of money or property is hard work. QED. I already presented evidence to show that most rich people didn't inherit their wealth. They worked for it. Do you have any contrary evidence? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 15:41:44 GMT -5
I already presented evidence to show that most rich people didn't inherit their wealth. They worked for it. The evidence we've already discussed here showed that more than a third of the top 10% income earners inherited their status from their parents. Evidence which you have consistently ignored, denied, and dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2014 17:08:12 GMT -5
I already presented evidence to show that most rich people didn't inherit their wealth. They worked for it. The evidence we've already discussed here showed that more than a third of the top 10% income earners inherited their status from their parents. Evidence which you have consistently ignored, denied, and dismissed. LOL! Then by your own figures, almost two thirds of the top 10% income earners did not inherit their status from their parents! That is a rather large majority McAnswer. Thank you for proving my case. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 3:19:10 GMT -5
The evidence we've already discussed here showed that more than a third of the top 10% income earners inherited their status from their parents. Evidence which you have consistently ignored, denied, and dismissed. LOL! Then by your own figures, almost two thirds of the top 10% income earners did not inherit their status from their parents! That is a rather large majority McAnswer. Thank you for proving my case. Bob How does this "prove your case"? You still have to demonstrate that hard work was a statistically significant factor in allowing these people to rise to the top. On the other hand, I have just shown you that inheritance is a significant factor in deciding whether you get to the top or not; and inherited wealth by definition is unrelated to hard work.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2014 10:28:24 GMT -5
LOL! Then by your own figures, almost two thirds of the top 10% income earners did not inherit their status from their parents! That is a rather large majority McAnswer. Thank you for proving my case. Bob How does this "prove your case"? You still have to demonstrate that hard work was a statistically significant factor in allowing these people to rise to the top. But I already did that. The vast majority of the top 1% work in professions that require hard work in order to succeed (doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, entrepreneurs).I also posted evidence that showed that people in these professions do indeed work much harder. For some reason, you seem to think that this is some sort of coincidence. Why is that? At any rate, by your own figures, a large majority of these people, about two thirds, got there on their own, without inheriting from their parents. By citing that figure, you have disproved your own case. No you haven't. Your own figures show that a minority, about one third, of people "inherited their status" from their parents. And you haven't defined what "inherited their status" means. If they became doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, or entrepreneurs, then they also work hard and are making their own money. Evidence does not become "significant" merely on your say-so. You now have to demonstrate why inherited wealth is a "significant factor" when your own data show that two thirds of wealthy people got there on their own. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 6:03:24 GMT -5
You now have to demonstrate why inherited wealth is a "significant factor" when your own data show that two thirds of wealthy people got there on their own. 33 out of 100 is not significant to you? Why? Because it doesn't conform to your nice narrative of Randian supermen clawing their way from nothing to the top with nothing but their own inherent superiority over the depraved lazy moocher majority, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged? If you want to deny the facts I've presented, be my guest. I've stopped caring.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2014 13:23:07 GMT -5
You now have to demonstrate why inherited wealth is a "significant factor" when your own data show that two thirds of wealthy people got there on their own. 33 out of 100 is not significant to you? Why? Because it doesn't conform to your nice narrative of Randian supermen clawing their way from nothing to the top with nothing but their own inherent superiority over the depraved lazy moocher majority, and a copy of Atlas Shrugged? If you want to deny the facts I've presented, be my guest. I've stopped caring. And 67 out of 100 is not significant to you? That is the majority, for crying out loud. A BIG majority. Of course I am not denying the facts. I have no need to. Your own facts refute your own case and support mine. According to your own facts, two out of three rich people don't conform to your claims about them. Apparently what you have stopped caring about is presenting valid arguments. Bob
|
|