People are Going to Have to Learn how to Share More

[Heladys]

I thought this thread was about shaving more and I was very interested.

[ItachiZaku]

I like sharing my displeasure with people.

[sethman75]

Kids these days.

Dude i would suggest getting a job and work to earn something like the rest of us.

[Cerus]

Yeah no... I mean it looks that way on paper, but the 1% has tax loophole they can use to end up paying much less than their fair share. Most end up paying less than 20% of their income. Meanwhile the poor are paying more because they can't use the same loopholes.

The poor pay more? A family with one child making 35-40k a year will pay little to no taxes and actually get thousands back in free money.

You're trying to mix the lower and middle class with the top 1% who exploit every tax trick they can find. Anyone can use the same tricks though.

I also find it funny that the OP is silent on when he's going to give half his money to some homeless family with no income. Same thing he's proposing with the rich and middle class.

[BattleSaint]

Entitled? Holy fuck, how brainwashed do you have to be? We should remove taxes from the rich completely so we can speed up the trickling down of the wealth!

if you forcibly confiscated all of the wealth of the 1% it would barely fund the American Federal GOVT. for one year. And you could only do it once because now it's all gone and spent. You cannot tax and spend your way out of economic problems,you cannot print "funny money" ie: "quantitative easing",your way out of economic problems..
You have to increase GDP growth and deepen the tax base across the board. The Govt Produces nothing it only confiscates from the producers,if you decimate the economy ie: "private sector" then there is nothing left to tax. If there are no businesses,no functioning,growing private sector then there is no source of GOVT revenue. This stuff is very basic economics you could tax the evil rich at 100% and it would barely make a dent.

[Rooflesstoofless]

That is the biggest problem with most of the world's economies today. The world has reached a population size so large that people are finally starting to feel resource limitations. The earth can support the amount of people on it at the moment, but societies and people in general are going to have to learn how to share more. It is impossible for things to continue with 1% of people owning 30% or more of an entire nations wealth without some kind of major revolution.

So yeah the rich and powerful are going to have to learn how to share more or face revolution. Either way their wealth will be redistributed in the end.

Lol it's kinda funny that such massive worldly problems can distilled down to something we learned when we were 2, learn to share.

Resource scarcity has been an issue since we climbed down from the trees.

Also, if the wealthy start having to face revolution they will just start spending a little bit more of their money on private security forces.

[Gib Lover]

I highly recommend everyone goes through OP's started threads. It's a rollercoaster well worth the price of admission

[Allenseiei]

And the ones with the most to lose if the CEO takes a "bad" risk? The workers, who will have reduced hours, compensation, or outright layoffs.


The CEO gets fired, collects his/her multi-million-dollar severance package (not counting company stock), and moves onto another company.


In theory, yes. If the proverbial shit hits the fan, the CEO is going to be taking calls and working at 3am sometimes. I guess this is why home healthcare workers, nurses, and other service-sector workers make millions a year as well.


You're adorable. Do you read Ayn Rand before you go to bed? Our middle class is eroding because unregulated businesses have been allowed to undervalue their employees' productivity for decades while forwarding the fruits of that production to shareholders (who do little more than make money by virtue of ... already having money) and taking a tasty cut in the form of bonus compensation.


The OP didn't ask for "equalized" salaries, just less extreme distribution of wealth. And he/she wasn't even advocating necessarily for government regulations to push wealth distribution, only warning that if it doesn't happen gradually and voluntarily, it will still happen eventually. Violently.

You know what else destroys progress? Funneling all of the wealth to where it has the least -- or potentially negative -- marginal utility while undervaluing labor, shrinking the middle class, and driving the bulk of the consumers of goods and services deeply into debt.


Equal opportunities may be just. They're also fictional. Hard work only gets you so far, and a lot of very hard workers and ambitious people fall flat on their faces. If a million people take the same huge risk, a few become "overnight success stories" while a few hundred thousand become overnight cautionary tales. Guess which one conservative pundits like to cherry pick for feel-good stories about hard-working, "self made" business leaders?

And opportunities are limited. We can't run a global economy with 7 billion CEOs. Low-wage workers are essential. But they can't afford to work in their critical positions -- garbage man, home health worker, preschool teacher, burger flipper, etc. -- if they're being paid less than subsistence wages so that Mr. Big can buy another vacation house. So we subsidize their wages with welfare programs that are funded largely by our eroding middle class. That's also indirectly subsidizing Mr. Big's new vacation house.

When a CEO takes a big risk, he/she puts his/her company's and employees' fates on the line. He/she isn't going to die if a business decision goes belly up. The little guys might.

1. If the CEO takes a bad risk, everyone loses. Which is why it is important for someone that knows how to sail through risks to give the best situation possible so that it turns into a win win situation for everyone and to make quick adjustments to minimize hits on the company in case the risks turned bad. People who are capable of doing this are scarce which is why their wages are so high.

2. This is only true in very few individuals and companies and it's mostly due to a hard gained credibility over many years of doing their craft. While the most powerful CEO's have big fallbacks, many other CEO's don't. Fallbacks are created in the company itself and if it's something that company is willing to uphold they have the right to do so. Many other CEO's and companies don't have such fallbacks and the CEO is fired and has to uphold debts of some degree.
A japanese CEO back in 2007 made his company lose hundreds of millions of yen and he was forced to sell everything he had to try and pay some of the damage. He later lived in a cheap rental apartment with his family and worked at a nearby fast food for a few years while he was applying for new jobs but was getting rejected due to lack of credibility.

3. Hospital personnel function completely different in part because of point 1. Another part is also because of the numbers of those personnel and where the funds come from. Public Healthcare comes from taxes and private healthcare comes directly from the patients. Paying this personnel huge sums of money would make healthcare too expensive to fund as a public system and would completely eclipse low-waged people from the private healthcare (if they are not already in the US).
CEO's are few and their consumer numbers are very big. Decisions move lots of money, so their wages can be paid.

4. This is a very difficult subject to even go into. To regulate or not regulate business is something that can go very wrong or very good. The thing is, the uncertainty is so high about many effects such as competitiveness, prices, the raise of oportunity costs of making businesses, that no one wants to put their hand in that fire. Reaching a balance between regulations and non regulations is extremely hard to do, which is why in less corporate leaded countries, it hasn't been done yet.
The undervalued employees are unfortunately those who are easily replaced thus they have very few things to bring when they negotiate a salary. Can this be regulated? Maybe, but then how will it effect the employment rates or other variables? No one wants to put the hand in the fire.

5. Violent uprisings serve no one because if laws get thrown out the window, the stronger will always prevail and that's not the uprisers. Now, I only know one place where what the OP actually takes place, and it's where I live, in South Korea. While some wage discrepancy is unavoidable, its less wide not only because government regulations but the quality of the workers. Wages in South Korea are not so distant because there's a lot of competition for many would-be high paying jobs in other countries. Because of the high competition, employers don't have enough money to pay all those jobs at those levels, so the salary diminishes. Which is also one of the problems here, because American employers take away domestic trained workers and pay them much more there.
So the answer would be to increase the average education of the whole workforce. However, countries like US with lots of immigration also creates problems that other countries do not have. They are people who are past education years with low levels of preparation coming to a country that has a lot of limitations depending on your wage.

6. Hard Work gets you so far, but it gets you somewhere. Also knowing how the world changes and how the work market shifts from decade to decade. For example, Low-waged workers in automaton countries such as Japan will lose their jobs in a couple of decades.
People will always fall flat, you can't prevent that in anything in what you ever do. If you never fail doing something then you've never done anything that's even considered hard to do, but no one can give you a sure way to be happy or economically stable. What is true however, if you never tried to do it, you will never be able to do it.
If you don't work hard it shouldn't be a surprise, if you didn't have a strike of luck and got a nice opportunity, that your condition in life isn't very good.
Do people who were born in a rich family have to work less than those who weren't? Yes, absolutely. But that is the merit of their parents or someone in their family tree who decided to step up, at least in the developed countries.
Self made business leaders, in the degree those charlatans talk, are extremely hard to achieve right now. There's too much competition and too many people trying to achieve the same thing.

Opportunities are limited to the amount of people who are willing to risk their lives to create more opportunities. You may not be a CEO, but you can be a team leader in an engineering group winning more than 70 000 $ a year.

I guess your last paragraph is also related to the US. I disagree with many things in the US, which is why even though opportunities arose, I dont live there. In SK and EU many people who have low-wages pay very little direct taxes, and most of the indirect taxes have been removed over many basic commodities, they receive from the taxes from everyone else much more than what their wage actually is. However, big discrepancies also exist, to a much lower degree than in the US, but they exist.

[Gamdwelf]

OK Thomas Malthus.

[TITAN308]

I highly recommend everyone goes through OP's started threads. It's a rollercoaster well worth the price of admission

So much this. How people still get baited by this guy is beyond me.

[Gib Lover]

So much this. How people still get baited by this guy is beyond me.

Dunno, he's not even subtle.

[Tijuana]

That is the biggest problem with most of the world's economies today. The world has reached a population size so large that people are finally starting to feel resource limitations. The earth can support the amount of people on it at the moment, but societies and people in general are going to have to learn how to share more. It is impossible for things to continue with 1% of people owning 30% or more of an entire nations wealth without some kind of major revolution.

So yeah the rich and powerful are going to have to learn how to share more or face revolution. Either way their wealth will be redistributed in the end.

Lol it's kinda funny that such massive worldly problems can distilled down to something we learned when we were 2, learn to share.

Lol California, go home you're drunk.

[Gib Lover]

This isn't even the first time he's posted a thread about how the rich should give him money. I think this is at least the third time. The second was my favorite, OP "believes" that Youtube and Twitch gaming personalities owe him money

[BuckSparkles]

Oh man. It's almost as if the 1% didn't build their success on the backs (and slaves) of their forefathers. Gee, man. They must be really fucking successful being born into money and having it their entire lives.

I guess if I had a 1 million dollar loan like DJT, I'd be pretty fucking okay, huh? Oh he only got that because of his daddy? Guess where his daddy got that money? His daddy. And his daddy. And his daddy.

Are we seeing a pattern here? The rich staying rich?

Gee. Must be nice to never not be rich.

Yeah, get over it.

You people are so bitter and negative.

[TITAN308]

Dunno, he's not even subtle.

It is pretty much another variation of Tennisballs.

Click thread. Yup. Click back button.

[BuckSparkles]

It is pretty much another variation of Tennisballs.

Click thread. Yup. Click back button.

And we even see the little angry face too at the thread title.

It's like a car wreck. You know it's bad, but you want to see anyway.

[Scathbais]

It's impossible to truly earn a multi million dollar salary, no one actually contributes that much. Those people are parasites on society, just like those on the very bottom who make a conscious choice not to work.

It is sad how selfish and naive you are. It scares me to think that our kids (not mine) have been brainwashed to think that being rewarded for success is somehow inherently evil. People used to look up to the wealthy and had a goal of someday becoming wealthy themselves.

So let me ask you a question Mister Entitled-to-more-than-you-are-worth: If I am a trader working at Goldman Sachs and through my skill, proprietary trading algorithms, and hard work, I make my company $100 million in profits in a year. That is more profit than almost anyone else produces, period! If the company chooses to pay me $10 million ($5 million after Federal, NY State, and NY City taxes) what is wrong with that? First my contributions generated profits for shareholders and investors. Second, I contributed $5 million to Federal, State and Local tax coffers. And third, I got to enjoy the fruits of my labor and skill.

What is wrong with that scenario?

Let's say the government decided to tax me at 100% over $1 million in earnings. I could work less hard, generate $10 million in trading profits and only make $1 million and spend the rest of the time on the beach. What is the net outcome? Investors and shareholders make 90% less profit, Federal, State, and Local governments get 90% less. I am still wealthy and have more free time, but am out $4 million dollars.

You falsely assume that people are interchangeable. There might not be a trader as skilled as I am, so the net contribution to society of restricting my income is a huge loss to everyone.

So what is your solution? Should I be a slave and be forced to work 90% harder for you?

[Konteil]

1. If the CEO takes a bad risk, everyone loses. Which is why it is important for someone that knows how to sail through risks to give the best situation possible so that it turns into a win win situation for everyone and to make quick adjustments to minimize hits on the company in case the risks turned bad. People who are capable of doing this are scarce which is why their wages are so high.

2. This is only true in very few individuals and companies and it's mostly due to a hard gained credibility over many years of doing their craft. While the most powerful CEO's have big fallbacks, many other CEO's don't. Fallbacks are created in the company itself and if it's something that company is willing to uphold they have the right to do so. Many other CEO's and companies don't have such fallbacks and the CEO is fired and has to uphold debts of some degree.
A japanese CEO back in 2007 made his company lose hundreds of millions of yen and he was forced to sell everything he had to try and pay some of the damage. He later lived in a cheap rental apartment with his family and worked at a nearby fast food for a few years while he was applying for new jobs but was getting rejected due to lack of credibility.

3. Hospital personnel function completely different in part because of point 1. Another part is also because of the numbers of those personnel and where the funds come from. Public Healthcare comes from taxes and private healthcare comes directly from the patients. Paying this personnel huge sums of money would make healthcare too expensive to fund as a public system and would completely eclipse low-waged people from the private healthcare (if they are not already in the US).
CEO's are few and their consumer numbers are very big. Decisions move lots of money, so their wages can be paid.

4. This is a very difficult subject to even go into. To regulate or not regulate business is something that can go very wrong or very good. The thing is, the uncertainty is so high about many effects such as competitiveness, prices, the raise of oportunity costs of making businesses, that no one wants to put their hand in that fire. Reaching a balance between regulations and non regulations is extremely hard to do, which is why in less corporate leaded countries, it hasn't been done yet.
The undervalued employees are unfortunately those who are easily replaced thus they have very few things to bring when they negotiate a salary. Can this be regulated? Maybe, but then how will it effect the employment rates or other variables? No one wants to put the hand in the fire.

5. Violent uprisings serve no one because if laws get thrown out the window, the stronger will always prevail and that's not the uprisers. Now, I only know one place where what the OP actually takes place, and it's where I live, in South Korea. While some wage discrepancy is unavoidable, its less wide not only because government regulations but the quality of the workers. Wages in South Korea are not so distant because there's a lot of competition for many would-be high paying jobs in other countries. Because of the high competition, employers don't have enough money to pay all those jobs at those levels, so the salary diminishes. Which is also one of the problems here, because American employers take away domestic trained workers and pay them much more there.
So the answer would be to increase the average education of the whole workforce. However, countries like US with lots of immigration also creates problems that other countries do not have. They are people who are past education years with low levels of preparation coming to a country that has a lot of limitations depending on your wage.

6. Hard Work gets you so far, but it gets you somewhere. Also knowing how the world changes and how the work market shifts from decade to decade. For example, Low-waged workers in automaton countries such as Japan will lose their jobs in a couple of decades.
People will always fall flat, you can't prevent that in anything in what you ever do. If you never fail doing something then you've never done anything that's even considered hard to do, but no one can give you a sure way to be happy or economically stable. What is true however, if you never tried to do it, you will never be able to do it.
If you don't work hard it shouldn't be a surprise, if you didn't have a strike of luck and got a nice opportunity, that your condition in life isn't very good.
Do people who were born in a rich family have to work less than those who weren't? Yes, absolutely. But that is the merit of their parents or someone in their family tree who decided to step up, at least in the developed countries.
Self made business leaders, in the degree those charlatans talk, are extremely hard to achieve right now. There's too much competition and too many people trying to achieve the same thing.

Opportunities are limited to the amount of people who are willing to risk their lives to create more opportunities. You may not be a CEO, but you can be a team leader in an engineering group winning more than 70 000 $ a year.

I guess your last paragraph is also related to the US. I disagree with many things in the US, which is why even though opportunities arose, I dont live there. In SK and EU many people who have low-wages pay very little direct taxes, and most of the indirect taxes have been removed over many basic commodities, they receive from the taxes from everyone else much more than what their wage actually is. However, big discrepancies also exist, to a much lower degree than in the US, but they exist.

well put with wonderful factual arguments presented. now if only the world looked at things like this and made informed arguments rather then getting butthurt that they have to actually go out and do thigns to make a living we would see a change

im in the middle class. i grew up literally a dirt farmer. i have busted my ass for 30 years to get to the middle class and i have no intention of stopping there.

- - - Updated - - -

So much this. How people still get baited by this guy is beyond me.

entertainment factor mostly i imagine.

[Ebalina]

Kids these days.

Dude i would suggest getting a job and work to earn something like the rest of us.

No i tell you now i won't do it.
Work to earn lol what a joke are you for real?
Earning what a measly wage that you can't do anything with.

Getting tossed around like you are trash and you are second rate person.
GTFO there is plenty of wealth in the world just sitting doing nothing it needs to be spent and it needs to go to the lowest of the lowest no to the richest of the rich.

Get a grip working and earning we don't live in the 60's mate there is no such thing as work hard earn living its only steal and steal and berate and berate abit more and steal some more .

Your so called "WORK TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING IN LIVE" died decades ago.

[Adam Jensen]

While I don't agree with capping the amount of money the top can make, I still find it ludicrous every time they bitch about having to pay their workers more, having to provide better healthcare, better hours, having to spend a bit more in taxes so the lower and middle classes can have a better quality life.

Like, stfu. You make millions, you can pay a bit more and still be obscenely rich, so stfu and sit down in your golden chair.