Quote from: John Morrow;222250So you feel it has nothing to do with hard work because the rich don't actually work hard or do anything that anyone else couldn't do, right?

I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell's writing on Middleman Minorities.  A pretty comprehensive example from one of his books can be found here.  People resent those who make profits distributing materials and goods because people predictably don't think of effort involved in making a business operate properly as "work" even though they'd be unable to run a business properly themselves if placed in that role.  Given your point about companies paying crap money in order to make money and stay wealthy, why is it that management positions, including middle-management positions that the "little guy" can work into, pay well?  If it's so easy to manage a business, couldn't they just hire random schmucks off the streets at minimum wage to do it for a lot less?  Or maybe if managing business is a useless parasitic activity, they could do without?

I don't know how it went from paying shit money to the 'wealthy not working hard' or it being easy to run a business. Perhaps you produced that leap all by yourself?

Edit: Deleted silliness - it's early and i haven't had my coffee.

Perhaps i wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that big companies pay shit money to stay rich - only that it contributes, and that anything that contributes is 'good business' if it increases profit.

As for the nice little patronising line about middle-managment positions for the 'little-man', that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

I'm paraphrasing here, but from my end, your position can be crudely (and briefly) summed up in something like the following -

Poor people are lazy, grasping sods who will take something for nothing in favour of working really hard like good little rich people. But, if you work really hard (which obviously people in poorly paid jobs don't), rich folk hold a few middle-management roles open for the peons. So get off your backsides and do as you are told - oh, we'll start you off on 5.50 an hour.

National Geographic are coming to take a picture of that paragraph - it's so full of shit, they think it's an elephant.

Quote from: Jackalope;222270I can't have honest discussions about politics and economics with most people, because people REALLY get caught up in little boxes and can't even comprehend really radical ideas.  I won't even try to discuss what I really think when there are morons like John around.  He's the kind of guy that you can't say "worker ownership' around without him accusing you of being a goose-stepping communazi.  Probably has no idea who Ben Tucker is.

Anyways, no, I don't mean anyone who owns a business.  My ire is reserved primarily for the ultra-wealthy top 1% who own the majority of the world (and the governments) and let people starve and die, when there are so many ways that the free market could better serve people.

O.k. I can at least see that. Abuse by the ultra-rich is debatable but I can acknowledge your view of it. So, the pursuit of bettering yourself is acceptible yes? It is not wrong to work to better my position in life, gather wealth to make my position secure. Let's also take a stab at wealth so we don't get confused. I mean money so that a down turn does not bankrupt you, land to live on, a house on that land and a steady income or means of acquiring food and luxuries. Or are luxuries evil indulgences? Again, not trying to harry you, just clarify your position.

As to worker owned endeavors, like John I have had experience with them right here in the US. In fact, in the rather rural and remote UP of Michigan. Two were under 50 employees but the last was close to 300. Two are still working and the other has gone private but under one of the workers who had money and believed in the idea. I don't think it is as rare as you would like to believe but a big part of it is where we are talking about also. I mean, the US, believe it or not, encourages your own endeavors, entrepreneurship and the like.  You want to open your own worker owned business, you can. More important to me, our society encourages owning your own business. Now, China, Korea or India, I can't say.

I also have had small businesses that did not make it. Because I planned well, they did not destroy me. I also have had five successful business ventures, three that I sold off. One, I sold to a guy that it was his "life dream" and he made a mess of it. He had no interest in runnign a business. A failed business, like any plan, if researched and approached properly, is something you can recover from. Walk into it with no more planning than "I am passionate" and you will have difficulties, even if you are successful.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291Perhaps i wasn't very clear. I'm not saying that big companies pay shit money to stay rich - only that it contributes, and that anything that contributes is 'good business' if it increases profit.

And my point is that there are plenty of jobs in big companies that pay very good salaries, including jobs accessible to people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't have an Ivy League education.  Companies often don't pay managers, technical workers, salespeople, and so on crap wages.  In fact, when the economy was humming along here about a decade ago, it wasn't uncommon to see employee wanted signs on fast food restaurants offering wages a few dollars above the minimum wage.  So why is it that companies only pay crap wages to certain employees under certain circumstances?

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291As for the nice little patronising line about middle-managment positions for the 'little-man', that pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

Given that it describes me pretty well, it wasn't intended to be patronizing at  all.  It's meant to point out that opportunities are available to people willing to take them.  

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291Poor people are lazy, grasping sods who will take something for nothing in favour of working really hard like good little rich people. But, if you work really hard (which obviously people in poorly paid jobs don't), rich folk hold a few middle-management roles open for the peons. So get off your backsides and do as you are told - oh, we'll start you off on 5.50 an hour.

It has nothing to do with with laziness or how hard people work in any physical sense and that's the key conceptual point that most people don't get.  Working reasonably hard is part of it but it's also about taking advantage of opportunities, taking risks, and looking ahead with goals and a plan to achieve them.  I can go to the gym and "work really hard" all day but nobody is going to pay me for it because all of that effort is not worth anything.  And I could get up early every day and work really hard waiting tables, stocking shelves, or digging ditches for 25 years but if I'm not doing anything more than any other unskilled entry-level worker could do, why should I make more money than an unskilled entry-level worker for doing exactly the same work that they are doing?

And, yes, people start out at $5.50 an hour (though not all do), which isn't so bad when you are a college student, share an apartment with 3 friends, or live at home with their parents.  If you are 40 and are still taking jobs where you "start out" at minimum wage, maybe part of the problem is that you still have an entry-level skill set despite spending nearly two decades working?  Entry level positions are for entry level workers.  How can someone work for 20 years and still only be looking at entry level jobs?

As for the middle-management positions, they aren't that rare or hard to get (well, provided you don't take the personality that most people display on this forum to work with you).  I mentioned them because they are easy to work into and within the reach of almost anyone with a modicum of ability and ambition.  But I also know people who have worked into upper management despite modest (and even inappropriate) backgrounds including people who have become CTOs and VPs.  I also know entrepreneurs who have made money, for example, shipping a few cars into countries like Egypt and then selling them at a profit.  

That chapter I posted a link to about middleman minorities is also important because the characteristics found in those middleman minorities that often allow them to succeed in places where they show up with little but the clothing on their backs are the same characteristics that allow poor people to rise out of poverty.  As Sowell writes, the "real distinction" is "between unenterprising, indolent, unambitious and perhaps thriftless individuals, and others more venturesome, energetic, resourceful and frugal."  In some cases, the problem is laziness but a person can certainly "work really hard" yet still lack ambition and thrift, not planning for what comes next.  And sometimes they don't get ahead for other reasons such as a poor attitude, and unpleasant personality, or a refusal to look and act appropriately for where they want to go.  But in most cases, those are things that a person can change or compensate for if they really care to.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222291National Geographic are coming to take a picture of that paragraph - it's so full of shit, they think it's an elephant.

Yeah, that's the whole point of a straw man argument, isn't it?

Quote from: John Morrow;222308Given that it describes me pretty well, it wasn't intended to be patronizing at  all.  It's meant to point out that opportunities are available to people willing to take them.  

For the record, it probably describes me pretty well too. I should point out that you're missing 1 key point here, though. It's not just 'willing', it's 'able' too.

QuoteWorking reasonably hard is part of it but it's also about taking advantage of opportunities, taking risks, and looking ahead with goals and a plan to achieve them.  

See above.

QuoteAs for the middle-management positions, they aren't that rare or hard to get (well, provided you don't take the personality that most people display on this forum to work with you).

Nice one!

QuoteYeah, that's the whole point of a straw man argument, isn't it?

Come on! That was a good line!

Quote from: droog;222288I see an ideological point somewhere there. And the only piece of evidence supporting that point appears to be in the mind of John Morrow.

It's not an ideological point.  It's an attempt to explain why so many people try to start businesses without sufficiently understanding or planning for the financial element of running a business when that's fairly fundamental to success and isn't all that difficult to find out about, especially these days.  If you've got a better explanation, I'd be happy to hear it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222309For the record, it probably describes me pretty well too. I should point out that you're missing 1 key point here, though. It's not just 'willing', it's 'able' too.

I have encountered far more people whose problem was that they were not willing to than people who were not able to.  And by "not able to", I don't mean that they currently lack the skill because the skill is something they can learn either on the job or on their own time if they really want.

Quote from: John Morrow;222311I have encountered far more people whose problem was that they were not willing to than people who were not able to.  And by "not able to", I don't mean that they currently lack the skill because the skill is something they can learn either on the job or on their own time if they really want.

Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Which is pretty funny, if you think about it, since starting your own business is being suggested as a means out of poverty.

"Sorry, you're too poor to get out of poverty."

Quote from: Jackalope;222313Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Which is pretty funny, if you think about it, since starting your own business is being suggested as a means out of poverty.

"Sorry, you're too poor to get out of poverty."

No, no, no. You don't get it. You should be willing to take the risk to get rich patrons to invest in your business. Who then take the opportunity to take a huge chunk of any profits that you make.

Quote from: Jackalope;222313Considering the vast majority of new businesses fail due to undercapitalization -- i.e. not starting with enough money -- I would say the number one cause of people not being able to start their own businesses is a lack of money.

Yet plenty of poor immigrants in the United States manage to pull it off.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222314No, no, no. You don't get it. You should be willing to take the risk to get rich patrons to invest in your business. Who then take the opportunity to take a huge chunk of any profits that you make.

That's one way to do it, yes.

(Why do they deserve a huge chunk of your profits?  Because if your business fails, then they lose their money so they are taking risks, too.)

Quote from: John Morrow;222315Yet plenty of poor immigrants in the United States manage to pull it off.

Plenty?

No doubt, John. No doubt. Except of course, it's a risk of everything vs a risk of something. That's the difference isn't it? It always will be. So many of your arguments ring sort of hollow.

Anyhoo. Right-wing away, buddy. I'm not one to keep endlessly posting 'till i get the last word.

Quote from: One Horse Town;222319No doubt, John. No doubt. Except of course, it's a risk of everything vs a risk of something. That's the difference isn't it? It always will be. So many of your arguments ring sort of hollow.

As Bill has pointed out, done properly, you don't have to risk everything.

Quote from: Jackalope;222318Plenty?

Yes.  Plenty.

Quote from: Jackalope;222318Plenty?

Mr. Gupta, my Economics Professor at Tacoma Community College 6 years ago (so, you know, you can do the research to prove I'm not making him up...) came to America in the 1970's with nothing but a degree in Economics from some Indian University and 17 dollars by his own account.  When I met him in 2002, he had sold a construction company in Nebraska for millions of dollars he had built from the ground up, had gotten his Master's in Economics and had retired to the west coast and taken a teaching job to keep busy.

Plenty.  

A fellow of my aquaintence sells houses now for 300 and 400 thousand dollars on a weekly basis, earning his commission. His oldest son is going to a nice school. This fellow was not an immigrant at all, but a poor boy from the rough side of Detroit who joined the Navy to avoid the mean streets, he started as a lowly seaman and 'retired' as an officer.

Its not immigrant or non-immigrant, but a simple, verifiable fact that the US is one of a very tiny handful of nations that exist... or ever existed, where the dream of attaining wealth is not only available, but viable for anyone willing to work for it.  

Blaming the wealthy for being rich smacks more of resentment than an honest concern for, or even realization of, how civilizations work.

Radical ideas are often radical because they don't actually work.