Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would the compensation of uncommon individuals be tied to the "worth and wages of the common man?" That is a decidedly socialist idea that has been thankfully set aside in this country. Many fewer people will excel when the rewards are artificially tied to a lower common level of achievement.
Do a simple thought experiment, imagine "talent" and HS dropout dropped on an uninabited island lacking coersive socio economic superstructure we got so accustomed to we treat it as a given, natural and the only possible. It is an easy to guess what would happen to the talent attempting to command measly 1:10 (forget 1:1000000) time exchange ratios without establishing an island social pyramid where they are at the top. There will be fights and blood to establish a new parasitic pyramid allowing grossly unequal exchange of our one and the only life. Free +/- people dont allow 1:100,000 time exchange ratios, no matter how mediocre, no way. Free average people will not do damagining lines of work for a fraction of talent's pay because they value their life about the same, and it takes coercion to force a good chunk of population to discount their lives. Why would I care if a wanna be parasite excells or not? In a perfect world I would not allow neither talent nor mediocrity to parasitize on my life (and striving for 1:00000+ exchange ratios is a text book definition of parasitism). A genuine talent should be able to express that talent without a carrot of parasitism hanging in front of him.
Do a simple thought experiment, imagine "talent" and HS dropout dropped on an uninabited island lacking coersive socio economic superstructure we got so accustomed to we treat it as a given, natural and the only possible. It is an easy to guess what would happen to the talent attempting to command measly 1:10 (forget 1:1000000) time exchange ratios without establishing an island social pyramid where they are at the top. There will be fights and blood to establish a new parasitic pyramid allowing grossly unequal exchange of our one and the only life. Free +/- people dont allow 1:100,000 time exchange ratios, no matter how mediocre, no way. Free average people will not do damagining lines of work for a fraction of talent's pay because they value their life about the same, and it takes coercion to force a good chunk of population to discount their lives. Why would I care if a wanna be parasite excells or not? In a perfect world I would not allow neither talent nor mediocrity to parasitize on my life (and striving for 1:00000+ exchange ratios is a text book definition of parasitism). A genuine talent should be able to express that talent without a carrot of parasitism hanging in front of him.
OK, I imagined what you described. Now what? What's the point?
For those who know their history, the term “rentier” conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century’s large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty.
I'm surprised anyone reference Piketty any more. No one pays attention to disgraced economists who cooked their data.
and instead of wasting all this time on CD you probably could have taught yourself something to earn yourself higher wages.
You joined early 2011. I joined early 2012.
You have 30,000 posts. I have 3,000 posts.
2012: I probably was earning $12-$13/hr.
2017: This week Im interviewing for someone to clean my house and help with paperwork, at this point Im probably pay more in late fees for forgetting to get to paperwork than hiring someone will cost to do the paperwork.
Guess what all that time not on CD was spent doing? Learning.
Multiple people over the years have offered you advice and it's gone unheeded. While you suffer the typical low income problems, you've refused to do a thing about it. Therefore, your ills are solely your responsibility at this point. I decided my time was worth more and made it so, college isn't necessary.
So yeah... the fact you haven't gotten a raise in two years isn't my problem, it's yours. If rent can be increased that is great for the landlord. Guess they made a good decision to purchase that building. What good decisions have you made lately?
I highly doubt it. Given my age and job history, I believe my only economic advancement opportunity lies in self-employment, and I know exactly what I want to do, but currently lack the live/work space necessary to make that happen. Learning something new is feasible, getting hired isn't. Selling online and/or at flea markets requires no credentials and entails no age or job history discrimination
But in the above, isn't there a self-selection bias? Is it not the case, that persons associated with philanthropic activities would be more disposed towards philanthropic behavior (whether for genuine altruism or mere appearances)?
If one wished to encounter large African animals in the wild, one might book an African safari. If one simply wanted to encounter wealthy people, one might become involved in area charities. In each case, these would be locales where the quarries in question could easily be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Or are we to believe that by becoming wealthy, a person is mentally transformed, so as to dispense with former parsimony, becoming instead minded towards selfless giving and volunteerism?
As I said, the wealthy do not so often fit the money- and power-grubbing portraits of them that some try to paint. It is more apt to be the case that they wish to give back in some way to the community and society that made their success possible to begin with.
I'm surprised anyone reference Piketty any more. No one pays attention to disgraced economists who cooked their data.
"The evidence so far suggests that, though Mr Piketty may have made mistakes and been sloppy in places, his broad analysis still holds."
-- The Economist
I highly doubt it. Given my age and job history, I believe my only economic advancement opportunity lies in self-employment, and I know exactly what I want to do, but currently lack the live/work space necessary to make that happen.
Where's that GoFundMe page? I've been offering to fund a change in your live/work space to make it happen.
I've got money in my pocket & I'm ready to fund your move.
"The evidence so far suggests that, though Mr Piketty may have made mistakes and been sloppy in places, his broad analysis still holds."
-- The Economist
His broad analysis is flawed. Picketty starts with his conclusion and backs into it. His flawed work even lacks entertainment value. Heck, Rachel Maddow doesn't even talk about him anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
