Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-25-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
6,288 posts, read 11,749,914 times
Reputation: 3369

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioque View Post
So the income distribution of your workplace has more to do social skills and certain qualifications like advance degrees and perhaps a brand name college or coming from a brand name company...which is quite normal among a lot of workplaces and could explain other things like gender income inequality.
so the income distribution at my workplace has to do with Exec team being dishonest with candidates about outstanding equity and the value of shares. They are not forthcoming with candidates who interview at the company.

The PhD Engineer is already rewarded for his education by receiving a substantially higher salary than the IT administrator. Does he also need to receive a 10x greater amount of equity in the company just because of his degree? I think not. My opinion is that two individuals who work equally hard to the best of their abilities, provide equal tangible benefit to the business.

Maybe hard numbers will help:

IT Administrator: receives $17,500 in company stock
PhD engineer: receives $210,000 in stock
engineer who already is millionaire: receives $1.75 million in stock
V.P. of Technology: receives $17.5 million in stock

First of all, I don't think that type of distribution is fair or can be justified.

Secondly, what makes it worse is the dishonesty that attempts to keep as much of the equity as possible out of the hands of new employees.

Quote:
Still your anecdote fails to show that the particular IT administrator is anything close to what we know as poor or that most poor people are poor due to the lack of social skills and/or advanced degrees, brand name school and colleges and possibly connections.
You are supposed to generalize upon my anecdote to realize that one of the reasons poor people remain poor, is because people with wealth and power go out of their way to keep them there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2012, 04:57 PM
 
20 posts, read 27,825 times
Reputation: 41
People assume that those who are poor are all sitting in air conditioned homes, that all own a flat screen t.v., that all have an iPhone, that all have a stereo, that all have a car, that all have all kinds of things...when the fact is, many poor do NOT have those things.

A lot of them do though and they wonder why they can't afford the rent. When I was struggling financially, I didn't have a flat screen TV, an iPhone, I have a stereo, but it's 20 years old, I have a car because I need one to go to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 05:48 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,608,492 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post

The PhD Engineer is already rewarded for his education by receiving a substantially higher salary than the IT administrator. Does he also need to receive a 10x greater amount of equity in the company just because of his degree? I think not. My opinion is that two individuals who work equally hard to the best of their abilities, provide equal tangible benefit to the business.

Maybe hard numbers will help:

IT Administrator: receives $17,500 in company stock
PhD engineer: receives $210,000 in stock
engineer who already is millionaire: receives $1.75 million in stock
V.P. of Technology: receives $17.5 million in stock

First of all, I don't think that type of distribution is fair or can be justified.

Secondly, what makes it worse is the dishonesty that attempts to keep as much of the equity as possible out of the hands of new employees.
Generally speaking the market, supply and demand, determines compensation. The market favors some job descriptions more so than others. That some employees might be independently wealthy has nothing to do with comp packages. It's not personal. Likely the going rate ( total comp) in the open market for a seasoned PHD engineer is substantially greater than that of the IT Admin.

It's very common stuff for new(er) employees to have to prove themselves during a vesting period. Nothing dishonest about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,838,652 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorRob305 View Post
I just wanted to find out why people who have found or made a better financial situation for themselves, and people with wealth or who grew up in wealth, always categorize everyone who's poor as being underachievers, or people who haven't tried hard enough in life? Why are the poor blamed for being poor? Are you the type of person who believes a poor person is always at fault for where they are in life financially? If so, do you ever think that thier path may have been more than you could have imagined to bare just to overcome poverty or do you think there are enough jobs and opportunities for each and every individual in society to be financially stable?
Hi all--

I'm coming from the Economics and Frugal Living forums so I'm not too familiar with this place. Also a degree in Economics if that helps.

A lot of poor people are poor because they make poor economic choices. It's for the same reason why you hear stories of lottery winners blowing it all. They simply don't have the financial wherewithal and discipline to accumulate wealth, much less hold onto it.

I can pretty clearly say, from my experience working at a gas station during college (which was located right next to two Section 8 apartment complexes) that those guys spend a truly appalling amount of their money on beer, cigarettes, and chew. The worst offender was cigarettes - people scrounging up pennies, etc. for their next pack. It was especially bad right around the second week of the month and right before the end of the month (presumably right before the food stamps/welfare checks came in).

Come tax refund time, these same folk would go out and buy big-screen TV's, cars, etc. - while their children are shirtless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2012, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
6,288 posts, read 11,749,914 times
Reputation: 3369
Honestly poverty should be defined the same for everyone across the globe: if you don't have enough to eat and adequate shelter and medical care, you are poor. Otherwise you are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2012, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
842 posts, read 1,143,710 times
Reputation: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioque View Post
Exactly. I'm living with one such self described "poor" who recently quit his THIRD job this year and is so poor that he had to resort to eating only 1 meal a day (not because he didn't have money for food as most of his meals consist of dining out on casinos' 19-25 dollars prime rib or AYCE Alaskan crab legs and oyster buffet and told me that he didn't feel like cooking) of an entire rack of New Zealand lamb chops in one sitting the last time he made me cook his dinner (cause apparently like my cat, he's an obligate carnivore and will die without meat) while working rich like myself subsist opulently on in season produces and beans for 95% of my meals. The most ironic thing is that he told me that he's tired of lobsters (his own words) and his father think *I'm* the poor one for not draping myself in Gucci and Louis Vuitton (well, duh. I have to save so I pay for all of your son's bills and his filet mignon). Almost all of my bosses cook their own meals and brown bags religiously while this poor wouldn't think twice before heading out in a sit in restaurant. No student loan, shiny business degree paid for by others, no rent, no bills, plenty of video games and tons of time to sit on his ass since job searching is something that he can do-well, tomorrow. So poor.



Please, somebody have a heart and take this poor under your wings and out of my unfeeling stingy hands.

At long last! After two days saying that he no longer has money for things and "tomorrow is not a good day for me to look for work as my friend might call to go out", the hand (clinging onto a Alaskan King crab leg) to mouth poor is out buying a paper to look for a job!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2012, 04:53 PM
 
1,249 posts, read 1,728,630 times
Reputation: 911
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorRob305 View Post
I just wanted to find out why people who have found or made a better financial situation for themselves, and people with wealth or who grew up in wealth, always categorize everyone who's poor as being underachievers, or people who haven't tried hard enough in life? Why are the poor blamed for being poor? Are you the type of person who believes a poor person is always at fault for where they are in life financially? If so, do you ever think that thier path may have been more than you could have imagined to bare just to overcome poverty or do you think there are enough jobs and opportunities for each and every individual in society to be financially stable?
I think some people blame the poor, but some do not. I work with the poor in my job, trying to take care of diabetes. I have compassion for them, but I find some of the situations they are in puzzling.

I think the act of being poor makes you accept things you should not. For example, some do not have self-help skills which I try to work on with them. I had a very overweight patient who I was trying to get to start exercising a little. She kept telling me that she could not exercise, because she couldn't join a gym. So I asked her if her neighborhood was safe, and apparently it was (as much as anyone's could be, I guess). She won't walk outside, though, and she won't lift hand weights in her home. She has to join a gym that she couldn't afford. And since she couldn't afford the gym, she won't exercise. (I am her health care provider, and I can't afford a gym, either. I walk outside). When I was poor, we walked everywhere, but I wasn't poor my whole life. I realize I could be this lady very easily.

It seems like some just accept things. I suppose they have no choice sometimes, but that extends to some things that they should not accept. I'm interested in this - how do you help empower someone who has accepted defeat all of his or her life? When I have the answer to that, I'll be able to help my patients more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Wonderland
67,652 posts, read 60,560,490 times
Reputation: 101046
Hmmm.

I've had some unusual life experiences which have given me some insight into this rich/poor thing.

First of all, I was raised in a middle class family. Strictly middle class - one car, public schools, hamburger helper for dinner, that sort of thing.

When I went off to college, I met a guy from a VERY poor family who was attending college on a scholarship. We got married, against my parents' advice (they were against it because we hadn't dated very long - and they were, by the way, right in their assessment that it wasn't a wise choice). Since my parents were being, errr, difficult, we moved to HIS town and around HIS family.

This was a family that had lived on "public assistance" for generations. Unwed mothers, drug and alcohol abusers, roaches, health issues, you name it. Wow, what an eye opener.

Here are things that I observed in the two years I lived within that community:

1. People CONSISTENTLY made very poor choices - in mates, in spouses (if on the off chance they decided to actually marry someone who they had a baby with), in job performance (would treat jobs casually, be late, call in sick or just not show up), in what they ate and drank, in their financial priorities -you name it. Sorry but it's the plain truth.

2. They ridiculed people who didn't embrace their value system. They didn't seem open to learning by observing people who made different decisions.

3. They had social programs down pat - every available dollar or food stamp or form of assistance was availed upon.

4. They would spend money on hair and nails, but not on car repair or savings or a decent mattress for a child.

5. They would shop at Walmart and buy the cheapest kids' clothes on the planet, but didn't bother shopping at resale stores.

6. They had plenty of money for beer and cigarettes and crack cocaine and weed.

7. Children suffered greatly in this environment. It was not unusual for a child to have a mayo sandwich as their only meal for the day, while their mother was getting her nails done that afternoon.

Nutrition (or the lack thereof) plays such a huge role in the potential for people in this environment. How can kids even have a chance when their health and wellbeing is so disrespected and treated with such casual dismissal? Child abuse and sexual abuse was rampant.

It was very distressing.

People DO get out of these scenarios, which proves that they can if they put their minds to it. For instance, the man I married (we later divorced) is now a LT COL in the Army. I have several nieces from that family who have married good men or joined the military and have moved far away from that environment and are making good lives for themselves.

But in all those cases, it starts with making WISE CHOICES. The resources are there, but people often sabotage themselves and create their own failures.

Sorry if my post seems stereotypical - but I have seen this environment first hand. After two days in it, I determined that there was NO WAY I was going to raise a family in that situation. My husband joined the military within about a year and we got the hell out of Dodge. It was the best decision he ever made and he has built a very successful and respectable career, and racked up three college degrees, thanks to Uncle Sam. He successfully broke the cycle and his kids and grandkids are not being raised in poverty - and the likelihood of them becoming like their dad's relatives is slim. They've been raised to make better choices and ARE making better choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Europe, in the Land of the mean
956 posts, read 1,764,212 times
Reputation: 681
Agree absolutely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:16 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,010 posts, read 2,263,208 times
Reputation: 2157
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
Honestly poverty should be defined the same for everyone across the globe: if you don't have enough to eat and adequate shelter and medical care, you are poor. Otherwise you are not.
That is bad idea you can not compare countries poor because there are many circumstances that are different. Having food shelter and medical care does not mean you are well off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top