Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [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)
 
Old 12-31-2017, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,705,767 times
Reputation: 12337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
If someone chooses to do that, who are you to step in and say they can't?

Teenagers used to do jobs for "less than basic subsistence" because they already had basic subsistence. How about the retired guy who just wants to stay busy? Someone who takes a second job for some extra money?

Further, let's move on to your next obvious argument... "But what about the poor guy who just can't find anything that pays more?" Well, there you go, right there... his labor simply isn't worth more. You cannot wave a magic wand and change that. Setting minimum wages doesn't make his life better, it makes it worse... if the job isn't worth $15 an hour, but the employer cannot pay less, the job simply won't be done. Or one person will do two old $8 an hour jobs.

And then we have the problematic next logical step in your argument... if we somehow guarantee that everyone who works 40 hours receives "basic subsistence", how long is it before we say that you cannot make more than X above basic subsistence, because that "wouldn't be fair", or is "greed", or "takes money from others".

You worry about how much you make, and leave me to worry about how much I make. 'K?
The thing is, these poor workers ARE pretty much guaranteed basic subsistence. It’s called EBT. So someone works at Walmart or McDonalds, makes minimum wage or a little over, then gets paid by the government (read: taxpayers) to fill in the gaps. The same people who are vehemently against raising the minimum wage complain about the food stamps given to those making paltry pay. You can’t really have it both ways. Someone has to work at these jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2017, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,649,441 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger256 View Post
what if we allow all the "leaders" to make as much as they normally make, but limit any kind of inheritance to their children to an inflation linked 1-2 million (each) in total and allow the remainder to go back to society to pay for military and walls and highways and social services and basic income.

The argument for some is that a mover and shaker should be paid and rewarded for their contribution, but this should not apply to their children who are not the movers and shakers and allow them to rise on their own merit.
Someone who earns money isn't free to dispose of it however they wish?

What, precisely, is the harm in spoiled, entitled heirs receiving huge windfalls they never earned? What is the problem we're trying to solve here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Inland FL
2,518 posts, read 1,841,673 times
Reputation: 4194
Nobody was asked to be born and they got bills to pay. We all do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 08:48 AM
 
921 posts, read 523,755 times
Reputation: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger256 View Post
this is not what i'm saying at all.

I understand the whole principle behind the Ayn Rand idea of the smart people getting rewarded for creating, but if you think about it honestly, would you feel any difference between earning $1 million per year vs earning $15 million per year?

Besides, the brag factor of a higher number, you more than likely would not be impacted because there's only so much stuff you can buy in this world. There is a law of diminishing returns with the higher returns.

A billionaire doesn't live/feel that different from a millionaire. I know it's probably easy for me to say since I don't earn more than $500k per year.
The difference is that most that generate more also create more.

There is also a difference between debt to asset ratio, is it in the 40's? 60's? Happens with my guys all the time. They can see what kind of income is coming in and they think that its all income. It's not. They have no idea where the business is on it's LOC.

HECK YES, I'd do much more and create more jobs if I earned 15 times what I did now. Right now I have 3 different businesses that are in the early stages of development and 2 that are nearly final waiting on financing depending on the next qtr's projections. The 2 businesses will create 7 jobs and the 3 businesses in early stages could produce 15 more jobs.

If your not moving forward, your falling backwards. If I was "capped" at where I'm at, none of those would even be a thought as there is no way I could move forward. When that happens, you become stagnant. Nobody wants to drink from a stagnant river, they want fresh water....a flow of fresh water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 05:29 PM
 
Location: North West Arkansas (zone 6b)
2,776 posts, read 3,231,442 times
Reputation: 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
Someone who earns money isn't free to dispose of it however they wish?

What, precisely, is the harm in spoiled, entitled heirs receiving huge windfalls they never earned? What is the problem we're trying to solve here?
it's certainly controversial and something to think on.

Heirs of successful wealthy people should not be thought of any differently than heirs of poor people, so why not even the playing field and let the races begin?

The logic is fairly consistent with removing entitlements for the poor so they can strive to be better. An inheritance is not too different from an entitlement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 11:55 PM
 
10,075 posts, read 7,506,923 times
Reputation: 15500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger256 View Post
it's certainly controversial and something to think on.

Heirs of successful wealthy people should not be thought of any differently than heirs of poor people, so why not even the playing field and let the races begin?

The logic is fairly consistent with removing entitlements for the poor so they can strive to be better. An inheritance is not too different from an entitlement.
then you better poke out everyone's eyes because you are being unfair to people who are born blind

you don't get to pick which of the 1% of the population has an unfair advantage... what about the 1% of the people who are born over 6' better cut off their feet as well
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,649,441 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger256 View Post
it's certainly controversial and something to think on.

Heirs of successful wealthy people should not be thought of any differently than heirs of poor people, so why not even the playing field and let the races begin?

The logic is fairly consistent with removing entitlements for the poor so they can strive to be better. An inheritance is not too different from an entitlement.
Except if I earn money, it's mine. I can do whatever I want with my money, including leaving it to spoiled, entitled heirs. What right are you claiming to override that? Why is it so important that my heirs be forced to compete and earn their own way? You, as a US citizen, have an "unfair advantage" over 90% of the rest of the world... when will you make yourself equal to the meanest peasant on the planet to "level the playing field"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 10:25 AM
 
921 posts, read 523,755 times
Reputation: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger256 View Post
it's certainly controversial and something to think on.

Heirs of successful wealthy people should not be thought of any differently than heirs of poor people, so why not even the playing field and let the races begin?

The logic is fairly consistent with removing entitlements for the poor so they can strive to be better. An inheritance is not too different from an entitlement.
So you believe that you should take from the rich, give to the poor, and all is now equal? Money isn't the issue, not even close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,705,767 times
Reputation: 12337
I think the point is that the rich who have inherited their wealth from their parents often think that they have money because they are such excellent and hard workers. The reality is that they did nothing to earn that money, so they shouldn’t look down on those who use social programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 12:21 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,091,275 times
Reputation: 5036
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
Someone who earns money isn't free to dispose of it however they wish?

What, precisely, is the harm in spoiled, entitled heirs receiving huge windfalls they never earned? What is the problem we're trying to solve here?
The issue is concentration of wealth, this just barely works when you are printing money at a break neck pace but we cant print money forever and this eventually becomes a 0 sum game.


There is only so much real estate with water rights, so much lumber, so much stone, so much oil, etc etc. All money does is represent a medium of exchange.


So when something is scarce how do you price it when the medium of exchange is worthless (ie when you have heirs with billions of dollars a dollar suddenly does not seem like that much)


Back in the old days wars were fought over said zero sum resources, because if a resource is zero sum (ie scarce) and the wealth concentration starts then war is inevitable. OR we will have to reset our currency and the rich wont be happy about that, that's when they will start pushing for slavery.


That's what this all boils back down to, not heirs and their money but what they want to do with people (ie make them into slaves because the real value is in the labor and the natural resource not the money), the money is a means of enslavement not a medium of exchange.


I think it is becoming very apparent to millenials when they see how much they can "earn" and how much key asset classes cost (car house, etc). Many will have to make the decision to leave the country, however, the only way another non crap hole nation will take you is if you have skills and the price tag in the USA to get skills is right up there with a nice car and a house .... so it wont be pretty.


Maybe they will be able to declare refugee status away from the US establishment?
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 > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:48 PM.

© 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