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.
I already clarified myself. I said everyone has the ability to change their status. I didn't say everyone WOULD do it -- heck, some people don't want to. And as for your question about me, YES, I have. That's why I know it can be done.
and I'm say everyone can't. Its an economic impossiblity. You said you have succeed in life. Lets say you became a business man. You need people who are poor to do the low paying jobs that will keep you business afloat. Because really, do you think the rich are gonna be stuck answering telephones? There needs to be poor in order for the rich to keep thriving. the rich use poor people's shoulders to get higher in the game. Even if EVERONE decided to get to work to get ahead, even the lazy ones, there would still be poor people. Behind every great fortune is a great crime. Besides, you don't know people's situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abrown17
It was a fact that 500 years ago there were no telephones. Or computers, airplanes, spaceships, tv, etc. Facts change. The truth never does. And the truth is that we can create whatever economic situation we desire.
imbecile. rich vs. poor has always been around. thats the truth. 500 hundred years ago there were no telephones. Thats a fact, and the fact is the truth. Telephones will never be there 500 hundred years ago. The truth is what it is. there will ALWAYS be poor people, even if there aren't any lazy ones. Unless you believe in the marx idea that one day the working class all over the world will rise up and revolt.
and I'm say everyone can't. Its an economic impossiblity. You said you have succeed in life. Lets say you became a business man. You need people who are poor to do the low paying jobs that will keep you business afloat. Because really, do you think the rich are gonna be stuck answering telephones? There needs to be poor in order for the rich to keep thriving. the rich use poor people's shoulders to get higher in the game. Even if EVERONE decided to get to work to get ahead, even the lazy ones, there would still be poor people. Behind every great fortune is a great crime. Besides, you don't know people's situation.
imbecile. rich vs. poor has always been around. thats the truth. 500 hundred years ago there were no telephones. Thats a fact, and the fact is the truth. Telephones will never be there 500 hundred years ago. The truth is what it is. there will ALWAYS be poor people, even if there aren't any lazy ones. Unless you believe in the marx idea that one day the working class all over the world will rise up and revolt.
The fallacy in your thinking is that someone is having a gun put to their head to answer telephones or do some other low paying job. Whoever is working that job is doing so by choice.
Yes, there will always be poor people, absolutely. Because our economic system rewards those that work harder, and there will always be those that are willing to work harder.
Your dreams of Utopia would be like the NBA having no Champion, just all the teams having the exact same win/loss record. There will always be "winners and losers" within any system, be it sports or the job market.
But the trouble with sporting analogies is that society isn't a boxing ring or a sports franchise. We've all seen how sports leaguses worldwide have become uncompetetive as a few priveleged clubs buy all the best players and create a virtual monopoly of success. The same is true of an economic system where there is such lopsided growth in wage structure.
This was a political process, not a natural cycle in evolution and a big part of the reason the social mobility of the 70's and 80's is being reversed is because instead of profits being re-invested into more efficient manufacturing technology and future projects they evaporated into the thin air of vaccuous excess and greed. Huge tax cuts were given to the rich and their exhorbitant wage growth has been subsidised by the stagnation of growth at the other end of the pay scale.
If I had a sports club with a multi-billionaire owner and I was able to monopolise the market soon the wages and costs for all the other clubs would rocket too and that's what has been happening in New York. Soon I wold be able to outbid all the other clubs for anything they ever wanted or buy them out before they even got started. The same rule applies to how lopsided growth has affected the housing market which is the key principle at play here.
If there is such a fragmented structure for economic equilibrium growth then a small minority of wealthy people will inevitably drain resources, destroy wage inflation for all but the already overpaid, ship industries abroad and carry on peddling the myth that they should be viewed as glorious titans in a fight to the death contest. Self indulgent nonsense. In fact they are nothing more than the equivalent of a 14 stone professional boxer walking into a school playground and knocking out a fragile geek on crutches. What would that prove? That there are winners and losers I suppose? Yeah, true, but that doesn't make it right, or the best way to structure and sustain stable economic growth.
Last edited by Fear&Whiskey; 10-09-2010 at 01:00 PM..
Do you prefer COMMUNISM? Because you're very close to sounding like it. And, no, I'm not trying to insult you.
It's called FREE ENTERPRISE. Don't like what company execs, actors, and sports figures make? Wish YOU had that kind of money? Then guess what, make the decision to take acting lessons, get your MBA, or practice your jump shot. And beat all the odds those people did to earn those amounts.
As for your other post talking about actors still getting paid big money when a studio loses money, and how you feel that's "wrong" well guess what, YOU can go start a movie studio and compensate actors differently. And because of that you'll get actors that are willing to work under those conditions. No studio is being forced to pay Jennifer Lopez $10 million guaranteed for a movie. They do so because of MARKET FORCES. That's what the market (of all studio work) demands for her services (at that point in time.)
This is why unions don't work and led to the collapse of the auto industry. Ultimately, the MARKET decides what to pay people for certain jobs. If one company pays like crap, then another company can come along and pay more and attract all the talent and take those people away. It's the reason when Google started that they paid engineers DOUBLE of what the rest of Silicon Valley was paying. They wanted the best people and could afford it. This is the basis of FREE ENTERPRISE.
Without free enterprise, and the government forcing businesses to pay "X" or "Y" most companies cannot survive. They cut other costs to save money, their product quality suffers, and ultimately CONSUMERS (who control everything) stop buying their products, the company has to downsize, and eventually faces going out of business.
The fact of the matter is different jobs pay different money. Different jobs require different skills, education, and experience. BUT one thing is for sure... everyone has the power (and right) to go after ANY job they desire. It doesn't mean they'll get it, but they have the power to go to school and get trained for, work their way up after years of experience, etc.
I love you.
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.
