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.
Organick is basically correct. My info. on this aspect follows.
Looking at the Forbes 400 list--the 400 richest people in the US--it found that approx. 43% of the people on the list had inherited enough money outright to qualify for inclusion.
7% had origionally inherited more than $50 million, which they used to build more wealth (thereby gaining inclusion to the top 400)
6% had inherited more than $1 million but less than $50 million; 14% were raised in wealthy or upper-class homes, but did not initially have assets in excess of $1 million. Only 30% of the richest people came from families who did not have great wealth or own a business. That means that less than a third of the richest people in the US started their lives in the middle or lower classes on the economic scale.
If you have any doubts about whether our "classless" American society is firmly in the grip of a class structure, REMEMBER that the best way to have money in this society is still to be born into wealth.
Once again... the majority of the wealthy did not inherit or marry into their wealth.
Organick is basically correct. My info. on this aspect follows.
Looking at the Forbes 400 list--the 400 richest people in the US--it found that approx. 43% of the people on the list had inherited enough money outright to qualify for inclusion.
7% had origionally inherited more than $50 million, which they used to build more wealth (thereby gaining inclusion to the top 400) 6% had inherited more than $1 million but less than $50 million.
If only 13% inherited more than $1 million, how is it possible that 43% of the people on the richest 400 list inherited enough money outright to qualify for inclusion? You don't really expect us to believe that someone who has less than $1 million is among the richest 400, do you?
Quote:
If you have any doubts about whether our "classless" American society is firmly in the grip of a class structure, REMEMBER that the best way to have money in this society is still to be born into wealth.
Nothing fishy at all. With no kids yet and no debt, I was able to pay it off very quickly because I made it a priority. My first car was a stick shift Saturn... no bells or whistles. No fancy magic in that. I'm not saying that all people are able to do what I did, but it's about where you place your priorities. Some people feel that driving an expensive car and having the latest cell phone while wearing $250 jeans is a priority. I'd rather be debt free and do without. That's just me though. I have a friend who graduated at the same time as me that is still paying back his loans.
The market dictates wages, not any single employer. I find it hard to believe that a business owner, who starts a business from the ground up to the point where it is now affording to pay him/her $30 million a year would lack the business acumen to run the business appropriately, thus avoiding running it into the ground. If the market dictates that employees perfoming X job earn $X/year, that's what the market dictates. Why berate the employer for providing jobs for people? It's a symbiotic relationship. Your scenario lacks sense. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for any particular employer. Don't like your wages? Job hop. Still don't like your wages, career hop. Still not happy? Better yourself through education. Take initiative to better your own life instead of blaming those evil employers.
if the market dictates everything how come wages didn't skyrocket during the times when the economy was booming?
No, they earned 75% (Your figures and I am just taking your word for it.) of the income and the government took 40% of it. The government did not earn one red cent.
Any person that wants to can go out and start their own business and have the opportunity to earn that much too. It is a matter of personal choice and we are a free country so you can choose to work long hours and start up a business too, so go for it.
Oh so you support zero taxes?????? along with zero police, firemen, schools, military, roads etc etc etc. Sounds like we would be in great shape than
Fair enough...but my intitution calls it different!
Quote:
What is the Southern Agrarian school about? I am very much in favor of farming, especially small-scale farming to sustain a family. Agriculture used to employ so many people, keeping them from moving to the cities and there not seldom in ghettos. Of course I am not in favor of the plantations where a few get rich at the expense of an army of poor farmhands. I think everyone who wants it should be given some fertile land and basic agriculture should be taught at school.
I don't think the creation of jobs justifies everything. For instance I think it is better to be unemployed than to work in weapons manufacturing or prostitution.
Can I respectfully ask what YOU do for a living? The answer will likely give insight into your own outlook on the world.
No, the creation of jobs does not justify everything....but I guess it depends upon what "everything" entails.
Let me put it this way. Again, what do YOU do for a living? Do you do anything at all which creates wealth and/or employs other people to earn their own living?
I don't know about prostitution (other than it is the worlds oldest profession! LOL), but I DO know that the manufacture of weapons has protected your hind-end all these many years...
The irony is that those who "complain" about the wealthy are some of its biggest supporters... CEO's can't be rich if you don't buy their product (which you do), celebrities can't be rich if you don't reject the notion they deserved millions for saying a few lines (which liberals love), athletes can't be rich if you stop idolizing them, and business owners can't be rich if they don't take the risks and have public support behind them... its ironic that liberals "hate" these people and then go on to punish anyone BUT these people... it is ironic that 30% of the wealthy did not come from wealthy backgrounds and the liberals seek to kill them off so that they can save the other 70% who just "inherit" their money because the liberals love the Kennedy's, Rockfeller's, etc... its ironic... punishing success so that liberals can feel better about their own limited skills/talent/whatever...
Same lame argument. NO ONE IS ENTITLED to go to college. Have you ever heard of WORKING your way through college. it may take a few more years but, thousands have done it.
seems that in countries doing much better than ours that college is free to you drop. In many countries in Europe this includes room and board with spending money. See what you do to be sucessful is look what those who are doing better than you do it. Not be bullheaded and say i know better.
It appears to me you believe to be globally competitive we need less educated people. Well that is what we have had since reagan being a mental midget himself destroyed the education system in California from being the most respected in the world to now the laughing stock in the developed world with their leaking roofs of a third world nation.
He came into the presidency with the position that we do not need either the DOE or Department of Education. Remember his first words/actions. Tear down those solar panels from the whitehouse. Get government out of the way of being energy self sufficient, let the private companies like the oil companies find alternative sources of energy. (ya right like the oil companies want us not using oil, boy did that work so well) Carter had told us it was a matter of national defense that we become energy independent, Reagan reversed all of that...
I know, I was a student part time intern at DOE working on projects that were successful even in the experimental stage that when Reagan took office he killed.
Do we have the educated work force needed to be a world leader anymore? do we just let the trust fund kids get the free educations?
Imagine this when a doctor gets out of college in Europe he is debt free...... not an indentured slave. Same with the rest.
inventor1... I can't even understand what you are trying to say... other countries doing better than America? Like what? As far as I know, America is at the top... but I suppose "doing better" is subjective... I suppose a country with 100% government employees could be doing better cause it has zero unemployment... Reagan destroyed California schools? Huh? No wonder you live in a different country... most widely respected? Okayyyy....
Once again... the majority of the wealthy did not inherit or marry into their wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdm2008
56% is not majority? Is this some kind of new right wing math?
tooo funny we have several right wingers that have proven that they could not do simple 7th grade math, this is hilarious.... it is so poetic that they prove how they just do not have a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If only 13% inherited more than $1 million, how is it possible that 43% of the people on the richest 400 list inherited enough money outright to qualify for inclusion? You don't really expect us to believe that someone who has less than $1 million is among the richest 400, do you?
Your own info disproves that.
again you have no clue to math do you? What was your grade in differential equations? hahahahahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
The irony is that those who "complain" about the wealthy are some of its biggest supporters... CEO's can't be rich if you don't buy their product (which you do), celebrities can't be rich if you don't reject the notion they deserved millions for saying a few lines (which liberals love), athletes can't be rich if you stop idolizing them, and business owners can't be rich if they don't take the risks and have public support behind them... its ironic that liberals "hate" these people and then go on to punish anyone BUT these people... it is ironic that 30% of the wealthy did not come from wealthy backgrounds and the liberals seek to kill them off so that they can save the other 70% who just "inherit" their money because the liberals love the Kennedy's, Rockfeller's, etc... its ironic... punishing success so that liberals can feel better about their own limited skills/talent/whatever...
the first part of your discussion is not what many of us are talking about. I respect first generation money makers...
But you hit it on the second part. Wow the Kennedy's and Rockefeller's. Ok you named two, but they do not champion the rich causes do they. They are championing the causes of the poor. Whereas the Walmart kids, coors, Hunt brothers, and so on are only championing that of there exclusive club. do you understand the major difference there.
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.
