The rich - poor gap

[avinalarf]

turbobloke said:

It's possible to start a business and become successful and wealthy without many brain cells, look around you.

For those without any desire to start a business there's decent money to be made in employment by sweating it with the power of muscles rather than little grey cells. Alternatively, tolerating boredom can pay reasonably well.

People who are successful through working hard, smart and taking well-judged risks will always get more goodies and rightly so.

You keep avoiding/evading the premise of the topic.
You appear to have a complete lack of empathy for anybody but yourself and not referencing the questions I am putting to you.
Take a moment to read my comments and argue,repeating yourself does not make it right.

[turbobloke]

avinalarf said:

turbobloke said:

It's possible to start a business and become successful and wealthy without many brain cells, look around you.

For those without any desire to start a business there's decent money to be made in employment by sweating it with the power of muscles rather than little grey cells. Alternatively, tolerating boredom can pay reasonably well.

People who are successful through working hard, smart and taking well-judged risks will always get more goodies and rightly so.

You keep avoiding/evading the premise of the topic.
You appear to have a complete lack of empathy for anybody but yourself and not referencing the questions I am putting to you.
Take a moment to read my comments and argue,repeating yourself does not make it right.

I keep avoiding nothing, unlike yourself.

That's just waffle and evasive waffle at that, I've answered your points but apparently you can't answer mine.

[900T-R]

My take on it is that every single person on earth thinks their contribution in terms of added value entitles them to more than their fair share of the world's resources - just like if you add up all car brands' expectations of market share for the coming year, you'll end up at a total of 140% or so - it's just that certain groups of people get away with it. The ones at the top of the pyramid scheme because society lost control over them, and the lowest echelons because we think it's easier to bribe them with handouts than to put up with their $hit. All of us in the middle get squeezed out until we decide we've had enough.

[Dr Jekyll]

avinalarf said:

I don't ask for "forced equality" ,just a more level playing field where everybody plays by the same rules.
You may be blessed with an aptitude for making money, good luck to you,but many work very hard but do not have your abilities,so by your book does that mean you get all the goodies whilst they struggle to make ends meet?

You're still making the zero sum assumption that there are a fixed quantity of goodies to be distributed by an all seeing benevolent state. The concept of 'all the goodies' is meaningless therefore your question is meaningless.

If I find resources which 'society' values at £100, in other words that's the most others would be prepared to pay for them. And use them to produce something which 'society' would be prepared to pay up to £150 then wealth has been created. If I sell the product for £130 then I've made £30 profit, which according to you must be taken from the pockets of widows and orphans struggling to make ends meet and they would be far better off if I hadn't bothered to make anything at all, but they wouldn't.

[avinalarf]

turbobloke said:

I keep avoiding nothing, unlike yourself.

That's just waffle and evasive waffle at that, I've answered your points but apparently you can't answer mine.

Love a waffle,bit of fresh cream and chocolate sauce.
I have said, many times, hard work etc etc brings rewards , fine, no problem with that.
You say " I am a very "smart" boy ,that has an ability to make loadsa money".
Great, no problem with that.
BUT we are not talking about you,if you can grasp that concept.
We are talking about the huge majority that work hard and have seen there living standards fall,through no fault of their own,the past 6 years.
We are talking about the ever widening gulf between the "rich" and "poor" a gulf that is increasing exponentially,not being justified by any recognisable reasonable explanation.
Let me give you an example.....This week Yahoo's CEO was sacked ,after 15 months, with a golden parachute worth $58 million,
He was SACKED,because he was not reviving Yahoo's ad sales.
Even the bloody shareholders are kicking off about it.
So that is the World you want to live in ?
Where you can "earn" loadsa money" whilst feckin up and whistling Swannee.
We are talking about Joe Public going through the past 6 years of economic stagnation through having to bail out the banks due to the greed of several bankers and corporations that took reckless advantage of lax and non existent regulations to avoid such bullst.
Now, address these comments please and not repeat the same old mantra.

[don4l]

avinalarf said:

Love a waffle,bit of fresh cream and chocolate sauce.
I have said, many times, hard work etc etc brings rewards , fine, no problem with that.
You say " I am a very "smart" boy ,that has an ability to make loadsa money".
Great, no problem with that.
BUT we are not talking about you,if you can grasp that concept.
We are talking about the huge majority that work hard and have seen there living standards fall,through no fault of their own,the past 6 years.
We are talking about the ever widening gulf between the "rich" and "poor" a gulf that is increasing exponentially,not being justified by any recognisable reasonable explanation.
Let me give you an example.....This week Yahoo's CEO was sacked ,after 15 months, with a golden parachute worth $58 million,
He was SACKED,because he was not reviving Yahoo's ad sales.
Even the bloody shareholders are kicking off about it.
So that is the World you want to live in ?
Where you can "earn" loadsa money" whilst feckin up and whistling Swannee.
We are talking about Joe Public going through the past 6 years of economic stagnation through having to bail out the banks due to the greed of several bankers and corporations that took reckless advantage of lax and non existent regulations to avoid such bullst.
Now, address these comments please and not repeat the same old mantra.

How did you manage to buy an Aston Martin if life is so difficult?

Did you inherit a lot of money?

[avinalarf]

Dr Jekyll said:

You're still making the zero sum assumption that there are a fixed quantity of goodies to be distributed by an all seeing benevolent state. The concept of 'all the goodies' is meaningless therefore your question is meaningless.

If I find resources which 'society' values at £100, in other words that's the most others would be prepared to pay for them. And use them to produce something which 'society' would be prepared to pay up to £150 then wealth has been created. If I sell the product for £130 then I've made £30 profit, which according to you must be taken from the pockets of widows and orphans struggling to make ends meet and they would be far better off if I hadn't bothered to make anything at all, but they wouldn't.

You have made a point but missed THE point.
I have admiration for those that create wealth and by so doing give employment and well being to others,good on 'em.
However it is how much of that wealth is distributed to those workers that I am addressing.
Is it fair that the workers have to struggle,in London,on minimum wages whilst the CEO pockets £2/3 million p.a. and the shareholders get a whack ?
Would the World stop turning if £250K was considered a reasonable salary for a CEO when many on the shop floor drew £15K p.a.

[Justayellowbadge]

avinalarf said:

You have made a point but missed THE point.
I have admiration for those that create wealth and by so doing give employment and well being to others,good on 'em.
However it is how much of that wealth is distributed to those workers that I am addressing.
Is it fair that the workers have to struggle,in London,on minimum wages whilst the CEO pockets £2/3 million p.a. and the shareholders get a whack ?
Would the World stop turning if £250K was considered a reasonable salary for a CEO when many on the shop floor drew £15K p.a.

Not sure I'd want to take the risks involved in setting up a business only to make the staff richer, tbh.

[avinalarf]

don4l said:

How did you manage to buy an Aston Martin if life is so difficult?

Did you inherit a lot of money?

Not complaining,doing alright,worked hard for many years,not envious of anybody,money cannot buy good health,a lovely wife and three healthy kids.
However (not wishing to sound holier than thou) I do believe one should have a moral compass.
In a capitalist society that might mean making sure enough wealth trickles down so that others not so blessed are afforded a decent standard of living.
Some very wealthy people e.g.Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are giving away lots of wealth to help others,not perhaps the answer but at least they are trying.

[hidetheelephants]

Digga said:

pork911 said:

Anyone earning over around £25k is actually part of the 1% worldwide.

^That, and the fact that a good many on decent wages are only have jobs because someone with balls, vision, luck, good connexions happened to create the entity that employs them escapes an awful lot of people.

Not many people consider the 99% of the planet and ever think about how they escaped real poverty.

The blind luck of being born in an OECD country; nothing else comes close, or is as important.

[avinalarf]

Justayellowbadge said:

Not sure I'd want to take the risks involved in setting up a business only to make the staff richer, tbh.

I love it when my staff take home a healthy bonus,they are on a good commission scheme, they work diligently make money for my company ,get rewarded.
However if the company is not doing so well they do not get that commission,we all share the pain,seems fair to me.

[anonymous-user]

hidetheelephants said:

The blind luck of being born in an OECD country; nothing else comes close, or is as important.

There's a certain pettiness to bhing about the distribution of wealth in the UK when the government could only cap benefits comfortably above the top 1% of global incomes! Its like Buffet complaining that Gates has more money than him.

[Justayellowbadge]

avinalarf said:

I love it when my staff take home a healthy bonus,they are on a good commission scheme, they work diligently make money for my company ,get rewarded.
However if the company is not doing so well they do not get that commission,we all share the pain,seems fair to me.

Fair, and not unusual in the slightest. You seemed to be suggesting something more.

[Rovinghawk]

oyster said:

In your opinion, how much of your 'wealth' has come from hard work and how much has come from market movement?

I'd say that the two are so inextricably intertwined over a long period of time that they're impossible to differentiate. For want of a better figure, 50/50.

[avinalarf]

Justayellowbadge said:

avinalarf said:

I love it when my staff take home a healthy bonus,they are on a good commission scheme, they work diligently make money for my company ,get rewarded.
However if the company is not doing so well they do not get that commission,we all share the pain,seems fair to me.

Fair, and not unusual in the slightest. You seemed to be suggesting something more.

I am indeed suggesting something more.
I am suggesting that we handsomely reward those at the top that work very hard and take well considered risks whilst,at the same time rewarding the employees,who also work hard, to share proportionately in the fruits of their endeavour.
Over the past 20 years the pendulum has swung too far, unjustly rewarding some at the top when they have blatantly failed to create sustainable wealth.
I consider "greed" to be an unattractive and self destructive force that will ,in time,damage both the greedy and those around them.

[900T-R]

avinalarf said:

Over the past 20 years the pendulum has swung too far, unjustly rewarding some at the top when they have blatantly failed to create sustainable wealth.

Quite. over the past decade or so at least, it hasn't even been a 'zero sum game' in our Western economies - the outcome has been negative.

[turbobloke]

avinalarf said:

Justayellowbadge said:

avinalarf said:

I love it when my staff take home a healthy bonus,they are on a good commission scheme, they work diligently make money for my company ,get rewarded.
However if the company is not doing so well they do not get that commission,we all share the pain,seems fair to me.

Fair, and not unusual in the slightest. You seemed to be suggesting something more.

I am indeed suggesting something more.
I am suggesting that we handsomely reward those at the top that work very hard and take well considered risks whilst,at the same time rewarding the employees,who also work hard, to share proportionately in the fruits of their endeavour.

That's nothing more, it's what happens already, it's what you do and what I do and what justayellowbadge agreed is 'fair' a dodgy word but we get the drift.

It will not stop the rich-poor gap or even stop it widening. The only way to do that is too unpalatable to be suggested never mind introduced by politicians needing votes. Still, let's be careful and proportionate, employees mustn't get that greedy disease you mentioned. What are the symptoms like - was Bob Crow a good example?

[Dr Jekyll]

avinalarf said:

However it is how much of that wealth is distributed to those workers that I am addressing.
Is it fair that the workers have to struggle,in London,on minimum wages whilst the CEO pockets £2/3 million p.a. and the shareholders get a whack ?
Would the World stop turning if £250K was considered a reasonable salary for a CEO when many on the shop floor drew £15K p.a.

It's neither fair nor unfair. The difference between us is that I see the fact that some people are struggling on minimum wages as the problem, while you see the fact that some people are comfortable as the problem. The rich - poor gap is utterly irrelevant. I'm baffled by your notion that it doesn't matter how poor most of us are providing the CEO suffers as well.

[NicD]

900T-R said:

avinalarf said:

Over the past 20 years the pendulum has swung too far, unjustly rewarding some at the top when they have blatantly failed to create sustainable wealth.

Quite. over the past decade or so at least, it hasn't even been a 'zero sum game' in our Western economies - the outcome has been negative.

Yes, for sure, not capitalism 's finest hour.

[Dr Jekyll]

NicD said:

900T-R said:

avinalarf said:

Over the past 20 years the pendulum has swung too far, unjustly rewarding some at the top when they have blatantly failed to create sustainable wealth.

Quite. over the past decade or so at least, it hasn't even been a 'zero sum game' in our Western economies - the outcome has been negative.

Yes, for sure, not capitalism 's finest hour.

No, negative growth simply means less wealth is being created than in the previous year. Even if we are back to the levels of wealth creation of 10 years ago that's better than communism ever managed.