# Income Inequality in America



## goon175 (Oct 22, 2013)

Ok, I am researching this "phenomenon" for an upcoming article for Hit the Woodline. It generally pisses me off that people would rather complain about it being "unfair" then do the work to get to that level themselves. I would, however, like to hear everyones opinion on this and maybe get a few different well thought out points of view. The below articles are the two that really got me going on this issue as of late:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131020,0,770122.column

http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


----------



## JHD (Oct 22, 2013)

I've been watching this, as well, to see how it plays out.  I'll let you know what I think! and you can use as you see fit.

The LA Times article refers to Drucker's recommended salary ratio from the 70's.  But if you look at market capitalization of big business from that same time period, the increase corresponds to the six-fold increase in CEO salaries.

Large multi-billion companies must bid up the compensation packages for their CEO's as there is Avery limited supply of people to pick from capable of managing a very large company successfully.  So in an environment where a more talented CEO might have a .020 impact on market capitalization, for a $500 billion corporation, that equates to a $100 million.  There will always be outliers, where a CEO is paid an astronomical sum and fails dramatically.  But that points to a bad decision by that board of directors, and is not the norm.

So why have CEO salaries increased by roughly six times when the average median worker's salary has not?  For one thing, the economy hasn't grown by that much during the same time period, and the average worker doesn't have the same impact on the economy that a CEO of a multi billion dollar company does.

We are a free market society, and companies should be free to get the best talent.  There is not a worldwide pool of talent to pick from.  Long gone are the days when you could take someone from inhouse and groom that person to be CEO.  The same principles are applied to our actors and sports figures.  Put a  superstar in a movie, get a blockbuster.  Recruit a star player for your team, ticket sales and revenue skyrocket.

JMOO.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2013)

I don't think there is a problem with income inequality. Regular old inequality is a problem still though.


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 22, 2013)

It seems to be an conflict between what is wanted by organizations that want the best CEO they can get, versus the issue of concentrating wealth in too few.  Put another way, the issue many people have with income inequality and their problem with the income of CEO's is that CEO's are just a good example of exorbitant amounts of wealth being bestowed upon an individual, when redistributing say x% (x=single digit number) of that salary could give a large boost to quite a few people.  The reason for seeing it as a problem is the need for a strong middle class, which while America does have a decently strong middle class, it has the potential to be significantly stronger.

Generally speaking, I'd agree with cback - income inequality itself is not a bad thing, and it is just a fact of life if we are to continue using this abstraction of value we call money.  Let's just try to keep it so that everyone can participate at some level or another.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2013)

JHD said:


> I've been watching this, as well, to see how it plays out.  I'll let you know what I think! and you can use as you see fit.
> 
> The LA Times article refers to Drucker's recommended salary ratio from the 70's.  But if you look at market capitalization of big business from that same time period, the increase corresponds to the six-fold increase in CEO salaries.
> 
> ...


Disagree. I think you can find plenty of talent in lower/middle management.  CEO gigs have become revolving doors (kind of like NFL Coaching Jobs); get fired by one team (corporation) get hired by another.  Performance doesn't seem to be a key indicator in CEO-land anymore.  You would think that some guy/gal that tubes a company would be black-listed, but they still seem to get new CEO-ships, along with those "Golden Parachutes".


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 22, 2013)

I saw a good piece on the CEO of COSTCO a while back and how he intentionally keeps his salary low, pays workers a little more, etc., all in the name of the business.  If you go into a COSTCO then visit a Sam's Club, there is a definite difference in the quality of the store as well as the overall quality of the employee.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 22, 2013)

Milton Friedman IMOO had a lot of great things to say about this.  

On the articles you listed:  The second video I stopped watching after :56.  It was utter garbage.  What is "Ideal" and who is that income spreading "Ideal" for?  It is not ideal for those producing, that type of income spreading is ideal for those who are benefiting from the system.  The first article - the average worker thinks they can be a CEO, and unfortunately that just isn't the case.  The ability to grasp exactly what it is your company does, break down every aspect of it, understand it, articulate it, and form a path which will allow the company to follow or go down to be successful in the coming years is an incredibly difficult process.  There is a reason there is only one in any type of structure.

On CEO's - there are CEOs of small companies as well fyi.  Only ones being talked about are the big hitters here.  Listen, the reason they are there and still have jobs is because at some point in their past they have the track record of succeeding.  It is an incredibly difficult role to be in, I think you can find plenty of people who think they can be CEO and find fewer people who could actually handle it, or want to handle it.  Sometimes the latter is the real kicker.  On their salary, why redistribute the wealth of their salary if the end result produced isn't the same? Also, be careful about "salary" because some CEO's pay themselves $1 a year and give themselves(through the board) $10-30MM in options.  So you really need to look at the whole package they are getting.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2013)

RustyShackleford said:


> I saw a good piece on the CEO of COSTCO a while back and how he intentionally keeps his salary low, pays workers a little more, etc., all in the name of the business.  If you go into a COSTCO then visit a Sam's Club, there is a definite difference in the quality of the store as well as the overall quality of the employee.



Costco pays well has a revenue sharing program and great benefits for starting workers. Not many better places to work for 10-15 bucks an hour.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2013)

Isiah6:8 said:


> Milton Friedman IMOO had a lot of great things to say about this.
> 
> On the articles you listed:  The second video I stopped watching after :56.  It was utter garbage.  What is "Ideal" and who is that income spreading "Ideal" for?  It is not ideal for those producing, that type of income spreading is ideal for those who are benefiting from the system.  The first article - the average worker thinks they can be a CEO, and unfortunately that just isn't the case.  The ability to grasp exactly what it is your company does, break down every aspect of it, understand it, articulate it, and form a path which will allow the company to follow or go down to be successful in the coming years is an incredibly difficult process.  There is a reason there is only one in any type of structure.
> 
> On CEO's - there are CEOs of small companies as well fyi.  Only ones being talked about are the big hitters here.  Listen, the reason they are there and still have jobs is because at some point in their past they have the track record of succeeding.  It is an incredibly difficult role to be in, I think you can find plenty of people who think they can be CEO and find fewer people who could actually handle it, or want to handle it.  Sometimes the latter is the real kicker.  *On their salary, why redistribute the wealth of their salary if the end result produced isn't the same? Also, be careful about "salary" because some CEO's pay themselves $1 a year and give themselves(through the board) $10-30MM in options.  So you really need to look at the whole package they are getting.*



That is generally done as a way to avoid taxes, tax that income or reduce tax write-off for vehicles not used for corporate business and see what direction those people take.


----------



## JHD (Oct 22, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Disagree. I think you can find plenty of talent in lower/middle management.  CEO gigs have become revolving doors (kind of like NFL Coaching Jobs); get fired by one team (corporation) get hired by another.  Performance doesn't seem to be a key indicator in CEO-land anymore.  You would think that some guy/gal that tubes a company would be black-listed, but they still seem to get new CEO-ships, along with those "Golden Parachutes".



Disagreed with you because at the level we are talking, getting an unproven talent in that position would be detrimental.  The shareholders wouldn't approve, the financial markets wouldn't approve, the capital markets wouldn't approve.  If that person is a failure bad things multiply exponentially.  The bigger the company is, even a slightly better CEO, with a slightly better performance will mean millions of dollars for said company.

There will always be bad board decisions (JCP), there will always be outright fraud (Enron), there will always be Home Depots.  Those are not the norm.  You are correct that CEO's can and do job hop for whatever reason.  They could be a superstar in one industry, absolutely outstanding performance, get the urge to move on, and be a dismal failure at the next gig.  Like any job, the key is to find the right person that fits the need at any one time.

At that level, golden parachutes are also the norm.  The higher the position, the better the package due to the time involved in finding a "comparable position" if let go.


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 22, 2013)

Isiah6:8 said:


> On their salary, why redistribute the wealth of their salary if the end result produced isn't the same?



All your points are good, and a few of which that had slipped my mind so I thank you for bringing it into this discussion.  However as to the quoted bit as to why redistribute, personally I don't think redistribution is the best way to do it; redistribution was just what came to mind, and the point made by that comment is mostly a side-thought.

Primarily, I see this as about more than just the end result produced - the end result produced is only important because it gives people something they want.  Someone can have the most efficient, effective way of developing an absolutely useless product.  As such, I see it as that society as a whole is compensating someone for their efforts because that person's efforts are beneficial to society.  So in this understanding that I use, the employee/investor/whoever has very much earned their compensation, but that compensation can only exist when society can produce the financial compensation to bestow upon them.  A stronger overall society can reward more entrepreneurs and hard workers, perhaps to a similar or even greater extent as the current balance.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 22, 2013)

SOWT said:


> That is generally done as a way to avoid taxes, tax that income or reduce tax write-off for vehicles not used for corporate business and see what direction those people take.



That is not accurate, but it does have merit. What you said is a side benefit, you still have to pay taxes on the present value of the options at time of issuance in form of compensation.  So $1-3MM in options is still taxed vs say 10MM in salary taxed(for big hitter CEOs which this thread is leaning in talks about) is still a tax benefit but it isn't the driver.  You do it because of this:  you have a CEO who owns a percentage of the company and whose net worth is already tied to the company.  By going the option route you tie their massive upside in options to future performance of the company.  They don't need a salary because it doesn't effect their living, so by giving them the chance to make as much upside as possible or the options might be worthless down the road, they will bet on themselves leading the company most times.  This is all still tied to looking at the expiration ladder and strike of the package which like before, you must really look at if open to view.

You can actually see this opposite effect taking place with big name actors.  In their contracts they used to be offered a salary and points.  Points was a percentage of movie sales (domestic and international), products, toys, etc etc etc that came from the movies.  Big name actors are now wanting large salary payments up front wanting cash now and leave the points on the table due to volatility in box office hits.  Used to be more predictable with what could generate a lot of revenue growth, with more flops at the box office coming you see big name actor salary prices going higher because they are leaving the points on the table.

@comrade-z - was merely bringing up the point that when people bring up large salaries normally they say re-distribute the wealth.  Always an interesting discussion.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 22, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Costco pays well has a revenue sharing program and great benefits for starting workers. Not many better places to work for 10-15 bucks an hour.


 
Which equals better service and part of the reason we switched to them from Sam's about seven years ago.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 22, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Disagree. I think you can find plenty of talent in lower/middle management...



I agree in theory but just like most of us have witnessed in the military, a good company CDR can be a piss poor BN or group (brigade) CDR.  The same holds true for the corporate sector.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I agree in theory but just like most of us have witnessed in the military, a good company CDR can be a piss poor BN or group (brigade) CDR.  The same holds true for the corporate sector.


True, but those CEO's started as junior/mid-level managers.  I have faith that the Jr Mid-Levels still have talented individuals, you only need one to be CEO.


----------



## AWP (Oct 22, 2013)

SOWT said:


> CEO gigs have become revolving doors (kind of like NFL Coaching Jobs); get fired by one team (corporation) get hired by another.  Performance doesn't seem to be a key indicator in CEO-land anymore.  You would think that some guy/gal that tubes a company would be black-listed, but they still seem to get new CEO-ships, along with those "Golden Parachutes".


 
When I worked at Merrill Lynch I gained a small amount of insight into this, something I'd never thought of before. Look at the CEO positions of major companies, of the NYSE, and some of the other players which escapes me at the moment, and there is a lot of inbreeding. Some guys bounce from company to company. Look at folks who tanked their companies: Carly Fiorina, destroys HP, fails to beat Barbara Boxer in an election, now sits on the board of directors or trustees for a number of companies or schools. Stan O'Neal, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, one of the worst CEO's of all time, currently on the board of directors for Alcoa. John Thain, Stan's replacement at Merrill, formerly the head of the NYSE, left it to be Merrill's CEO, is fired, and lands the job as CIT Group's CEO.

I'll bet if I did some digging these three wouldn't be out of place.

Even if there isn't income inequality (I don't have a position as yet), there certainly is a "hiring inequality" in America.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 22, 2013)

Is there an income inequality?  Yes, absolutely, but on a level of consumption I wonder if that gap has been widening or closing in the past years, I would say the latter.  I think that there is an important difference to distinguish there.  I also think that an income inequality is in some respects a good thing.

Here are a few good looks on this - the first article is interesting, the second is a video clip, it's a very simple breakdown 4 minutes long worth looking at, it starts at :15.  The first article I feel is a very interesting read, I do not agree with everything in it, but I enjoy the points made.

http://www.academia.edu/298328/Milton_Friedman_on_Income_Inequality


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2013)

Inequality based on performance is good.  We are losing the performance requirement.  I get fired (or "step down") and a friend gives me a board position, which allows me to get another CEO-ship.

Board Members grant outrageous (in some cases) salaries to friends/colleagues, with the unspoken agreement to help me get a position when I need one.  We are stifling creativity by killing corporate loyalty, in part by ensuring you will be capped unless you move to a different company.  

I still think  "Loosely Regulated Capitalism" is the best system, but those in-charge are going to kill the Golden Goose via greed and cronyism.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 22, 2013)

Some of this has to do with people not knowing how money works, how to manage your money (budget, spend, save, etc) and using your money to buy crap you either can't afford or don't need.

Many good points made ITT.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 22, 2013)

Also, I think a lot of the outrage by those who are upset by the income gap in this country, isn't just directed at the CEO's pulling in millions; they are also looking at the Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are pulling in billions and billions of dollars. Those are what I would consider "true" 1%ers as far as money goes. It doesn't matter what their "salary" is, they make all their money off of dividends and investments - something literally anyone in the country can take part in.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 22, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Also, I think a lot of the outrage by those who are upset by the income gap in this country, isn't just directed at the CEO's pulling in millions; they are also looking at the* Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are pulling in billions and billions of dollars*. Those are what I would consider "true" 1%ers as far as money goes. It doesn't matter what their "salary" is, they make all their money off of dividends and investments - something literally anyone in the country can take part in.


 
_"If you nail two pieces of wood together in a way that no one else has ever done, some schmuck will buy it" - George Carlin_

As much as I hate Facebook, and wish their IPO had tanked, based on the above quote, I don't begrudge Zuckerburg the money he has made.


----------



## dknob (Oct 22, 2013)

The Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are raking in billions; deserve it because of what they created and contributed to the world. Entrepreneurs deserve every cent they earned. CEOs usually busted their asses to get to where they are. Their job is to make a company more profitable. If they succeed in that, they deserve the money they get their way. NFL playerss make millions and millions, do I think they should? I don't care. As long as America keeps watching, keeps paying $150 for nosebleed tickets, keeps buying NFL shirts, then they shouldn't be bitching about what players make.

Poor people logic: "Hey Mark, Thanks for that free FaceBook thing  that we all use around the globe to keep in touch throughout the day. Here's your $200k a year check because we think $40 billion is way too much for you". 

No CEO salary or an inventors dividend or pay out will ever bother me. No matter how belligerently large it is. Even if the shitty CEOs out there who are raking in millions for not doing much, well those millions came from consumer purchases. If you don't like it, stop buying it.

I legitimately hate the consistent poor who blame others for their "bad luck". And I frankly don't care if they die poor. 

This is America, go fucking better yourself.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 22, 2013)

dknob said:


> The Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are raking in billions; deserve it because of what they created and contributed to the world. Entrepreneurs deserve every cent they earned. CEOs usually busted their asses to get to where they are. Their job is to make a company more profitable. If they succeed in that, they deserve the money they get their way. NFL playerss make millions and millions, do I think they should? I don't care. As long as America keeps watching, keeps paying $150 for nosebleed tickets, keeps buying NFL shirts, then they shouldn't be bitching about what players make.
> 
> Poor people logic: "Hey Mark, Thanks for that free FaceBook thing  that we all use around the globe to keep in touch throughout the day. Here's your $200k a year check because we think $40 billion is way too much for you".
> 
> ...



I agree so hard it's not even funny


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I agree so hard it's not even funny



Yep


----------



## Scotth (Oct 22, 2013)

You could have a very long and detailed response to this question.  Is their income equality, obviously yes and any statical look at wages will show you that.


The second picture is the most disturbing and that doesn't even contain the crash.  People wonder why so many people collect food stamps.  Just look at the next graph.



I think another part of this discussion has to be about income mobility.  Meaning whats your chance to live the American dream.




I thought this was a interesting illustration.  The oil fields in North Dakota has the best opportunity to chase the American dream.

I just think we should be careful when we label people.  Being poor doesn't make you lazy, though a lot of poor people are.  Not everyone is equal and have the same abilities and there is plenty of people who are poor and out working their asses off and because of their situation they may never escape the situation they are in.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 22, 2013)

Scotth said:


> View attachment 9518
> 
> I thought this was a interesting illustration.  The oil fields in North Dakota has the best opportunity to chase the American dream.


 
I think it's fucking awesome that we live in a country where someone has even a 1% chance of moving from the bottom fifth of the income bracket to the top fifth.  What other society in history has ever given their progeny that opportunity?  We can talk all the shit we want, but knowing that my children have the opportunity to be better (educated, housed, employed, etc) off than I am blows me away.  How many generations have passed where a father knew his kids weren't going to be better off than he was?

I'd be interested to see the numbers that show upward mobility in general; moving up one level a generation...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You could have a very long and detailed response to this question.  Is their income equality, obviously yes and any statical look at wages will show you that.
> View attachment 9519
> 
> The second picture is the most disturbing and that doesn't even contain the crash.  People wonder why so many people collect food stamps.  Just look at the next graph.
> ...


Too bad the data cuts off in 2007, would like to see it run out to 2011.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 22, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I agree so hard it's not even funny


x3.

It's all about risk and reward.  If someone is willing to take the risk (ie they put in their work*), they get to reap the rewards.  Conversely, no risk, no reward.  Pretty simple.  That's a core concept to our country....the Pursuit of Happiness, etc.

* also note, not all work is equal nor should it be necessarily.  Speaking purely from an income perspective, what is ones work worth?  Simplistic answer:  Whatever someone else is willing to pay them.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> The Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are raking in billions; deserve it because of what they created and contributed to the world. Entrepreneurs deserve every cent they earned. CEOs usually busted their asses to get to where they are. Their job is to make a company more profitable. If they succeed in that, they deserve the money they get their way. NFL playerss make millions and millions, do I think they should? I don't care. As long as America keeps watching, keeps paying $150 for nosebleed tickets, keeps buying NFL shirts, then they shouldn't be bitching about what players make.
> 
> Poor people logic: "Hey Mark, Thanks for that free FaceBook thing  that we all use around the globe to keep in touch throughout the day. Here's your $200k a year check because we think $40 billion is way too much for you".
> 
> ...


 
These guys also donate a fuck ton of money to a variety of causes. 

It is probable safe to say that many successful folks on here are successful because of mobility, in that when you got out of the military you didn't return to your shithole home town and go back to what you were doing prior to enlisting.  I know tons of people, friends and family, who still live where they were born, make a mediocre living and bitch about it constantly. 

Since ETSing, I have gone where the work is and am finally ready to stop moving.


----------



## AWP (Oct 23, 2013)

To tie an earlier discussion(s) we've had about successful people: folks that reach the top of their game usually are narcissistic douchebags. Look at many athletes, Steve Jobs, actors, etc. Success isn't a simple "work hard" mentality, it often involves doing it on the backs of others. Charts and graphs don't show that.

When you look at someone with money, you're only seeing a small portion of their journey. Intelligence and a work ethic often aren't enough.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 23, 2013)

It comes down to hard work (how you define that). Hard work can me sleeping 4 hours a day and working 16 (Trump). Hard work can mean taking risks (anyone who started a company and is worth millions/billions). Hard work can mean training your mind to be an expert in your field (Buffet). Hard work can me the work ethic and discipline to do what you have you; when you don't want to. 

The best example to me is Arnold. A second example would be Steve Jobs. A third would be Buffet and a fourth would be Paul Tudor Jones.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2013)

dknob said:


> The Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs out there who are raking in billions; deserve it because of what they created and contributed to the world. Entrepreneurs deserve every cent they earned. CEOs usually busted their asses to get to where they are. Their job is to make a company more profitable. If they succeed in that, they deserve the money they get their way. NFL playerss make millions and millions, do I think they should? I don't care. As long as America keeps watching, keeps paying $150 for nosebleed tickets, keeps buying NFL shirts, then they shouldn't be bitching about what players make.
> 
> Poor people logic: "Hey Mark, Thanks for that free FaceBook thing  that we all use around the globe to keep in touch throughout the day. Here's your $200k a year check because we think $40 billion is way too much for you".
> 
> ...




Nobody chiming in with they "didn't build that"? Talk about group think!


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2013)

lindy said:


> Nobody chiming in with they "didn't build that"? Talk about group think!


No point.  Instead of listening to the entire speech and taking in its message (we all get help along the way), people just listened to a 2-second sound bite and decided to RABBLE RABBLE about that.

Edit: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/politics/fact-check-built-this/


----------



## goon175 (Oct 23, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> No point.  Instead of listening to the entire speech and taking in its message (we all get help along the way), people just listened to a 2-second sound bite and decided to RABBLE RABBLE about that.
> 
> Edit: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/politics/fact-check-built-this/



I did listen to the entire speech and I did do research on Elizabeth Warren (whose statements the president based his speech on), and I think she is a complete whacko. 1/16th Cherokee anyone? Also, as far as POTUS's speech in VA, I disagree with his entire premise, not just the one sound byte.


----------



## ZmanTX (Oct 23, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> To tie an earlier discussion(s) we've had about successful people: folks that reach the top of their game usually are narcissistic douchebags. Look at many athletes.



Made me think of Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> No point.  Instead of listening to the entire speech and taking in its message (we all get help along the way), people just listened to a 2-second sound bite and decided to RABBLE RABBLE about that.
> 
> Edit: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/politics/fact-check-built-this/



What?  You do realize that phrase is referring to the entire socialist speech vice just the phrase itself?

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that," he continued. "Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet. "

If his logic one would be able to reverse the "idea":

Poor & uneducated people exist in their current state/status because they someone did something to them.

I disagree.  I believe we're all in our current status due to choices we made (to include preparations to strike at opportunity) somewhere down the line.


----------



## JHD (Oct 23, 2013)

Zach M said:


> Made me think of Lance Armstrong.



Not to get off track, but what Lance did was/is a crying shame.  I knew his grandparents on his father's side.  I can't help but think how disappointed they would have been.  His grandfather told me that when Lance was young, he told him, "I just want to be the best cyclist in the world..."

OK, back on topic.  Sorry for the detour.


----------



## JBS (Oct 23, 2013)

I think the sound bite is in fact enough.   Not in all cases,  but definitely in this particular instance.  It was definitely enough by itself to recoil in disgust.    Who would ever have imagined a sitting US President to ever even utter such words?   This is the land of opportunity.   Anyone who has ever labored and struggled to make a small business work- who has known the trials, the hardship,  the string of worthless douchebag employees you run into who would never take any personal ownership in their employer's endeavor - or share in the problems, managing debt, family stress,  disciplined self-deprivation, extreme and constant risk of dumping your own money- emptying every dollar of your savings- into the business to keep it alive until it finally grows and ultimately sustains you... anyone who's been through that and labored until late into the night sometimes for years on end would tell you"yes, I fucking built that; I funded it, nurtured it, believed in it, pushed it, grew it, and ultimately I am responsible for it's present success."

Saying everyone is responsible for the success of my business is like a leather- handed farmer saying Jesus grew his corn crops because it wouldn't happen without the sun and the rain.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2013)

JBS said:


> I think the sound bite is in fact enough.   Not in all cases,  but definitely in this particular instance.  It was definitely enough by itself to recoil in disgust.



I'll admit that it was a VERY poor choice of words on the President's part, but again, you're missing the point of the speech.  He wasn't literally saying that nothing you did mattered in the creation of your business.  He was merely saying that you should pause for a second and reflect on the investments that were made, not only in you, but in the infrastructure surrounding your business, and be thankful for them.  Could you have gotten where you are in life without proper schooling?  Probably not.  If you grew up in a poor area where your school system received pennies for funding, would you be as successful as you are now?  Maybe, maybe not.  What would've happened if that teacher or mentor had never inspired you to join the Army or Marine Corps or whatever.  Would you be in the same place you are today?  THOSE were the types of messages I took away from the speech.  That's not to say that there is no individualistic determination in the process.  Far from it.  People have free will to make choices.  But certain situations, institutions, or people can give you a leg up in the process.  If you've ever accepted a small business grant, that's a part of it.  That football coach who pushed you to run wind sprints until you puked?  He's part of the reason that you're in the NFL now.  

Personally, I've benefited a ton from people and institutions that were in place to help me.  My high school received a $30 million renovation right when I got there.  My Dad encouraged me to enlist when I was 18.  When my window for re-enlistment came up, it just so happened to be a year where bonuses were becoming astronomical, and because I did it whilst in Iraq I got to keep all of it.  The fact that a member of this very board clued me into the Warrior Scholar Program got me to attend, which in turn helped my essay writing TREMENDOUSLY and is a large part of the reason I got into Columbia.  I realize that it took a lot of work on my part to get here.  But I also realize that were it not for the things I mentioned, I'd probably still be in my crappy little hometown, fat and depressed.  And goddamnit, I'm thankful for that!  I am by no means a great success (especially not compared to some posters on here), but considering the alternatives, I'm doing okay.



lindy said:


> If his logic one would be able to reverse the "idea":
> 
> Poor & uneducated people exist in their current state/status because they someone did something to them.
> 
> I disagree.  I believe we're all in our current status due to choices we made (to include preparations to strike at opportunity) somewhere down the line.



Contemporary sociology agrees, for the most part, with your flipped logic.  Well, not entirely.  The general agreement is that social problems (such as poverty) are due to a complex set of factors that you can't just boil down to individual choices.  Choices factor into it, but that's not the whole picture.  They claim that there ARE institutions (both social and structural) that re-enforce poverty.  A few I can think of: corporate influence on congress (the weak and poor can't lobby for themselves), movement and mechanization of low-skill jobs, lack of funding for education in poor areas, the poverty culture, single-parent households, high cost of healthcare, and a few others.  On the other hand, there are some institutions that work to break people out of the poverty cycle.  A few examples: magnet and charter schools, work and skill-building programs (such as those in community colleges), Medicaid (which attempts to deal with the aforementioned costs of healthcare), church charities, a progressive tax system, and things like Habitat for Humanity (although that's arguably a church charity).  

I don't want to derail the thread any more so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2013)

JHD said:


> Not to get off track, but what Lance did was/is a crying shame.  I knew his grandparents on his father's side.  I can't help but think how disappointed they would have been.  His grandfather told me that when Lance was young, he told him, "I just want to be the best cyclist in the world..."
> 
> OK, back on topic.  Sorry for the detour.


Totally agreed.  Lance was a hero for a lot of us, even my Dad.  Dad decided to take up cycling in his mid-50's, despite never being particularly active in his entire life, just because he admired Lance Armstrong so much.  It really was a shame when we found out that he was a cheat.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 23, 2013)

Here is a good prompt for the conversation:

Has anyone ever felt that it was impossible or near impossible to make more money than you currently make or to "move up" in the world? This kind of plays into the mobility chart posted above.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 23, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Here is a good prompt for the conversation:
> 
> Has anyone ever felt that it was impossible or near impossible to make more money than you currently make or to "move up" in the world? This kind of plays into the mobility chart posted above.



No, but I am 28. I would imagine age could potentially skew the distribution so it might be beneficial to note age as well. It could also give you more insight into individuals "want" to work. Hope that last sentence makes sense, feel I am explaining it poorly.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Here is a good prompt for the conversation:
> 
> Has anyone ever felt that it was impossible or near impossible to make more money than you currently make or to "move up" in the world? This kind of plays into the mobility chart posted above.



Fuck no.  Well, maybe in Russia but that's different.  Regardless of any social status, income level, race, religion, creed, or even birthplace, ANYONE can improve their financial well being IF they want it bad enough.

The same internal drive, discipline, and dedication to a cause is required to be:

a member of SOF
a good parent
a stand up citizen
educated
climb the social ladder

"The Man" keeping you down & in the poor house? Perhaps some self reflection and acceptance of personal responsibility would be in order.

We all make choices.


----------



## Dame (Oct 23, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Here is a good prompt for the conversation:
> 
> Has anyone ever felt that it was impossible or near impossible to make more money than you currently make or to "move up" in the world? This kind of plays into the mobility chart posted above.



Never. It used to irk me when seniors talked about living on a "fixed income" even though they received increases in their monthly pensions, social security, investment income, etc. A fixed income is what my husband had working for the same company for 10 years because raises were frozen. But because I ran my own business, I always told him, "Babe, if you need money for something or want something you think we can't afford, tell me. I'll go beat the bushes and find another client. My income is dependent on how much I want to work and I like it that way." He got used to that and decided he wanted to make some side money as well. He did some consulting for my company and had a little hobby called "poker" that paid for many a family treat. 

I once told a chauffeur there were many easier ways to make $2000 than selling drugs. He looked at me like I was crazy. When I explained how we didn't always depend on an employer for income, he was silent. He seemed like a smart guy and I hope he has since opened his own business.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 23, 2013)

lindy said:


> We all make choices.



I'm going to play a bit of devils advocate...

Yes we all make choices but what choices are we confronted with. The choices I was confronted with as a an adolescent were much different than a kid in downtown Baltimore. Is that that kids fault? No. Not at all, there are kids in this country that are unable to climb the ladder because their choices aren't the same, it isn't do good in school or you don't get to play sports, it is go to class or support the family, it is don't eat or sell drugs. Tat is the plight of some folks in America. And that is not equality from the onset.


----------



## liqiudHAL (Oct 24, 2013)

Agreed


----------



## JHD (Oct 24, 2013)

Cback, I cannot reply as to the inner city kid situation (that is just a whole 'norther can of worms), but as to the aspect of a kid from a very small rural area growing up to be successful in an industry dominated by males earning 6-8 figures without breaking a sweat.

Maybe I was a little too naive to be intimidated at the outset, but is started out at the bottom, working my way up, and not to say it was easy, but I never felt hampered by anything other than my own drive or desires.  I earned a reputation as a fixer and a problem solver, and along the way, gathered more knowledge to break off into another direction if I chose to do so.

My parents were well meaning and loving, but my dad would have been happy for me to choose to settle down, be a wife and mother, etc., rather than choose the path I did.  Too many young kids were married right out of high school, or got knocked up and had to get married.  I wanted more out of life, to experience different things, and chose the field I did so that I could get there.

So, yes, life isn't always fair and sometimes kids are really dealt a crap hand of cards, but, for now at least, we still live in a country where you can improve your lot in life with some grit and determination.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 24, 2013)

I think we can all agree that all people weren't created with equal ability.  People have different intellectual and physical capabilities.  People grow up in much different circumstance which will greatly impact their adult lives.  We also have people who by their own actions and inability to accept responsibility for those decisions are given the lot in life they chose.

We also have to be concerned that 80% of our countries citizens economic outlook has been declining over the last 3 decades and that points to a much bigger issues than just personal initiative.  Consumer activity drives 75% of our economy and if 80% of the consumers are moving backwards, it doesn't take a math major or economist to understand the overall impact that trend will have on our country's long term outlook.


----------



## JBS (Oct 24, 2013)

So what's the plan to make everything fair?  How's that work?   And when the field is level and everyone is in the same place will that be because the low achievers will have been brought up and imbued with a sudden sense of responsibility,  integrity and excellence of conduct?  Or will that leveling be reached simply because the high achievers will have been-as is so often the case- brought down and held back?  

We already see the latter happening in our society.    Football teams in high school that are far superior to a given rival are demonized when they run up a score of 56-0.    Shame on them when they continue to score all the way to the end of the 4th quarter!   Wealth distribution by taxation scoops a far greater percentage of earnings from the successful and uses it to pay for single moms with 7 kids (and climbing) who have no intention to stop procreating since each additional child will make momma eligible for a few hundred bucks per month in additional giveaway government money.  It goes to pay for Obama phones and debit cards which can be swapped for cash or cigarettes or more dope... and thousands of other free-money-for-slackers programs.  Not that I think there are plenty of legitimate instances of perfectly fine welfare and public assistance claims because many undoubtedly are.   Perhaps even the majority of people on welfare are there legitimately and are merely in a difficult but temporary state until they can sustain themselves.  Some might even say it's generous to assume that most welfare recipients are there legitimately but for the sake of argument let's say that 9 out of 10 are accepting help for legit reasons.   That's still 1 in 10 - millions of others- who are lazy and always will be.  When I was younger and a bit more idealistic,  I would find homeless bums with their signs and offer them jobs (along with meals and a few times even free sets of clothes).  Despite dozens of (what I felt were generous) offers over a span of months, I had not a single taker.  Some people are just flat lazy moochers and wouldn't work a day in their lives so long as there are kind hearted people and government programs to take care of them.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 24, 2013)

I'll chime in from personal experience of working to help two friends start successful businesses,  mid level management of a multi million dollar company and several small business attempts that I have made myself.

@SOWT, was spot on with his post regarding greed at the executive levels. Any time you have share holders, or a multi partnership of a profitable company, regardless of several hundred, thousands, millions, or even billions, the overall focus is to make more profit for the partnership or shareholders. It's not to improve the worker bees quality of life through better working conditions or better income. The employee is a liability to the over gains in profit, either it be with benefit packages, increased salary (reduced profits) or in regulatory issues. This is why many jobs become sub-contract, or why many companies will look to staffing (temp workers) and many cases pay a slightly higher cost for that temp but avoid the liability and long term costs. That is just how it works in big business.

Now there are the exceptions of large private companies, family owned, ground up owners, who do tend to take much better care of their employees, or have a sense of loyalty to the employee. But this is not the normal and very rare.

Small business tends to be different, normally very few employees, with much smaller profits, and where the profits must be shared at all levels, or people don't show up to work b/c the can't buy gas or afford the cost to actually show up. Small business employees normally have to work harder, do more with less and be conservative in all aspects, as the profits/capital is not there to absorb extra costs, etc. 

Generally once small businesses grow into high profit, or sustainable companies, it becomes the employees who struggled to get the company going who benefit and receive the better salary/benefit package. Or the company gets sold or divided into a shareholder run corporation. Where the original employees who did the suffering,  suffer more b/c generally they are training their replacement and on the way out the door.

Greed and too much focus on profit, is IMO, a major problem.

However, I've also had three different businesses I've started up that did not do so hot, I was more focused on being fair to people who worked for/with me. I was too busy bending over to meet everyone else (other companies, service providers, and customers). I think that greatly affected the out come of two business attempts. 

So I do think there is and should be a common ground, meet in the middle approach to big and small business. But I also think for that to happen, and for me equality in salary break down, you can't be on the bottom bitching to the top. You have to make it to the top, and remember being the little guy, not become the greedy "it's my turn to get mine" kind of guy. 

However, most likely if you take that approach, you won't be there very long, as the group signing off on your check, will probably not buy off on that, and will be greedy and want the profits. As they should, b/c at the end of the day, profits is what business is all about...


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> I'll chime in from personal experience of working to help two friends start successful businesses,  mid level management of a multi million dollar company and several small business attempts that I have made myself.
> 
> @SOWT, was spot on with his post regarding greed at the executive levels. Any time you have share holders, or a multi partnership of a profitable company, regardless of several hundred, thousands, millions, or even billions, the overall focus is to make more profit for the partnership or shareholders. It's not to improve the worker bees quality of life through better working conditions or better income. The employee is a liability to the over gains in profit, either it be with benefit packages, increased salary (reduced profits) or in regulatory issues. This is why many jobs become sub-contract, or why many companies will look to staffing (temp workers) and many cases pay a slightly higher cost for that temp but avoid the liability and long term costs. That is just how it works in big business.
> 
> ...



Have you had experience working on/with a tech startup?  Not looking for advice, just curious as to your thoughts/experience on business as they pertain to the fact that many tech startups, given that they start as small businesses, but often have very unconventional and/or non-conservative practices.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 24, 2013)

comrade-z said:


> Have you had experience working on/with a tech startup?  Not looking for advice, just curious as to your thoughts/experience on business as they pertain to the fact that many tech startups, given that they start as small businesses, but often have very unconventional and/or non-conservative practices.



No I've not been involved in technical support. Looking at Google & apple,  I see where there approach has been different or unconventional, and I can see how that can contribute to there success. But I don't think it is a good business model for everything. I really don't know a lot about technical support and development.  So at best I would say you have to see who is successful and why, and than see how that fits into your personal business, etc.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

Apple is definitely NOT known for treating their employees well. Google on the other hand... pretty sweet gig if you can get in. But what you have to understand about that is they know that their company runs off of employee innovation. If you don't set the environment right for innovation, you go the way of AOL or Yahoo.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

comrade-z said:


> Have you had experience working on/with a tech startup?  Not looking for advice, just curious as to your thoughts/experience on business as they pertain to the fact that many tech startups, given that they start as small businesses, but often have very unconventional and/or non-conservative practices.



Keep in mind, the "unconventional" practices are exactly why so many tech start ups fail. They get a shit-ton of VC funding, go out and buy their hipster office space, go and buy their ultra modern conference tables and sweet office chairs and flat screen TV's. A year later after their idea fell flat or never really took off... all that shit is getting auctioned off. Don't get me wrong, some obviously make it to the big time, but that the vast majority do not.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 24, 2013)

Yeah I don't much about apple or Google, but have seen some media on different practices they use, and will say for some of the world changing technological advancement they have made, is simply amazing. In those environments, I can see where it is important to break the molds of normal business practice and inspire innovation, etc.


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 24, 2013)

Don't worry, I know - I've done a decent bit of research on tech startups, and yeah, a LOT of them disappear.  This isn't always to say they fail, as it is also pretty common for one company to effectively have its employees hired away by a more established startup doing a similar project, or to get bought up/combined with other startups due to friends/business.

However, while I have seen people try to start them, occasionally actually start them, and have heard and read a lot about them, I don't have personal experience with the internal business aspects other than what can be read.  Just noticed JAB's experience with such things in other industries, and figured I would ask about it.


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I'm going to play a bit of devils advocate...
> 
> Yes we all make choices but what choices are we confronted with. The choices I was confronted with as a an adolescent were much different than a kid in downtown Baltimore. Is that that kids fault? No. Not at all, there are kids in this country that are unable to climb the ladder because their choices aren't the same, it isn't do good in school or you don't get to play sports, it is go to class or support the family, it is don't eat or sell drugs. Tat is the plight of some folks in America. And that is not equality from the onset.



Disagree. The choice is take the easy way out and sell drugs or man up and do what is right.  Same exact thought process when confronted with what to do with OPFUND when nobody is looking...or tracking it.

"Rags to riches" are harolded the same as valor under fire just by different social classes.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 24, 2013)

JBS said:


> So *what's the plan to make everything fair*?  How's that work?   And when the field is level and everyone is in the same place will that be because the low achievers will have been brought up and imbued with a sudden sense of responsibility,  integrity and excellence of conduct?  *Or will that leveling be reached simply because the high achievers will have been-as is so often the case- brought down and held back*?


 
Read _Harrison Bergeron_ by Kurt Vonnegut.  It lays out the whole plan...


----------



## JHD (Oct 24, 2013)

Timely article for this discussion....


http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/does_government_dependency_influence_voting_behavior.html


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

Zuckerburg highest paid CEO, uses most of his pay to pay taxes:

http://mashable.com/2013/10/23/mark-zuckerberg-ceo-pay/#!


----------



## Dame (Oct 24, 2013)

I have to chime in with one of the major rules I implemented in my business.  Never charge someone for services if they are starting their own business or charity. 

I cannot tell you how many hours of service I gave away in order to help someone else get a website or brochure or business cards, etc., so they could get going. When it's all about profit, you can't do that unless the shareholders agree and that means showing a ROE.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

This has been popping up all over my Facebook feed.... 






Any idiot can talk about the problems of the world, but a REAL revolutionary also has a solution and a way to implement that solution. Brand's inability to articulate anything other than what he see's wrong in the world is exhausting. 

FYI, socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again. It's all good and well to spout diarrhea of unicorns and rainbows and butterflies, but are you willing to make the change that you want to see happen? Are you willing to lay down your life to see that change realized? 

Also, if he is so much in favor of wealth redistribution, maybe he can distribute his 15 million dollar (at least) net worth to his old neighborhood who he feels so sorry for. Save 60,000 for himself to live on, which is comfortable for a single guy, and give the rest away. Put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2013)

Choices. We all make them but some are better than others.  These folks don't look too poor to me.

http://www.vice.com/read/the-wheelying-dirt-bike-gangs-of-baltimore-twelve-o-clock-boyz-lofty-nathan


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 24, 2013)

"Massive economic disparity?"  Maybe he should have a chat with Bono about that whole capitalism thingy.


----------



## TH15 (Oct 24, 2013)

Russell Brand.. HA! Yeah, remind me to take political and economic advice from someone who found a way to be less funny and a worse actor than Dane Cook.

"The very concept of profit should be hugely reduced." Kill yourself. Seriously. Yeah, profits- those things that companies use to invest and offer workers higher wages among other things. Jesus Christ. He sounds like Sean Penn and the Film Actors Guild (FAGs) from Team America World Police.






And if he needs one last nail in his coffin of being a total douche- ditching Katy Perry and her tatas?! No bueno.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2013)

lindy said:


> Choices. We all make them but some are better than others.  These folks don't look too poor to me.
> 
> http://www.vice.com/read/the-wheelying-dirt-bike-gangs-of-baltimore-twelve-o-clock-boyz-lofty-nathan


Secondhand dirt bikes and 4-wheelers don't cost much.  What's your point?


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Secondhand dirt bikes and 4-wheelers don't cost much.  What's your point?



I started a business with less money than it would take to buy one of those dirt bikes.

Choices...


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I started a business with less money than it would take to buy one of those dirt bikes.
> 
> Choices...


Goon, you would probably know better than anyone that you can't just plant money in the ground and make a small business pop up.  Do you know anything about the guys in these videos, other than that they are being douchebags on their bikes?  Do they even have computers?  Do you think they know anything about running a business?  I sure have no idea if they do or not.  Do you know something the rest of us don't?


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Goon, you would probably know better than anyone that you can't just plant money in the ground and make a small business pop up. *Nope, takes a lot of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.*  Do you know anything about the guys in these videos, other than that they are being douchebags on their bikes?  Do they even have computers? *Yup, at their local library.*  Do you think they know anything about running a business? *Many of them probably do, just not the legal kind. Same principles apply in many instances though, and for anything they don't know - Google has the rest covered. I have a high school education, the same that they have available to them for free.*  I sure have no idea if they do or not.  Do you know something the rest of us don't? *Yeah, that they decided to get a dirt bike or four wheeler when they could have done something to improve their current situation. *


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 24, 2013)

He knows they chose to buy those vics, because it would be bullying to say they stole'em. If they don't know how to run a business, they could take bike money and go to a community college to learn.


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

Let's not forget that some of the most successful people in America came from minority, under privileged areas of big cities. Sean Carter is a great example.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Let's not forget that some of the most successful people in America came from minority, under privileged areas of big cities. Sean Carter is a great example.


Sure, but the vast majority of of underprivileged people are going to stay that way: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-economic-mobility.html?ref=us
In addition, the top earners are very likely to stay there.

Why?  Because of the institutions in place (many of which I listed before) that continually re-enforce poverty.  I know it's wikipedia, but just read this whole thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Secondhand dirt bikes and 4-wheelers don't cost much.  What's your point?



What does the SAT or ACT cost to take?  How much does it cost to obey the law? How about respect for law and order?

To ride or go to work or do homework: those are all choices but nobody makes movies about kids who study and become somebody (Akeelah & The Bee).


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2013)

lindy said:


> What does the SAT or ACT cost to take?


$52.50 if you include the writing section.  Don't know about the SAT.


> How much does it cost to obey the law? How about respect for law and order?


Nobody was defending their actions.


> To ride or go to work or do homework: those are all choices but nobody makes movies about kids who study and become somebody (Akeelah & The Bee).


How do you know that they don't work?  Why are all these ridiculous assumptions being made about a big group of people based on a three-minute trailer?

Look, I'm going to bow out of this because it was a dumb strawman argument in the first place and it's becoming a very unproductive discussion.  Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 24, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Sure, but the vast majority of of underprivileged people are going to stay that way... *snip*
> 
> Why?  Because of the institutions in place (many of which I listed before) that continually re-enforce poverty. *snip*



Just one problem: there are quite a few of us on here that didn't exactly hail from a background that is conducive to success. Nobody makes documentaries about poor white people, either, unless we're at NASCAR races or wearing bed linens. Except for race-specific scholarships or organizations (UNCF), the same financial aid is available to them as it is to us.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> Nobody makes documentaries about poor white people, either, unless we're at NASCAR races or wearing bed linens.


Here's a few: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/ten-documentaries-about-poverty-and-power (Not all are about poor whites but the majority are)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poor-kids/ ("Frontline: Poor Kids".  One family profiled is black, but others are white)




 ("A Hidden America: Children of the Mountains")


----------



## goon175 (Oct 24, 2013)

So I guess bringing this back around, is it unfair to these kids/people that there are extremely rich people in the world? If it is, should that money be redistributed?


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 24, 2013)

goon175 said:


> So I guess bringing this back around, is it unfair to these kids/people that there are extremely rich people in the world? If it is, should that money be redistributed?


 
No and Yes if you follow the lead of Warren Buffett.


----------



## Dame (Oct 25, 2013)

goon175 said:


> So I guess bringing this back around, is it unfair to these kids/people that there are extremely rich people in the world? If it is, should that money be redistributed?


I just don't get the whole "fair" thing. Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be. In some sense that's the only thing that makes it fair; everyone has to deal with it being unfair.


----------



## liqiudHAL (Oct 25, 2013)

I'm young and haven't been alive that long but I thought the whole point of living in a capitalist society is the fact that people have opportunities, not sure things. The pursuit of happiness needs to be understood as an invitation to try out for bigger and better things and not be thought of as an acceptance letter or a marketing slogan for instant-gratification.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2013)

Buying a lawnmower and lining up several lawns to cut, doesn't take special education. 12 year olds have been doing it for decades. 

Lawnmower : $200

Dirt Bike : $2,000

Making money to buy a dirt bike and ride it illegally....priceless!


----------



## JHD (Oct 25, 2013)

goon175 said:


> So I guess bringing this back around, is it unfair to these kids/people that there are extremely rich people in the world? If it is, should that money be redistributed?



Not unfair, no.  Should it be redistributed?  In many ways, it already is, via tax payments, charities, etc.  I don't know of anyone with lots of money who doesn't donate generously to charities.  If not due to their altruistic nature, then by their greed of taking advantage of a loophole to shelter some of their income from taxes.

Should it be required (other than those damn tax payments)?  No way.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 25, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Any idiot can talk about the problems of the world, but a REAL revolutionary also has a solution and a way to implement that solution. Brand's inability to articulate anything other than what he see's wrong in the world is exhausting.


 
I was taught by my mentors to never bring up a problem without bringing up a workable solution.  "No Gunny, killing the S-4 is not a solution..." 



racing_kitty said:


> Just one problem: there are quite a few of us on here that didn't exactly hail from a background that is conducive to success. Nobody makes documentaries about poor white people, either, unless we're at NASCAR races or wearing bed linens. Except for race-specific scholarships or organizations (UNCF), the same financial aid is available to them as it is to us.


 
I spent my share of time in single-wides growing up.  I'm doing okay for myself and my family, and I've never asked for a handout.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Oct 25, 2013)

0699 said:


> I spent my share of time in single-wides growing up.  I'm doing okay for myself and my family, and I've never asked for a handout.


 
If you track NE up the mountains in Deathy's video, you'll find where I grew up.  Just as depressed just as poor, just as fucked up to this day.  The town where my mom grew up looks like a tiny white version of Gary, IN minus the rampant violent crime.  No stores anymore, no gas stations, nothing.  A handful of decent houses and a handful of shitty ones.  I don't live there anymore and go back every so often.  My parents moved for work when my brother and I were young.  That taught me something that I will never forget, but in the same breath, that can't be the only answer.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Oct 25, 2013)

goon175 said:


> So I guess bringing this back around, is it unfair to these kids/people that there are extremely rich people in the world? If it is, should that money be redistributed?



No. Isn't that what charities do for the wealthy to give back? I don't think redistribution is a good idea.


----------



## Dame (Oct 25, 2013)

liqiudHAL said:


> I'm young and haven't been alive that long but I thought the whole point of living in a capitalist society is the fact that people have opportunities, not sure things.



Not necessarily a capitalist society but a free society. Showing my age here: I remember in the 80s when the first communists came across an open border for the first time. They were completely overwhelmed by the freedom to make choices and the amount of choices they had. One woman went into a grocery store and just wept. Which of course led to one writing a letter to an editor about how wrong it was for the U.S. not to guarantee he could make a living here. The rebuttal piece was something I'll never forget. The gist of it was, "You are free to do whatever you want here. No one is going to force you to become a gymnast or a factory worker based on an aptitude test. No one will tell you how many children you can or cannot have. Indeed, you are even* free to fail*. And, you are free to get up and try again. That's what freedom is. It's taking responsibility for your own life."


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> $52.50 if you include the writing section.  Don't know about the SAT.
> 
> Nobody was defending their actions.
> 
> ...



Uh, you ever been in Baltimore when these "fellas" ride their little scooters by?  Ref previous posts, READ and don't infer: nobody asked to take sides.

The clear point to my references about Baltimore inner city youths: those that chose crime SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY make that choice over:

Staying in school
Earning money to take college enterance exams (I'm certain that free tests are unavailable )
Being good role models for younger generations (vice numerous quotes of fuck the police)

The SAME can be said for white collar criminals: it's a conscious choice.  

Everyone wants upward mobility to earn more cash but FEW want to do the hard work that comes with it.  Your Hidden America video supports my assertions.


----------



## JHD (Oct 25, 2013)

lindy said:


> Uh, you ever been in Baltimore when these "fellas" ride their little scooters by?  Ref previous posts, READ and don't infer: nobody asked to take sides.
> 
> The clear point to my references about Baltimore inner city youths: those that chose crime SPECIFICALLY and INTENTIONALLY make that choice over:
> 
> ...



This article came to mind....

http://eagnews.org/brutally-honest-...-about-dealing-with-troubled-inner-city-kids/


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> This article came to mind....
> 
> http://eagnews.org/brutally-honest-...-about-dealing-with-troubled-inner-city-kids/



Article isn't the word I would use to describe that link. Maybe it started as one, but it most certainly ended as an editorial.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 26, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Article isn't the word I would use to describe that link. Maybe it started as one, but it most certainly ended as an editorial.


"Article" and "editorial" are used interchangeably these days in the common vernacular. I've often been asked if I read "an article in the editorial section" of whatever publication the other person is talking about. Remember your audience, dude. That's a comp 101 reminder.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 26, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> "Article" and "editorial" are used interchangeably these days in the common vernacular. I've often been asked if I read "an article in the editorial section" of whatever publication the other person is talking about. Remember your audience, dude. That's a comp 101 reminder.



Well when someone tries to pass off a clearly opinion piece as if it were a factual news article I have to call BS.


----------



## JHD (Oct 26, 2013)

FWIW, my intent was as Racing Kitty stated.  I linked it up as I thought it made some interesting points.  FYI, I didn't intend for the term "article" as a misnomer.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> FWIW, my intent was as Racing Kitty stated.  I linked it up as I thought it made some interesting points.  FYI, I didn't intend for the term "article" as a misnomer.



I'm sure you didn't, but that news outlet certainly did.


----------



## JHD (Oct 26, 2013)

Fair enough.  I was just hoping you had not misread my intent


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 26, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Well when someone tries to pass off a clearly opinion piece as if it were a factual news article I have to call BS.



Most of those sites are opinion sites. Not a single objective article is written. Whether it's EAGNews or Mother Jones, it's opinion articles. Some are declarative, some are persuasie, many are argumentative, and none are objective. Hell, it's hard to find a truly objective article in the established print media nowadays, anyway. 

Again, it's knowing the target audience when you read the material. Right wingers are going to knee jerk in the church pues and rifle ranges, and lefties are going to knee jerk in the form of protest mobs. 

Your ire indicates that you expect more from modern society than it is capable of producing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 26, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> Your ire indicates that you expect more from modern society than it is capable of producing.



This!!! I do indeed. The only reason I sharpshot that is that people do not realize those are opinion, then two weeks from now I get an email from my grandpa that is filled with this garbage, he isn't internet literate but gets these chain emails that always quote things like the above as "news" or as credible sources. Pretty soon you have people saying that The president had Tom Clancy killed.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 26, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> Right wingers are going to knee jerk in the church pues and rifle ranges, and lefties are going to knee jerk in the form of protest mobs.



Guess it's a good thing rifles trump mobs, huh.


----------



## Brill (Oct 27, 2013)

Here's a good video that PROVES once one gets on government assistance it is IMPOSSIBLE to push back and stand one's feet.

Wait a minute...no it doesn't!  The video is yet another example of the resolve and intestinal fortitude required to achieve one's goals!

http://wapo.st/1bq2QlD


----------

