Pshaw! Tell me it ain’t so! You mean ta tell me stock market figures don’t tell the WHOLE story??!!

Should be a factor, but so should housing and transportation. It boils down to income distribution. So what if you have balanced distribution but a failing economy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

Should be a factor, but so should housing and transportation. It boils down to income distribution. So what if you have balanced distribution but a failing economy?

---

If you have balanced distribution but a failing economy, people will still be happier than with grossly unbalanced distribution. Just look at "primitive" civilisations. They have little but they all have the same. You don't get to see much civil unrest in such societies. Poverty is a relative measure. That's why modern societies usually have a partial wealth redistribution system that makes sure that nobody has to suffer hunger, homelessness etc. Such systems pay off for those who put money into them. Obviously, there is another extreme end of the redistribution scale which leads to everyone having little and which can be enforced by oppression only. Thus, there needs a balanced approach to balancing the imbalance... :)

In a good World the top 1%..
Should work to improove the lives of all..
But all should pull all the weight that they can..

If you take a look at the top 10 happiest countries (as rated by U.S. News & World Reports), they tend to be socialist democrat countries, which means the wealth is more evenly distributed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by STUD figmo Al

In a good World the top 1%..  Should work to improove the lives of all..  But all should pull all the weight that they can..

---

Maybe not its origin, but I came across it in a book about Hutterites; "Give what you can; take what you need." 

I may be wrong, but guess that the most of the top 1% create a huge number of employment opportunities for the other 99% of us, for which I am thankful. I think most people realize that the majority (about 80%) of millionaires in the US are self made men and women .......

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

I think most people realize that the majority (about 80%) of millionaires in the US are self made men and women .......

---

Really? Have you got any data on that? Because I keep hearing that the most likely way to become a millionaire is to inherit it from your parents.

It’s a 2-way street, imho. The top 1% create jobs, but they need much of the lower 99% to fill those jobs. (no man is an Ireland,, as Sgt. O’Hara once told me…)

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

I think most people realize that the majority (about 80%) of millionaires in the US are self made men and women .......

---

Really? Have you got any data on that? Because I keep hearing that the most likely way to become a millionaire is to inherit it from your parents.

 

---

Sure, its pretty well known the number of millionaires has grown exponentially in the last 30 years.  Heres some data since 2000.

https://www.statista.com/chart/30671/number-of-millionaires-and-share-of-the-population/

Now if you think those newly minted millionaires inherited a million dollars from their non millionaire parents, well your not "mathing".  Anectote to this is my own experience, Im a business owner with a several million dollar payroll for my employees.  I belong to a business organization with a few thousand members.  I have yet to meet a member who didnt start the business from scratch with bank loans, like me.  A million, btw, is not a huge sum.  Wont even get you a house in San Fran or even into a lakeside home in TN.  Thinking most people who have a million dollars inherited it is silly considering two married degreed engineers pull 300 to 450k per year now.  Plumbers make 125 per hour, ie 250k per year. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

I think most people realize that the majority (about 80%) of millionaires in the US are self made men and women .......

---

Really? Have you got any data on that? Because I keep hearing that the most likely way to become a millionaire is to inherit it from your parents.

 

---

Phillipp .... that is true in Germany as most millionaires and billionaires there inherit their wealth.  Percentage wise, the US have more self-made millionaires than anywhere in the world.  There are lots of studies on it and included in the 80% group are those millionaires who may have had a middle or upper class background, college education, and other things that would give them a "leg up", but they did not inherit their wealth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

quote:

---

Originally posted by STUD figmo Al

In a good World the top 1%..  Should work to improove the lives of all..  But all should pull all the weight that they can..

---

Maybe not its origin, but I came across it in a book about Hutterites; "Give what you can; take what you need." 

---

Thanks Owen..

More to the ilk of the thread..

Dinner..

Take all that you want...but..

Eat all that you take... :0)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotABanjoYoda

Sure, its pretty well known the number of millionaires has grown exponentially in the last 30 years.  Heres some data since 2000.

https://www.statista.com/chart/30671/number-of-millionaires-and-share-of-the-population/

Thanks!

A million, btw, is not a huge sum.  Wont even get you a house in San Fran or even into a lakeside home in TN.

Yes, I guess this is key to understanding the growth in numbers. My house is also getting close to a million € in value and it is mortgage-free. When I bought the house 16 years ago, it was worth one third of its current numerical value. It housed me then, it houses me now. No change in practical value.

Thinking most people who have a million dollars inherited it is silly considering two married degreed engineers pull 300 to 450k per year now.  Plumbers make 125 per hour, ie 250k per year. 

I think the thing to conclude is that having a million doesn't really make you rich like it used to. Who wants to be a millionaire? Yes, any working middle-class couple can hardly evade becoming millionaires over the course of their lifetimes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

Phillipp .... that is true in Germany as most millionaires and billionaires there inherit their wealth. 

While the self-made billionaires in the US work their way up from an inherited real-estate empire or emerald mine... 

Percentage wise, the US have more self-made millionaires than anywhere in the world.  There are lots of studies on it and included in the 80% group are those millionaires who may have had a middle or upper class background, college education, and other things that would give them a "leg up", but they did not inherit their wealth.

OK, if getting a "leg up" still counts as "self-made", it seems plausible given that a million isn't really making you rich like pointed out above. I would expect that a working couple with an education background can reach the million dollars threshold before they even get to the age where they are likely to inherit. 

How much is a million dollars worth inside the US? Everything in the US now seems superinflated, both salaries and expenditures. I just checked: my annual gross income can buy me 100,000 kg of fresh carrots in a relatively high-priced supermarket nearby. How many kilograms of fresh carrots will an average salary of an engineer buy you in the US?

I personally find wealth difficult to understand. My wife and I were teachers, our parents scrimped and saved, and left us some money and land. We are now worth a couple million, but really can't keep up with the people who live around us (not that we care to).

But I do know that when I went to college in the late 60s and early 70s that I was friends with other students who were the sons and daughters of presidents of large corporations or financial companies and their families didn't live that much differently than I did growing up on farms and in northern Michigan. I mean they did have cool cars, and expensive art at home, and could afford better clothes, but we all felt and acted like we were in this together and mixed rather freely. Now it seems like there is this huge rift between social classes - gated communities, huge wealth differentials, and a sense of exclusion. I live near Ann Arbor, and you even see this on campus. There are these "high end" apartments and people are getting priced out of attending the University of Michigan. I even feel this exclusion when I talk with some people - you're not one of us.

In part, I think this difference is due to the overblown need to "win" that we've always had in this country, although I think the need to win has reached toxic levels. It is also clear that the tax structure, lack of any oversight of the internet, and a campaign finance structure that favors the influence of the well-to-do have contributed to wealth differentials. But I'm rambling away from the original issue.

Yeah, if you work hard and don't do anything stupid, you can still be really successful in the United States. I've seen lots of former students do it. But I don't think this country is very kind to the people who grew up under unfortunate circumstances that twisted their perception of common sense, never learned the value of money, have mental health problems, are limited in intelligence, run into poor health, or just assumed they were going to be competent until they died of natural causes.

For a country to be "successful" (my definition) everybody needs to feel safe and cared for. Kumbaya

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

It’s a 2-way street, imho. The top 1% create jobs, but they need much of the lower 99% to fill those jobs. (no man is an Ireland,, as Sgt. O’Hara once told me…)

---

We keep hearing that from the top 1%, but I don't know of any evidence to prove it.

Thank you kindly.

So Mr. Megabucks arrives here and wants to open a factory. He will need skilled people who have been trained through our public education system. He wants to have access to a dependable community where the work ethic is still alive and well. He will tap into a public electrical grid that is accessible on 4 sides of his property. Almost all the taxpayer's roads and highways are well paved. He will have 1 or 2 security guards after hours but for anything major he can rely on the local police force. The same applies to our local fire department. He could probably find cheaper property and cheaper labor in Afghanistan but for some reason he chooses to set up right here. Should he think of his new employees as business partners or simply livestock ?

^^ Just go to any country that does not have a wealthy 1% and see how their poverty measures against the poverty in countries which do have a wealthy top end. Where everyone is poor, the poverty is much greater.

If you start with what "should be" then you have opened Pandora's box, because there is no limit to "should" and everybody's "should" is different. And the power to enforce any "should"is the power that WILL be corrupted and abused.

Right now there is a viral post making the social media rounds, attributed to Ron Howard (Opie/Richie) that makes such a compelling case for so many nice things, so very many "shoulds." Living wages, healthcare is a Right, etc. I mean, who could possibly be opposed to such a wonderful society other than those greedy Capitalist billionaires, right?
But that is the wolf in sheep's clothing that has devoured so very many lives and destroyed the prospect of freedom. Because it won't be Opie's "shoulds" for long.
That power will be in the hands of those whose "shoulds" are your "hell no" but there will be no stopping them. Some opposed to Leftist programs just might not be evil and greedy and heartless. Some caring decent people might understand the harsh truth known as TNSTAAFL. And, not all of those advocating for Opie's world are the enlightened generous caring souls that are portrayed as such.

In 1956 Cuba had wealth dripping from every building in Havana. The problem was that 99% of the population didn't own a pair of shoes. Today its entirely under a Communist dictatorship. The rich Americans and Europeans are all gone. The president wears the same clothes as the farm workers. All of my immediate family has been to Cuba except me. Most of us wouldn't want to live in a system of obvious austerity. The Cubans would rather have access to dental floss and other comforts but they are thankful for the fact that nobody goes hungry and medical care is free to whoever needs it. Whatever label you want to attach to it the fact is that the average person who remembers the early 1950's would never want to go back. Unfortunately the recent generation of oligarchs and dictators has caused a lot of pain which is why many have fled to Florida and other safer places.

quote:

---

Originally posted by donc

So Mr. Megabucks arrives here and wants to open a factory. He will need skilled people who have been trained through our public education system. He wants to have access to a dependable community where the work ethic is still alive and well. He will tap into a public electrical grid that is accessible on 4 sides of his property. Almost all the taxpayer's roads and highways are well paved. He will have 1 or 2 security guards after hours but for anything major he can rely on the local police force. The same applies to our local fire department. He could probably find cheaper property and cheaper labor in Afghanistan but for some reason he chooses to set up right here. Should he think of his new employees as business partners or simply livestock ?

---

Neither.  Smart business owners are very careful about choosing business partners and really smart ones avoid them altogether.  Livestock are not paid.  It is fed and eventually slaughtered. 

An employee is a valuable human resource that works for an agreed upon wage.  A smart business owner understands the labor market and does his or her best to create an environment whereby the employee feels valued and fairly compensated so they won't leave and go to a competitor.  Frankly they follow the Golden Rule.  Livestock / "slaves" never get the option to leave.

By the way in my country, any Joe Blow like me can become a business owner.  Takes some risk, a lot of sacrifice, hard work, sleepless nights, and smart decisions.  But the opportunity is there.    

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

^^ Just go to any country that does not have a wealthy 1% and see how their poverty measures against the poverty in countries which do have a wealthy top end. Where everyone is poor, the poverty is much greater.

If you start with what "should be" then you have opened Pandora's box, because there is no limit to "should" and everybody's "should" is different. And the power to enforce any "should"is the power that WILL be corrupted and abused.

Right now there is a viral post making the social media rounds, attributed to Ron Howard (Opie/Richie) that makes such a compelling case for so many nice things, so very many "shoulds." Living wages, healthcare is a Right, etc. I mean, who could possibly be opposed to such a wonderful society other than those greedy Capitalist billionaires, right?
But that is the wolf in sheep's clothing that has devoured so very many lives and destroyed the prospect of freedom. Because it won't be Opie's "shoulds" for long.
That power will be in the hands of those whose "shoulds" are your "hell no" but there will be no stopping them. Some opposed to Leftist programs just might not be evil and greedy and heartless. Some caring decent people might understand the harsh truth known as TNSTAAFL. And, not all of those advocating for Opie's world are the enlightened generous caring souls that are portrayed as such.

---

When it comes to arguments like this, I head in the direction of my post on the "happiest countries."  They tend to be left-leaning democracies.  My limited experience is that the well-to-do in those countries b**** about taxes (ala the Beatles "Tax Man"), but appreciate that the social supports free up time for them and their workers (don't have to quit work to take care of grandma).

My niece just moved to Finland (dual citizenship).  She worked developing agricultural products in Africa, and much of her work was funded through USAID.  They have plenty of issues in Finland, but she appreciates the social supports.  Empirical evidence tells me that a certain amount of social support is workable without being corrupted or abused.  Currently I see the corruption and abuse in the sheep's clothing of fighting corruption and abuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Hornet

An employee is a valuable human resource that works for an agreed upon wage.  A smart business owner understands the labor market and does his or her best to create an environment whereby the employee feels valued and fairly compensated so they won't leave and go to a competitor. 

Speaking of competitors: the smart business owner still needs to compete with the business owner that treats his workforce as cheap labour and thus can't afford to treat his employees much better than the inhumane business owner. And then the very smart business owners can even agree to not compete for the best employees but all treat them equally bad. There goes your free and just labour market with agreed upon wages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Hornet

An employee is a valuable human resource that works for an agreed upon wage.  A smart business owner understands the labor market and does his or her best to create an environment whereby the employee feels valued and fairly compensated so they won't leave and go to a competitor. 

Speaking of competitors: the smart business owner still needs to compete with the business owner that treats his workforce as cheap labour and thus can't afford to treat his employees much better than the inhumane business owner. And then the very smart business owners can even agree to not compete for the best employees but all treat them equally bad. There goes your free and just labour market with agreed upon wages.

 

---

Frankly I love those competitors.  Often their employees want to come to us because we are almost always hiring.  Not all of us are evil scumbags.  I have a plethora of employees who have been with us 5, 10, 15, even 20 years.  Nobody is forcing them to stay.  And those are the competitors who generally don't last.  It's one way the market weeds them out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Hornet

An employee is a valuable human resource that works for an agreed upon wage.  A smart business owner understands the labor market and does his or her best to create an environment whereby the employee feels valued and fairly compensated so they won't leave and go to a competitor. 

Speaking of competitors: the smart business owner still needs to compete with the business owner that treats his workforce as cheap labour and thus can't afford to treat his employees much better than the inhumane business owner. And then the very smart business owners can even agree to not compete for the best employees but all treat them equally bad. There goes your free and just labour market with agreed upon wages.

 

---

Like Anthony, I like those employers too, as they are merely training them so they can pursue jobs with companies like Anthony's.  I have always urged the golf courses that I have worked at to make sure they pay their maintenance employees a good wage for that very fact.  Why do you want to use your course to train employees for your competitors?

How much better would you pay them than your competitor to make them stay with your company? How much more can you afford to pay? Your competitor's lawn may not be as green as yours but playing golf there is more affordable and the golf course is always booked while your more expensive one isn't?