tradesilicon:
“Vast majority” is not equal to “all”. I allow there are just some wonderful, fine, let-me-shake-your-hand rich people in the world.
However,
With a large part of the world living in terrible poverty, it just seems to me mind you, in my ever so humble opinion, that sitting on or playing with huge sums of wealth that might otherwise be used to alleviate this immense suffering might possibly be construed to, just perhaps, be a tad immoral.
That reaping huge profits while the workers here and abroad can barely afford enough to keep a roof over their head might be a wee bit greedy.
That swallowing up markets and putting small business out of business to expand huge wealthy corporate mega-chains might, to a third-party observer, be labelled gluttonous.
That effectively blocking out most if not all of the unpleasantness in the world with ivy-covered walls, corporate towers, exclusive country clubs, and well-heeled friends while debating the relatively unimportant issues of how where and if to spend and earn more money could be said to be soplisistic.
That using the force that comes with money and power to improve conditions for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the weak and poor, some of whom live in near slavery-like conditions could at some point be looked upon as marginally cruel.
That manipulating money to further advantages, to buy legislation and legislators, to ruin the environment for short-term profit, and to con the public with lies and smokescreens could raise, if just for a moment, the issue of ethics.
That having much and refusing to share with the less fortunate is perhaps, kind of a definition of selfish.
The rich “crooked”? Perhaps not even most if we define crooked to be “engaging in illegal activity.” But there are lots of crooks and crookedness in the world that have little to do with human laws or dog’s hind legs.
“And Jesus said unto his disciples, ‘Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.’” (Matthew 19, verses 23-24)
But I’m sure he didn’t mean all rich people. Shame on Jesus for making such a blanket statement.
Most workers in this country seem to be doing fine. Most seem to be capable of sustaining a lifestyle that goes beyond the mere basics.
**
Putting small businesses out of work by providing better products or services at a better price isn’t a bad thing. Oh, and it is the shoppers themselves who decide where to go. The big companies can’t make that decision for them.
**
And the wealthy are certainly so shallow that they have nothing more to speak of then wealth and how to apply it.
**
They aren’t living at the expense of the poor and weak.
**
Actually I’ve got to agree with you on this one. However there are all sorts of special interest groups out there that I don’t particularly care for. I guess the best thing to do is make it very difficult for politicans to affect the market place. Then there’d be very little reason to bribe them.
**
Not at all. The money belongs to them and they’re free to do with it as they wish. If I made 150,000 a year you can bet I’d probably find a way to spend it all on things I wanted to.
Well nobody said he was a particularly bright man.
Marc
Get real. Each of the people you named delivered something to other people that they wanted and was compensated by those people happily. Not one of the people you describe made their money by ‘taking advantage of someone poorer or weaker’ than themselves. Not one.
What does ‘by default’ mean? Is your point that management typically makes more than the employees they manage? What’s that have to do with the price of tea in China? There was recently a Janitors strike in my town. The Janitors are complaining that they don’t make as much as the Engineers whose offices they clean. Well my Janitor friends, go to school, get an Engineering degree and you can live that dream. Same thing with Managers. In-demand jobs pay higher than lesser jobs. That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it should be. If your job doesn’t pay the way you desire, find a better job. You can do whatever you want; your career is your choice. Don’t complain that some other profession makes more than you; go join that profession if it suits you.
Please. How many Casinos kidnap people out of their homes and steal their money? People go to casinos because they derive entertainment value from them. Do you believe Potato Chip vendors are thieves as well, since their product isn’t ‘useful’ and is in fact slightly detrimental to their customers?
Simple economics: Every job that exists for a particular position increases the value of that position. Every job that is created means more money go to employees. I just got back from Pakistan recently. They have tons of talented people there, but no jobs. Why? Because no one is on the other side creating jobs. Jobs are created, just as products and services are created. If they are not created, they don’t exist.
Man, dude, you truly don’t get it. If an employee is paid the same amount as the value he generates, then he has created no value for his customer or his employer and his job evaporates. It’s like saying Ford should sell a car for the same price that it costs them to build it. If they did that, they would not be in business, and then there would be no cars.
If they didn’t give you the car, you wouldn’t pay them! You derive value from the car! They are not evil because they built a car for you. They have provided you a valuable service!
I’m sorry you feel that way. This statement (and your entire post) says more about you then it does about anything else.
Here’s a better way, and it’s no secret. In fact, it’s the way all fortunes are made. Find something everybody needs and values, and sell it to them.
aha wrote
Not to be harsh, but I thought it was a particularly poorly thought out, poorly reasoned, cynical post. I hope SarumanRex isn’t as dark and disenchanted in life as his post indicates.
It’s very simple to become wealthy, and the method is glaringly obvious. It’s also completely consistent with a moral lifestyle. You live below your means, save as much money as you can, and invest it wisely. Anybody can do this and become wealthy. You don’t need to be some kind of robber baron or run sweatshops like Kathie Lee.
Regarding the OP, what do you mean by really wealthy? I started saving money at 22 when I started working my first “real” job, and I fully intend to be a millionaire when I retire. Many people can do this - 30 or 40 years of interest and capital gains is a LOT. Why am I evil for doing this?
[quote]
That manipulating money to further advantages, to buy legislation and legislators, to ruin the environment for short-term profit, and to con the public with lies and smokescreens could raise, if just for a moment, the issue of ethics.
One possible (specific) solution for this is the limits on contributions that these lobbying organizations can make - make then equal to any individual; that really limits their affect. Also, is it always bad when a group attempts to effect legislation? Hmmm.
Biotop, you have much to learn about economics:
The amount of profit a company can make depends on how well they manage resources and how much demand there is for their product or service. What do you imagine happens with all these products? Some one is using them, maybe you. Unless you are prepared to withdraw completely from the economic landscape of society, please stop with the hypocritical statements you make - you are using at least several products just to post to this board (You are therefore feeding that greedy machine) What did Jesus say about hypocrites?
Aha,
Well, here you are providing proof that you are bitter, and would like to have made more money for your efforts. I agree, you should have (based on what you have told us about the situation). But you miss my point. Lets say today, someone knocks on your door and says “Dear Mike, please accept this long overdue compensation for your efforts”, presents you with a check for 10 million, and a kiss on the cheek. Are you now crooked? ‘Nuf said.
you are assuming that a) simply giving the poor money will change their lot in life b) that the rich don’t directly contribute money through taxes, charity, investment and jobs c) that those who are poor and suffering are so because of a simple lack of money (which ignore political systems, malevolent dictators, war, etc.)
[sarcasm] it is indeed wrong to reward those who take high risks, work hard, create new industries, revolutionize technologie, create jobs, etc. Clearly GM, Ford, Werox, Eastman. GE, Edison, Gates, Walton Et. Al. never helped anyone. The millions they employ would be much better off unemployed or plowing a field than to have a career. I think we should punish them by taking away their money and giving it to some hut dwellers in Zambia who really derve it for eating manioc. [/sarcasm]
We’re obviously not going to agree on this, and that’s fine, but management and sales are personality positions. Programming and art are skill positions. Producers facilitate the process, but code is necessary to the creation of product. Three guys in a garage made Castle Wolfenstein and released it as shareware. No doubt they are making shitloads more money now that they have a publisher and salespeople and a vast distribution network working with them, and everyone is clearly better off, but ultimately it’s John Carmack’s code that’s at the core of all that money. I was at Activision when they signed the publishinging deal with Id, and the Activision VP who made the deal was nervous as hell. Why? He was bringing arguably the best PR/Sales/Distribution network in the industry to the table. He knew Id was offering even more. That VP was the best dealmaker I’ve ever seen. A truly gifted leader. But the money follows Carmack. Guys like him are just fighting to see who gets to share in it.
I’ve been in this business a long time as well, and I agree with you. I’m not management bashing here. Without leadership, you have inefficient production, as you said. But without the coders you have no production at all. Leaders are valuable. Skilled workers are necessary.
As I said before, I’m not a programmer or a manager. I’m a designer, actually, and we’re the lowest paid of the bunch. And rightfully so. We’re the least skilled. You might think my views are naive. I’d call them unbiased. I’n not arguing in my own interest. I mean no offense by that, but you are in fact arguing in your own interest.
Let me ask you this in all sincerity. Do you really believe that your compensation equation(value=compensation) is not tainted by human nature, by the fact that some group has the privelege/burden/authority of deciding who gets paid what and is likely to put themselves at the top and then justify that decision by whatever logic is necessary? If you do, then you have a better view of humanity than I do.
“Missing a meal wasn’t so terrible–it was the ghastly emptiness of the street that disturbed me profoundly. All those bloody houses, one like another, and all so empty and cheerless looking. Fine paving stones under foot and asphalt in the middle of the street and beautifully-hideously-elegant brownstone stoops to walk up, and yet a guy could walk about all day and all night on this expensive material and be looking for a crust of bread. That’s what got me. The incongruousness of it. If one could dash out with a dinner bell and yell ‘Listen, listen, people, I’m a guy what’s hungry. Who wants shoes shined? Who wants garbage brought out? Who wants drainpipes cleaned out?’ If you could only go out in the street and put it to them clear like that. But no, you don’t dare to open your trap. If you tell a guy in the street you’re hungry you scare the shit out of him, he runs like hell. That’s something I never understood. I don’t understand it yet. The whole thing is so simple–you say Yes when someone comes up to you. And if you can’t say Yes you take him by the arm and ask some other bird to help you out.”
The rich have the power to do so much good, and no, they don’t have to legally. It’s their money.
“It all mine, and you can’t have any.” If the speaker is a child, he’s selfish. If an adult, he’s a successful capitalist.
tradesilicon, I may be a hypocrite. I do try to connect the money I spend to products causing less misery, hardship, and exploitation in their production. I’m not perfect by a hell of a long shot. But if you mean that only those who do not in any way benefit from capitalism can question the ethics of the massively wealthy, then its no wonder so little debate of said capitalist extravegance ever takes place.
i just wanted to jump in here and say that the debate is progressing nicely.
Trade: If some one knocked on my door and gave me my royalites I would be grateful. But it’s a moot point because it ain’t gonna happen. That is the very definition of being crooked…you take some one’s money and don’t give it back.
However to answer your question.
There is certainly nothing crooked about getting paid for hard earned intellectual propery. Just because some one belatedly gives me what I have earned in the first place does not make me crooked. Now if I had stepped on my writing partner’s heads or snookered the public somehow while collecting those royalites then I would, in my humble opinion, be a crook.
My OP was loosely intending to address those that have worked their way up in corporate circles to great degrees of monetary success and what immoral, if any, obstacles they may have encountered and how they handled those obstacles. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear in the beginning.
Obstacles, generally, are completing projects in a way that impresses uppermanagement, being seen by upper management, having an actual career path, fitting in with the culture, being smart enough, having good interpersonal skills and…this is a shocker…being nice. Nobody likes a jerk, and they rarely get ahead unless they are a great salesman.
Let’s talk Sales Guys vs. Coders:
Bad Coder + Good Sales Guy = Minimal Sales
Good Coder + Bad Sales Guy = No Sales
Sales are the fuel that gets a company going and keeps it alive. Sales Guys are worth more because the ultimate value they bring to a company is greater. No sales = Bankruptcy. And really good Sales Guys are a very rare breed. It’s true that the skill sets for each are different. It’s easy to assume that all a Sales Guy has is a bright smile. He has a skill set as well, and that skill set is more closely related to the company being successfull.
Consensus; Hooray!
I’m afraid they’re both necessary. Without a good manager, the business will drift and not be profitable. If it’s not profitable, it will die. If it produces horrible code, but can maintain profitability, it will live. The manager is the one keeping it alive.
BTW, I will tell you that in my line of work, coders are absolutely essential. They are the core asset that the business is built around and the reason that anyone buys product. They deserve respect, and they have mine in spades. (of course, I’m a coder by background, so I can’t claim total selflessness here.)
You are entirely correct; I have a strong stake in this argument. I think I’m fair, but you can make up your own mind about my bias. I will tell you that I’ve worked in many positions in the software industry, and I have seen the viewpoints of each of those positions. So I’m not entirely ignorant of the whole picture.
I’d be foolish to not think there was some truth to that. But yoour question speaks specifically to the inside of a single organization. Outside, and cross-organization, there is competition for every position and every product. The market is the real decider of value, not the manager.
As a manager myself, I obviously have a lot of say to what a proposed salary will be for an employee. But if I try to low-ball them, they’ll go elsewhere. Or they’ll work for me but be resentful and as a result ineffectual. Yeah, I’m the one who writes down the number but it doesn’t really come from me; it comes from the market.
From m-w, slightly edited;
Main Entry: crook·ed
Pronunciation: 'kru-k&d
Function: adjective
Date: 13th century
2 : DISHONEST <a crooked election> <crooked politicians>
And so;
Main Entry: dis·hon·est
Pronunciation: (")di-'sä-n&st also -'zä-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deshoneste, from des- dis- + honeste honest
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE
2 : characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE
dis·hon·est·ly adverb
synonyms DISHONEST, DECEITFUL, UNTRUTHFUL mean unworthy of trust or belief. DISHONEST implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud <a swindle usually involves two dishonest people>. DECEITFUL usually implies an intent to mislead and commonly suggests a false appearance or double-dealing <the secret affairs of a deceitful spouse>. UNTRUTHFUL stresses a discrepancy between what is said and fact or reality <an untruthful account of their actions>.
Aha didn’t ask about serial killers, armed robbers, pornographers, etc. Nor did he ask about the relative worth of occupations. Or "nice folks. He simply asked if the very rich got that way by being crooked (dishonest).
I’d say that the answer is yes, quite often, they did. My only experience is with old, established companies. I don’t know about .coms and such.
Examine the synonyms above. "DISHONEST implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud" That’s what I’m talking about. Simple.
Peace,
mangeorge
First off let me warn that Billehunt has pissed me off and the following post may be the longest ever but here goes:
I’ll start by defining my terms: rich is a relative term, everyone reading this is literate, has access to a computer and the internet and is therefore richer than the average human being. Regardless of what may have been intended in the OP with the term “really wealthy” my comments were directed solely at the super rich (i.e. billionaires in today’s dollars). Websters defines greed as excessive desire, especially for wealth. I define greed as wanting more money than you could ever spend in a normal lifetime with a modest lifestyle which IMHO is about $100,000 a year for 100 years ($10 million dollars). I realize this is an arbitrary definition but in my book if you want more than $10 million to spend on yourself (which is way more than most people get, even in the first world) then you are just being greedy. Websters defines evil as morally bad, wrong, wicked, harmful or injurious. I define evil as not caring about other people, lacking compassion for your fellow man, getting what you want no matter who it hurts, or doing whatever it takes to get even further ahead when you are already way ahead of the game. Any billionaire who is still working to make himself richer is by my definition greedy. To put it another way, if you suddenly woke up and found that you had won 80 million dollars in a lottery, would you say to yourself, “How can I use this enormous wealth to become even richer, perhaps even the richest person in the world” or would you just retire? If you would retire then that’s the difference between you and the people on my list.
If I confused anyone by not defining my terms in my earlier post then I apologize.
Now I will refute Billehunt point by point.
I said
To which Billehunt responded
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you admire the super-rich and want to someday be like them and this admiration (and not stupidity) has blinded you to their true nature (I will admit that I too once admired the super rich).
Let’s start with the most admired man on my list Thomas Edison. I wanted to be an inventor when I was in college and I thought Edison was the greatest man who ever lived. Since than I have discovered a thing or two about Edison. His invention of the electric light made it economically feasible to keep the mills and factories open 24 hours a day. There were no labor laws in 1879 so factory owners forced their workers to work 14, 16 sometimes 18 hour days at pennies per hour. Prior to electric light no one was expected to work past night fall since gas lighting was so expensive. When Edison was asked about the long hours everyone was being forced to work he said that sleep was an unnecessary luxury and that he himself only slept one hour per night. While its true that he spent all his time at his lab only people that worked with him knew of his frequent naps. Edison went to sleep on his lab bench any time he felt like it, mill workers were not given this “luxury”. Edison owned all of the early power generation stations, he was getting VERY wealthy off everyone working past nightfall. He said all that crap about not needing sleep because he was making money off other people’s exhaustion, he was a complete hypocrite.
Do you still admire Edison, well then how 'bout this: Edison invented the electric chair as part of a scheme to defame his chief competitor Westinghouse. Westinghouse generated A/C power which is more economical than Edison’s D/C and was driving Edison out of the market so Edison tried to convince the public that A/C power was more dangerous then D/C. He experimented on numerous farm animals before selling the first electric chair to NY’s Sing Sing prison. It didn’t work as well as expected. The condemned man kept coming back to life after they jolted him so they decided to just leave the thing on and they cooked the guy until smoke was coming out of his eye sockets. Still Edison promoted the electric chair as more humane than hanging and even tried to get the media to refer to execution by electric chair as “Westinghousing”. Still not convinced? Well how 'bout this. When Edison was touring Europe around the turn of the century he discovered a movie called “Voyage to the Moon” (I’m not sure of the title, it’s the film depicting a huge cannon firing a space capsule to the moon and hitting the “moon” right in the eye). It was a brilliant and innovative film, no one had ever seen anything like it, it was the Star Wars of its day. So what did Edison do, he paid off a theatre to make a boot leg copy of the film which he distributed in America and pocketed all the royalties for himself. The film’s producer and true owner was utterly ruined financially and never made another film.
Edison did all of this for money when he was already a very rich man. Don’t get me wrong electricity and electric light are great things but that does not make Edison a great or admirable man. Today’s labor laws prohibit your boss from requiring you to work 18 hour days but if it were up to Edison he’d have no problem with it. I mean if Hitler had invented the light bulb prior to declaring war on the world would he be a great man too?
As for the other guys on my list I will be as brief as possible:
Rockefeller, Sam Walton, and Bill Gates all built huge corporations by destroying or swallowing up their competitors. Their greed knew no bounds. If you got in their way then it didn’t make a lick of difference if you were producing a valuable product and employing a lot of good people, you got crushed. Either you sold out to them at THEIR price or you were driven out of the market by unfair business practices. In my original post I assumed that everyone had heard of the unfair business practices of these men, apparantly I was wrong. Rockefeller invented the drawback. It was a scheme to drive out the competitors of Standard Oil by making it a contract requirement that if a railroad wanted to ship Standard Oil they had to pay a fee (called a drawback) to Standard Oil for every barrel of any competitors oil they shipped. If they refused to pay the drawback then Standard Oil would use a different rail line to ship it’s oil. Since Standard oil was the biggest oil company no rail line could refuse to pay the drawback and therefore charge Standard’s competitors substantially more to ship their oil. Rockefeller was already super rich when he started this scheme to destroy his competitors and force them to sell out to him at HIS price.
Sam Walton founded WalMart. WalMart has opened more of its chain stores nationwide than all the other chains put together. They use their enormous size to buy products in bulk and undercut smaller store’s prices. They singlehandedly drove innumerble small retail shops out of business. These businesses were owned by good hard working Americans who didn’t stand a chance against WalMart. Maybe that doesn’t offend you since we all benefit from lower prices, maybe cheap underwear is enough to make you overlook shattered lives. How 'bout this then, WalMart pays its workers minimum wage or perhaps a little more. Sam Walton once offered to reward his employees for driving his stock price over a preset threshhold. Reward them with what you ask, a share of the profits perhaps, hell no. He offered to dance the hula on Wall Street, which he did. It was this incredibly crass act that won Sam a spot on my list of all time sons of bitches (call me fickle).
Bill Gates (in case you’ve been living under a rock for quite some time) became the richest man in the world by making it nearly impossible to compete with his Windows operating system. He did this by requiring computer manufacturers who wanted to sell his product to pay him a fee on EVERY computer sold regardless of whether or not it had Windows installed on it. They had to pay Microsoft even if they didn’t sell its product, thus motivating them to only sell Windows with their PC’s. It was a modern version of the infamous (and now illegal) drawback and it worked like a charm. BTW I use Windows '98 because, for some reason, it was already on my PC’s hard drive when I took it out of the box. If you still think these guys are good businessmen just imagine if you had poured all of your money and effort into a competing company only to be utterly ruined when you refused to sell out.
Ray Crock took a small California restaurant chain and made it the biggest corporate franchiser in the world. I worked for McDonalds back when I was in high school. It was the early 80’s, America was in recession, and jobs were scarce. I hated working at McDonald’s, the low level managers treated people like crap and the higher management fully approved. Reagan was in the Whitehouse and trickle down economics was in force. It was in these desperate times that McDonalds used it’s considerable political influence to persuade Congress to pass legislation LOWERING the minimum wage from $3.35/hour to $2.50/hour for 16 year old employees. It was an obvious attempt to increase corporate profits at the expense of politically weak teenagers. There was another bill being debated in Congress to raise the overall minimum wage. I was concerned that I would have my wages or hours cut (if they couldn’t cut my wages they could hire another 16 year old and cut my hours) so I asked my manager what was going to happen. She said, “don’t worry the $2.50 an hour is only for 16 year olds hired after the law went into effect, it won’t impact on your wages”. I then asked about the impending rise in miminum wage, and I will never forget what happened next. A huge grin spread across her face as she said with obvious delight, “I haven’t heard anything about that”. It was then that I realized that she was comforting my fears and desperation with pre-written corporate lies. It was pure corporate propaganda, she had been given a line of bull to say in response to questions like mine and I had asked the very questions she was prepared to answer. She was delighted to have done such a good job for her employer MCDoanlds (i.e. Ray Crock). It was for this that I put old Ray on my list of the greediest bastards of all time.
The Dukes (it was a family business) invented cigarettes. Lung cancer was almost unheard of before the advent of cigarette smoking but if you need me to point out why profiting billions off of nicotine addiction is evil…
Steve Winn owns The Mirage and Treasure Island Casinos in Vegas, Donald Trump owns the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. I used to work in the gaming industry (refering to it as gambling is verboden). Gaming is NOT a form of entertainment, it is an addiction just like crack or heroin or alcohol or frequenting prostitutes. For the longest time I tried to rationalize my participation if the gaming industry. After all I was just doing a job for a salary, I wasn’t being greedy. I finally realized that what I was doing was helping billionaires become even richer by exploiting a basic human weakness (the need for excitement that gamblers can only find through wagering). The straw that broke the camel’s back was when I was walking through a casino and I saw a small sign that said, “do you know a compulsive gambler, let us know about it so we can get them the help they need, call 1-800…”. I knew from working in the industry that casinos go to elaborate lengths to keep compulsive gamblers in the casino for as long as possible. For instance, there are no windows or clocks in a casino to keep the gambler from realizing how much time he’s spent playing. There are restaurants, cafe’s, cash machines, and floor shows right in the casino. These things all take up valuable floor space that could be used for slot machines but are there to prevent gamblers from having any compelling reason to leave. Why then would a casino want to know about someone’s compulsive gambling problem? It soon dawned on me that they wanted to know in advance if a certain gambler was about to declare bancruptcy so they could cut off his line of credit. Trust me, casinos are evil and people who become billionaires via the gaming industry know exactly how that game works.
I said
to which Billehunt replied
‘by default’ means that poor people work for richer people and never the other way around.
It is NOT my point that managers make more than the people they manage. I don’t care at all how much a manager makes compared to the people under him. As far as I’m concerned you are all in the same boat. Everyone who works for a greedy billionaire is getting paid less than they are worth and only enough to keep you coming back. If these pricks could force you all to work as slave laborers they would. They are not in the business of providing Americans with good jobs, they are in the business of making themselves even richer.
I said
to which Billehunt replied
I didn’t say that casinos kidnapped people or did anything illegal. I said they preyed on people’s weakness for gambling. If you consider gaming to be a harmless entertainment on par with potato chip vending then what would you say is an evil way to make a buck? Is crack dealing OK, how 'bout pimping, or loan sharking? No one is forced to go to these people so I guess it’s a victimless crime in your view.
I said
to which Billehunt replied
I interpret your experience in Pakistan as proof that the super-rich people over there don’t have to create jobs to maintain their status at the top of the food chain. Perhaps you don’t believe there are super-rich people in Pakistan, perhaps you are a fool.
I will say it again, billionaires are not in the business of creating jobs, they create jobs only to make themselves richer. The benefits this provides to society are entirely unintentional on their part. To put it another way suppose that Bill Gates drives to the post office and parks in the handicap spot to save himself some time. A minute after he parks there a drunk driver comes flying over the curb and rams into Gates’ car. If the car had not been parked in the handicap spot a small child and her mother would have been struck and killed by the drunk driver. Should Bill Gates receive any credit for saving their lives? Should he still get a big fat ticket for parking in a handicap space? I think he should not receive one iota of credit or even one cent of reduction in the parking fine because his part in saving their lives was unintentional and his motivations for parking there were entirely selfish.
I said
to which Billehunt replied
No sir, it is you that do not “get it”. My argument was that companies only pay employees the bare minimum necessary to keep them coming back. A worker’s salary has everything to do with how hard it is to find someone with their particular talents and nothing to do with the value of the work provided except that the value of the work must exceed the employee’s pay. If the law allowed them to hire slave laborers then they would, if they could hire engineers for fifty cents an hour then they would. The fact that many professionals have good jobs and can demand a large salary from their employer is entirely unintentional on the part of the employers. Therefore, employers and billionaires do not deserve ANY credit for high wages.
I said
to which Billihunt replied
No they are not evil for providing me with a car, they are evil because they only did it to make themselves and their shareholders even richer without the slightest regard for anyone else. The auto industry is the perfect example of corporate greed in that they have found a way to make more profits while providing fewer jobs. How is this possible? One word: robots. By creating robot assembly lines they have managed to lay off thousands of workers (have you seen the Michael Moore film “Roger and Me”, if not rent it) while producing just as many cars. They have also outsourced many parts to third world manufacturers who pay their workers less in a week than a UAW worker makes in an hour.
I said
to which Billehunt replied
My post is making a point about the people Americans seem to admire more than anyone else, if you can’t see that then what does that say about you?
I said
to which Billehunt replied
If you think that all it takes to be a billionaire is to find something people need and sell it to them then you are a bigger fool than I took you for. What’s your strategy for making a killing in the stock market, buy low and sell high. How 'bout winning the Boston Marathon, do you recommend running real fast? To win the super bowl would it be a good strategy to try and score more points than the other team? I rescind my request to know how you plan to get rich.
Then Billehunt went on to say
and I hope you aren’t as stupid and naive as your post indicates. Take some friendly advice and WAKE the HELL UP.
So that you don’t think I am entirely cynical let me make some conclusions. We have a great economic system in America, a real democracy too, the best in the world. I am not a socialist, I am a realist. Billionaires are evil greedy people who just want to be even richer. Anyone who has a billion dollars in this world of poverty and wants to be even richer is a sick and evil person. If one of these guys thought he could make another billion by killing you he’d do it in a heartbeat, trust me. They are VERY dangerous, but their efforts at self enrichment can be harnessed to help all of society. In order to preserve our way of life we need to stop the billionaires from subverting the democratic system by banning soft money contributions. Soft money is unlimited contributions made by just about anybody to political parties for “party building activities” and is not SUPPOSED to be used to promote individual candidates. By taking away the easiest way to bribe a candidate (and it is bribery plain and simple) we can make it harder for these people to undermine democracy. A lot more needs to be done to insure a free and prosperous nation for our children but banning soft money would make a good start. Thank you for reading the longest post of my time, maybe of all time.
Mangeorge thanks for clearing that up.
Rex a (long) but very rational post. I read the whole enchilada and it made perfect sense to me. ( That story about Edison plagerizing the filmmaker was told to me in a film class on campus at the University of Texas.)
My OP asked the question “Do you have to be crooked to become really wealthy.” I typed it in question form because I usually try and refrain from making wild-ass generalizations. I was tempted to type it as a statement rather than a question because to me there really isn’t an issue. I was mostly interested in the imput from the posters on here who are all intelligent as far as I am concerned.
The world is teeming with greedy, crooked, successful people. And they excel at eating honest people for breakfast and shitting them out for lunch. It’s just the way of the world. Same as in Walden’s pond. The bigguns eat the littleuns. The drawback is that the bigguns die from heart attacks and stroke a little sooner than the bigguns most of the time. ( And no, I don’t have any statistics to back that up)
I don’t look at the world in a jaded fashion because I don’t have any aspirations of stepping on anyone else to get more money…I am content with what I have. I think that just may be the secret to a long and happy life. I’ll have to get back to you on that one though.
First I read the nonsensical ramblings of SarumanRex front to back and seethed for it’s total lack of logic and substance. I was getting ready to write a response, when I read this from aha:
[quote]
Rex a (long) but very rational post. I read the whole enchilada and it made perfect sense to me.
[quote]
Sweet Jesus on the Crack Pipe! I hope it’s not contagious. I’ve got to go walk around the block. Maybe I’ll reply to SarumanRex a little later.
It’s just that my opinion is as much philosophy as fact. It really comes down to one’s slant on the world in general. Surely you agree with that right?
But please answer Rex’s post, I may learn something new yet!
