A world where an average house costs around that?
I’m not saying she was broke. I’m saying I would have assumed she’d have more than that with 2 (thanks John) best sellers.
Still earlier thread.
AIn the books not everyone becomes rich. There are many examples of people who are doing menial labor at the lowest level. To the question of the OP, someone would figure out that garbage collection was necessary and start a business. Some would do the work, and some might try and figure out ways to do the job better and steal the first guys customers…maybe even someone who started out just doing the grunt work of collecting the trash (which actually pays pretty good, at least it does anecdotally).
Well, your understanding is pretty poor to be honest…which is par for the course in these threads. Again, not everyone becomes rich or wealthy in the book, nor is that the goal. The point is that even if you are a track walker or a garbage collector is to strive to be the best at what you do…or at least to be the best you can be.
Garbage collection is something that needs doing, therefore someone will do it because they can make money at it (just like in the real world we all actually live in). People who figure out a way to form a successful company and capture the market will, perhaps, become rich. People who work for them will find meaningful work that needs to be done. Perhaps some of those who are doing the collection today will figure out ways to do it better, cheaper, faster or more efficiently and steal away the customers from their former employers.
The point wasn’t that everyone would become wealthy, or that only the wealthy were good or right (there are plenty of examples of rich or wealthy folks who were worthless moochers in the book), or that the poor were somehow bad or wrong…or that menial labor was demeaning or whatever it is the OP in this or the seemingly endless threads we’ve had on this subject are getting at.
Whoa…you think that in 1982 the average cost of a house was $500k?? Good grief, where do you live?
He phrased it in present tense at first. The particularly part was in 1982 dollars. Two houses if you want it in modern dollars. One for each best selling novel. Say one has a swimming pool, and the other has a spacious yard. Perfect for a dog.
Seems kinda spare, if you ask me, for a lifetime spent creating a movement.
You can go back to reflexively defending your dear Ayn now. Sorry to pull you off on a tangent. 
OK, that’s an entirely different argument and one that might have some merit. Frankly, I think Ayn Rand had some major flaws, but “failing to not make enough money” is not one of them. I see that as along the lines of: AR was bad, therefore whatever I say bout her that reinforces that is OK, whether it’s true or not.
What world is that, where the average house costs $500k? Not that that has any bearing on the issue, but just out of curiosity I have to wonder where you get that.
Again, what makes you think she didn’t, other than what some anonymous poster wrote on the internet? Do you believe everything you read on the internet without questioning it, or only those things that reinforce your pre-conceived ideas?
Besides, as we’ve been saying, why would she want to die with a pile of unspent money? What standard of hers would she have violated? Maybe she violated one of your standards, but are you going to tell us that you would consider yourself a failure if some random person on the internet declared that you did not live up to his standards?
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You can go back to reflexively defending your dear Ayn now. Sorry to pull you off on a tangent.
[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the old ‘reflexively defending’ gambit that’s supposed to win the thread for you. Well played. 
Um…if you say so. Seems pretty well off to me, to be honest, but then I don’t have the same silver spoon up my…er, in my mouth that you apparently do. I’d love to have the equivalent of a million or so dollars plus the constant influx of royalties when I’m 77.
Well, some of us don’t have 2 houses worth over a million bucks laying about and can hand wave that away.
At any rate, do you actually have anything to contribute to the actual question being asked in the thread, or was that about it? That she died with only the equivalent of 2 puny half million dollar houses to her name that would be perfect for a dog…and that this means she should have been worth more which means…er…something?
I would say that after creating what I’d consider a secular prosperity ministry, her not having much money is a little funny. I don’t think that money is what matters when it comes to a person’s worth. But I don’t go talking about how the elect move the world.
As I said, it would be two or so houses in today’s money. I’m sure I have a distorted view being a left coaster. I’m thinking of a decent two story in a good neighborhood. Certainly not an average house by national standards.
Mea Culpa.
I was working under the assumption that it was true.
I’d like to think a life spent shilling for greed would garner more skrilla.
Edit: I just found a cite for 800k. That seems a little better.
Emphasis added. Neither did she. So you are in agreement with her on at least one thing. I will note, though, that I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean “net worth” since how much money* someone has is, by definition, their net worth. I assume you meant something along the lines of “moral worth”.
Are there any other goal posts you’d like to move before we continue? You have gone from “average price for a house” to “average price of two houses” to “average price of two houses on the West Coast”.
Why are you judging someone by how much money they died with? That is a terrible measure of how much money a person has earned during their lifetime. Not that either measure matters, in terms of determining a person’s “moral worth”. Or, are you telling us that you judge people by how much money they have? Ayn Rand certainly didn’t. If you read any of her books you would know that there are any number of very rich characters who are clearly presented as moral failures.
*money being shorthand for assets.
Can’t win a thread that’s based on faith. I can only play my part.
How many best sellers you write?
Sure, the people who get rich at hauling garbage aren’t the people who haul it. It’s the guy that’s on the title for the trucks.
So Galt Gulch would need some people of modest wealth to get them to work hauling garbage. The only other answers are that hauling garbage is very expensive, or that people haul their own. Or sci-fi handwavium.
How much money did Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr die with?
First. let me admit I haven’t read the book. I’m basing this on what I’ve read about it second hand.
But my understanding is that Rand’s central point was that wealthy people shouldn’t feel guilty about being wealthy. Her argument was that in an ideal state the wealthy people deserved their wealth because they had earned it through doing things of value.
Yes, there were undeservedly wealthy people in the novel but Rand saw this as evidence that the general society she was describing was flawed; her protagonists set up their own society to get away from this flawed world where people could enjoy unearned wealth (and where poor people could take wealth away from those who did deserve it). So while there were flaws in Rand’s world, Galt’s Gulch was supposed to the ideal - in that location, people got what they deserved.
So let’s look at the economics of Galt’s Gulch. We know that according to Rand, people who owned steel companies or railroad lines were valuable people who should be wealthy. But are the people who make steel and operate railroads valuable? I’m not saying that Hank Reardon wasn’t a valuable contributor and didn’t deserve his wealth. But we have to ask ourselves how much steel he would have produced by himself. (Or, to address the specific topic of this thread, we can compare the relative contributions of the owner of a garbage collection company and the garbagemen he employs.)
That’s the central flaw in Rand’s economic view. According to her ideology, people like Reardon are wholly responsible for making steel. The workers failed to appreciate that they owed everything to Reardon.
When push came to shove, Reardon and his peers went away and set up their own society. And Rand claimed that without Reardon and the people like him, the workers were unable to function - their society collapsed. But Reardon and the owners were able to have a completely functional society without any workers. That seems pretty implausible. It seems a lot more believable that Readon and his peers would have found they needed their workers just as much as their workers needed them and neither could build a self-sustaining economy without the other.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
I can only play my part.
[/QUOTE]
Your part being the comic relief obviously.
Agreed
Um…I hate to break this to you, chief, but the thread is based on a book. I’m sure trotting out the faith thingy will help you win the admiration of the folks who went for the ‘reflexively defending’ gambit, but you need to work on your delivery.
Seems a silly question, but the answer would be none, since I’m a network engineer, not an author. Seriously, what’s the point here? Do you think that Atlas Shrugged was not a best seller? Or that because it was that means she should have been a gagillionare…or something? Because I simply don’t get your point in all of this to be honest.
Yeah, that’s true.
Or, could be that you still don’t understand. Militantly unsurprising since you don’t seem to want too. I’d go with the excluded middle, that it’s a job that needs to be done, that folks would be willing to pay for the service, and that he or she that comes up with the best business model is going to get the customers. No faith needed, since it’s exactly what happens in the real world. No ‘sci-fi handwavium’ needed either. Nor does that automatically mean that folks would have to haul their own or pay outrageous prices.
But thank you…at least you actually engaged in the question being asked. Finally. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
I assume I agree with her on many things. Such as the cuteness of puppies and the God-damn tastiness of an Oreo cookie.
She did, I assume, think that her work was worth being compensated for.
I’m sorry if I upset you. The 500k number was astonishingly low for someone who had two best selling books that started movements. In response to “in what world is 500k not rich” I answered, “A world where the average house costs that?” So please try to understand what I’m saying before you get on your high horse.
I know you want to reflexively defend “the right” every chance you get from liberal chicanery, but in this instance, all I tried to communicate, was that Rand, a best selling author ended up with a smaller amount of money than I would have thought. Which is funny, imho.
I’m judging someone who advocated greed and indifference to the poor, who ended up not that rich.
I know you understand what I’m saying, so why do you have to resort to such nonsense?
I grew up poor. I know more about poverty than many people. I don’t judge people by how much money they have at death. I do think it would be funny if a greedy, amoral person that created a fetishistic cult of wealth died with little more than the condo she lived in. Hyuk. Hyuk.
None of her cultist followers think they’re one of those worthless rich people though.
Which of those two started a greed cult that marginalizes the poor?
You’d be right if she had created a “secular prosperity ministry”. But since she didn’t, you actually are wrong.
But… maybe I am wrong, and you can prove that by citing here “prosperity ministry” writings. That is, that she taught by doing “x”, one would become financially prosperous. You seem to know a lot about Ayn Rand, so I await being educated on this.
As opposed to the intarweb knight in shining armor protecting the virtue of St. Rand?
It’s a book, but is seems to rely on faith or sci-fi handwavium to make it possible to haul trash. The free market is The Force, Harry Potterverse magic and the machines of the Krell all rolled up in one. It just works.
I think that it’s surprising she wasn’t better off at the end of her life. That’s all.
I am allowed to make comments on other things mentioned as I deem necessary, right?
As for on topic, I’d like to see specifically how the labor for hauling trash is paid for. Can we do a thought experiment on it?
Maybe she did and maybe she didn’t. I wouldn’t assume that, and I don’t know why you would. Besides, as has been noted, even if she did, then you should measure her by how much she was, uhm, actually compensated for your work. How much money she died with is not a good measure of that.
Since when does pointing out a logical fallacy amount to being “upset”?
Well, first of all, it was in the 1980s, and secondly you already acknowledged that the $500k number was wrong, so I can’t imagine why, in the quest to fight ignorance you would repeat it. And again, we’re talking about how much money she died with. A person can be quite rich, but not leave much after his or her death.
I’m posting facts. You are posting wild exaggerations, distortions, and misinformation. One of us is being reflexive, and it ain’t me.
Well, I’m sure there are some people in this world who consider you opinion of how much a person should die with to be interesting. If you find any of them, you might bring them into this thread.
Two factually errors in one sentence. She didn’t advocate that, and she did end up rich.
You wrote what you wrote. I’m not a mind reader. I can only respond to what you write.
You don’t judge people for not having what you think is enough money, you just laugh at them when they don’t. Got it.
Missed the edit window. “Her” work.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
First. let me admit I haven’t read the book. I’m basing this on what I’ve read about it second hand.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let me admit that, contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, I haven’t read the book in quite a while (nor did I see the movie that came out a couple of years back). But you should read it if you are going to comment on it, as I think you are losing a lot in the translation. You don’t have to like the book, or even agree with the central premise, but if you are going to debate about it there is no substitute for actually reading the thing yourself instead of picking up stuff second hand.
That said, I appreciate someone actually engaging the question instead of some of the other stuff generally dumped in these threads. It’s just a book, and we could rationally discuss the OPs question from the point of view of extrapolating from what’s in there to what the OP is asking without resorting to some of this other horseshit.
Substitute ‘able’ and ‘ability’ for ‘wealthy’ and you will come closer to the mark.
This is a total distortion, and again it focuses on wealth where the books weren’t really focused on wealth except as a final measure of success. Certainly society in Rands books were trying to take the wealthy from the wealthy, but the key point was that they were draining the men (and women) of ability of their rewards for being able and doing a good job. The obvious focus of the story was more on the main characters who were the movers and shakers of the world, but there were plenty of examples of people who did their jobs well, took pride in their work and were happy to work hard and do the best they could.
The people who went to the Gulch (a couple of times a year until the very end) were those who were sick of seeing their abilities taken for granted by society or turned around so that society got the credit for their accomplishments. It wasn’t all about the wealth or even mostly about the wealth.
And yet, there were several characters in the book who were wealthy steel owners or railroad owners who were not considered by Rands characters to be valuable people nor should they be wealthy.
Henry wasn’t responsible for making all of the steel. He was responsible for making good steel, some of the alloys of which were his own design and while costing more than other steel from other foundries would last longer or was stronger than theirs. And the workers in Reardon’s factors DID acually appreciate him and what he could do…just as Reardon appreciated the help of the people of drive and ability that worked for him and were part of what made his company and their products so successful. Be like working for Gates or Jobs…you have to admire them for what they did and achieved and built. Conversely, neither Jobs nor Gates was ignorant of the fact that the people of ability and drive were also instrumental in producing the companies and products that won them market share and put them on top.
Close. It was Galt talking all of the best men and women of ability out of circulation that had the effect. Again, it’s just a story and her world view, but within the logic of the story it makes sense. If you take away enough of the people of ability and drive then eventually things are going to start to fall apart (in her world anyway).
This is the main aspect you have wrong. What actually happened in the books were that some of the folks who joined Galt in the resistance were folks like Reardon, at the top of their fields. Some, however, weren’t…they were just men or women who could strive for or do their best at what they were doing You saw it in how many of the characters in Galts Gulch were doing menial labor…drillers, auto mechanics, store clerks, etc. And there were some former steel mill owners and the like who were working for other competitors while they tried to raise funds or work out a business model that could eventually under cut their current boss and steel away their customers. In fact there were a couple of joking conversations in this part of the book where this topic came up.
It would be implausible if that’s what she was saying, but it’s not It wasn’t only the highest elites or the wealthiest people who were approached to go on strike and let into the secret about the Gulch. Anyone who they met and who they felt excelled at what they did, be they street sweeper, track walker or garbage collector could be offered a slot in the Gulch as long as you followed the rules. And some people who had high powered positions in the real world or were quite wealthy were doing menial labor in the Gulch (some having been driven out of business by rivals).
In her books I don’t believe I ever saw her say or imply that the workers and the CEOs weren’t both integral parts to make the operation work, or that somehow the workers were to be looked down on. Since several of the main characters in fact took very menial jobs throughout the book and took pride in doing that work to the best of their ability it’s incorrect to put this in terms of wealthy verse poor.