I think most people also recognize that many of the super rich are some of the biggest philanthropists out there. For every miserly old billionaire who made his money from the exploitation of others, there are many who use their money make the world a better place. Bill Gates is the world’s richest man, but he also donates staggerly large amounts of money to plenty of people who need it. People like George Soros, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer also provide much of the funding that allows colleges, universities, research groups, playhouses, museums, and galleries to operate. It seems to me like most people see that the current crop of super rich people have sincerely tried to use their money for good and should not be the object of scorn.
Thet weren’t “worth” $7 million; they weren’t worth more than you, or anyone else. They may have had $7 million , but that’s just possesions, and not necessarily them most important possesions out there. There are many things you have that they don’t. Brains, probably. Your health, for all you know. And of course, you posses something far more valuable than anything of theirs’, something they will never, ever have - you posses Mrs. Evil Captor (just as she posesses you). Are you saying she’s “worth” less than $7 million.
Stop worrying about other people. Some are better off than you, most are worse. I know I’ll never be rich, because I just don’t have the drive for it. Does the wealth of other people bother me? No. Good for them. Why should I begrudge anyone else’s hapiness?
I recently read “The Millionaire Next Door.” Work hard, spend less than you earn, invest as much as you can, live a long time and you’ll be rich.
Most people don’t want the bother.
Someone has a hell of a lot more than you? Tough. I have a feeling that there are plenty of people who have a hell of a lot less than you, and I don’t see you giving up all that you have to bring yourself to their level of wealth, why should the super rich give up all that they have to be like you?
If you had a few hundred mill in the back, I’d bet that you too would have multiple houses and many cars. Sure, while you have little it’s easy to think that you would give it ALL AWAY, but chances are you’d keep a bunch of it for your own benefit and be the same sort of person you feel shouldn’t be tolerated.
Plus, construction employs a lot of people, most of whom make pretty decent money. If a rich guy spends $50 million on houses, roughly $20 million of that goes to other people’s pockets, most of them middle- or working class. I say let the rich build dozens of houses. Let them spend all their money on useless crap! It’s the finest way to redistribute wealth.
It’s all good and fine to say no one needs five houses and twenty cars, but I’ll tell you what: this is America. Unless you’re dirt-poor, very little of what we all own is about need. It’s about desire. Rigth now, we’re pretty strapped for equity, and yet, here I sit, typing on a computer (okay, we need that for hubby’s work) on a cable connection that costs twice as much as dial-up. We do need the 'net (again, work-related), but we don’t need a cable connection. Right in the next room is a 27" color TV. We don’t need that. And then, to top it off, we have a secondTV in our room, as well as a second VCR and a second DVD player.
In the kitchen, we have not only an oven (probably a necessity), but also a toaster oven and a microwave. We have three telephones in this house, not counting hubby’s cell. I could go on (of course), but I think I’ve made a point.
Surely to people who are scrambling to get enough to eat or to have a warm place to sleep, this seems like wasteful opulence.
It all fine and good to say that first-generation rich people got that way because they worked their asses off. There is a large amount of truth to that. But for everyone of these, there are probably far more people who work their asses off everyday, and are still not terribly rich. There has to be more to success than a willingness to work hard. My guesses would be any or all of…
- luck
- innate skill
- good judgment and instincts
- ruthlessness
- stinginess
My experience of very wealthy people (not exactly vast) point largely to luck, ruthlessness, and stinginess.
And what if there are no other jobs? What if the employers have figured out that if they all pay peanuts, then the workers will have nowhere else to go, and they can happily screw them over as much as they like?
Your logic is overly simplistic, and I think you know it.
What ancients? The ancient Egyptians? The Romans? The aristocacy of Europe? The Rockafellers? You’re talking out of your ass.
You are the one being simplistic. There is not some monolithic class of business owners who arbitrarily set wages. Wages are set by a complex interaction of market conditions and availability of resources.
Quite frankly, people’s lack of knowledge regarding business and economics is quite frightening. It’s not like people are poor or middle class because the wealthy take all the money out of the system. Money is not the same thing as wealth.
Define “wealthy”. In fact, please give some cites to these stats.
Here’s an interesting link regarding wealth and income distribution.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
Interestingly, income distribution is much more equal than wealth distribution.
Working hard will not get you rich. You need to work hard at the right things. You need to make the right decisions. One of the guys at my firm refuses to sign up for the 401k plan because he would rather have money now. And our firm is basically nothing but accountants, lawyers and consultants. That is why people in the wealthiest country in the world aren’t rich. They are too busy spending their high income on crap in order to maintain the illusion of wealth than building actual wealth.
Sorry, but statistics prove that the majority of the wealthy DO come from the middle or lower classes. Most of America’s millionaires are first generation rich.
Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
More than half never received as much as one dollar in inheritence.
Fewer than 25 percent ever received an “act of kindness” of $10,000 or more.
Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift as much as one dollar of the ownership of a family business.
Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
And what about those people who can’ find jobs, who find only employers that will pay them peanuts? Well the ones who are driven, work hard, take risks and take advantage of “lucky breaks”, will see this as an opportunity and will find a way to provide a product or service that is needed and then they will begin to ascend.
I don’t see these as fictional Horatio Alger stories. If you read any history of American businesses, the majority were begun by a person of average or below average income level. They had an idea, worked hard and stuck with it. And it is my belief that America benefitted greatly from these pioneers. You can find a few examples of stinginess or ruthfulness, but you will find many more examples of talent, good instincts, and desire to improve their situations.
Just a quick note to point out that there is an often overlooked difference between Gates and Microsoft. Gates is actually a very intelligent man, with a well balanced outlook on life. The often controversial business practices of Microsoft are an emergent behaviour of a very successful company, functioning the way all companies should - to make money. When Microsoft unfairly limits competition, this is not because Gates has a personal vendetta against smaller technology developers - it is because that is what increases Microsoft profit, making Gates an effective (former) CEO, not an evil man.
I saw the guy’s house while it was under construction (incidentally, I hear that Kenny G is his next-door neighbour) - it is a gross display of wealth and excess, but then, it is wealth that he earned. Back in the early 80’s, he actually did some work. Now, not so much, but while he lives off of royalties and dividends, who are we to say that this is greed?
Naw, no matter what you say about his morals, if the wealth was not honestly gained by the company, Gates didn’t earn the money.
Oh, another Horatio Alger story. That changes EVERY … wait a minute … it changes nothing. Just because one person has improved his lot in life doesn’t change the basic unfairness of capitalism.
Good on ya, anyway, for doing well.
Why not view the ‘Super Poor’ as ‘Super Lazy’, not ‘Super Downtrodden’? Why do we tolerate the ‘Super Poor’ in America?? Why don’t we write laws that if a person or family makes below a certain level of income for a fixed period of time that we deport their ass to Europe or something?
I’m sure the irony will be lost on some, but really…this anti-rich mantra is just getting old. Why do we ‘tolerate’ the ‘Super Wealth’? Well, from a practical perspective because they are the ones who drive our economy. Know all those jobs out there in America? Did you think they were there because they are your right to work? Figure that if all the ‘Super Wealthy’ were deprived of THEIR wealth they’d just stick around and keep providing you with work even if there was nothing in it for you? Ever read Atlas Shrugged? Or maybe you figured that the government would just pick up the slack in jobs if they all bolted?
In addition to the purely practical, this is America. Exactly what do you propose to do to MAKE people spend their wealth the way YOU want them too? Force them? Extract more taxes at the point of the federal gun until things are all equal? Exactly where will you stop? Once the ‘Super Wealthy’ no longer have 5 houses and 6 cars, then what? Go after the ‘Wealthy’ who have a million dollar house and an expensive car? Then what? Go after the ‘Upper Middle Class’ who have $500k house and an SUV? Where will it end? Who decides exactly what the ‘correct’ level of wealth is in America…and where the disparity between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ is correct? Or do we keep going until everyone is ‘equal’ in ‘wealth’? And if you ever achieve that…what do you think it will be like here in the US?
As to Evil Captors anti-wealthy rants…exactly what about Capitalism do you think of as the “unfairness of capitalism”. Could you be specific as to what you find unfair about Capitalism…and do you see no balance between unfairness to a few and the overall benifit to the many?
-XT
-XT
You think that gives people the right to dictate to certain others how many and what type of cars or homes to own???
I’m saying I don’t see why you get to draw the line. I own 3 homes, and 3 cars. Will you be stopping by to check and see if it’s allowable by your standards?
What’s not fair about capitalism to you? Is it that maybe one person is born with a highly functioning brain and into a good environment and becomes a financial success, while another is born with a low functioning brain in a crappy environment and is a financial failure not fair?
Is it not fair that that one person’s parents leave him their family fortune and another’s parents didn’t have a family fortune to leave him not fair?
Yeah, you’re right. Its not fair. Life’s not fair. What would make it more fair to you? I’m working real hard to be financially successful right now. If I make it, and I have plenty left over to leave to my kids, would it be fair if I left some of my wealth to your kids too? What do you propose?
Since Mr. Hyde took some personal jabs at me, I’ll explain that I’m actually quite happy with and grateful for my “lot in life”; as norinew quite accurately pointed out, just by being a typical American I’m living a luxurious life compared to most of the world. It’s interesting that people are inferring envy, because I think that envy of the wealthy is what we’re taught to do - the message is definitely out there that rich people are somehow superior. What if their money was just a result of their economic existence and meant nothing more?
In suburban Chicagoland I’m surrounded by people far more financially successful than my Hubby and I. During a typical day I see ostentatious displays of wealth all around, whether they be luxury SUVs, expensive clothes, or houses that could pass for apartment buildings. Obviously those aren’t the superwealthy in my OP (actually I was thinking mostly about Paris Hilton when I wrote that). They’re probably small business owners and franchisees.
I just wondered what kind of world it would be if acquiring stuff wasn’t quite so admirable, if money wasn’t such a benchmark (even Dr. Phil said this). What if, instead of buying a really big house, it was more important to pay one’s employees higher wages? What if, instead of elevating oneself from the pack, the point was to bring the pack up with you? What if people who had more money weren’t considered Superior (ok, not Greedy either), but just better money makers?
Obviously Cheesesteak is correct, there’s no telling what I’d do given the chance (although of course it would be fun to find out).
I’m also positive that Mr.Smith is absolutely correct about working smart at the right things - this fact is even more frightening, in my book. Myself, I seem to prefer the wrong ones.
Should any communists visit this thread I’m sure they’ll have something to say about THAT! But as things stand, your statement is pointless due to a lack of communism.
It’s not so much that there’s anything wrong with having multiple houses and cars. But if you’re living well and your employees are not, then what does that make you?