Is it just me or does it seem like the Middle Class is Dying?

[BlancoNino]

Waggy, as for number 1, I was referring to hobbies that were expensive and could lead to more damaging things...such as getting drunk and getting somebody pregnant or in trouble with the law or something like that. And as for number 2, I meant don't have kids if you are lower-class and can't support them on your own income. If you can barely get by and still want kids, by all means have them...I wasn't referring to middle class folks.

Of course this isn't a list to end all poverty as we know it...but something I see a lot of people not following and winding up hurting themselves and driving them further away from becoming "middle class".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Amused
While those are socialist programs I fail to see how any of them "allow the rich to stay at that level." I can see how they may hinder becoming rich, but since newly wealthy people spring up every day in this country, his post still makes no sense.

Why don't you rewind and look 60 years ago. Our country has leaned way more toward socialism and nannyism today than 60 years ago, and we have a much smaller middle class by some people's definition.

Socialism makes it harder to move up, while protecting those who are already at the top.

E.G. -- If a government passes a business regulation, it makes it that much harder to START a business and CAN lead to a business that is barely getting by to go out of business. This big businesses can deal with the laws or hire expensive lawyers to find ways around them, and with the small businesses out of the way and with the entry barriers to starting a business being tougher, there will be less competition.

And, what better way is there to create a demand for higher wages, than to create a demand for skilled workers with competitive companies?

The upper class has increased in those years, thus destroying your argument.

However, I will agree that the move towards a nanny socialist state is extremely harmful to business. But I think it's just as harmful to large businesses as it is to small ones.

I still believe socialist policies allow the Rich to stay rich and the poor stay poor. These laws create barriers to entry to NEW entrepreneurs who will become the future "rich." In a socialist society, the rich stay rich because once already there, it is hard to "lose" wealth short of a facist takeaway and the poor stay poor because of the barriers to entry for creating wealth (whether created themselves or new opportunities created by investment by the rich).

Well, I started with nothing and own my own very successful business. I know many others like me.

Sorry, but while I thing nanny-statism makes it a bit more difficult, it is FAR from impossible.

Millions of people cross class lines every year in the US. The classes are not static.

 

[JImmyK]

Originally posted by: Darkstar757
Also in DC many areas are going thru huge amounts of Gentrification. Middle Class housing complexes are being converted into 7 and 8 hundred thousand dollar condos. Right now DC is desperate need of Firemen and they cant hire them because on their salaries they cant afford HOUSING@!

I hope this doesnt come across as rude, but DUH the developers came in and purchased all these homes for a price way above market value. You make it sound like some big bad guy came in took over and is making high priced condos.

The original tenants wanted the money thats why they sold to the developers, it was no secret what they were doing, it was just greed by the original home owners and now they are upset because they cant afford to live in the condos, that is just stupid to blame the developer. Talk about being hypocritical.

I have worked as a contractor on some of those sites, and I think its a great change for the city, bring in more money and thus more jobs...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

i disagree. i think there is a msall amount of luck needed.

but yes ambition and willing to take risk is higher.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

i disagree. i think there is a msall amount of luck needed.

but yes ambition and willing to take risk is higher.

I agree that luck does indeed play a part. It isn't the kind of luck that wins you the lottery but the kind of luck that puts you in the right place at the right time for whatever venture you've come up with. Part of that is reading the tea leaves to make sure that it is the right time and place for whatever it is that you are doing.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the average american worker makes 100x more than most people in the world.. does that sound right to you? Its all relative.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the average american worker makes 100x more than most people in the world.. does that sound right to you? Its all relative.

I believe he was adressing the extreme increase in salary of management vs the mild increase for most employees, not the disparity between the USA and third world countries. Your post does not adress his.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the average american worker makes 100x more than most people in the world.. does that sound right to you? Its all relative.

Well trying to compare apples to apples, look at the pay of the CEOs for Toyota, Honda, Nissan and compare them with GM, Ford, DCX, heck, even compare them to tier one suppliers that haven't made a profit since the turn of the century.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Squisher

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

lets be clear that when we say 'CEO' we're really talking about probably the top 50 of the fortune 500.

the difference is that in germany, japan, and england, the government allows shareholders more say in CEO pay. here in the US, delaware law allows the CEO to stack the board with his friends, who will do whatever he says (including paying him a lot) because they like their cushy board jobs that pay well and only require a little bit of work every few months.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the average american worker makes 100x more than most people in the world.. does that sound right to you? Its all relative.

Well trying to compare apples to apples, look at the pay of the CEOs for Toyota, Honda, Nissan and compare them with GM, Ford, DCX, heck, even compare them to tier one suppliers that haven't made a profit since the turn of the century.

yea, but you are only comparing one company versus another when you should be comparing CEOs as a group. Just because the CEO for Toyota, Honda, Nissan are making less (i'm assuming.. I'm not sure), that does not mean that its completely applicable to the US situation.

The US economy and the Japanese economy are different. Its anyones guess what will happen if the CEOs of American companies were paid the same as japanese CEO's. It could be that as a group, if the american CEOs were paid less, the American economy could be worse. The only thing we know for sure is that as a group, the american CEOs are doing a better job then Japanese with respect to the economy and has the higher GDP (if not one of the highest in the world?). Is this due to the higher wages? Maybe.. maybe not... but as a whole, the US economy is better because of these higher paid CEOs so why rock the boat?

As to the statement: "suppliers that haven't made a profit "... IMHO, in large systems.. there will be always inefficiencies... as a smaller company becames bigger, inefficiencies are introduced (beaucracies, communication overhead, etc).. This is like the "system of higher paid CEO's" ... while there are inefficiences (for instance, when CEO's are ACTUALLY paid more than what their worth.. when some higher paid CEOs don't make the right business decisions, etc), it evens itself out. The "system" of higher paid CEO, are more effective as a whole. For instance, a large company maybe harder to do a 180, however, a large company has the benefits of economy of scale... A system of higher paid CEOs also has a benefit of scale which may not be clearly observable...

 

[vi edit]

Average CEO pay for a Fortune 500 company was just under $11,000,000 a year + stock options which I don't count since it a fluctuating compensation directly related to the performance of the company. (link: http://www.woopidoo.com/reviews/news/ceo-salary-2006.htm))

There are only 500 positions available.

Yet we have basketball players that average almost 4 million dollars a year(about 450 players), baseball players that average 2.5 million a year(about a 1000 players), hockey players that average 1.8 million a year (about 750 players), and football players that average 1.3 million a year(over 1500 players).

Then you have your other entertainment professions that include actors and muscians that have equal, if not higher earnings per year. I have no idea on the numbers.

Which one seems a little harder to achieve now? You are talking about a very, very small number of highly paid and incredibly competitive positions.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Average CEO pay for a Fortune 500 company was just under $11,000,000 a year + stock options which I don't count since it a fluctuating compensation directly related to the performance of the company. (link: http://www.woopidoo.com/reviews/news/ceo-salary-2006.htm))

There are only 500 positions available.

Yet we have basketball players that average almost 4 million dollars a year(about 450 players), baseball players that average 2.5 million a year(about a 1000 players), hockey players that average 1.8 million a year (about 750 players), and football players that average 1.3 million a year(over 1500 players).

Then you have your other entertainment professions that include actors and muscians that have equal, if not higher earnings per year. I have no idea on the numbers.

Which one seems a little harder to achieve now? You are talking about a very, very small number of highly paid and incredibly competitive positions.

yeap.

while i am envoius of the pay. i understand to a point how much work and stress they are under. while i want the pay i don't want the job heheh

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

Even though I'm a union worker you won't find many any more capitalistic than I.

That being said, there is definite shift in this country toward dissolution of the middle class and stratifying of people into rich and poor. Why that is, I can't say, but I don't think the rich are taking any more risks then they have done traditionally so I don't think that is a cause. A possible cause might be the dying manufacturing base.

I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the average american worker makes 100x more than most people in the world.. does that sound right to you? Its all relative.

I believe he was adressing the extreme increase in salary of management vs the mild increase for most employees, not the disparity between the USA and third world countries. Your post does not adress his.

I am addressing the fact that money is all relative. I'm not addressing increases since increases matter little. For instance, if you were paid 5K for being a US software developer, but got a raise to 25K... its over a 500% increase in salary.. however, if the market rate for developers were 65-85K... the increase matters very little. Its about worth.

It is also not appropriate to compare raises between different type of workers.. CEO's are not your average employees... Just because the average worker gets a 5% raise, this does not mean CEO's should automatically get a 5% raise.. it should depend on his performance...

Comparing wages from other countries. I did this to show how relative things are. For instance, a rice farmer in a 3rd world country could be making 2k a year.. that is how much he is worth in that country... to say that he should be making more just because people in the States is make more is erroneous.. it is like saying average workers should be paid more because CEOs make more (or because surgeons make more.. or because politicans make more, etc)... it just doesn't make sense...

 

[TheSlamma]

While the rich are doing their fair share of bad practices like employing labor that would be illegal in the US and by faking numbers the middle class also have a huge lack of accountability too.

Credit card debt in the middle class is insane and the excuses for that debt get worse and worse every year. While the elephant is right here one big EXCUSE is called Christmas, this holiday gives people way too much reason to drive up their debt and claim it's for a good reason. Well folks it's not a good reason and most of them are not.

Also my fellow middle class, just because you get a 30 year loan on your house doesn't mean you should pay on it for 30 years, there is this thing called a principal payment. You make them till you tear that mortgage to shreads.

And if you are as sick of the cutthroat CEO's as I am then don't buy from them. I have not stepped foot in a Walmart in over 10 years. I also have a doctor that prefers natural healing first then if NEEDED does a prescription, don't go to your doc because Pfizer tells you to every night on every set of commercials.

The irresponsibility is on both sides and a big cure is self-control.

 

[vi edit]

Addressing the "shift" that people are bringing up. Manufacturing isn't dead, but it certainly isn't booming. We have shifted to a service based industry.

Just like predators that have to follow the prey in wild, we have to follow the money as individuals. If you sit on your hands waiting for opportunities, they'll go numb.

Get up, figure out where the money is, and go to it. Right now health care is begging for bodies to fill the payroll. That is your path of least resistance. Is it glamerous? No. Is it easy? No. Will it pay the bills? Absolutely. Hell, many hospitals will even pay to put you through school they are so deperate for nursing and ancillary service people (resp & rad techs).

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Hell, many hospitals will even pay to put you through school they are so deperate for nursing and ancillary service people (resp & rad techs).

To back it up this is exactly what my step brother does for university hospitol. Good thing too cause his 4 kids keep him way too broke for student loans.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Squisher
I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the CEO for the company i work for doesnt make nearly what the CEO for any gas station company or marketing company makes. We are a small electrical contracting company that makes pretty good cash yearly. its all in the focus of your profit scales i guess. if your company makes 400 billion a year, the stress of keeping that machine running could warrant that CEO making 40 mil a year. on the same scale, a company that makes 5 million a year owuldnt pay their CEO more than a couple hundred thou a year, it just wouldnt make much sense, would it?

my point is, that reference to making 40 times what they made in 1970 is in that scale also. was that company making the same amount then as now? and other countries have different economies, so that tosses a whole different loop on the formula. there is no way to make high end salaries lower, if the company agrees to pay that huge ass salary, they obviously think its justified based on their earnings that person is creating for the company as a whole. and part of that maximizing profits is getting labor for as cheap as you can, which perpetuates the whole poor side issue.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Also my fellow middle class, just because you get a 30 year loan on your house doesn't mean you should pay on it for 30 years, there is this thing called a principal payment. You make them till you tear that mortgage to shreads.

depends on what your interest rate is on the mortgage and what the rate-risk you can get putting the money elsewhere (along with consideration of the interest deduction). also consider your need for liquidity... once that money is in the house, at the very least you have to take out a second mortgage on it to get the money back out.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Darkstar757
I know this is a rant. But as of late I swear I see the divide between the rich and the poor is huge. I am so sick of seeing reports of CEO's getting a Christmas bonus of 53million. I work hard all year round and the goverenment is taxing the fscking crap out of me. The rich just setup companies and play the crooked good ole boy game. I just feel like the American concept of the Middle Class is dying at a crazy pace.


Im soooo pissed.

:|

then work had to become one of those CEOs. Make your own business. Do something other than bitch about the success of others.

I look at it this way, there can only be one CEO of a company so why reward them if they do their job right. It is ultimately the stockholders who they answer to.

The middle class only dies when the government removes their need to strive for a better life. Far from the rich killing the middle class it is the government which will be its undoing

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Amused
While those are socialist programs I fail to see how any of them "allow the rich to stay at that level." I can see how they may hinder becoming rich, but since newly wealthy people spring up every day in this country, his post still makes no sense.

Why don't you rewind and look 60 years ago. Our country has leaned way more toward socialism and nannyism today than 60 years ago, and we have a much smaller middle class by some people's definition.

Socialism makes it harder to move up, while protecting those who are already at the top.

E.G. -- If a government passes a business regulation, it makes it that much harder to START a business and CAN lead to a business that is barely getting by to go out of business. This big businesses can deal with the laws or hire expensive lawyers to find ways around them, and with the small businesses out of the way and with the entry barriers to starting a business being tougher, there will be less competition.

And, what better way is there to create a demand for higher wages, than to create a demand for skilled workers with competitive companies?

The upper class has increased in those years, thus destroying your argument.

However, I will agree that the move towards a nanny socialist state is extremely harmful to business. But I think it's just as harmful to large businesses as it is to small ones.

I still believe socialist policies allow the Rich to stay rich and the poor stay poor. These laws create barriers to entry to NEW entrepreneurs who will become the future "rich." In a socialist society, the rich stay rich because once already there, it is hard to "lose" wealth short of a facist takeaway and the poor stay poor because of the barriers to entry for creating wealth (whether created themselves or new opportunities created by investment by the rich).

Well, I started with nothing and own my own very successful business. I know many others like me.

Sorry, but while I thing nanny-statism makes it a bit more difficult, it is FAR from impossible.

Millions of people cross class lines every year in the US. The classes are not static.

I agree with you. I think we may be debating about different things. Or maybe we're not debating at all.

I guess what I was saying is that in places like Europe where there is socialist rule, there are extreme barriers to entry for entrepreneurship because of the anti-business laws there which keep down the poor and more or less kill the middle class.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
As has already been established, simply working hard is not enough. A ditch digger works harder than you, yet earns less money. If you want to make more, you have to take risks, be ambitious, and find your talents. Hard work is only a part of it.

yes hard work is part of it.

everyone has the chance to a success. not everyone has the ability. Its a combination of hard work, intelligence, ability and luck.

"Luck" is a myth. A myth that holds people back.

The successful are not lucky. They fail just like everyone else. Only they do not allow their failures to hold them back from trying to succeed.

Ability has some part in it, but the key is finding your ability and talent.

Ambition and the willingness to take the risk of not having paycheck security are the two biggest, I would say.

i disagree. i think there is a msall amount of luck needed.

but yes ambition and willing to take risk is higher.

In the long run, you create your own luck.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
While the rich are doing their fair share of bad practices like employing labor that would be illegal in the US and by faking numbers the middle class also have a huge lack of accountability too.

Credit card debt in the middle class is insane and the excuses for that debt get worse and worse every year. While the elephant is right here one big EXCUSE is called Christmas, this holiday gives people way too much reason to drive up their debt and claim it's for a good reason. Well folks it's not a good reason and most of them are not.

Also my fellow middle class, just because you get a 30 year loan on your house doesn't mean you should pay on it for 30 years, there is this thing called a principal payment. You make them till you tear that mortgage to shreads.

And if you are as sick of the cutthroat CEO's as I am then don't buy from them. I have not stepped foot in a Walmart in over 10 years. I also have a doctor that prefers natural healing first then if NEEDED does a prescription, don't go to your doc because Pfizer tells you to every night on every set of commercials.

The irresponsibility is on both sides and a big cure is self-control.

There is this thing called Finance and time value of money. A 30 year loan at 5-6% fixed is cheap and technically you should never pay that off (unless r drops below that).

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Squisher
I am not a CEO, I doubt I have the ambition to be a CEO, but when a CEO today makes 40 times the pay of a CEO in 1970, something isn't right. When a CEO makes 40 times the pay as CEO's in other countries doing the same work, something just doesn't jibe.

The solution evades me.

the CEO for the company i work for doesnt make nearly what the CEO for any gas station company or marketing company makes. We are a small electrical contracting company that makes pretty good cash yearly. its all in the focus of your profit scales i guess. if your company makes 400 billion a year, the stress of keeping that machine running could warrant that CEO making 40 mil a year. on the same scale, a company that makes 5 million a year owuldnt pay their CEO more than a couple hundred thou a year, it just wouldnt make much sense, would it?

my point is, that reference to making 40 times what they made in 1970 is in that scale also. was that company making the same amount then as now? and other countries have different economies, so that tosses a whole different loop on the formula. there is no way to make high end salaries lower, if the company agrees to pay that huge ass salary, they obviously think its justified based on their earnings that person is creating for the company as a whole. and part of that maximizing profits is getting labor for as cheap as you can, which perpetuates the whole poor side issue.

In 1970 the US auto industry was god, they made money like they owned the golden goose. Now they have lost their shirts for for as many years as I can remember, yet the CEOs are being compensated at a rate 40 times what they were paid back then when you consider inflation. When you consider the wage differential between what many of you would consider their over-paid workers and their pay, the ratio is even greater.

I don't want to take away upper management's pay through taxes, I don't want to impose tariffs to promote the manufacturing base, but something needs to done to even out the accumulation of wealth. I'm a big fan of the carrot, much less so of the stick.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and what is going to happen maybe 500 years from now when all the wealth is held by a very small minority and the rest live in mud huts? Let them eat cake? That is not the legacy I wish to leave.