Analogies about small businesses like foot massages are utterly useless and irrelevant for discussing issues of large wealth. They lead to wrong inferences.
To become wealthy you have to be willing to pay people less then you charge others for their services.
That very statement means you are ok with fucking people over. And its OK.
You are totally clueless. Fvcking people over can only make you so much profit, and especially when you rely on people to run your business, would you trust people you fvck over every day with your precious business?
Go look at the top rich people and their businesses. Most of them rely on new product, services and ideas to get rich, that include new product/services/ideas by their employees. Even companies like Walmart, the one thing they really do well is their supply chain and logistics to bring products from all over the world to their stores all over the countries. You think Walton family came up with those ideas and run those system? no, they rely on their employees to do that. You think they are going screw those employees with those skills just to save a few dollar on salary?
Only idiots without a day in real business world think fvcking your employee over to save money is the way to get rick.
Analogies about small businesses like foot massages are utterly useless and irrelevant for discussing issues of large wealth. They lead to wrong inferences.
There's more to running the business than giving foot massages. Starting and operating the business requires not only taking risk but a much larger skill set than simply doing the massages. The owner makes a lot more money for having this ability and taking the risk. Is he working as hard per dollar as the person doing the massages? Probably not, but I don't think anyone claimed that pay is only a function of effort.
Good for them. Now if only the hard working middle class folks could quit moving backwards and join them in a "rising standard" future.
Wow. Do you think the waltons payed those people who did the logistics work the total profit from that work? No they didnt.
You arent understanding me. To run a successful business you MUST pay your employees less then they are worth OR you would make NO profits. How is this hard to understand?
Not being a smartass, but it's intro to microeconomics stuff. You are in essence totally dismissing the value of entrepreneurial talent.
No. I'm not. I'm just saying person x must pay person y less then they are worth to profit from their labor. I do it myself and I'm not against it.
I'm going to assume you just skipped my explanation of why I feel you are in error there. That's ok, I tried. I don't make many serious posts in P&N, but I do have a BS in economics and my MBA focus was in managerial economics, so I thought I'd try to be helpful. Carry on, chicken fucker! :biggrin:
Marxism and socialism are excuses for those who aren't willing to use their brains. Marx barely worked his whole life, and he made a living off the profits of capitalism.
I understand what you are saying. I hired a kid to help me cut backgrounds who never did it before. Obviously he couldn't of done it without my guidance. There is a difference between that and making 150 billion in a year.
No. I'm not. I'm just saying person x must pay person y less then they are worth to profit from their labor. I do it myself and I'm not against it.
If making a product costs 5 dollars, getting you to package it and ship it costs 3 dollars and i sell the product for 10 dollars. Wahh that the worker didn't get the 2 dollars in profit, that's my margin for putting forth the business for the worker to even have a job. You're such a moron JSt0rm. So sad so many idiots like you live around here.
Show me where I disagree with how this works?
Thats right I didn't. In fact I said it was ok. I'm not against business owners making profit from others labor. Again you guys aren't reading what I'm saying.
No we read what you're saying alright. You said business owner make profit from others labor like business owner doesn't create any value.
I argue that's absolutely wrong. Take Apple for example, each employee's skill and knowledge has very limited value. The company put all that together and created more value.
It's not 1+1=2 and company take 10% out of that 2. It's 1+1=10 and Apple and their employee share the 8 created.
You argue business creates no value and just take a share out of other labor. But in fact business adds lots of value by putting things together, provide capital....etc.
He was using this information to back up his claim that this disproves that only the rich get rich. Clearly he has access to this kind of information (socioeconomic) to make such a claim and I was asking him for it.
And there is nothing wrong with giving your offspring the best chances at life. I know how much it must suck for all these rich people to be rich and i would never fault them for making sure that every generation after them stays rich. However as a nation its best to not have huge monolithic dynasties. Every third world country on this planet has huge monolithic wealth at the top and 99% poor people. Everything is pointing to us going down this same road.
First, there is mobility within 'the richest 400'. There's not a lot of mobility within the class they're in, though. #5 might go to #80 and #1600, he's not likely headed to the 60th percentile - or vice versa. That's illusory 'mobility'. The US has the worst concentration of wealth among advanced countries and our worst since before the great depression. It doesn't matter if the top 5,000 rotate in and out of the top 400, the fact that so much is in so few hands greatly harms opportunity in society.
I've called you the biggest apologist in the forum and you do so again here, for the harm of the greatest issue our nation faces, the excessive wealth concentration.
If I have a business that gives foot massages I would pay you less then the value of the foot massage you are giving to make money from your work.
If you work you are being squeezed by your boss. This is really simple shit.
There really isnt anything wrong with this. But to say rich people are somehow altruistic and made all there money from the sweat of their brow is a little dishonest. Yes they probably had to work very hard but the real money comes from having others work for you for less then their value so you can multiply your profits.
How can you make such idiotic statements when clearly the large majority of the rich are self made, and that such "monolithic dynasties" are the minority and on the decline?
Who ever claimed the uber rich did it on their own? Often someone might have an idea about something, and start a company to produce it. He knows he's not a mechanical engineer, a robotic engineer, a software engineer, etc, so, duh, he hires someone to create his dream. But its still his dream, and more often than not these people who help create the large companies we know today (i.e. Microsoft) were compensated VERY WELL for their effort.
[/I]
Yes, it is.