Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 15:25:17 GMT -5
f the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not?
that is a separate question. and again, willingness to work for it is not part of the question. omitting that, is this a YES?
(In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year).
there are people in sweatshops that make about 2-3x that, as well. but unlike the self employed, they don't have any savings.
I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work.
actually, i think this answers the question better than your "if they are willing to work for it" BS, does. thanks
here is my followup question: if you know for a fact that this wage will result in them either resorting to crime or becoming welfare recipients just to survive, are you in any position to criticize that/those fact/s?
why are they working for peanuts? what happened? why didnt they get an education? learn a trade?
the only people earning minimum wage are non skilled workers, agreed?
so why are they non skilled?
did they squander opportunities? did they have none? were they drugged out kids that dropped out of high school.....so many stories, and so many excuses.....
so it depends....i want to know why....what the hell happened for them to end up in the situation where the wage i pay is not enough, and they have to resort to welfare and or crime.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 15:37:28 GMT -5
f the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not? that is a separate question. and again, willingness to work for it is not part of the question. omitting that, is this a YES? (In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year). there are people in sweatshops that make about 2-3x that, as well. but unlike the self employed, they don't have any savings. I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work. actually, i think this answers the question better than your "if they are willing to work for it" BS, does. thanks here is my followup question: if you know for a fact that this wage will result in them either resorting to crime or becoming welfare recipients just to survive, are you in any position to criticize that/those fact/s?
why are they working for peanuts? what happened? why didnt they get an education? learn a trade? these are third order questions that miss the basic point. but how about these for answers: they are mentally retarded, or physically impaired. they were raised in a horrific, abusive environment and never learned basic skills. they live in a rural area that doesn't have trade schools. there are a THOUSAND reasons why this could happen.the only people earning minimum wage are non skilled workers, agreed? no, the question assumed that there was no minimum wage- and that pay could go "as low as the market would bear".so why are they non skilled? ok, this is getting old. you already asked that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 16:03:41 GMT -5
f the employer can find someone willing to work for that, why not? that is a separate question. and again, willingness to work for it is not part of the question. omitting that, is this a YES? (In fact, there are self-employed people who make about that or less each year). there are people in sweatshops that make about 2-3x that, as well. but unlike the self employed, they don't have any savings. I've worked with a few people that were worth about that much for their work. actually, i think this answers the question better than your "if they are willing to work for it" BS, does. thanks here is my followup question: if you know for a fact that this wage will result in them either resorting to crime or becoming welfare recipients just to survive, are you in any position to criticize that/those fact/s?
why are they working for peanuts? what happened? why didnt they get an education? learn a trade? these are third order questions that miss the basic point. but how about these for answers: they are mentally retarded, or physically impaired. they were raised in a horrific, abusive environment and never learned basic skills. they live in a rural area that doesn't have trade schools. there are a THOUSAND reasons why this could happen.
mentally retarded will always be a state issue... physically impaired can and do work....depending on their exact physical limitations.....may be state issue, may not be rural area without trade schools...they still had a chance at public education and there are schools they can go to to learn a skill once they graduate horribly abusive environment....so bad parents or upbringing.....these are toughest for me....i have seen some get through but it is tough....i would be more lenient with these yes...there are thousands of reasons.....but a lot of them are excuses not reasons..... the only people earning minimum wage are non skilled workers, agreed? no, the question assumed that there was no minimum wage- and that pay could go "as low as the market would bear".
i dont play pretend...there is a minimum wage, and your specific question did not say to assume that position so why are they non skilled? ok, this is getting old. you already asked that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 18, 2013 16:49:08 GMT -5
Paul, i knew this thread would bug the shit out of you, because it openly contests your dogma. i was hoping that you might actually be able to loosen up enough to actually CONSIDER the conclusions of the study- but i have to admit, i had serious doubts. now, having established the fact that you are not interested in the conclusions and are merely trolling my thread, can you please piss off so the rest of us can enjoy the discussion? No, this topic bothers me because it openly contests reality with dogma- and too many people are buying into it. This is why you have the "Nicks" of this world excusing their kid who lives in their basement. Look, it's pretty straightforward- if liberals are right, the rich took it, they didn't earn it, the game is rigged like the Monopoly game in that 'study' then it's hopeless, you shouldn't try, and this is how the left justifies their view of the role of government.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 18, 2013 16:51:37 GMT -5
But the game is rigged for some people. Regardless of what I choose to do or not do, the opportunities I seize or pass by, nobody is going to hand me a $100M trust fund on my 25th birthday and say don't worry kiddo your mom and I have you covered. Life's not fair remember? That's like one of the first things we all teach our kids once they have the pooping in the crapper and dressing themselves thing down.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 18, 2013 17:00:07 GMT -5
Two things- the opportunity is better because there's a guarantee, no downside. Second, if I did offer the "same" opportunity that would mean the "possibility" of making more than $2.00 an hour, making $2.00 an hour, making LESS than $2.00 an hour, or coming out of pocket $30,000 and getting paid nothing. See, everyone is interested in the UPSIDE potential of a deal, but when I put it like this...
You're right, it is pretty simple, isn't it. I have a business plan (actually, I have about 100 of them) in my drawer to start a restaurant where everyone is a partner. I estimated 30 to 50 equal shares with NO guaranteed anything for anyone.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 18, 2013 17:00:44 GMT -5
But the game is rigged for some people. Regardless of what I choose to do or not do, the opportunities I seize or pass by, nobody is going to hand me a $100M trust fund on my 25th birthday and say don't worry kiddo your mom and I have you covered. Life's not fair remember? That's like one of the first things we all teach our kids once they have the pooping in the crapper and dressing themselves thing down. But there's nothing stopping you from leaving your kids a $100M trust fund on their 25th birthday.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 17:52:58 GMT -5
Paul, i knew this thread would bug the shit out of you, because it openly contests your dogma. i was hoping that you might actually be able to loosen up enough to actually CONSIDER the conclusions of the study- but i have to admit, i had serious doubts. now, having established the fact that you are not interested in the conclusions and are merely trolling my thread, can you please piss off so the rest of us can enjoy the discussion? No, this topic bothers me because it openly contests reality with dogma- and too many people are buying into it. agreed. stop it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 17:56:34 GMT -5
Look, it's pretty straightforward- if liberals are right, the rich took it, they didn't earn it, wha....? how did you get THAT out of the study.
no, Paul, what the study says is that the rich feel that the earned it WHETHER THEY DID OR NOT. that certainly implies that some (most?) earn it. but there is another side to it: that they think the poor are a bunch of theiving weasils, and that is pretty clearly not borne out in the study. i find it fascinating that you are getting so defensive here. what the study suggests is that you stop being so OFFENSIVE. the game is rigged like the Monopoly game in that 'study' then it's hopeless, you shouldn't try, and this is how the left justifies their view of the role of government. you are drawing a false conclusion from a false premise, imo. but i will have others comment. i suspect a few high fives, given the general tenor of this debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 17:58:02 GMT -5
But the game is rigged for some people. . and the point is: how do those who have the game rigged, like Romney, see themselves? and by a wide margin, they see themselves as saints, and the poor as a bunch of feckless scumwashers. how the rich cannot even take ONE deep breath and think "maybe i should lighten up a bit" is puzzling to me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 18, 2013 19:29:55 GMT -5
We do have to look at the methodology of the study before accepting it's conclusions--even probabilistic ones--as gospel.
Some of the conclusions struck me as suspect. For example, the claim that the "rich" monopoly players were far more likely to munch on pretzels. It appears the experimental setup always had the "rich" player and "poor" player sitting in the same configuration, with the bowl always in the same place relative to them and the game board. One doesn't have to tax the mind to imagine that the accessibility of the bowl relative to right-handed and left-handed players, the money supply, etc. could affect the likelihood of eating them.
In the same vein we can't blindly conclude that the "rich" players ate more pretzels out of a sense of entitlement. The rich players could just as easily have snarfed pretzels because they were nervous. I know that I certainly wouldn't want to lose a Monopoly game when I knew I had a pronounced advantage over my competitor. Losing would make me look like an idiot.
The biggest liability would be the assessment tools they used to determine "sense of entitlement". If you asked me at the end of a monopoly game where I was given a blatant advantage all throughout:
1) Did you expect to win the game? Yes, absolutely, since a chimp probably could have won it in my position.
2) How much did your skill contribute to winning the game? Very little, given it was rigged. But that shouldn't be an indictment of my skills.
3) Did you deserve to win the game? I have no idea, since I don't know if you're looking for the answer to 1) or to 2).
For the candy-from-a-baby experiments, we'd have to ensure it was a blind study so that the grad student instructing the participants didn't inadvertently foul up the experiment will all kinds of nonverbal cues. Not all experimenters are so cautious.
And these are just a few examples.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 20:24:37 GMT -5
We do have to look at the methodology of the study before accepting it's conclusions--even probabilistic ones--as gospel.. i am not taking it as gospel. i am taking it as fodder for discussion. heck, i don't even take gospel as gospel.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 20:26:27 GMT -5
1) Did you expect to win the game? Yes, absolutely, since a chimp probably could have won it in my position. that wasn't the question they asked, i believe. i think they asked "did you DESERVE to win the game". it is a subtly different question, and it is possible that some people did not understand that difference- but it is different. and the winners answered "yes", even though the game was pretty obviously rigged.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 18, 2013 21:26:31 GMT -5
That would be my guess too. But as I point out, why should people interpret that as 2) instead of 1)? After scratching my head, I would probably interpret it as 1).
I played fairly within the rules proscribed by the experiments; so did my opponent. I was able to increase my property supply more than my opponent's. By any measure of wealth that ignored the inherent bias in the game, I was the more successful player. There was a possibility (albeit not a great one) that my opponent could have prevailed. And all of this presumes that I'm aware of how marked my advantage is in the first place. I might have little monopoly experience and wrongly consider the ability to roll two dice, a bit of extra "Go" money, etc. to be a trivial advantage.
Likewise if I'm the poor player and I got my butt kicked by my opponent, the only circumstances where I'd claim I deserved to win is if I was convinced that my opponent had absolutely no clue what (s)he was doing and only won as a lucky fluke despite having a marked advantage.
Hence if the question was "Did you deserve to win?", then in my case (and who knows how many others), the question isn't measuring "sense of entitlement" in the sense of 2), which is mostly what's being argued in this thread.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 21:58:34 GMT -5
That would be my guess too. But as I point out, why should people interpret that as 2) instead of 1)? After scratching my head, I would probably interpret it as 1).. i don't think the monopoly example is all that great for that reason. and maybe, just maybe, all of the others are that weak, but it is not my impression. what i am hoping is that more research is done on this. i have little doubt that it will be. and we shall all see how much it means. for now, i will just describe it as interesting.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 0:59:36 GMT -5
That would be my guess too. But as I point out, why should people interpret that as 2) instead of 1)? After scratching my head, I would probably interpret it as 1).. i don't think the monopoly example is all that great for that reason. and maybe, just maybe, all of the others are that weak, but it is not my impression. what i am hoping is that more research is done on this. i have little doubt that it will be. and we shall all see how much it means. for now, i will just describe it as interesting. I completely agree, dj. I'm really looking for more research in this direction and have been fascinated by what I read. There are a lot of nuances involved. To really understand the Monopoly paradigm, one would have to understand Monopoly. Rolling one die rather than two dice is, most definitely, not a trivial difference. It's a virtual guarantee of a win. A bit off topic but, while I know running one's own business is beyond a full-time job, I sure hope you find the time (if you haven't already) to teach others who would like to do the same. Many could benefit from your outlook, your integrity, and your ability to utilize wide vision rather than narrow vision. I've known a few like you over the years and have always admired them. Their businesses didn't only pay them. Their businesses paid the community. Kudos to you!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 1:03:40 GMT -5
i don't think the monopoly example is all that great for that reason. and maybe, just maybe, all of the others are that weak, but it is not my impression. what i am hoping is that more research is done on this. i have little doubt that it will be. and we shall all see how much it means. for now, i will just describe it as interesting. I completely agree, dj. I'm really looking for more research in this direction and have been fascinated by what I read. There are a lot of nuances involved. To really understand the Monopoly paradigm, one would have to understand Monopoly. Rolling one die rather than two dice is, most definitely, not a trivial difference. It's a virtual guarantee of a win. A bit off topic but, while I know running one's own business is beyond a full-time job, I sure hope you find the time (if you haven't already) to teach others who would like to do the same. Many could benefit from your outlook, your integrity, and your ability to utilize wide vision rather than narrow vision. I've known a few like you over the years and have always admired them. Their businesses didn't only pay them. Their businesses paid the community. Kudos to you! thanks. i am too wrapped up in it now to do any outside work like that, but i have lots of retirement plans!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 1:06:48 GMT -5
1) Did you expect to win the game? Yes, absolutely, since a chimp probably could have won it in my position. that wasn't the question they asked, i believe. i think they asked "did you DESERVE to win the game". it is a subtly different question, and it is possible that some people did not understand that difference- but it is different. and the winners answered "yes", even though the game was pretty obviously rigged. I was discussing this with mother over dinner. We're very different, as personalities, and I was interested in her take on the subject. While I wouldn't hesitate to answer the question of "Did you deserve to win the game?" with a hearty laugh and a HELL, NO, she saw it differently. She figured both sides knew what they were into when the games began, so she would deserve to win even though she had a very unfair advantage. We finally came to the conclusion she'd agree to participate while I would probably refuse. I'm the type who wants to do it on my own. I wouldn't be interested in anything that was entered into with a foregone conclusion as to the results. It's just not my style. Even as a young person, if I sensed someone really wanted to win a game of cards, or something equally frivolous, I'd tune down my efforts. It was far more important to that other person than it was to me. I had to learn to compete when it was necessary to compete. It didn't come naturally. Fortunately, we've had this sort of conversation as long as I can remember, so we can each do it without judging the other.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 1:07:14 GMT -5
I completely agree, dj. I'm really looking for more research in this direction and have been fascinated by what I read. There are a lot of nuances involved. To really understand the Monopoly paradigm, one would have to understand Monopoly. Rolling one die rather than two dice is, most definitely, not a trivial difference. It's a virtual guarantee of a win. A bit off topic but, while I know running one's own business is beyond a full-time job, I sure hope you find the time (if you haven't already) to teach others who would like to do the same. Many could benefit from your outlook, your integrity, and your ability to utilize wide vision rather than narrow vision. I've known a few like you over the years and have always admired them. Their businesses didn't only pay them. Their businesses paid the community. Kudos to you! thanks. i am too wrapped up in it now to do any outside work like that, but i have lots of retirement plans! Good! That's exactly what I was hoping to hear!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 1:37:54 GMT -5
that wasn't the question they asked, i believe. i think they asked "did you DESERVE to win the game". it is a subtly different question, and it is possible that some people did not understand that difference- but it is different. and the winners answered "yes", even though the game was pretty obviously rigged. I was discussing this with mother over dinner. We're very different, as personalities, and I was interested in her take on the subject. While I wouldn't hesitate to answer the question of "Did you deserve to win the game?" with a hearty laugh and a HELL, NO, she saw it differently. She figured both sides knew what they were into when the games began, so she would deserve to win even though she had a very unfair advantage. We finally came to the conclusion she'd agree to participate while I would probably refuse. I'm the type who wants to do it on my own. I wouldn't be interested in anything that was entered into with a foregone conclusion as to the results. It's just not my style. Even as a young person, if I sensed someone really wanted to win a game of cards, or something equally frivolous, I'd tune down my efforts. It was far more important to that other person than it was to me. I had to learn to compete when it was necessary to compete. It didn't come naturally. Fortunately, we've had this sort of conversation as long as I can remember, so we can each do it without judging the other. the question of what you deserve is really open in a rigged game. who is to say you would NOT have won if it was not rigged? it is a super interesting experiment, as far as i am concerned. i know some people will just think the whole thing is stupid. but i really love the idea of questioning the meaning of "winning" in an economics environment- what the implications of that are, what the morality of it is, who it impacts, and how the whole of society benefits or is harmed by it. i think these are ALL really interesting questions, and ones that are pretty much ignored. we assume that winning is worth it no matter what the cost, and no matter how the deck is stacked, as a general rule- and i just don't think that is the case. moreover, i think that questioning this way of thinking may, in fact, be a very important survival tool for our race. or may be our undoing if we fail to do so......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 1:46:19 GMT -5
i will add one other thing that i think about constantly: all participants in an economic system can be seen BOTH as makers AND takers, imo. this goes for the lowest of the low, and the highest of the high. we are all placed in a continuum along that scale, and it is purely a matter of perspective. take this one for example: as far as i am concerned, management is overhead. that is how i put it on my financial statements. we are an expense. we don't contribute to production. we are a fixed cost that must be met by those that do. therefore, management is the takers, and wage earners are the makers. this view is pretty much the opposite of Romney's view- and the views of many like him. they see themselves as the makers of everything- sort of the pantheon of business Gods, without whom, heaven and earth would be simply atomized entropy. it is their bringing order to the universe that creates wealth, and without them, nothing productive ever happens. to a degree both he AND i are right. and to a degree we are both wrong. the truth is that business is symbiotic (Wolfe describes this as the virtuous cycle of management, labor, and consumer). we all need each other. so, it would be far better if we laid aside the argument of who is taking and realize that we are all in this together. i know. who am i fooling, right?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 3:53:29 GMT -5
*chuckle* Probably. And that's damned unfortunate! If we could but find it in ourselves to be just as joyful for the accomplishments and gains of others (without the need to judge how it came to be) as we are for our own, seems to me we'd have more joy - not less. There's joy in the making, and joy in the taking; however, it cannot be recognized until it's seen as a whole ... a circle ... a process.
Or, so it seems to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 7:56:12 GMT -5
i will add one other thing that i think about constantly: all participants in an economic system can be seen BOTH as makers AND takers, imo. this goes for the lowest of the low, and the highest of the high. we are all placed in a continuum along that scale, and it is purely a matter of perspective. take this one for example: as far as i am concerned, management is overhead. that is how i put it on my financial statements. we are an expense. we don't contribute to production. we are a fixed cost that must be met by those that do. therefore, management is the takers, and wage earners are the makers. this view is pretty much the opposite of Romney's view- and the views of many like him. they see themselves as the makers of everything- sort of the pantheon of business Gods, without whom, heaven and earth would be simply atomized entropy. it is their bringing order to the universe that creates wealth, and without them, nothing productive ever happens. to a degree both he AND i are right. and to a degree we are both wrong. the truth is that business is symbiotic (Wolfe describes this as the virtuous cycle of management, labor, and consumer). we all need each other. so, it would be far better if we laid aside the argument of who is taking and realize that we are all in this together. i know. who am i fooling, right? The fact that there are plenty out there that can be fooled is the reason that this argument exists. I don't expect human nature to be changing any time soon.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 19, 2013 8:07:46 GMT -5
From each according to ability, to each according to needs! If only there weren't so many poor slackers and the rich weren't so damn needy!
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jul 19, 2013 8:24:23 GMT -5
Right after the financial meltdown, bank bailouts, etc., I remember reading an article about how angry all the bankers were that they wouldn't be getting their bonuses.
They broke the global economy, and yet were pissed because they were entitled to that money - and the government put pay restrictions on the bailouts.
Nope, no entitlement problem here, folks. No need to restrict bonuses or institute ethics reforms. Nothing to see over here...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 8:50:45 GMT -5
that wasn't the question they asked, i believe. i think they asked "did you DESERVE to win the game". it is a subtly different question, and it is possible that some people did not understand that difference- but it is different. and the winners answered "yes", even though the game was pretty obviously rigged. I was discussing this with mother over dinner. We're very different, as personalities, and I was interested in her take on the subject. While I wouldn't hesitate to answer the question of "Did you deserve to win the game?" with a hearty laugh and a HELL, NO, she saw it differently. She figured both sides knew what they were into when the games began, so she would deserve to win even though she had a very unfair advantage. We finally came to the conclusion she'd agree to participate while I would probably refuse. I'm the type who wants to do it on my own. I wouldn't be interested in anything that was entered into with a foregone conclusion as to the results. It's just not my style. Even as a young person, if I sensed someone really wanted to win a game of cards, or something equally frivolous, I'd tune down my efforts. It was far more important to that other person than it was to me. I had to learn to compete when it was necessary to compete. It didn't come naturally. Fortunately, we've had this sort of conversation as long as I can remember, so we can each do it without judging the other. but this is one of the main differences i have found with the rich also....not the silver spoon types, but the ones that get there from the ground floor they are SUPER competitive....they like to win, and will skirt the edges of grey to get an advantage i have never seen any of them outright lie, cheat or steal....but they do go into the grey areas whether or not this is another quality that leads them out of poverty/the bottom and to the top, i dont know but trying to think if i have ever worked for someone successful who wasnt super competitive.....i dont think i have
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2013 8:58:03 GMT -5
I think a lot depends on what one defines as "successful". If it's only about money, you may be right, gdgyva. However, I've known people who lived very, very well who weren't overly competitive. They were driven more by a need to do what they said they'd do, and do it well. It wasn't about what other people did, for them. It was solely about what they did, and how they did it. They valued their promises to friends and family as highly as they valued their promises to themselves and business associates. Admittedly, none of these folks were in the category of Donald Trump. I don't know anyone who keeps company at that level, so couldn't opine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 9:09:12 GMT -5
i will add one other thing that i think about constantly: all participants in an economic system can be seen BOTH as makers AND takers, imo. this goes for the lowest of the low, and the highest of the high. we are all placed in a continuum along that scale, and it is purely a matter of perspective. take this one for example: as far as i am concerned, management is overhead. that is how i put it on my financial statements. we are an expense. we don't contribute to production. we are a fixed cost that must be met by those that do. therefore, management is the takers, and wage earners are the makers. this view is pretty much the opposite of Romney's view- and the views of many like him. they see themselves as the makers of everything- sort of the pantheon of business Gods, without whom, heaven and earth would be simply atomized entropy. it is their bringing order to the universe that creates wealth, and without them, nothing productive ever happens. to a degree both he AND i are right. and to a degree we are both wrong. the truth is that business is symbiotic (Wolfe describes this as the virtuous cycle of management, labor, and consumer). we all need each other. so, it would be far better if we laid aside the argument of who is taking and realize that we are all in this together. i know. who am i fooling, right? in some ways you are right, and in some ways you are wrong do managers actually "produce" as much as their employees....absolutely not..... but without management, do you have expansion? do you have those who know enough about when to risk capital, and when not to? do you have the knowledge to look at all the numbers, and make adjustments to pricing, costs, advertising, etc? do you have people who are willing to make tough decisions during tough economic times....laying off a few to save dozens or hundreds? management (both owners and upper) provide a service to the business at least as important as the "producers" i dont think they need to be placed up on a pedestal, and worshipped as the old roman gods but dont discount the role management plays in the success of most places
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Jul 19, 2013 9:37:40 GMT -5
We do need those that are able to make hard decisions that take a certain callousness or lack of empathy in society and as a species. We also need those who are selfless and have a great amount of empathy, I would hate to live in a society made up of only the former. Or if we had only selfless people a lot of hard decisions would never be made and we may not have survived this long.
So who is right or who is more important to success...neither IMO. Of course I do have my opinions on who I would rather spend my time with.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Jul 19, 2013 10:00:37 GMT -5
agree
|
|