New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?

You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things. When you reach that point, you have a choice - be a glutton or a team player.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

It is much easier to choose government regulations to get a raise than it is for unions but by choosing government, you are hurting unions by giving the unions less power since you are less dependent on them. Then you end up becoming too dependent on government regulations and you become a statistic and at the mercy of people that truly do not represent you.

If you choose unions, you are only helping the people that work at your company or are members of your union while people that can not get into unions are screwed. It is also much harder and take longer to get a raise in a union so the amount of work is against you in a union.

I would much rather choose unions because I believe in giving people power instead of the government but unions are very weak in the United States and sometimes you have to go to government to get change even if it will hurt the unions.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Cicero, it seems to me like your posts are 10% motivated by your encounter with the monday morning guy, and 90% motivated by recent, serious upheavals in your life. I certainly don't want to poo-poo any crises you're having, but it sounds like we should be talking this over in the health forum or whichever is most appropriate. There's waaaay more personal undercurrent then political opinion showing itself in your writing.

What do we need to talk about in the health forum exactly? My motivations? Is class warfare not political?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

....See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.
....

Only if the top keeps moving up. If they decide they have enough, what happens? In the mean time, the economy will be very healthy with all those cars (or widgets) the bottom-rung employees will be buying.

[lookout123]

You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things. When you reach that point, you have a choice - be a glutton or a team player.

have you ever actually met a wealthy individual? i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood. I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy. in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet. what defines a glutton? someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?

Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

have you ever actually met a wealthy individual? i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood. I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy. in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet. what defines a glutton? someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?

Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?

Have I villified anyone?

[lookout123]

If they decide they have enough, what happens?

define "enough".

Have I villified anyone?

well, the scorn you heap upon those with more than you feel is "enough" seems to mark them as black moustachioed villains in your mind. but if i remove the word "villainous" from it, can you answer the question?

[DanaC]

Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall? Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?

Neither, surely. They aren't poor (righteous or otherwise) but nor are they the owners of vast wealth and power. The people I personally would wish to see paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, are those whose income levels match those of a small town or city.

[lookout123]

ok, put a number to it. don't be vague.

(i'll leave the question of why they should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than you do for another thread)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...

Yes, I know that some unions have abused their power, and discriminated against minorities. But there are laws governing unions too. Anyone mistreated can sue and/or go to the government and file a complaint, against the union as well as the company. The union and the government are the same, in that the people make it as good or bad as they want it to be.

[DanaC]

That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...

I'd go along with that to an extent. But there are also times, I think, when Unions and Government are in an adversarial relationship. Also, much of that legislation is arrived at by government in part because of pressure from the more powerful unions. At least that has usually been the case in the UK. It's tended to be the Unions who've agitated most strongly for minimum wage and employment rights.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That doesn't change the fact that; Yes, they have changed the system, because they started to realize they had really fucked up in the past.

Yes true. The system gave too much money away to people who used the system to do nothing. A learned helplessness?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You know what it is, why should I have to tell you? Do you want me to tell what nice is? Ethical? Everybody knows these things.

But that's just it. I guaran-fucking-tee you I could find thousands of people just in my city alone who would point to you and call you rich, gluttonous, and selfish with the ridiculous amount of wealth you have. Everybody does not agree on these things.

It's funny that so many want to cripple those who run and give 95% to the charities they state they like and want around so much.
If they get their way NONE of these charities will exist.

[lookout123]

what does that mean?