|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
i look at as more of a tax equality issue. If most middle class workers are taxed at or near 15% on personal income. I would expect people making more personal income to pay the same percentage. You know to be fair. Nothing wrong for asking for a fair shake on how we are taxed on personal income is there? We all should be taxed at the same percentage rate on our personal income. And not allow for the top 1% earners to hide their earnings off shore to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.
Now that I can agree with. Everyone pays the same percentage. What a novel concept.
One of my favorite things that will likely never happen.... http://www.fairtax.org
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
That's not really true though. There are a lot of opportunities presented to just a few people. That's the way capitalism is built. That said, people need to take advantage of the capitalistic system until they want to change it.
I strongly disagree that opportunities are presented to a few people. To me it is more are people are willing to work for the opportunities presented. From what I see, no.
That is likely why we disagree on income jealousy (hey, I'm going to just start calling it what it is  ); you do not feel there are ample opportunities to move into higher income brackets, including the 1%.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
So now you're problem is that the rich don't have steady growth despite still being in a better place than everyone else by far? Also that really doesn't change what I said at all despite a few years where they have a sizeable drop they quickly recoup that money and come back stronger.
I'm pretty certain that is NOT what I said.........but, you can read into it whatever you want.
Here's the truth: Everyone wants more money. The rich, the poor - everyone wants more.
Earn it. I know a lawn mower/snow removal guy that lives in the nicest area in town. He didn't inherit money.
Opportunities are out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
Thats called "blaming"........and blaming gets you no where other than laying blame.
There is no reason for someone with a desire and work ethic to be poor. The problem isn't desire. The problem is work ethic. Set yourself apart from the crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
so, i already have a degree in business Admin.
as most of you know, i aim to become a one percenter. more realistically, maybe a 10? i dunno. anyway, i understand that wanted to earn a selfish amount of money is, well, selfish. but i don't care. money doesn't buy happiness, but i'd love to be sad and depressed in an Audi R8.
anyway. i have the GI bill i can use when i get out. since most of you guys have a lot more civilian experience than i do, my question is: should i pursue a MBA?
Dammit....I thought I was going to be able to get on some evil scheme...Instead you want me to "work" to become rich? Ewww.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Then please tell me what you said.
And opportunities are out there, but they're not all the same or as frequent. Bill Gates had a lot more opportunities than you and I. There's also a ton of people who didn't have the opportunities that you and I did. Do you see what I'm saying?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
Of course you could have. It would have been harder, no doubt, but there are plenty of examples of successes out of the inner city.
This is going to transition into another topic as the problems with inner city are a whole other issue. I will say if I had the same parents that cared immensely about me and I lived in the inner city, then yes, unequivocally I would have been just as successful.
My dad came from the inner city; went to a high school where he was 1 of a few white kids in the 1960's. I can only imagine how that difficult that was with the racial tensions as they were then. He was able to put himself through school (took him 9 years) and then also got an MBA in the early 80's. That can still be, and is, done today. I'm not saying it isn't more difficult, but most folks today want instant gratification, not waiting after years of hard work to get the payoff.
Again, I'm not saying it isn't easier coming from the suburbs. It was. The inner city needs community leaders to stand up and take charge of the multitude of problems that plague our youth there.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519 |
Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
I think that's really sad that you don't think you could achieve the same amount if you (the person) were born in a different area or situation. Honestly, you saying that says much more about you than it does our system, since there are plenty of examples of people making it despite their initial situation.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
I think that's really sad that you don't think you could achieve the same amount if you (the person) were born in a different area or situation. Honestly, you saying that says much more about you than it does our system, since there are plenty of examples of people making it despite their initial situation.
Unfortunately all too many people believe that which is one of the big reasons there is such a divide among so many Americans.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742 |
Quote:
That it is a real thing, and therefore why it is bad since I don't believe in it whatsoever. .... To me it should be called "I'm jealous that I don't make as much as someone else". There is plenty of opportunity to make a comfortable living IMO. In fact, there is plenty of opportunity to make an outstanding living. The income inequality is just a way to divide the people even further; the hatred of "rich" people in this country is just ridiculous.
Yes, there is opportunity for some. But not all. There aren't even enough jobs for everyone, let alone good jobs. So, we have to acknowledge there will be millions in this system that won't find regular income in the free market. It is a certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Oh, I know I couldn't. My success has been great, but it was really time sensitive and I had to be in the right place at the right time and have the right equipment to do what I do. All of that things would have been extremely hard to acquire if I was poor. I'm not sure what's crazy about this idea. I assume that you all believe in a God so you already believe that your life is set up for you and you really have no free will, so what I'm saying really can't be much of a shock.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519 |
See, I don't believe that.
I do believe there is a God, and I do believe that he has a plan for me. I also believe that if I work hard, good will come of it. It's usually not what I expect, but it's something.
If you were born into a different area, then I believe you would have other opportunities. Probably not the same ones you have had, but others. And like your real opportunities, it would be up to you to seize it and take it as far as you are willing and/or able.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I assume that you all believe in a God so you already believe that your life is set up for you and you really have no free will
I must say that regardless of your debate here, you are misunderstanding the Christian belief that God has a plan for them. While God has a plan, we have complete free will to choose to follow it or blaze our own path. It is many of our belief that if we seek out His plan, then we will find our happiest road, but it can be difficult to see what that is at times and it is always our choice of which road to follow.
You may now proceed with your previously running debate.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
It's kind of obvious that the same opportunities don't arrive to the same people. Even affirmative action doesn't come close to changing it.
Do you think you could achieve what you've done if you were born in a different position? I know that if I was born into an inner city I could not achieve what I've done so far. Living in a suburban community has helped me an incredible amount.
I sure do. I have a colleague who came from the inner city, one of many children in the family, poor, African American. We do the same work, we make the same amount of money. She is a very driven woman, and that is really what it takes.
There is far too much excuse making and hand wringing over this. Is it harder for some people? Absolutely, but for MANY reasons, not just socio-economic. That's life, you either rise above, or sink to the bottom.
Giving people excuses leads to failure. This popular movement of making people believe they are victims is killing entire segments of our society.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I highly doubt that. Like I really do. I know what would have happened to me if I didn't live in Suburbia. I truly do, because I used to not live in Suburbia. I was adopted. I was in an orphanage in a 2nd world country that was poorly mismanaged. I know that I could not have the same success there that I have here.
Alright, to keep this discussion out of religion (But do you think you have an omniscient God while still having free will), I'll give a real example. We're all after money, right? I'm assuming none of you have a net worth of 100 mil, if that's wrong I'm sorry. So do you think the difference between you and Paris Hilton (who has a net worth of 100 mil) is that she works harder than you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
I assume that you all believe in a God so you already believe that your life is set up for you and you really have no free will, so what I'm saying really can't be much of a shock.
That has to be one of the most ignorant things I've read on here in quite a while.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
So you believe that your God doesn't know everything? Because I was indoctrinated from Sunday School that God knew everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
So you believe that your God doesn't know everything? Because I was indoctrinated from Sunday School that God knew everything.
God knowing what you will do does not mean you are not free to do it. He just happens to know ahead of when you do it.
this explains it well (if you only read part of it, skip to the section on time):
http://carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Like I said above, you'd attach a pretty graph that shows that some people make more money than others. Neat. It has been that way since the beginning of time.
I know you are a smart guy, but that's not all the graph shows. What the graph shows is that the top 1% are seeing almost exponential income growth while everybody else is seeing modest linear income growth. It's not about the surgeon across town or the manager making more than his employees... Take that graph and extrapolate it out a couple decades.. The rest of the country has seen every dollar they made 30 years ago in income grow to $1.40 +/-.. the top 1% have seen every dollar they made 30 years ago in income grow to almost $4.
Let me put it another way, in 1979 you made $20K and the rich CEO guy made $1million... (so he made 50x what you made) based on that graph, you now make $28K and he makes $4million... 143x what you make... so if this continues for another 30 years, you will be making $39K and he will be making $16million... 410x what you make... It is not that he makes more and continues to make more, it's that yours is growing linearly and his is growing almost exponentially...
Here is the challenge we face as I see it.. decades ago, you made a fortune buying and selling products and services. To sell those services you had to be geographically close to the people you were doing business with. It had inherent limitations to it. A company could only grow so big before it eventually would become unmanageable. Guys like Rockefeller built Monopolies, so we passed laws to prohibit monopolies...
But now, with the technology we have, if you have the right product, like Facebook or Google, you don't have to be everywhere for people to buy your product, you don't have to spend a dime really to "ship" it to them.. The result of that is that you can make a little bit of money from each of tens of millions of people with a relatively small base of operations and very low operating cost. I don't have a problem with them capitalizing off a hot new idea.... I just don't see it as sustainable...
Do you know anybody that plays Candy Crush Saga? I play it, it's the technological equivalent of Ms. Pac Man but do you know what they make? The people who created Candy Crush make about $800,000....... a day.
I don't begrudge those who make a lot of money but if you don't understand that having so much wealth in the hands of so few people is dangerous, then I don't know what to tell you.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742 |
Quote:
So do you think the difference between you and Paris Hilton (who has a net worth of 100 mil) is that she works harder than you?
Based on my current net worth, she must work about 5000 times harder than I do.
Fact is, the money-work correlation has been completely destroyed. Especially at the top. The typical Executive would not do the work of the janitor or nurse's aide, even for the same salary they make in the Big Chair. Most jobs I've worked, the boss isn't working 1/2 as hard as the people he/she supervises. It's more about luck and advantage than work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
I know you are a smart guy, but that's not all the graph shows. What the graph shows is that the top 1% are seeing almost exponential income growth while everybody else is seeing modest linear income growth. It's not about the surgeon across town or the manager making more than his employees... Take that graph and extrapolate it out a couple decades.. The rest of the country has seen every dollar they made 30 years ago in income grow to $1.40 +/-.. the top 1% have seen every dollar they made 30 years ago in income grow to almost $4.
Let me put it another way, in 1979 you made $20K and the rich CEO guy made $1million... (so he made 50x what you made) based on that graph, you now make $28K and he makes $4million... 143x what you make... so if this continues for another 30 years, you will be making $39K and he will be making $16million... 410x what you make... It is not that he makes more and continues to make more, it's that yours is growing linearly and his is growing almost exponentially...
I don't know that I am a smart guy or not, based on this debate I'm not  . I just don't see the need to make it the socially dividing issue that it has become. When I see income inequality mentioned I don't see it as the .01 or .1% - it seems to be aimed at anyone that makes an above average living. Maybe I am just interpreting incorrectly, but again, right or wrong, don't see it as the huge issue it is being made out to be.
Quote:
Here is the challenge we face as I see it.. decades ago, you made a fortune buying and selling products and services. To sell those services you had to be geographically close to the people you were doing business with. It had inherent limitations to it. A company could only grow so big before it eventually would become unmanageable. Guys like Rockefeller built Monopolies, so we passed laws to prohibit monopolies...
But now, with the technology we have, if you have the right product, like Facebook or Google, you don't have to be everywhere for people to buy your product, you don't have to spend a dime really to "ship" it to them.. The result of that is that you can make a little bit of money from each of tens of millions of people with a relatively small base of operations and very low operating cost. I don't have a problem with them capitalizing off a hot new idea.... I just don't see it as sustainable...
Do you know anybody that plays Candy Crush Saga? I play it, it's the technological equivalent of Ms. Pac Man but do you know what they make? The people who created Candy Crush make about $800,000....... a day.
I don't begrudge those who make a lot of money but if you don't understand that having so much wealth in the hands of so few people is dangerous, then I don't know what to tell you.
I don't play video games at all, but I have seen my son play Candy Crush. I do agree that we need to get back into making products, not just services. I 100% agree that a service only oriented economy is bad. Very bad, and will come crashing down eventually. I do not think that is because of income inequality though and is an entirely different topic.
I guess when I see income inequality mentioned I am thinking of the many, many people who are lumped into the 1% or even the 10% that are not ultra-wealthy. I know some are shocked to find the actual income numbers of the 1% and 10%; I don't think we are debating that having a mass amount of income held by a few is bad - and if that is what income inequality is, then I will be more likely to agree that it can be a problem.
I am looking at it from the standpoint of anyone in the 1% is villainized when the lower end of that bracket is not unreachable; when it carries across to the 10% it is not an unusual number that 2 income households break. When the media talks of income inequality I never hear anything about how most of the money in the hands of a few is the bad thing, but rather the 1% are the problem. If you know what the 1% is, you know that is not the case.
CHS - if you are saying income inequality is too much money in the hands of, lets say, the extreme top end of scale then I can somewhat see where you are coming from and how it can be bad.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620 |
It can be, but it can also be a wate of time and money. Just like any other advanced degree, you have tier one schools and something else.
Employers pay attention to the school of study more when hiring a person with advanced degrees. If you can get in or find a way to swing it, get in to a top 50 school.
Beyond that, you are probably better starting your career, prove your worth to your firm, then get the degree, no matter the school. At that point your are just filling a firm requirement for a upgraded position.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477 |
Quote:
It can be, but it can also be a wate of time and money. Just like any other advanced degree, you have tier one schools and something else.
Employers pay attention to the school of study more when hiring a person with advanced degrees. If you can get in or find a way to swing it, get in to a top 50 school.
Beyond that, you are probably better starting your career, prove your worth to your firm, than get the degree, no matter the school. At that point your are just filling a firm requirement for a upgraded position.
got ya, so with pursuing an MBA, does it really matter the graduate school the degree comes from?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620 |
Quote:
Quote:
It can be, but it can also be a wate of time and money. Just like any other advanced degree, you have tier one schools and something else.
Employers pay attention to the school of study more when hiring a person with advanced degrees. If you can get in or find a way to swing it, get in to a top 50 school.
Beyond that, you are probably better starting your career, prove your worth to your firm, than get the degree, no matter the school. At that point your are just filling a firm requirement for a upgraded position.
got ya, so with pursuing an MBA, does it really matter the graduate school the degree comes from?
Not sure I understand the question....gradutae school happens after you graduate....but, maybe we are on different wave lengths here....
Not to the employer. They only read the last line of the education line. If you show Yale Law as your advanced degree, they don't care if you went to such and such Community College for two years and State party central college your next two years.
Now....what the College you seek is another deal. You still have to meet their standards.
Did I answer the question or did I totally not understand the question? I can get a little lubed by this time of the evening.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445 |
J/C .....
I see 2 "big" arguments here.
The 1st is that the rich get richer. Really? No kidding? Who would have ever thunk it?
The richest among us have the ability to take chances while the rest of the country panics. The stock market takes a massive hit, and who bails? It's not the rich people. The market bottoms out, and those with the most to lose panic and pull their money out. Rich people buy. In 2008, when the market dumped value from what ..... 14,000 to around 8000? Those whose retirements were tied up in the market pulled their money out at various stages of decline. Rich people often stayed in, or else sold only to use that money to buy many more shares towards the bottom.
They were in the market when the value recovered. We went from the 8000 range, to over 16,000. Yep, rich people, who could afford to doubled their money. The average Joe, worried about his retirement, got scared off the market, and maybe got back in when the majority of value had been recovered, and it moved back to its previous value. The rich, who could afford to buy in, and stay in, doubled their money in a relatively short period of time. Those who couldn't, lost money.
It is the the way it goes. If you have more, you can afford to risk more. That is never going to change.
As far as payroll taxes ...... that is such a crappy argument it's not even funny.
Many rich people continue to work, and collect a paycheck, long after retirement age. If you make a lot of money, even late into "retirement", then you don't collect Social Security.
Regardless, if you retire in 2014, the maximum amount you can receive from Social Security is $2642.
The maximum Medicare is the same anyone else collects. The guy who makes $15,000 pays in approx 1.45% of his pay into Medicare over the years. The guy who made $113,000 (the limit before this year) also paid the same percentage on income up to that limit.
The 2 people receive the same benefit ...... but the guy who makes $15,000 contributed $218 per year in Medicare tax. (approx, plus the matching employer portion) The guy who made $113,000 or above, paid $1639 per year. (plus the employer matching portion) They receive the same benefit, but the cost to each person is vastly different.
Just as in the income tax system, the benefit vs cost for those at the bottom is much, much higher than for those at the top.
Some see it as unfair that people pay the same percentage of their income up to a certain income limits ... however those who pay the least actually get the highest return on their SS and Medicare investments.
If person A makes $113,000 for their entire working life, and works 47 years, (using just one number for ease of calculation) they would contribute $329,000 over the course of their working life. Their employer would contribute the same amount. They can receive a max monthly benefit of $2642.
Now let's look at the guy who makes $15,000/year, for 30 years. He would contribute $28,000 to Social Security. (approx, again I didn't look up the exact payroll tax numbers, and used 3.5%) The employer would contribute the same. Using the retirement calculator on the SS website, this person, at age 70 (to get the max) would receive $1000/month.
Huge difference in amounts contributed, and much smaller ratio in the difference of benefits paid.
The guy who made $15,000/year, for 30 years, receives $12,000/year in SS benefits, plus Medicare. He, and his employer, would have contributed $69,000 in total combined payroll taxes to pay for his benefits.
The guy who made $113,000/year, for 47 years, receives $31,800 in SS benefits, plus Medicare. He and his employer (or all himself, if self employed) would have contributed a total of $812,000 in payroll taxes.
The 2nd guy contributes almost 11.8 times as much in taxes, for 2.6 times the benefits.
When you add in that we "repay" some people for their payroll taxes in the form of EITC, and the disparity becomes even more overwhelming. Just because the richer guy has more, should be be required to pay all of the bills? Shouldn't the lower income guy pay something? What is his "fair share" of the bill?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It can be, but it can also be a wate of time and money. Just like any other advanced degree, you have tier one schools and something else.
Employers pay attention to the school of study more when hiring a person with advanced degrees. If you can get in or find a way to swing it, get in to a top 50 school.
Beyond that, you are probably better starting your career, prove your worth to your firm, than get the degree, no matter the school. At that point your are just filling a firm requirement for a upgraded position.
got ya, so with pursuing an MBA, does it really matter the graduate school the degree comes from?
Not sure I understand the question....gradutae school happens after you graduate....but, maybe we are on different wave lengths here....
Not to the employer. They only read the last line of the education line. If you show Yale Law as your advanced degree, they don't care if you went to such and such Community College for two years and State party central college your next two years.
Now....what the College you seek is another deal. You still have to meet their standards.
Did I answer the question or did I totally not understand the question? I can get a little lubed by this time of the evening.
yea you did and thanks. i was asking like..if i got an MBA from yale, would it be more credible than me getting an MBA from cleveland state uni.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620 |
Most people don't want to hear that. They just want the rich person to pay more.
JMO
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445 |
Quote:
yea you did and thanks. i was asking like..if i got an MBA from yale, would it be more credible than me getting an MBA from cleveland state uni.
I would think that it depends a lot on the company you apply to.
Some companies just want a particular degree as the base qualification for a job, while others look at the school the degree came from, class rank of the applicant, and so on.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,477 |
Quote:
Quote:
yea you did and thanks. i was asking like..if i got an MBA from yale, would it be more credible than me getting an MBA from cleveland state uni.
I would think that it depends a lot on the company you apply to.
Some companies just want a particular degree as the base qualification for a job, while others look at the school the degree came from, class rank of the applicant, and so on.
word. i don't have yale business degree money, but i definitely cleveland state money.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,620 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It can be, but it can also be a wate of time and money. Just like any other advanced degree, you have tier one schools and something else.
Employers pay attention to the school of study more when hiring a person with advanced degrees. If you can get in or find a way to swing it, get in to a top 50 school.
Beyond that, you are probably better starting your career, prove your worth to your firm, than get the degree, no matter the school. At that point your are just filling a firm requirement for a upgraded position.
got ya, so with pursuing an MBA, does it really matter the graduate school the degree comes from?
Not sure I understand the question....gradutae school happens after you graduate....but, maybe we are on different wave lengths here....
Not to the employer. They only read the last line of the education line. If you show Yale Law as your advanced degree, they don't care if you went to such and such Community College for two years and State party central college your next two years.
Now....what the College you seek is another deal. You still have to meet their standards.
Did I answer the question or did I totally not understand the question? I can get a little lubed by this time of the evening.
yea you did and thanks. i was asking like..if i got an MBA from yale, would it be more credible than me getting an MBA from cleveland state uni.
OK....as I said in my first reply about a top 50 ........you bet. The person with a sheepskin from Yale is going to get the edge over a person holds one fron CSU.
That is kind of obviuous....no? But it holds down the line. If you can get in to a top 50 school, it pays, just as a tier two school pays off over a lower.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I just don't see the need to make it the socially dividing issue that it has become.
I don't think it should be a socially dividing issue either, it's a fiscal health of the country issue. I don't hate the people that make billions of dollars, I just don't think it's good for the long term health of the country.
Quote:
When I see income inequality mentioned I don't see it as the .01 or .1% - it seems to be aimed at anyone that makes an above average living. Maybe I am just interpreting incorrectly,
Like with most issues there are degrees. I do not believe the average person is concerned that some people make more money or even that some people make a whole lot of money....
Quote:
I guess when I see income inequality mentioned I am thinking of the many, many people who are lumped into the 1% or even the 10% that are not ultra-wealthy. I know some are shocked to find the actual income numbers of the 1% and 10%;
c-bus, it sounds like we aren't really that far apart in our opinions, I don't like the notion of getting on a guy because he worked hard all of his life or even invented a new widget and makes serious cash... I hate to put it this way because it does sound like a socialist notion but.. when is enough enough?
Like it my candy crush example, used to be that if a guy at the top was getting rich because of a product or service he created, a lot of other people were making money too, developing it, shipping it, selling it, fixing it, etc.. technology doesn't always work that way. You can make serious cash with very little overhead or staff... it's just different and I have no idea what, if anything, we should do about it...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519 |
Quote:
I highly doubt that. Like I really do. I know what would have happened to me if I didn't live in Suburbia. I truly do, because I used to not live in Suburbia. I was adopted. I was in an orphanage in a 2nd world country that was poorly mismanaged. I know that I could not have the same success there that I have here.
Alright, to keep this discussion out of religion (But do you think you have an omniscient God while still having free will), I'll give a real example. We're all after money, right? I'm assuming none of you have a net worth of 100 mil, if that's wrong I'm sorry. So do you think the difference between you and Paris Hilton (who has a net worth of 100 mil) is that she works harder than you?
There are a bunch of posts that I want to reply too, so I'll do it one by one. I apologize if this is repeated at all.
So you're saying that you started out in a bad situation, got an opportunity (adoption), and made something of it? That's awesome! It also kinda perfectly exemplifies what some of us are saying. You got an opportunity and bettered your situation (improved your income/earning potential). When you have kids (complete assumption that you don't have them already), then it will be up to them to improve further on their own situation.
If what you say is true (you were born into a bleak place/condition, then got an opportunity and now you're doing much better than you would have before), then I really don't understand why you complain about people that make way more than you.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to just focus on myself and don't really care about other people's successes and failures, beyond what I can learn and apply to myself.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519 |
Quote:
Quote:
So do you think the difference between you and Paris Hilton (who has a net worth of 100 mil) is that she works harder than you?
Based on my current net worth, she must work about 5000 times harder than I do.
Fact is, the money-work correlation has been completely destroyed. Especially at the top. The typical Executive would not do the work of the janitor or nurse's aide, even for the same salary they make in the Big Chair. Most jobs I've worked, the boss isn't working 1/2 as hard as the people he/she supervises. It's more about luck and advantage than work.
Sorry, but this is a load of crap. I have no doubt that there are bad bosses out there, but to take the exceptions and assume that's the rule is silly.
All of the bosses I had worked their tales off. They had to, because the moment you switch from being an engineer to a manager, you lose quite a bit of job security. His boss (usually a VP) either works absolutely insane hours or are incredibly organized. The VP's boss has always been both extremely organized and extremely hard working. The most common mistake people make is thinking the boss guy isn't working when they're in meetings, flying around for work, etc. I'd take a mountain of paperwork/engineering work over that stuff any day. Managerial tasks are 100x more stressful than what us pee-ons do.
And the comment about the CEO not wanting to do what the janitor does is dumb. The CEO has infinitely more responsibility than the janitor, and the janitor (except in extremely rare exceptions) does not have the ability to do what the CEO does. I can explain to you why this is, if you like.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Why does the janitor not have the ability to do what the CEO does?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Sorry, but this is a load of crap. I have no doubt that there are bad bosses out there, but to take the exceptions and assume that's the rule is silly.
All of the bosses I had worked their tales off. They had to, because the moment you switch from being an engineer to a manager, you lose quite a bit of job security. His boss (usually a VP) either works absolutely insane hours or are incredibly organized. The VP's boss has always been both extremely organized and extremely hard working. The most common mistake people make is thinking the boss guy isn't working when they're in meetings, flying around for work, etc. I'd take a mountain of paperwork/engineering work over that stuff any day. Managerial tasks are 100x more stressful than what us pee-ons do.
And the comment about the CEO not wanting to do what the janitor does is dumb. The CEO has infinitely more responsibility than the janitor, and the janitor (except in extremely rare exceptions) does not have the ability to do what the CEO does. I can explain to you why this is, if you like.
Well said.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,608
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,608 |
It truly is amazing as to what a top 50 school can get you. I started out teaching at an un-ranked university that is an unknown, but it was a tenure track position. I then took a job this past year on a non-tenure track line teaching position, but at a top 50 university. It doesn't matter that I now have a lesser title (well, actually my official title is much longer now, but it's not tenure track), suddenly everyone wants to talk to me.
Being a higher rank at a no name university did nothing for me, taking a less important job at a much larger, well known university has already opened up many doors. I don't envision staying here forever, but it is a great stepping stone for the future...although the weather just might keep me here. While I love to ski and love the snow, it was fun snorkeling just last week. Just having that universities name and reputation attached to your own opens up so many possibilities.
So long story short, unless you are already in a position with a company that you love and they are paying for you to go to school locally to get the degree to advance up in their ranks, that university that you get that piece of paper from matters. The university that you pick matters, and it could also fight against you. On the flip side, there are certain "universities" in my field that will cost you a fortune and have a highly negative reputation that might turn off potential employers. Just do your research.
![[Linked Image from img.photobucket.com]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/Concor1033/NEWDTsig.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,445 |
Quote:
Why does the janitor not have the ability to do what the CEO does?
Why would a man remain a janitor if he had the ability to become a top level CEO? Part of the ability a CEO shows is the ability to get others to trust in his abilities, so they hire him. Another part is the desire and drive to go after a top level job. Another part, frankly, is the ego to see themselves in that high level job. One other part is the ability to lead others. Maybe a janitor has these abilities, but he does not use them if he remains a janitor.
There are people who are the CEO of their own companies, who never went to college, yet who have the ability to lead, and to manage the big picture. These are not traits generally associated with a janitor.
Not all people have the same abilities other people have.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,519 |
I feel like I have to tread lightly here, as I do not want to offend. I want to be very clear. First, I'm not saying that janitors aren't important, because they are. Also, I'm not saying that janitors are necessarily stupid or lazy.
What I am saying, is that the person who has the job of CEO has to have abilities that a person who is a janitor usually doesn't have.
Among many other things, a CEO (or COO, etc.) has to be insanely organized. I don't mean that like "oh, look, my desk is clean". I mean that they have to think, talk, and act in an organized way all the time. What they do and say directly affects everyone in their organization, so it must be crystal clear and concise. Also, they have to anticipate. Myself, and all the other "minions" receive a task and execute against that the best we can. The better ones get stuff done faster. A CEO-type (and lower-level managers, to a lesser degree) anticipates what needs to be done and does it before the need arises. I guess the best explanation is like a captain steering the ship. Lower level managers have a tiny ship (small group that reports to them), so the stuff they're responsible for can get done quicker. The higher up you go, the longer it takes to react to things. At some point, managers have to develop the ability to anticipate what's going to happen so they can continue to make their deadlines. A CEO does just about everything based on anticipation. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do/manage.
If I had to choose one thing that janitors wouldn't be able to do that are absolutely required for a CEO position, the anticipation thing would be it.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Why does the janitor not have the ability to do what the CEO does?
He might.. but it would probably involve him going back to get the education and the experience required to realize his full ability. A CEO of an engineering firm, which is the example tossed out, has experts who works for him (or her) but they must understand the accounting procedures used to keep the books, HR hiring/firing issues, benefits packages, legal ramifications of contracts signed, opportunities for business development and growth, plus all of the technical engineering stuff the firm does... I doubt many janitors possess that level of intellect.. not that they couldn't if they had chosen a different path but the janitor isn't going to walk in and be able to do 1/100th of what the CEO does...
He's probably a janitor for one of 2 reasons.. either he is just extremely happy in a low stress type of job and if that's the case, then good for him for doing what makes him happy...
The more likely scenario is that he never really acquired the education or the skills to do much else. People accept less money to do what makes them happy all the time but it's usually not a drop off from CEO to janitor...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... my future plans to take over the
world.
|
|
