my future plans to take over the world.

An expensive car is one of the worst investments you can make...unless you plan on living in it!

Quote:

An expensive car is one of the worst investments you can make...unless you plan on living in it!

of course not. i want a house. i want maybe a 4-5 bedroom house. not much. but paid off.

...i just want to have that lift in my driveway full of super cars...just because i can

Oh buddy... in terms of that position, it's a bad decision to give the reigns to a green horn and improper actions/setup is a result.

Outta all the funnies, downgrading an OS to get a VPN client to be compatible is by far the dumbest thing I've heard today and all last week. Completely hilarious for us nerds...

Quote:

of course not. i want a house. i want maybe a 4-5 bedroom house. not much. but paid off.

...i just want to have that lift in my driveway full of super cars...just because i can

Once you have the degree/job, house and money...go for it! Some people jump for the car first and it sets them back.

If you are strictly looking for money and job placement I'd suggest: statistics/math, engineering, medical, IT.

If you want to run a business or be a manager, an MBA would suit you well. Especially as a Veteran.

Quote:

A car is one of the worst investments you can make...unless you plan on living in it!

Fixed it. A car, with a few exceptions, is never an investment. I love nice cars and buy them because I can; I know they are a complete waste of money. If things go south the cars will be the first thing to go.

fair enough, Columbus. You are right, they're not typically investments.

I buy Hondas and Toyotas and drive them for a decade. Maybe that explains my point of view.

Quote:

money doesn't buy happiness

I saw a study awhile back that uncovered the price of happiness. $75,000 a year. That seems to be the magic mark that makes people feel comfortable with their lives. Water heater breaks? Gets fixed no problem. Want to go on a vacation? I can afford it.

Once you start making more than that you don't get any happier. And actually people became less happy. Too focused on money. Making it, looking for tax loopholes, people asking to borrow money ...

Quote:

he told me some crazy horror stories. no less than 50 hour work weeks...on a good week.

During my medical training I once spent 120 in one week in the hospital working. Wasn't the norm but that sucked! The norm was about 80 hrs/wk physically in the hospital. Then home reading, studying and writing papers on top of that.

My one piece of advice for you, if you really want to get rich, is to work for yourself. Nothing in school will teach you how to do that. I have nothing against degrees; I have one, I've spent my fair share of time going to school, but I think if you look at the wealthiest people in this world, they didn't work for someone else, or if they did, not for very long.

Many of the most successful people dropped out of college because they realized it wasn't for them. Most of the examples I know of are from the Internet/Technology sector because that's where I work, but just to name a few:

Bill Gates, dropped out of Harvard.
Steve Jobs, never finished.
John Carmack (designer of Quake, Doom, etc) never went.
Richard Branson, Virgin Airlines among other things, dropped out.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, dropped out of Harvard.

In my opinion, college will equip you to get a job, and work for someone else. That "someone else" will get all the benefit of your hard work; you'll never get rich working for someone else. Which isn't to say, you can't land a job and do very well for yourself, and be comfortable financially.

Working for yourself is definitely the more challenging road though. It's almost guaranteed that you will fail (probably more than once) before you succeed, but so what? I certainly understand that family plays a part in that, and that you have obligations and mouths to feed, but you're still relatively young, Swish. Don't let fear of failure stop you.

It probably sounds like I'm passing judgement, but I'm honestly not (not trying to). After watching your video of that driveway with the cars, the related videos that came up were mostly stupid people doing stupid stuff with fancy cars.

Anyways, I can say two things about this thread.

1. I grew up in a very wealthy household and lived very comfortably as a kid. My dad is a super smart and hard-working dude. Has degrees coming out the wazoo and all that (Bachelors, Masters and Sc.D in materials science and an MBA). He got his masters and doctorate from MIT, and his MBA from Case Western. Like I said, we were extremely wealthy as my dad did very well. I had everything I needed and a good amount of what I wanted growing up. I was a goalie on a bunch of ice hockey teams (everything related to that is super expensive). We always lived in a nice house, Dad and Mom had their hobbies, the kids all played sports and went to college (parents paid for everyone's bachelors degrees). There's no way my parents' earnings put them in the top 10%.
My point is, you can have the money to get what you want/need without being a 1% or even a 10%'er.

2. As far as how you get there... don't expect people to throw money at you just because you have a degree (especially an MBA). My girlfriend has her MBA, and that hasn't done one single thing for her, yet. I earn about double what she does with my puny little bachelors (Biomedical Engineering). The first thing you need to do is figure out your career (easier said than done, and definitely not something many people nail right out of the gate).
If you do actually want to go the management route, I'd say you're off to a great start with your military service. Based on some of my buddies/family that are in the military, I'd wager that's the best management/leadership training out there.
If you're more technically inclined, especially if you're into problem-solving, there are many different flavors of engineering. An engineering degree is a tough grind, though. At some point, you will want to quit... that much I can guarantee. The cool part is that it's a degree that really empowers you in your job search. As long as you don't have a dumpster fire of a personality, then it's just a matter of time before you find a job. Once you're working, opportunities for advancement are plentiful as long as you stay hungry.
If you're a new engineer, (and for all those young engineers out there), I have a HUGE piece of advice that I just learned and wished I knew sooner. Don't chase a salary/full-time position. Go find a good contract engineering firm that will hire you out to companies in need of temporary workers. You don't get the benefits of a full-time position, but the pay is so good.

Quote:

It probably sounds like I'm passing judgement, but I'm honestly not (not trying to). After watching your video of that driveway with the cars, the related videos that came up were mostly stupid people doing stupid stuff with fancy cars.

Anyways, I can say two things about this thread.

1. I grew up in a very wealthy household and lived very comfortably as a kid. My dad is a super smart and hard-working dude. Has degrees coming out the wazoo and all that (Bachelors, Masters and Sc.D in materials science and an MBA). He got his masters and doctorate from MIT, and his MBA from Case Western. Like I said, we were extremely wealthy as my dad did very well. I had everything I needed and a good amount of what I wanted growing up. I was a goalie on a bunch of ice hockey teams (everything related to that is super expensive). We always lived in a nice house, Dad and Mom had their hobbies, the kids all played sports and went to college (parents paid for everyone's bachelors degrees). There's no way my parents' earnings put them in the top 10%.
My point is, you can have the money to get what you want/need without being a 1% or even a 10%'er.

2. As far as how you get there... don't expect people to throw money at you just because you have a degree (especially an MBA). My girlfriend has her MBA, and that hasn't done one single thing for her, yet. I earn about double what she does with my puny little bachelors (Biomedical Engineering). The first thing you need to do is figure out your career (easier said than done, and definitely not something many people nail right out of the gate).
If you do actually want to go the management route, I'd say you're off to a great start with your military service. Based on some of my buddies/family that are in the military, I'd wager that's the best management/leadership training out there.
If you're more technically inclined, especially if you're into problem-solving, there are many different flavors of engineering. An engineering degree is a tough grind, though. At some point, you will want to quit... that much I can guarantee. The cool part is that it's a degree that really empowers you in your job search. As long as you don't have a dumpster fire of a personality, then it's just a matter of time before you find a job. Once you're working, opportunities for advancement are plentiful as long as you stay hungry.
If you're a new engineer, (and for all those young engineers out there), I have a HUGE piece of advice that I just learned and wished I knew sooner. Don't chase a salary/full-time position. Go find a good contract engineering firm that will hire you out to companies in need of temporary workers. You don't get the benefits of a full-time position, but the pay is so good.

The top 1% are around >400k. You are in the top 10 if you barely break 100k. Those damn evil rich people, lol

Quote:

–Last year, the richest 10% received more than half of all income — 50.5%, or the largest share since such record-keeping began in 1917. Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000.

Link

Wow, that is shocking, to be honest.

Like I mentioned before, my Dad made very good bank while I was growing up, but we were never "those people" that you heard about living really extravagant lifestyles (driving around super fancy cars, living in over-the-top houses, etc).

Quote:

Wow, that is shocking, to be honest.

Like I mentioned before, my Dad made very good bank while I was growing up, but we were never "those people" that you heard about living really extravagant lifestyles (driving around super fancy cars, living in over-the-top houses, etc).

Which is the exact misconception people have when they protest the 1%. What they are really protesting is the 0.001%... There are a lot of rather ordinary doctors, lawyers, sales executives, etc. in the 1%.

Quote:

Wow, that is shocking, to be honest.

Like I mentioned before, my Dad made very good bank while I was growing up, but we were never "those people" that you heard about living really extravagant lifestyles (driving around super fancy cars, living in over-the-top houses, etc).

My dad made darn good money - especially for around here. Mom made good money as a teacher. Us kids just never knew it.

Wanna talk about living below your means? My parents were the epitome - and they are now reaping the rewards (have been for a while actually).

Imagine the head of a large business driving a 5 speed plymouth horizon hatchback to work. Imagine the head of a large business - well, imagine his son (me) wearing t-shirts to school from the summer basketball teams I was on. That was pretty much my wardrobe in high school. I didn't know they were rich.

My 7th grade football game shoes were my 12th grade practice shoes (yeah, mom bought them large when I was in 7th grade)

I did get new basketball shoes each year - and the following year, those became my school shoes, from 7th grade through high school. I wasn't allowed to get "Air Jordan" shoes until I was a sr. So, at my summer job, I made my own, with spray paint.

And honestly - growing up was a great time. I learned that living below your means is a good thing. I wish I had remembered that.

I have no clue what my parents are "worth" in money terms - but I do know what they are worth in "real" terms.

I don't remember stuff they bought - I do remember what they taught - and I'm getting back to that.

Quote:

Quote:

Wow, that is shocking, to be honest.

Like I mentioned before, my Dad made very good bank while I was growing up, but we were never "those people" that you heard about living really extravagant lifestyles (driving around super fancy cars, living in over-the-top houses, etc).

Which is the exact misconception people have when they protest the 1%. What they are really protesting is the 0.001%... There are a lot of rather ordinary doctors, lawyers, sales executives, etc. in the 1%.

No, we know how much they make. It still does not change the facts about income inequality.

Swish, as long as you find something you like that isn't a material possession you should be OK happiness wise. I have a lot a friends who are extremely rich who really just love to travel and to see the history of places and they can't be happier. I also have some friends who are richer than them and spend all their money on clothes and cars and other materialistic junk (albeit cool junk) who just hate their lives and go into some pretty deep depressions.

So don't get caught up in the money if you don't know what you want to spend it on.

Quote:

No, we know how much they make. It still does not change the facts about income inequality.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that if you asked 100 people on the street what constitutes the 1% that 99% of them would say over $1M. A lot would say even more than that.

To crack the top 10% you just need to go beyond 100k. Hardly anyone would guess that off the top of their head if they just listened to the media.

Each person finds happiness in different ways. Some people like stuff, some people like to travel, others don't care if they have any money at all. The key is to find what makes YOU happy. It always amazes me that people consistently say that people with stuff are unhappy and miserable. I just don't see that; if they are unhappy it is for reasons beyond the stuff they own which would likely be the case whether they are rich or poor. I'm sure there are just as many unhappy poor, middle class, and upper middle class people as there are in the "rich" people.

Bottom line, find what makes YOU happy and don't listen to anyone else because only YOU can answer what happiness is.

I didn't even realize those numbers. I should be feeling a lot wealthier than I do.

Quote:

I didn't even realize those numbers. I should be feeling a lot wealthier than I do.

I agree

. I knew the numbers weren't as high as most people think, however I would have guessed around 600k to be in the top 1%.

Quote:

Quote:

No, we know how much they make. It still does not change the facts about income inequality.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that if you asked 100 people on the street what constitutes the 1% that 99% of them would say over $1M. A lot would say even more than that.

To crack the top 10% you just need to go beyond 100k. Hardly anyone would guess that off the top of their head if they just listened to the media.

Each person finds happiness in different ways. Some people like stuff, some people like to travel, others don't care if they have any money at all. The key is to find what makes YOU happy. It always amazes me that people consistently say that people with stuff are unhappy and miserable. I just don't see that; if they are unhappy it is for reasons beyond the stuff they own which would likely be the case whether they are rich or poor. I'm sure there are just as many unhappy poor, middle class, and upper middle class people as there are in the "rich" people.

Bottom line, find what makes YOU happy and don't listen to anyone else because only YOU can answer what happiness is.

To go along with that, I know people, and am friends with them - that make well over $500,000 a year. Some of them are happy, some arent.

I have friends that make between $60 - 100,000 a year - some are happy, some aren't.

And, I have friends, with a family, that make $30,000 a year. Some are happy, some aren't.

What to take from this? We all have wants, and getting those wants doesn't lead to "happy".

As long as the minimum bills can be paid, money doesn't bring happiness. The more you make, the more bills you have.

It's really not.

That's a neat graph.

Can you post a graph of who pays taxes? That would be neat to see as well.

Not really sure what that has to do with income inequality, but I'm never one to disappoint.

jc.

i don't see why me wanted to afford nice things is such a bad thing. thats MY american dream, it doesn't have to be the same as some of you.

i understand though guys like GM and such who are telling me to make sure its something i love doing over chasing a job just to bring it serious cash. i get that and i hope that i can implement that into my decision.

by i don't see why having a driveway with a lift and being able to buy a small state is such a bad thing.

Quote:

jc.

i don't see why me wanted to afford nice things is such a bad thing. thats MY american dream, it doesn't have to be the same as some of you.

i understand though guys like GM and such who are telling me to make sure its something i love doing over chasing a job just to bring it serious cash. i get that and i hope that i can implement that into my decision.

by i don't see why having a driveway with a lift and being able to buy a small state is such a bad thing.

It's horrible!!! It's not fair!!!! It's unequal!!!! Ugh. There is nothing at all wrong with what you want Swish - go for it. America needs people that want to reach for the stars. The wrong people are those who say you shouldn't have it because it is not "equal". The income inequality crap really gets me riled up as I, right or wrong, just see it as jealousy.

I'm just saying you most likely will not find happiness in that. Not saying that you should quit consumption all together either. Let's face it, it feels good buying a Rick Owens jacket that costs a car. I'm just saying, if that's your be all end all, then you will most likely have some depression.

Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't do this. I'm all for it, read my first post in this thread. I'm just saying you will be happier if you're spending money on things that aren't just cars and clothes.

Looks like a whole bunch of people need to be more creative, find some passion, and work harder.

Quote:

I'm just saying you most likely will not find happiness in that. Not saying that you should quit consumption all together either. Let's face it, it feels good buying a Rick Owens jacket that costs a car. I'm just saying, if that's your be all end all, then you will most likely have some depression.

I just don't understand that line of thinking. How can you possibly tell what someone will and will not find happiness in? Who says he isn't happy now and will be happier if he gets the material things he wants? You are just as likely to find depression in other ways as well IMO. I believe if you are going to be depressed, then it is going to happen no matter what.

Now, if you are unhappy and feel that money will buy you happiness, then I can possibly see your argument. Money will certainly NOT buy happiness. I guess the thought is that the person wanting more money is unhappy currently?

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the income inequality. I posted the graph to show people that the income inequality is worse than what people actually think it is and not the other way around (Like some posters wish it was).

Quote:

I'm just saying you most likely will not find happiness in that. Not saying that you should quit consumption all together either. Let's face it, it feels good buying a Rick Owens jacket that costs a car. I'm just saying, if that's your be all end all, then you will most likely have some depression.

Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't do this. I'm all for it, read my first post in this thread. I'm just saying you will be happier if you're spending money on things that aren't just cars and clothes.

if not spend it on cars and clothes, than what? a house? i want it. stocks? i'm already invested. savings plan for retirement? already have it.

i get what you mean CHS, and i got you, trust me i do. but i have the life. i have a wife thats working, beautiful woman. i have 2 kids, ages 5 and 3. i had a good run in the military.

but now i just wanna ball out of control. of course i'm going to have enough money to send my kids to college for 6 years so they can get an MBA.

but after all the "important" stuff is financed, i wanna do donuts in the wal mart parking lot with a ferrari and have mall security chasing me down. nothing wrong with that.

How is that graph showing it is worse? If the top 10% is around 100K, and that graph is measured by 20%, well the top 20% isn't that much money at all. Most professional career type jobs are going to put you in the top 20%. That graph illustrates nothing. It's a reach at best.

Quote:

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the income inequality. I posted the graph to show people that the income inequality is worse than what people actually think it is and not the other way around (Like some posters wish it was).

I think most posters you are referring to just don't CARE that there is "income inequality". I don't give a darn how much someone makes. If they make more than me fine, if they make less than me, fine. I'm not going to think any more or less of them.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the income inequality. I posted the graph to show people that the income inequality is worse than what people actually think it is and not the other way around (Like some posters wish it was).

I think most posters you are referring to just don't CARE that there is "income inequality". I don't give a darn how much someone makes. If they make more than me fine, if they make less than me, fine. I'm not going to think any more or less of them.

basically.

i guess the bleeding heart part of me, i really only start caring about the income inequality when it comes to those who stack money to buy their politician votes. its almost like the little guy has a very little chance to succeed.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the income inequality. I posted the graph to show people that the income inequality is worse than what people actually think it is and not the other way around (Like some posters wish it was).

I think most posters you are referring to just don't CARE that there is "income inequality". I don't give a darn how much someone makes. If they make more than me fine, if they make less than me, fine. I'm not going to think any more or less of them.

If you didn't care about income inequality then why did you post about how it was blown out of proportion (which it's not)?

It looks like we're on the same page, but I'm just crap at explaining myself. Just spend it on what makes you happy.

Quote:

It looks like we're on the same page, but I'm just crap at explaining myself. Just spend it on what makes you happy.

i get what you mean. make sure the life supporting stuff is paid for before i start acting like i'm in a Diddy video.

Quote:

If you didn't care about income inequality then why did you post about how it was blown out of proportion (which it's not)?

I don't think I used those words, but I really don't care. What I care about is people moaning and complaining about it. It is just plain irritating to me. I thought I was pretty clear that I don't really care what anyone makes, how does that make me care about income inequality? I prefer to call it "some people make more than others", or "some people are smarter than others", or "some people are just plain luckier than others", or "some people work harder than others". It's not inequality though. That is a fabrication by politicians and media types to rile people up.

I can assure you income inequality is real and not just a made up thing.

Quote:

How is that graph showing it is worse? If the top 10% is around 100K, and that graph is measured by 20%, well the top 20% isn't that much money at all. Most professional career type jobs are going to put you in the top 20%. That graph illustrates nothing. It's a reach at best.

Exactly.

According to IRS documents here

Wage Earner AGI Floor percentiles for 2010:
Top 0.1 - $1.6 million ($1.4 million in 2001)
Top 1.0 - $370k ($306.6k in 2001)
Top 5.0 - $161.5k (132k)
Top 10 - $116.6k (96k)
Top 25 - $69k (59k)
Top 50 - $34k (31k)

AGI Share:
Top 0.1 - 9.24% (8.05 in 2001)
Top 1.0 - 18.87% (17.41 in 2001)
Top 5.0 - 33.78% (31.61 in 2001)
Top 10 - 45.17% (42.50 in 2001)
Top 25 - 67.55% (64.31 in 2001)
Top 50 - 88.26% (85.60 in 2001)

Total Income Tax Share:
Top 0.1 - 17.88% (15.68 in 2001)
Top 1.0 - 37.38% (33.22 in 2001)
Top 5.0 - 59.07% (52.24 in 2001)
Top 10 - 70.62% (63.68 in 2001)
Top 25 - 87.11% (81.56 in 2001)
Top 50 - 97.64% (95.10 in 2001)

Oh. Well it's scientifically shown that Diddy Bopping can cure any disease

Quote:

I can assure you income inequality is real and not just a made up thing.

I am being serious here. Can you please explain it to me or give me a link? I guess I'm just dense. Why is it not equal if someone makes more than someone else? I just don't get it.

I'm sure you are going to show some graph of CEO's making more in relation to workers that is growing over time. Again, so what? It certainly isn't as if people can't make a comfortable living anymore.

Quote:

It's really not.

He's talking about income, your graph is about net worth.

So if you take Mark Zuckerberg (Age 29), his income is about $1 billion per year. His net worth is approximately $30 billion.

Now take Joe Schmoe, who is an engineer (Age 29), his salary is $60K per year. His networth, since he is paying on his car, just bought a house, and just recently started contributing to his 401K, is negative, we'll say -$150,000.

Joe, who has a nice professional income and has started a nice career and is on the road to doing fairly well, is in the bottom 20% of your graph for networth.

Now let's take Sally, Sally is a nurse, she's age 29 also, she hasn't bought a house yet, has diligently saved and contributed to her retirement so in her 6 years of working, she has amassed a networth of $20K.

If you are looking at networth, it takes 1.5 million Sally's to equal 1 Mark Zuckerberg on your graph.

There are, according to Forbes, 442 billionaires in the United States, what a graph like yours attempts to show is that anybody in red or blue is destitute, when that is not even close to the truth. Joe and Sally are both doing pretty well for themselves but your graph puts them at or near the bottom of the spectrum...

The graph is a representative of real numbers and facts. It doesn't show anything, we make assumptions off of it. What the graph shows is that there is a severe income inequality.

There's one that doesn't focus on net worth, but on after taxes revenue.

These numbers are important because in society's that have a large income disparity have revolutions.

Are you asking me to explain to you that income inequality is a real thing or why income inequality is bad?

Quote:

Are you asking me to explain to you that income inequality is a real thing or why income inequality is bad?

That it is a real thing, and therefore why it is bad since I don't believe in it whatsoever. Of course you can show some people make more than others, to me that isn't inequality - I just don't understand the premise of this. 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.

Well, you have the numbers right there. It's obviously real. Do you just have a problem with the name of "income inequality"?

Quote:

Well, you have the numbers right there. It's obviously real. Do you just have a problem with the name of "income inequality"?

I guess I don't understand the perceived problem with it. And yes, I absolutely have an issue with anything around the name income inequality. To me it should be called income jealousy. I'd be OK with that.

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. The nice thing about our system is that anyone can make it if they have the drive and want to take a risk (the risk is the tricky part). You are likely one of the people that do not believe that is possible anymore, but I have seen first hand many times people who came from nothing become very successful.

Well, the problem isn't the fact that you're making more. It's just how much more. In an idealistic society the rich would become x amount richer over time, but everyone else would be getting richer by ~x. To make this into a simple math problem as I don't believe I'm explaining this well it'd be something like this:
Rich growth = 2+1=3
Rest growth = 1+1=2

Instead it's more like
Rich growth = 2^2 = 4
Rest Growth = 1 +.5 = 1.5

Over a long enough period it becomes a problem.

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.

Quote:

Well, you have the numbers right there. It's obviously real. Do you just have a problem with the name of "income inequality"?

Income inequality. What is it based on? So, columbus makes more money than I do? Does that make it unfair? Hey - he does something I can't do. Is that unfair? Not at all.

The surgeon in town that has a million dollar house, with a building for nothing other than a pool, and another building that has nothing but a full size basketball court in it - is that unfair? Hey, he does something I can't do.

Me making more than my neighbor - is that unfair? Hey, I do something he can't do.

Income inequality.........blah. Perhaps I should be upset, or columbus, or the surgeon........perhaps we all should be upset that we don't get as much from the gov't. as some others do. Gov't. inequality. It's not fair. People that don't earn as much as me get reduced prices or free stuff. I don't. It's not fair.

Quote:

Well, the problem isn't the fact that you're making more. It's just how much more. In an idealistic society the rich would become x amount richer over time, but everyone else would be getting richer by ~x. To make this into a simple math problem as I don't believe I'm explaining this well it'd be something like this:
Rich growth = 2+1=3
Rest growth = 1+1=2

Instead it's more like
Rich growth = 2^2 = 4
Rest Growth = 1 +.5 = 1.5

Over a long enough period it becomes a problem.

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.

Take another look at the graph you posted. It seems to me the "less than rich" consistently increased their income since 1979 while the "rich" had highs and lows.

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.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, you have the numbers right there. It's obviously real. Do you just have a problem with the name of "income inequality"?

Income inequality. What is it based on? So, columbus makes more money than I do? Does that make it unfair? Hey - he does something I can't do. Is that unfair? Not at all.

The surgeon in town that has a million dollar house, with a building for nothing other than a pool, and another building that has nothing but a full size basketball court in it - is that unfair? Hey, he does something I can't do.

Me making more than my neighbor - is that unfair? Hey, I do something he can't do.

Income inequality.........blah. Perhaps I should be upset, or columbus, or the surgeon........perhaps we all should be upset that we don't get as much from the gov't. as some others do. Gov't. inequality. It's not fair. People that don't earn as much as me get reduced prices or free stuff. I don't. It's not fair.

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.

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

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So you believe that your God doesn't know everything? Because I was indoctrinated from Sunday School that God knew everything.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

Why does the janitor not have the ability to do what the CEO does?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

j/c

JANITOR BECOMES TOP EXECUTIVE, THANKS TO FLAMIN' HOT CHEETOS

Richard Montanez was working as a janitor at a California Frito-Lay plant when he called up the company's CEO to see if he could pitch his own idea for a new snack food he had already been testing on his family and friends.

The CEO invited Montanez to pitch his Flamin' Hot Cheetos to the marketing team and two success stories were born that day. Montanez is now PepsiCo North America's Executive Vice President of Multicultural Sales and Community Activation, and Flamin' Hot Cheetos are still bestsellers.

He says his greatness is his courage. Montanez never attended high school.

Read more: http://www.catcountry1071.com/onair/todd.../#ixzz2wWjYuvZN

Good for him.. two things.. first, one exception does not invalidate the general rule and two, PepsiCo North America's Executive Vice President of Multicultural Sales and Community Activation .. I have no idea what the EVP of multicultural sales and community activation does, but I'm guessing it doesn't exactly make him the CFO.

I just couldn't resist throwing that one out there.

Don't worry Oober.....some of us understand what you are saying and know you aren't putting anybody down.

It's a strange world we live in where the janitor is seen as the person who works hard and the CEO is seen as the person who does jack.....LOL

Don't be so sure. I have worked for a couple of guys who hand all their work to those under them to do while they sit on their ass and do nothing. It happens every day. I can honestly tell you I have never worked for a boss who worked more hours or worked harder than i do, and for years when I was the boss nobody under me worked more hours than me or worked harder than I did.

Well, we did (and still having) a major discussion that you only need to work hard and take the opportunities that were granted to you to succeed.

I agree with you about socio-economics playing a factor on what kind of opportunities a person will have. I'm a big believer in working hard, but some kids are screwed from the beginning. Most of them come from broken families, and live in cultures that don't value education, hard work, obeying the law. Sure some make it out, due to having a mother/father, or mentor steering them in the right direction, but many times, they follow down the wrong path. Go to any inner city school system, and most of them are broken, and you would be lucky to have a 50% graduation rate. The parents just don't give a damn. That is a lot to overcome, when you are a kid looking for guidance in your life.

Quote:

I agree with you about socio-economics playing a factor on what kind of opportunities a person will have. I'm a big believer in working hard, but some kids are screwed from the beginning. Most of them come from broken families, and live in cultures that don't value education, hard work, obeying the law. Sure some make it out, due to having a mother/father, or mentor steering them in the right direction, but many times, they follow down the wrong path. Go to any inner city school system, and most of them are broken, and you would be lucky to have a 50% graduation rate. The parents just don't give a damn. That is a lot to overcome, when you are a kid looking for guidance in your life.

So what is the solution to change this seemingly never ending cycle?

If we make no changes, then nothing will ever change.

Quote:

I agree with you about socio-economics playing a factor on what kind of opportunities a person will have. I'm a big believer in working hard, but some kids are screwed from the beginning. Most of them come from broken families, and live in cultures that don't value education, hard work, obeying the law. Sure some make it out, due to having a mother/father, or mentor steering them in the right direction, but many times, they follow down the wrong path. Go to any inner city school system, and most of them are broken, and you would be lucky to have a 50% graduation rate. The parents just don't give a damn. That is a lot to overcome, when you are a kid looking for guidance in your life.

I agree with that, but that doesn't mean there are not opportunities for these kids. It is a huge problem (one I mentioned earlier in the thread). It boils down to parents giving a damn. It is that simple IMO. Now, getting the parents to give a damn is no so simple.

I agree. I think it starts with better parenting and education. You have too many people having kids, that have no idea how , or what it takes to raise a kid. They're more interested in living the single life than taking care of their kids It happens generation after generation.

In terms of the Black community, the destruction of the 2 parent family has happened in what .... the past 50 years?

It wasn't that long ago that a 2 parent family was the norm in the Black community. (and the White community as well, for that matter) Today,

I just found a report from the Census, and 55% of Black children live with one parent. 31% of Hispanic children live with 1 parent.

21% of Non Hispanic White children live with one parent, and only 13% of Asian children live with one parent.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

If we compare those stats with the trends in standard of living, education, and so on ..... I think that it's clear the effect this trend has on children.

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...

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.

I never said anyone was "bad." Had I said that, I would also consider it a load of crap.

I consider my experiences as anecdotal, that's why I disclosed them as mine. Same applies to your bosses. Thanks for sharing! But neither establishes the rule/exception.

I understand ability/responsibility and how it applies to pay/duties. My janitor comment was in response to "works harder." Per the post I was replying to: If a CEO earns 1,000 times the janitor, does he/she work 1,000 times harder?

Quote:

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...

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.

I never said anyone was "bad." Had I said that, I would also consider it a load of crap.

I consider my experiences as anecdotal, that's why I disclosed them as mine. Same applies to your bosses. Thanks for sharing! But neither establishes the rule/exception.

I understand ability/responsibility and how it applies to pay/duties. My janitor comment was in response to "works harder." Per the post I was replying to: If a CEO earns 1,000 times the janitor, does he/she work 1,000 times harder?

If that is the only criteria, then no. But it is probably 1,000x the stress, responsibility, and consequences of mistakes. Then add in supply and demand of capable and willing people.

If suddenly no one wanted to be a janitor, the pay to be one would go up, as places that needed them would have to pay more to entice people to do the job.

Quote:

If that is the only criteria, then no. But it is probably 1,000x the stress, responsibility, and consequences of mistakes.

I understand the first two, but what exactly are the consequences of mistakes that CEO's make? We just saw that a company (or groups of companies) can precipitate an economic meltdown yet not face jail time. Many of these companies still handed out at least some bonuses during the downfall, and any CEO's of companies that got eaten were probably still got at least some severance. Take a look at Detroit. How many of the CEO's that were the head of the car companies during their patchy stretch a few years back faced any consequences when their companies almost went under? Did they get canned? Sure. But they still collected decent severence pay and are probably back at the grind in some capacity elsewhere in the country. CEO's are like headcoaches, paid well for a short amount of time, get paid after they're fired, and keep getting recycled through again and again. Look at how many times teams look at the same retread coaches thinking, "this is the time this guy will get it right." Chances are that won't be the case, but everyone always seems to think that a coaches past mistakes, past biases, will suddenly disappear with their team. It never happens.

Jc

It doesn't have much to do with who works harder, it has to do with the amount of responsibilty one has and the skills need to do the job.

In my line of IT work, I know people who work a Hell of a lot less, a Hell of a lot less energy/passion/production - and they make MORE than me.

It also has to do with being able to pick the right company/job if you wish to flourish.

Quote:

Quote:

If that is the only criteria, then no. But it is probably 1,000x the stress, responsibility, and consequences of mistakes.

I understand the first two, but what exactly are the consequences of mistakes that CEO's make? We just saw that a company (or groups of companies) can precipitate an economic meltdown yet not face jail time. Many of these companies still handed out at least some bonuses during the downfall, and any CEO's of companies that got eaten were probably still got at least some severance. Take a look at Detroit. How many of the CEO's that were the head of the car companies during their patchy stretch a few years back faced any consequences when their companies almost went under? Did they get canned? Sure. But they still collected decent severence pay and are probably back at the grind in some capacity elsewhere in the country. CEO's are like headcoaches, paid well for a short amount of time, get paid after they're fired, and keep getting recycled through again and again. Look at how many times teams look at the same retread coaches thinking, "this is the time this guy will get it right." Chances are that won't be the case, but everyone always seems to think that a coaches past mistakes, past biases, will suddenly disappear with their team. It never happens.

Consequences doesn't mean jailtime. It could be loss of job, wages, etc.

In the typical scenario, the CEO must meet profit expectations , productivity numbers and such.

The recent debacle is the exception, not the rule, and there are many more CEOs in the world than what were involved in the recent events.

Quote:

Don't be so sure. I have worked for a couple of guys who hand all their work to those under them to do while they sit on their ass and do nothing. It happens every day. I can honestly tell you I have never worked for a boss who worked more hours or worked harder than i do, and for years when I was the boss nobody under me worked more hours than me or worked harder than I did.

I understand that....I generally put in 65 hours a week back in the day so I know about hours....I am just saying it is crazy to think the janitor.....nothing wrong with that.....is worth more or works harder then the CEO.....I don't buy it.

Maybe in a small company, usually run by the child or grandchild of the owner.

Usually it is the grandchildren when thigs fall apart. The Grandparent starts a business. His or her kids see how hard their parents worked to make it work....the kids ended up living the good life and work the business just a little bit less, and the grandchildren who had the silverspoon from birth so to speak seek to sell the business. They just want the money.

Quote:

I am just saying it is crazy to think the janitor.....nothing wrong with that.....is worth more or works harder then the CEO.....I don't buy it.

I don't know if anyone thinks the janitor is worth more. My statement on the janitor was that the typical CEO wouldn't do that job.

Its 5 PM, some kid diarrheas all over the bathroom. Janitor is clocking out after his 40 hrs. Salaried CEO is leaving with him.

The CEO's job is to keep costs low: Does the typical CEO clean the diarrhea? Or pay the janitor OT?

Quote:

Quote:

I am just saying it is crazy to think the janitor.....nothing wrong with that.....is worth more or works harder then the CEO.....I don't buy it.

I don't know if anyone thinks the janitor is worth more. My statement on the janitor was that the typical CEO wouldn't do that job.

Its 5 PM, some kid diarrheas all over the bathroom. Janitor is clocking out after his 40 hrs. Salaried CEO is leaving with him.

The CEO's job is to keep costs low: Does the typical CEO clean the diarrhea? Or pay the janitor OT?

It all depends - but I think you're mixing 2 things. You speak about a CEO - generally CEO's don't have kids using the restroom at work.

Regardless - if you're talking fortune 500 type ceo - they don't work 40 hours a week. Plus, cleaning up bathrooms isn't their job. That's what janitors are for - and believe me, I'm not belittling janitors in ANY way. (quick note: 17 1/2 years ago, when I got married - I paid for a honeymoon to Hawaii - flights, hotel, food, and everything we did in Hawaii - by being a night time janitor on top of my full time job.)

Regardless - if the ceo stays and cleans it up - he doesn't get paid more. If the janitor does, he gets o.t. Plus, it's his job.

Now, at home later that night, does the janitor worry about how he's going to keep everyone employed? Or does he clock out, go home and relax knowing he put his time in. His decisions don't affect 50, 500, 5000 employees.

I only add that because my wife has a job that requires 40 hours a week. Clock in, clock out, forget about work till the next day. I have a job that is with me pretty much every waking moment. I make more than she does. I have more stress, as well.

Look, the world needs plumbers, ceo's, ditch diggers, doctors, factory workers, insurance companies, teachers, welders, construction people, etc etc etc.

My point is that many bosses and executives consider themselves to be "above" the jobs of many of their understudies. Even if it saves the company money or helps the business. Many won't do the dirty jobs that pay a fraction of their salary.

Again, I'm not saying it's bad. And I understand why it is this way. I'm just saying that's how it is.

Quote:

Consequences doesn't mean jailtime. It could be loss of job, wages, etc.

In the typical scenario, the CEO must meet profit expectations , productivity numbers and such.

The recent debacle is the exception, not the rule, and there are many more CEOs in the world than what were involved in the recent events.

How is that different from any other person that works for a living? If anyone makes a mistake, they risk losing those very same things as a consequence. My point was that stress and responsibility are greater for a CEO than a Janitor, but the consequences are the same. That's the thing they have in common.

JC

We're told: You work harder you get paid more.
Its increasingly become: You work harder I get paid more.

Productivity is soaring. profits are soaring. the gap between rich and poor is soaring. wages are stagnant.

A "good" CEO rewards investors when you work harder. Not you.

Quote:

Now, at home later that night, does the janitor worry about how he's going to keep everyone employed? Or does he clock out, go home and relax knowing he put his time in. His decisions don't affect 50, 500, 5000 employees.

Or does he sit at home, thinking of how to eliminate jobs, while increasing production, or outsource them overseas to maximize profits for the shareholders?

Quote:

Quote:

Now, at home later that night, does the janitor worry about how he's going to keep everyone employed? Or does he clock out, go home and relax knowing he put his time in. His decisions don't affect 50, 500, 5000 employees.

Or does he sit at home, thinking of how to eliminate jobs, while increasing production, or outsource them overseas to maximize profits for the shareholders?

Some certainly do. I worked for one of those types - he seemed to enjoy the power of being able to ruin peoples lives.

Quick story about him. I was at a client that I had worked for and had billed in excess of $1,400,000 over the course of 3 years. I of course made nowhere near that; I was salaried and put in about 60 hours per week. I was consistently the #1 or #2 billing consultant in the practice. This client is rather large, so the CEO came to visit the customer and the director there wanted to introduce me to him - I'd not ever formally met him as I worked out of Columbus and the company was based in Phoenix. He wanted to let the CEO know how much they liked me and what a fantastic job I was doing and that they were lucky to have me as an employee. This director spent a lot of time talking me up and then pulled me into his office to introduce me - when I walked in, the director talked me up a little more and introduced me to him - he didn't even get out of his chair or shake my hand. The funny ending to this is that the director was so ticked about how he treated me he took the guy to lunch at Arby's - he said it was as if he'd never been to a fast food restaurant in his life.

I quit about a year later and work for myself now. Best move I ever made.

I've ranted about public companies on here many times. I'm not a huge fan of how they work, but do understand that in the end they answer to the shareholders who want increased profits every quarter. I really dislike when a company makes a billion dollar profit in a quarter, but then lets people go because they were supposed to make 1.1 billion and their stock tanks.

dont you just hate it when there PROJECTED income is 1 billion above last years income then they throw a fit and act like they lost their shirt because their increase in income was only 750 million above last years income

Quote:

dont you just hate it when there PROJECTED income is 1 billion above last years income then they throw a fit and act like they lost their shirt because their increase in income was only 750 million above last years income

J/C ..... there is a huge difference between income and profit.

If I double my income, but quadrupled the number of outlets I have, then you bet I'm going to be concerned.

I do believe that business has a responsibility to reinvest in the lives of those who support it .... but business also has a responsibility to make a profit. I don't know that we have a right to tell business what they can make, as far as profits go. If I come up with a great and glorious new invention that no one can possibly live without, then I have a right to sell it for whatever I want.

People buy up iPhones even though there are much cheaper options that will largely do the same thing. Apple makes a ton of money every year. Few people complain, even though Apple makes obscene profits, and make their products in China .... but then again ... they are a "cool" rich company.

Apple is actually making a laptop in the USA now. I think its the high-end MacPro . But, yes, they rely on China for so much labor. And much of their recent profit increases is actually reducing their tax burden through accounting and offshore tax havens. Many companies are investing more in tricky accounting than actual technology or production. I sold my IBM shares after finding out they were laying off tech employees and hiring lawyers/accountants.

We also have to keep in mind that shareholders can file lawsuits when executives raise wages.

Its part of our system.

Labor is cyclical. I think in another decade (as Boomers retire in mass) many companies will be scrambling.