If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.
If the pool has X in it, if one person get's a larger percent of that pool, then someone else HAS to get a smaller percent of that pool. It's a mathematical law.
Just for example, maybe the pool has 1000 units in it, ten people share from that pool, The boss get's 21% (210 units), and the other nine get 9% each (90 units).
Now let's say that the next year the pool grows to 2000 units, if the boss decides that he is the reason that the size of the pool grew, and thus he is due a 1000 unit bonus on top of his 210 unit salary, he is then getting 60.5% of the pool, while the remaining 9 people can only average 4.4% of the pool - their percent of the pool shrank, even though the size of the pool increased.
People look at this, and see that the workers still got paid as much, so they assume that no harm was caused to either the workers or the macroeconomy by the increase in production/profits not being shared equally.
What they fail to realize is that unless the fruits of the increasing productivity is shared more or less equally between all income classes, demand will not keep pace with productivity. So in the second year, the company produced twice as much, yet the workers can't purchase twice as much, and the boss, who acquired all of the fruits of the increase in production (his income went up over 500%), is highly unlikely to purchase 500% more.
So in the third year, the company would likely find that they had an excess of supply, and they would fire workers as they don't need as many. Worker income would tend to be depressed even more because we now have excess workers, which of course results in even lower demand. Ultimately, there is only enough demand for one worker (the owner), and he is only producing enough to satisfy is personal need, because there are no customers.
One of my siblings has about half that, which figures because she ran off 3 husbands and now remains single. The other 3 combined have next to nothing accumulated and just enough income to survive. How is it that in the same family, 2 are well situated, and 3 are very poor?
Part of the answer is their inability to make good choices in life. You can't spend more than you earn and get ahead. You can't blow your paycheck on beer and smokes and expect to have a savings account. You can't quit school, or decide that 12 years of school is enough. It isn't likely you can visit the "beauty" parlor and nail salon every week and have money to properly raise and educate your children.
The MAIN problem most of us have with getting "rich" is the person we see in the mirror.
That describes most of my siblings, and their adult children. Only a few are doing well, the rest are poor and subsidized by our taxes.
On my wife's side, out of 36, all but one are tax payers, some are already worth over a million, many more will be there in time.
My parents were poor, I started out poor. My wife's parents were poor, she started out poor.
The poverty cycle can be broken, if you really want it and are willing to work for it.
Or you can wait til the government gives it to you. What are the odds of that happening?
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
It is the lazy we have problems with. Lazy describes both my brothers and one of my sisters. I don't help them, it is like throwing money into the wind during a tornado....it is gone, gone, gone and nothing to show for it.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
Guess the question to ask is why do you care? How does a growing wealth for the top 1% affect you and your family? Is it your contention that is the fault of the rich that someone else in the lower classes doesn't become rich? Is it your contention that it is the rich's fault for personal choice and execution failures? Do you always judge others by your own beliefs and values?
How much should a worker make who doesn't show up for work, treats your customer badly, takes drugs, steals from you, and in general is working for you simply for a paycheck?
As for the wealthy owning everything, it depends on what they do with it. Most of them are heavily invested in the economy, which benefits the rest of us. It's not like they sit on a pile of gold at home like Scrooge McDuck.
Scrooge McDuck.JPGNot what the wealthy do.
To whom does it make the most sense to entrust wealth for investment in the economy? To government bureaucrats? To academic pinheads? Or to the people that made that wealth or created it in the first place, who obviously do know how to invest wealth productively. To liberal teeth gnashing about the accumulation of wealth by the top 1%, I say that money is in the right hands.
Last edited by LowDown; 01-20-15 at 11:18 AM.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.