[bernabby]

Lazz, on 01 February 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

bernabby said:

Lazz, on 01 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

bernabby said:

Let me ask you something. You are leaving this world suddenly and you have only 10 seconds to choose a complete stranger to take care of your child. You only have 2 choices. Some random ows protestor or me, a gun right advocate. No cheating. Be honest.

Oh, that's easy for me.
Sooner take a chance with a random OWS protester than a nut like you.
Sorry.

Was anyone asking you? Or, are you just trolling like you did with DRS? Do you ever offer anything of value other than your snot nose arrogance? Well, from this nut go crawl back into your cesspool you pathetic frustrated loser.

Oh dear.
I mistakenly believed the question was open to all. Yes, you seem to have this progressive foot-in-mouth condition.And I was being honest as you requested.
Sorry you didn't like the answer. The answer and honesty were fine and quite expected from a fart mouth with no life.

Is your name Bruce? That's your problem you don't care who is engaged in a conversation you just take it upon yourself to inject your venom against that party whom you believe to be a nut.

[Jodi Krangle]

Guys? You're all adults in my book. Please act like it. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. If I have to warn people about this again, I will close this thread. And as it looks to me, this is rapidly devolving into something that really isn't a discussion of the topic at hand.

[Alistair S]

I just read this. I'm closing it.

This exchange is ridiculous.

[Alistair S]

Hopefully, things have cooled a little and I've re-opened the thread.

As a reminder, robust arguments are fine - personal attacks are not. I'd also like us to avoid posting deliberate "bait".

Surely, we can discuss matters openly, honestly and with respect?

Thanks

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

Do you really believe the people at the top of organizations don't bust their asses, and didn't bust their asses to get where they are?

no, I'm sure they work very hard as well...but I don't think they work hundreds and thousands of times harder than people like my mum either which is what their pay seems to be suggesting.Or that they're hundreds or thousands of times more gifted either.

I was reading a G.K Chesterton quote the other day '“The problem with capitalism is there are too few capitalists.”
That's the thing, all the capital is gathered in the hands of the few while the rest of us are wage slaves.

But sure there is no point loosing sleep over it...it's always been that way and always probably will

[December Rock Star]

I like the music, but the lyrics seem to be uncentered and unfocused. The POV changes drastically as it progresses,
and structurally it's a disaster. I would rewrite this, and remember somebody has to sing it, and it has to be about 3 minutes long!

Speaking of foreign relations, I read were the Giants are planning to dismantle some Patriot missiles in Indianapolis.

And that is a tragedy that even though we know the end result, we cant do anything about it. People will be hurt, and blind sided, and cursed at
and dragged around, and who doesn't love a great disaster story.

[Scotto]

Jackie Chan said:

Quote

Do you really believe the people at the top of organizations don't bust their asses, and didn't bust their asses to get where they are?

no, I'm sure they work very hard as well...but I don't think they work hundreds and thousands of times harder than people like my mum either which is what their pay seems to be suggesting.Or that they're hundreds or thousands of times more gifted either.

I was reading a G.K Chesterton quote the other day '“The problem with capitalism is there are too few capitalists.”
That's the thing, all the capital is gathered in the hands of the few while the rest of us are wage slaves.

But sure there is no point loosing sleep over it...it's always been that way and always probably will

I think all political and societal systems have a form of class or caste system. Some are more closed than others. In the end Capitalism offers more chances for folks to move into elite status than most others, though it can be as much luck as skill and hard work. Generally a good revolutionary idea and some right place at the right time and you too could be the next Zuckerberg. I do think our current model also offers the bast chance for those of us in the commoner class to lead rewarding happy lives. That being said I think capitalism needs checks and balances and those are out of whack at the moment.

The problem with the debate, here in the US, is that discussing those checks and balances gets you labeled as a socialist or communist or saying your playing class warfare. Tinkering with the existing mix is none of those things. It's taking an intelligent look at things and discussing where faders need to go.

[Simple Simon]

Scotto, on 03 February 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

The problem with the debate, here in the US, is that discussing those checks and balances gets you labeled as a socialist or communist or saying your playing class warfare. Tinkering with the existing mix is none of those things. It's taking an intelligent look at things and discussing where faders need to go.

And therein, I feel, lies the crux of the matter.

One of the intrinsic problems with capitalism is the myth of meritocracy. Essentially, this is the idea, the belief, that financial achievement and success ahead is based on individual merit. Such "merit" is generally assumed to be made up of a mix of innate ability, hard work, good attitude and integrity. But as much as people might be conditioned throughout their lifetimes - by parents, schools, the media and society in general - to accept this idea of meritocracy as being real, and even almost noble, the simple truth is that it is neither of these things. It is as much of a myth as Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy.

Now I'm not saying that no-one ever rises to the top through a combination of the positive qualities mentioned about. Some do. However, a great many more rise to the top (or are simply born there to begin with) with no such redeeming qualities. Similarly, vast numbers of folk are rich in innate ability, work hard, have great attitudes and high moral character - in other words, "merit" - and yet remain at, or near, the bottom of the financial scale in our capitalist societies.

[bernabby]

Jackie Chan said:

Quote

Do you really believe the people at the top of organizations don't bust their asses, and didn't bust their asses to get where they are?

no, I'm sure they work very hard as well...but I don't think they work hundreds and thousands of times harder than people like my mum either which is what their pay seems to be suggesting.Or that they're hundreds or thousands of times more gifted either. I'm going to have to disagree a wee bit here. Most folks are not motivated to work 100 hour weeks in order to achieve success. Most are content to put in their 40 hours (I think it's 30 in France) just to make a check. Yes, it's not thousands of times harder but it is that in terms of work hours over a career. I wouldn't know how to measure the gifted scale but I do believe there is an exponential difference in the gifts of a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or any high achieving executive in comparison to the average Joe. I have no problem with that as well as they being compensated over proportionally than the 40 hour worker. They are the job creators as well as the wealth producers for others who may not have their gifts but apply the hard work principle in their lives.

I was reading a G.K Chesterton quote the other day '“The problem with capitalism is there are too few capitalists.”
That's the thing, all the capital is gathered in the hands of the few while the rest of us are wage slaves.

But sure there is no point loosing sleep over it...it's always been that way and always probably will

I agree, there are far too few capitalists. If there were more, the wealth would be spread around much better. My point exactly. Most will just take your easygoing position and not pursue higher expectations. Why not trade that sleeping time for working time. It may not turn you into a Gates but it will release you from that wage slave mentality.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

One of the intrinsic problems with capitalism is the myth of meritocracy. Essentially, this is the idea, the belief, that financial achievement and success ahead is based on individual merit. Such "merit" is generally assumed to be made up of a mix of innate ability, hard work, good attitude and integrity.

I was thinking about songwriters and artists especially when you said that.
I'm sure most people here could think of musicians who have never achieved the level of financial success or acclaim their talent deserved even though they were really talented or gifted. They can be plugging away for years and barely scrapping by yet some good looking kid can win Pop Idol or whatever and end up being a success.

Or volunteers. ..I'm not looking for sympathy but I did spend a few years after uni volunteering with teenagers and young people for churches etc that couldn't have afforded to employ someone full time.It didn't exactly make me (or any of my friends) rich capitalists...same for millions of people. The amount of capital you have is no measure of a man/woman.

[bernabby]

December Rock Star, on 02 February 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

I like the music, but the lyrics seem to be uncentered and unfocused. The POV changes drastically as it progresses,
and structurally it's a disaster. I would rewrite this, and remember somebody has to sing it, and it has to be about 3 minutes long!

Speaking of foreign relations, I read were the Giants are planning to dismantle some Patriot missiles in Indianapolis.

And that is a tragedy that even though we know the end result, we cant do anything about it. People will be hurt, and blind sided, and cursed at
and dragged around, and who doesn't love a great disaster story.

I get the part about the Giants and Pats but can you give us a reference for your other 2 comments?

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

Why not trade that sleeping time for working time. It may not turn you into a Gates but it will release you from that wage slave mentality.

that reminded me of this story I once heard (which I've copied as I'm lazy)

'Philip Parham tells the story of a rich industrialist who was disturbed to find a fisherman sitting lazily beside his boat. "Why aren't you out there fishing?" he asked.

"Because I've caught enough fish for today," said the fisherman.
"Why don't you catch more fish than you need?' the rich man asked.
"What would I do with them?"

"You could earn more money," came the impatient reply, "and buy a better boat so you could go deeper and catch more fish. You could purchase nylon nets, catch even more fish, and make more money. Soon you'd have a fleet of boats and be rich like me."

The fisherman asked, "Then what would I do?"
"You could sit down and enjoy life," said the industrialist.
"What do you think I'm doing now?" the fisherman replied as he looked placidly out to sea.'

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 02 February 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Scotto, on 03 February 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

The problem with the debate, here in the US, is that discussing those checks and balances gets you labeled as a socialist or communist or saying your playing class warfare. Tinkering with the existing mix is none of those things. It's taking an intelligent look at things and discussing where faders need to go.

And therein, I feel, lies the crux of the matter.

One of the intrinsic problems with capitalism is the myth of meritocracy. Essentially, this is the idea, the belief, that financial achievement and success ahead is based on individual merit. Such "merit" is generally assumed to be made up of a mix of innate ability, hard work, good attitude and integrity. But as much as people might be conditioned throughout their lifetimes - by parents, schools, the media and society in general - to accept this idea of meritocracy as being real, and even almost noble, the simple truth is that it is neither of these things. It is as much of a myth as Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy. It's real. Unfortunately, most who try think success is going to happen overnight. True, like in any endeavor (such as American Idol) there will be successes and failures. I would tend to believe that the higher success rates were a result of perserverance. I agree some will fail even after a lifetime of pursuing a dream. Life is not fair but if given a choice I believe there are many more success stories than there are failures. Still, the pursuit of that dream is always a healthy and noble choice.Now I'm not saying that no-one ever rises to the top through a combination of the positive qualities mentioned about. Some do. However, a great many more rise to the top (or are simply born there to begin with) with no such redeeming qualities. Other that being born to wealth can you cite an example of the great many who got to the top with no meritorious qualities?Similarly, vast numbers of folk are rich in innate ability, work hard, have great attitudes and high moral character - in other words, "merit" - and yet remain at, or near, the bottom of the financial scale in our capitalist societies. Are you sure this isn't the jealously factor that has been pounded into our minds via the liberal doctrine of class envy? I mean, Obama recently gave a speech denigrating the work ethics of Americans. He is constantly pitching his tax the rich propaganda instead of addressing the creation of jobs. How does this motivate people to a higher level of achievement?

It's too easy to see the glass half empty. We need to inject some positive vibes like the Reagan era and get this economy going full blast agains.

[Bruce N]

Quote

Or volunteers. ..I'm not looking for sympathy but I did spend a few years after uni volunteering with teenagers and young people for churches etc that couldn't have afforded to employ someone full time.It didn't exactly make me (or any of my friends) rich capitalists...same for millions of people. The amount of capital you have is no measure of a man/woman.

Exactly. If someone is an "A" type personality, that's fine, if you think that all there is to life, is to work, work, work, reproduce, work, work work, and then die , that's what insects do.

If you're a "B" type personality you understand there's more to life then just working and making money and you take the time to saver life as God intended it to be, that's what humans do.

[December Rock Star]

bernabby, on 02 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Quote

I like the music, but the lyrics seem to be uncentered and unfocused. The POV changes drastically as it progresses,
and structurally it's a disaster. I would rewrite this, and remember somebody has to sing it, and it has to be about 3 minutes long!

Speaking of foreign relations, I read were the Giants are planning to dismantle some Patriot missiles in Indianapolis.

And that is a tragedy that even though we know the end result, we cant do anything about it. People will be hurt, and blind sided, and cursed at
and dragged around, and who doesn't love a great disaster story.

I get the part about the Giants and Pats but can you give us a reference for your other 2 comments?

as if it were a song? I was critiquing the thread, lol.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Are you sure this isn't the jealously factor that has been pounded into our minds via the liberal doctrine of class envy?

Yes, Bernabby, I am quite sure that it has nothing to do with either jealousy or doctrine of any kind. I can quite assure you that I have no envy for the ultra-wealthy whatsoever - or of anyone else for that matter. Quite the contrary, I feel incredibly blessed in life.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 02 February 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Are you sure this isn't the jealously factor that has been pounded into our minds via the liberal doctrine of class envy?

Yes, Bernabby, I am quite sure that it has nothing to do with either jealousy or doctrine of any kind. I can quite assure you that I have no envy for the ultra-wealthy whatsoever - or of anyone else for that matter. Quite the contrary, I feel incredibly blessed in life.

Then why do you feel that the road to success is not lined with hard work and individual initiative but instead with inheritance and myths? I, too, am blessed and rich in terms of the shaping of my life. I am in no means wealthy in terms of bank accounts. I've put in my 7 days 80 hours weeks and reached a level where that has paid off for my sunset years. Perhaps if I put in 100 hours I could have actually retired. I must work on but I still love what I do. Like Jackie's example
I can take weekends to enjoy the scenery. I never made it to the wealthy level but that's life - you only get one chance - and most who work hard and diligently will never make it to that level. That's ok the journey was brutal but ultimately acceptable. My second effort now to reach the filthy rich air is to win the lotto. Came up empty last week. Anybody got a crystal ball, I'll share 99 - 1 because I'm a greedy sob just like the inconsiderate ultra rich who are despised.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Then why do you feel that the road to success is not lined with hard work and individual initiative but instead with inheritance and myths?

Please note, Barnabby, that I did acknowledge that some do achieve extreme financial wealth in life based on ethical personal endeavour.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 02 February 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Then why do you feel that the road to success is not lined with hard work and individual initiative but instead with inheritance and myths?

Please note, Barnabby, that I did acknowledge that some do achieve extreme financial wealth in life based on ethical personal endeavour.

Yes, you concede that only some achieve this success. The implication is most get there through devious means. That's where we differ. I feel it's the other way around.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, you concede that only some achieve this success. The implication is most get there through devious means. That's where we differ. I feel it's the other way around.

I'm not sure that "devious" is the right word, Bernabby. It's certainly not the word I would have chosen. "Unethical" might be a better description, although even that seems a little too limited by definition. In fact, I would be tempted to fall back on that simple old-fashioned word: "greedy". And what do I mean by that? I mean the willingness to lie, cheat, and exploit those less able or less fortunate in order to acquire more for oneself.


I don't know about "most" though, to be honest, although it does seem to me that there is far more such more corruption in the world of the super-wealthy than there was when I was young. But perhaps I'm just a little better informed and a little less naive these days.

The thing is, Bernabby, that I totally agree with you that there are people... perhaps many people... who have become extremely wealthy through constructive, productive and ethical endeavours. I neither envy nor begrudge them their money. I honestly have no idea as to the exact proportion of such wealthy folks in relation to those who have acquired their fortunes in other ways. But I DO know that there are a very large number of people in the latter category.

I'm going to step back from all this big picture for a moment, Bernabby, because I'm trying to better-understand your personal stand on business ethics. As I understand it, you run your own business, right? I believe you employ others? So, just because I'm trying to understand, would you ever consider awarding yourself a higher salary as director of your business, while telling your employees that they needed to take a pay cut and work longer and harder because times were tough?

[FunkDaddy]

Look at the richest people in the world. You've got that Mexican tele-communications magnate, who I don't really know a lot about but from what I gather he built himself a monopoly and ran out of business or acquired all of his competitors.

You've got Warren Buffet, who recently made the biggest charitable donation in history (at about 30 billion dollars) and made his money from being a stock market genius. He was reportedly embarassed when asked about the private jet he bought...understandable seeing as how he's lived in the same home for decades (a home that doesn't look much bigger than the one I'm currently sitting in)

And you've got Bill Gates, who built his company from his own smarts, but nowadays is frequently the center of anti-trust lawsuits. But also contributes heavily to charity.

Steve Jobs...same as Bill Gates except he wasn't know for his philanthropy (at least not publically)

It takes all kinds. But I don't see too many billionaires taking a pay cut to raise their staff's payroll.

And Walmart? The Walton family that is around today didn't earn their riches, they inherited it all from Daddy. Only one of them is even involved in the business. But more power to them.

[Scotto]

The question of how folks get wealth and how they act with it is all of the above. It's a cross section of humanity and you'll have your liars and cheats amongst them like any other cross section of society. In fact I'd go so far as to say that if you give people a loop hole at any level.... someone will take you up on it intended or not.

I guess the biggest difference is that the debased amongst the top have a much wider impact as there can be many people working and depending on them. Certainly we'd tend to notice it more.

[Lazz]

Simple Simon, on 02 February 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Then why do you feel that the road to success is not lined with hard work and individual initiative but instead with inheritance and myths?

Please note, Barnabby, that I did acknowledge that some do achieve extreme financial wealth in life based on ethical personal endeavour.

While there are always individual cases of great success in moving from poverty to riches, objectively, studies of social mobility show us that both the US and the UK have the least fluid structure of all Western developed nations. There are a legion of research studies which demonstrate this and absolutely none which contradict their basic conclusions. The myth that it is otherwise persists strongly in the US in spite of the facts. Inheritance - cultural and material - is profoundly consequential.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 03 February 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yes, you concede that only some achieve this success. The implication is most get there through devious means. That's where we differ. I feel it's the other way around.

I'm not sure that "devious" is the right word, Bernabby. It's certainly not the word I would have chosen. "Unethical" might be a better description, although even that seems a little too limited by definition. In fact, I would be tempted to fall back on that simple old-fashioned word: "greedy". And what do I mean by that? I mean the willingness to lie, cheat, and exploit those less able or less fortunate in order to acquire more for oneself. Oh, I get it now. You mean those scum ambulance chasers who will exploit any tragedy for their own personal gain. Tort lawyers, I agree, fall within your "greedy" definition.

I don't know about "most" though, to be honest, although it does seem to me that there is far more such more corruption in the world of the super-wealthy than there was when I was young. But perhaps I'm just a little better informed and a little less naive these days.

The thing is, Bernabby, that I totally agree with you that there are people... perhaps many people... who have become extremely wealthy through constructive, productive and ethical endeavours. I neither envy nor begrudge them their money. I honestly have no idea as to the exact proportion of such wealthy folks in relation to those who have acquired their fortunes in other ways. But I DO know that there are a very large number of people in the latter category. Yes, there are the Madoff's and Kennedy's but those are far fewer than those who earned their wealth legitimately.
I'm going to step back from all this big picture for a moment, Bernabby, because I'm trying to better-understand your personal stand on business ethics. As I understand it, you run your own business, right? I believe you employ others? So, just because I'm trying to understand, would you ever consider awarding yourself a higher salary as director of your business, while telling your employees that they needed to take a pay cut and work longer and harder because times were tough?

Yes, I do own my own business going on 27 years now. I was a salaried employee before then and was paid fairly decently including benefits. Problem was I just didn't feel right in a suit and tie every day. Looking back I would probably be much better off (money)in that salaried position than I am today. On the other hand, who knows if I would not have been another statistic of the recession. That said, yes, I employ 5 people. It used to be 8 so my business was impacted and has still not fully recovered from where it was 5 years ago. Yes, I have asked my remaining employees to take a pay cut because of the dramatic decline in business. No, I have not increased their hours but actually because of slow times their hours overall are less than the overtime we used to work in booming times. Yes, to your next question, I paid them quite well for overtime work. The fact that my employees have been with me from 22 to 25 years should answer all your questions about how I have treated them, financially as well as personally. As for me, I'll let you decide how I have exploited my employees over all these years.

[bernabby]

FunkDaddy, on 03 February 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Look at the richest people in the world. You've got that Mexican tele-communications magnate, who I don't really know a lot about but from what I gather he built himself a monopoly and ran out of business or acquired all of his competitors. Good example of a self made businessman.

You've got Warren Buffet, who recently made the biggest charitable donation in history (at about 30 billion dollars) and made his money from being a stock market genius. He was reportedly embarassed when asked about the private jet he bought...understandable seeing as how he's lived in the same home for decades (a home that doesn't look much bigger than the one I'm currently sitting in)...Let's put him in the hard work, self motivated legitimate billionaire class.

And you've got Bill Gates, who built his company from his own smarts, but nowadays is frequently the center of anti-trust lawsuits. But also contributes heavily to charity. Another legit billionaire.
Steve Jobs...same as Bill Gates except he wasn't know for his philanthropy (at least not publically)...and another.

It takes all kinds. But I don't see too many billionaires taking a pay cut to raise their staff's payroll. But do you see staff payroll rising with the rising tide? Buffet's secretary makes $500K to answer phones and keep a calendar. Gets to jet around all over the world with him. Not too shabby. How much of a cut do you think she has been forced to take? Do you know that a huge number of employees at Microsoft are themselves multi-millionaires?

And Walmart? The Walton family that is around today didn't earn their riches, they inherited it all from Daddy. Only one of them is even involved in the business. But more power to them.

Yes, but the fact remains that it was daddy's sweat and genius that built this empire. Let's put him in the legit class too. Seems to me that the examples you cite supports my case that most of the high end achievers earned their way to the top.

[Simple Simon]

Lazz, on 04 February 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

While there are always individual cases of great success in moving from poverty to riches, objectively, studies of social mobility show us that both the US and the UK have the least fluid structure of all Western developed nations. There are a legion of research studies which demonstrate this and absolutely none which contradict their basic conclusions.

Thanks for that, Lazz. I thought I had heard of such studies, but a cursory search had me unable to locate any. Would you do me a favour and point me in the direction of one or two that might be available online?

[jonie]

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

jonie, on 31 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing.

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

Advocating? I would hardly consider an attempt to predict what might be coming down the pike as advocating for it. In the lyric I wrote for the last collab (Occupy Wall St theme) I'd written the lines:

"We haven't come with guns and ammunition
We haven't come to fight your kind of war"

No, I can't envision a time now or in the future where those involved in the OWS movement will take up arms to overthrow the government not even in an attempt to defend themselves or their position. In no way would I want them to either.

I was talking about a possible time down the road, if things continue going down hill (for all of us) how I can see some gun-loving, gun-toting, Tea Party types getting serious about getting their way. They probably won't be calling themselves protesters though. More like revolutionaries.

How silly to think I was referring to the OWS protesters. Libs don't like guns, remember.

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Yes, I do own my own business going on 27 years now. I was a salaried employee before then and was paid fairly decently including benefits. Problem was I just didn't feel right in a suit and tie every day. Looking back I would probably be much better off (money)in that salaried position than I am today. On the other hand, who knows if I would not have been another statistic of the recession. That said, yes, I employ 5 people. It used to be 8 so my business was impacted and has still not fully recovered from where it was 5 years ago. Yes, I have asked my remaining employees to take a pay cut because of the dramatic decline in business. No, I have not increased their hours but actually because of slow times their hours overall are less than the overtime we used to work in booming times. Yes, to your next question, I paid them quite well for overtime work. The fact that my employees have been with me from 22 to 25 years should answer all your questions about how I have treated them, financially as well as personally. As for me, I'll let you decide how I have exploited my employees over all these years.

That nice, bernabby, but you didn't answer Simon's question:

Quote

would you ever consider awarding yourself a higher salary as director of your business, while telling your employees that they needed to take a pay cut and work longer and harder because times were tough?

It's really what we're talking about here. Everyone understands the necessity of cutting salaries and laying people off in lean times. What some of us don't see as fair is how CEO's and other top management can give themselves huge raises and bonuses at the same time.

I don't think you'd do that but I wonder what you think of bosses who do.

[Lazz]

Simple Simon, on 03 February 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Lazz, on 04 February 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

While there are always individual cases of great success in moving from poverty to riches, objectively, studies of social mobility show us that both the US and the UK have the least fluid structure of all Western developed nations. There are a legion of research studies which demonstrate this and absolutely none which contradict their basic conclusions.

Thanks for that, Lazz. I thought I had heard of such studies, but a cursory search had me unable to locate any. Would you do me a favour and point me in the direction of one or two that might be available online?

The standard sociological collections of longitudinal data which I remember were by Peter Blau in the US, by the expatriate Pitirim Sorokin also in the US, and David Glass in the UK. Probably only of historical interest right now since more recent structural changes involved with late period international monopoly capitalism seem to have twisted everything way beyond recognition. So they’d probably be quite pointless reading.

Here is some much more recent and more relevant stuff you can find on the web:

Broad European data comparisons 1970-2000
http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=90366

Comparison US UK Germany Canada 2005
http://cep.lse.ac.uk...new/blanden.pdf

Comparison US UK Nordic Nations 2006
http://ftp.iza.org/dp1938.pdf

Review of 50 studies in 9 countries 2006
http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf

US data 2006
http://www.americanp...ityAnalysis.pdf

Pew Trust 2011
http://www.economicm...ty.org/poll2011
http://www.economicm...am%20Report.pdf

NYT graphic on trends
http://www.nytimes.c...C/index_03.html

That might keep you busy enough.
(but probably all commies)

[Simple Simon]

Lazz, on 04 February 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Here is some much more recent and more relevant stuff you can find on the web:

Thanks for that, Lazz. I've only really had a very cursory glance through them, but they certainly serve to illustrate your point about the comparisons between the UK and the US.

The interesting thing about this, for me, is that the lack of social mobility in the UK has long been directly representative of the entrenched class system in which one was not supposed to attempt to rise above "one's station" in life. The irony, of course, is that the descendants of all those folk who escaped to the New World, with its promise of "freedom and opportunity" now find themselves - consciously or not - in the midst of a socio-economic paradigm that is every bit as oppressive as that from which they supposedly escaped.

[Simple Simon]

jonie, on 04 February 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

That nice, bernabby, but you didn't answer Simon's question:.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jonie. I was going to, but I wasn't sure if I could really be bothered.

[feegis]

Quote

I was reading a G.K Chesterton quote the other day '“The problem with capitalism is there are too few capitalists.”
That's the thing, all the capital is gathered in the hands of the few while the rest of us are wage slaves.

I, myself, never- ever - felt like a wage slave. I've been grateful to any company that built themselves to a point where they could employ me and pay me and give me a place to provide for myself in return for the effort I gave, which we all know is vital to the human psyche and spirit. I didn't like every job equally, but I knew I was, in the end, beholden to none of them, and that I was perfectly free to go out and try it on my own.

The only way one is made to feel like a wage slave is if they choose to or allow themselves to be made to feel that way. Some people are grateful for what they have, and some are bitter for what they don’t. That’s within the nature of being human.

The opportunity to gain the kind of life you want exists the same as it did for the giants when they were just starting and weren't having anything handed to them. Yes, some come from more advantageous circumstances. Well, good for them. If they don't waste it and they achieve something that benefits others, well, great!!! Let's applaud them. Some are better at what they do than others, and if you don't play to win, you will lose, and if a company shuts its doors, everyone loses.

I understand economies of scale, but nothing keeps me from finding a way to earn the living and gain the life that I want. And if I choose to try to compete with the big players, I can do so. It's not easy to break in and, if I do, I have to be good enough to hang, but no one owes me anything, and I begrudge no one anything. But that’s just my outlook on life. I’m happy for what I have, and I waste not one minute worrying about what someone else has. If they get it illegally, then, yes, they should be punished. If they are greedy, well, that’s them and their own cross to bear. Remember, I'm in the same world, the same system, as everyone else here, and I see the playing field. I know it's not easy. Should I allow myself to be convinced that my fate is not in my own hands? Should I allow myself to become yet another grumbling, disgruntled wage slave?

A business is like a person, some treat you better than others. If you don't like one, go to another. If you don't like your station in life, do something about it. But, we all have to be honest in our own self-assessments. I can’t do what Springsteen does, as much as I would love to. I can’t do what Bill Gates does, as much as I would like to have his success (I’d rather be able to do what Springsteen does!). In the end, I have to be honest with myself and act accordingly.

[feegis]

Quote

But I don't see too many billionaires taking a pay cut to raise their staff's payroll.

Who knows what employees get for profit sharing bonuses and what not? Who knows what kind of perks they are given through their companies? I know many people who receive very nice profit sharing checks (I am a technical recruiter for engineers - I spend all my time around this kind of stuff. I have seen ridiculously generous and ridiculously stingy employers).

Quote

And Walmart? The Walton family that is around today didn't earn their riches, they inherited it all from Daddy. Only one of them is even involved in the business. But more power to them.

Let's not forget where Sam Walton started:

http://en.wikipedia....tory_of_Walmart

And so what if they inherited their money? That happens. Are we sure they do no good with it? You know, I have never shopped in a Walmart, for no other reason, really, than the fact that I've been able to find what I need elsewhere.

[feegis]

Quote

The thing is, Bernabby, that I totally agree with you that there are people... perhaps many people... who have become extremely wealthy through constructive, productive and ethical endeavours.

But you believe that's the exception, not the rule. So, the wealthy are viewed negatively because of a default presumption of how they got there? I do look at it the opposite way. I do not condone anything achieved in an underhanded way. I just don't believe the majority of wealth is achieved or attained in underhanded ways. Some is, sure. And some people are just good at making money, and they don't have to resort to unethical means. Others, like me, have to work harder for whatever I get, but I keep it ethical. Much wealth is achieved through tough competitiveness that some can't survive, but that doesn't mean it's unethical, or even cruel. I happen to see a lot of benefits in such challenge.

I'd like to provide this regarding two separate years in recruiting. One year I busted my butt and earned national recognition and made a lot of money. The next year, I skated, and fell completely off of everyone's radar. I struggled financially. But I employed the exact same ethics - clean and true - to achieve both sides of the scale. So, did I have to get greedy and deceitful and illegal to achieve more, or was it primarily a matter of effort? I know the truth. I had a backstage pass to the truth.

I know this is not multi-billion dollar stuff, but the principles are the same. Some people do detestable things and gain or lose, some go by the book and gain or lose, but I will choose to believe people are good first and let them prove me wrong. I've always said that I'd rather let ten guilty people go free before I imprison one innocent person. And when my livlihood comes from a paycheck provided by a company that chooses to employ me, well, I'll choose to be grateful. if I'm not happy, that's on me. I have always had an admiration for intelligence. The more the better - pure intelligence - not someone trying to be intelligent or being impressed with their own intelligence, and I have even more admiration and respect for those that are ethical and kind. A person's wealth means nothing to me if they are a scoundrel, but I won't presume someone is until they show me they are.

But regarding my personal experience, how should I feel if the presumption of how I achieved my success the first year is through deceit and greed and unsavory tactics, or because I had unfair advantages? I'll tell you this, the first year I worked hard, and my customers, my boss, my family, my friends, my community, my church - they all benefitted more than they did the next year - and not because I had more money to give, but because I felt better about my effort and, yes, the success, and I had more of myself to give.

[feegis]

Quote

The interesting thing about this, for me, is that the lack of social mobility in the UK has long been directly representative of the entrenched class system in which one was not supposed to attempt to rise above "one's station" in life. The irony, of course, is that the descendants of all those folk who escaped to the New World, with its promise of "freedom and opportunity" now find themselves - consciously or not - in the midst of a socio-economic paradigm that is every bit as oppressive as that from which they supposedly escaped.

So, do you want social mobility, or no? If you have social mobility, people will mobilize differently, based on countless factors, to different levels, and you will still have the people who have more and people who have less. And, yes, there will be extremes. So, if this is not appealing, the only solution, it seems, is to have everything dictated and parceled out, no? Is that what you are saying you want?

I always liked the quote, "The human spirit is born to soar." I still don’t know who said it, I just remember seeing it and liking it. But, again, should I allow myself to be convinced that I'm oppressed?

I understand people wish people wouldn't be greedy, and certainly not trample people in their greedy quests(and one can be greedy and ethical at the same time - greed is just wanting more, it doesn't necessarily mean it has to do with the means we go about it). But ideals are something we hold personally. I don't like greed, either. Also, ideally, for me, sex wouldn't be so glorified in pop culture, people wouldn't cheat on one another, and we would all be considerate of our neighbors. As it is, I can only do my part, but, like you, I will fight my battles as I see fit, and hopefully do it respectfully (as you do).

[feegis]

Quote

What is your obsession with trying to read something in someone else's post that is not there?

Incidentally, if I do this, I apologize. When dealing with personal issues, I like to stay on topic. When engaging in a general forum, such as this, it's never felt like an obsession, but I admit I can go off on tangents in my own mind and whatnot. I realize that could be annoying, but, at the same time, no one is obligated to read my posts, though I like to think there's something worthwhile to them.

[feegis]

Quote

I was talking about a possible time down the road, if things continue going down hill (for all of us) how I can see some gun-loving, gun-toting, Tea Party types getting serious about getting their way. They probably won't be calling themselves protesters though. More like revolutionaries.

Ah....seems I was closer to getting it right, after all. I didn't think my dot connecting was such a stretch!

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 03 February 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

jonie, on 04 February 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

That nice, bernabby, but you didn't answer Simon's question:.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jonie. I was going to, but I wasn't sure if I could really be bothered.

I answered his question. You either didn't look for it or didn't want to find it.

[Alistair S]

The question was, "Would you ever consider awarding yourself a higher salary as director of your business, while telling your employees that they needed to take a pay cut and work longer and harder because times were tough?"

From your reply, though you don't say so explicitly, I think the answer is, "No".

You sound like a good employer to me, Bob.

[bernabby]

jonie, on 03 February 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

bernabby, on 31 January 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

jonie, on 31 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

What the Oakland Occupiers did was nothing.

Nothing compared to what has been done to the American (and European) economies in the name of capitalist greed.

Nothing compared to the homelessness and joblessness.

Nothing compared to the utter loss of trust in our elected officials and our judicial systems. (deserved)

Nothing compared to what the future holds if everyone continues to focus on the cat crapping in the corner instead of the elephant sitting on our chests.

And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protesters with their own weapons)

Are you advocating for an armed revolt? You're a very scary person hoping the protestors come back with weapons. Might you suggest, instead, that they get a job instead of obstructing businesses who provide the jobs?

Advocating? I would hardly consider an attempt to predict what might be coming down the pike as advocating for it. In the lyric I wrote for the last collab (Occupy Wall St theme) I'd written the lines: Yes, but that's not what you wrote for this topic. "And nothing compared to what might be coming down the pike. (protestors with their own weapons). Your whole post focused on the occupy protestors so it is quite clear that your intent was to suggest that protestors bring their weapons next time. Writing a theme base lyric is very different than writing something from your heart.
"We haven't come with guns and ammunition
We haven't come to fight your kind of war"

No, I can't envision a time now or in the future where those involved in the OWS movement will take up arms to overthrow the government not even in an attempt to defend themselves or their position. In no way would I want them to either. Ok, just fess up that what you posted was a mistake and was not intended to suggest a call to arms by the protestors.
I was talking about a possible time down the road, if things continue going down hill (for all of us) how I can see some gun-loving, gun-toting, Tea Party types getting serious about getting their way. They probably won't be calling themselves protesters though. More like revolutionaries. Come on, it's quite clear you were referring to the ows protestors. Stop trying to rationalize what cannot be rationalized. You see, I gave you an out above but you keep trying to spin this to where you don't want to just gal up and say I was wrong and let me correct what I meant. The more you try spinning the harder it will be to hide your guilt.

How silly to think I was referring to the OWS protesters. Libs don't like guns, remember. Yeah, but they're the ones who shoot first before asking questions. Ask Diane Feinstein why she packs and has a concealed permit if libs hate guns so much.

bernabby, on 03 February 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Yes, I do own my own business going on 27 years now. I was a salaried employee before then and was paid fairly decently including benefits. Problem was I just didn't feel right in a suit and tie every day. Looking back I would probably be much better off (money)in that salaried position than I am today. On the other hand, who knows if I would not have been another statistic of the recession. That said, yes, I employ 5 people. It used to be 8 so my business was impacted and has still not fully recovered from where it was 5 years ago. Yes, I have asked my remaining employees to take a pay cut because of the dramatic decline in business. No, I have not increased their hours but actually because of slow times their hours overall are less than the overtime we used to work in booming times. Yes, to your next question, I paid them quite well for overtime work. The fact that my employees have been with me from 22 to 25 years should answer all your questions about how I have treated them, financially as well as personally. As for me, I'll let you decide how I have exploited my employees over all these years.

That nice, bernabby, but you didn't answer Simon's question: I did answer his question. You just don't believe my answer. Let me highlight some clues above to give you some hints.

Quote

would you ever consider awarding yourself a higher salary as director of your business, while telling your employees that they needed to take a pay cut and work longer and harder because times were tough?

It's really what we're talking about here. Everyone understands the necessity of cutting salaries and laying people off in lean times. What some of us don't see as fair is how CEO's and other top management can give themselves huge raises and bonuses at the same time. Why is the pay structure of CEO's your concern? Why is this an obsession with you OWS types? If they give themselves huge raises and cut employee pay it's their business. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay. Either be content with the regular checks or move on to another job. That's the free enterprise system. The CEO's have the greater responsibility of keeping their companies solvent. Don't judge them until you walk in their shoes. I assure you the pressure of collecting a check every week is nothing compared to that of keeping a company in afloat.
I don't think you'd do that but I wonder what you think of bosses who do.

It's easy for people who have never met a payroll to speak about all this unfairness in the corporate world. Heck, I wonder if athletes getting $20M per 1/2 year or actors $20M per movie are worth it but their audiences like the corporate consumers are the ones who ultimately decide what is the going rate.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 05 February 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Why is the pay structure of CEO's your concern? Why is this an obsession with you OWS types?

Why do you seem to feel the need to call names, Bernabby, or to make broad assertions that someone is an "OWS type" simply because they have some sympathy with some of the concerns that instigated that movement? The world is not as black and white as you sometimes seem to wish it was, I'm afraid. It's not neatly divided into republicans or liberals, capitalists or communists, or even between ignorant and knowledgeable.

Quote

If they give themselves huge raises and cut employee pay it's their business. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay.

I hardly know how to begin to respond to this. It reminds me a little of those who would contend that beaten women are responsible to the damage caused by their drunken and selfish husbands because nobody is forcing them to stay.

The point is, Bernabby, that an extremely large part of any population has little or no such choice - particularly in times of economic recession such as the States is going through now. These are the more vulnerable and powerless members of society. Perhaps you feel it is fine for those with money and power to exploit those with neither. That is a reflection of your values. I must confess, I find them hard to understand.

[Ian Ferrin]

Scotto, on 31 January 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

One more distinction... In Syria the Bullets aren't made of rubber and they don't bother with tear gas. You're just dead.

Getting back to the original discussion...

This is a pretty important point IMO. There's a difference between lethal and non-lethal deterrence. A pretty big difference. The original post seems to ignore this distinction. Exactly how many people were killed by the Oakland police in this video?

I think part of the problem may be the power of stunning visuals to distort reality. Syrian police and Oakland police may dress in similar police garb... but they are NOT the same.

[Lazz]

Also, the uniforms are more stylish.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

This is a pretty important point IMO. There's a difference between lethal and non-lethal deterrence. A pretty big difference. The original post seems to ignore this distinction. Exactly how many people were killed by the Oakland police in this video?

it's messy though because the Syrian government/police are using real bullets on protestors in their own country (which is obviously worse than terrible) yet don't have a military presence around the globe,
and while the US police are using rubber bullets on protestors at home the US military are using cruise missiles, bombs and real bullets as a deterrent in places like Afghanistan.

In my opinion the Syrian government is an oppressive regime and the USA is an oppressive regime as well...maybe even more so.

If we looked at which country, Syria or the USA has greater control over the destinies of billions of people on planet earth (and not in a good sense) through organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, huge multi-nationals, military might etc. it wouldn't be Syria..

I'm not saying that the Syrian regime isn't a horrible oppressive regimes, just that our governments,countries and companies aren't exactly whiter than white when it comes to controlling people.

[Alistair S]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to draw comparisons between Syria and the USA. The issues are very different.

However, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and all that. When we see our freedoms being challenged, it's good to raise a red flag.

But the USA isn't in the same league as Syria in the way it deals with dissent. At least, not yet(hopefully, not ever). Both the USA and the UK have some pretty bad incidents of inappropriate use of force against their own citizens, and probably will again. However, I don't recall either nation using artillery against its own people (unless you count the civil war).

Foreign policy is a different matter, of course - but, for me, a different discussion.

[Ian Ferrin]

Jackie Chan said:

the Syrian government/police are using real bullets on protestors ... while the US police are using rubber bullets on protestors at home the US military are using cruise missiles, bombs and real bullets as a deterrent in places like Afghanistan.

In my opinion the Syrian government is an oppressive regime and the USA is an oppressive regime as well...maybe even more so.

If we looked at which country, Syria or the USA has greater control over the destinies of billions of people on planet earth (and not in a good sense) through organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, huge multi-nationals, military might etc. it wouldn't be Syria..

I'm not saying that the Syrian regime isn't a horrible oppressive regimes, just that our governments,countries and companies aren't exactly whiter than white when it comes to controlling people.

My only point was that Syria is using real bullets and the Oakland police weren't. You concede that point but seem to draw a link to USA 'oppression' anyway. That's a pretty weak argument IMO.

We use implements of war in Afghanistan because we're at war. You opine that that's oppressive but the tie-in to the Oakland protest is pretty much a non-sequitur IMO.

I agree w/ Alistar's evaluation of our thoughts.

Peace,

Ian

[Bruce N]

Ian Ferrin, on 05 February 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Scotto, on 31 January 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

One more distinction... In Syria the Bullets aren't made of rubber and they don't bother with tear gas. You're just dead.

Getting back to the original discussion...

This is a pretty important point IMO. There's a difference between lethal and non-lethal deterrence. A pretty big difference. The original post seems to ignore this distinction. Exactly how many people were killed by the Oakland police in this video?

A distinction ignored for a good reason, my original post wasn't about a tally sheet for body counts, it was to bring attention to human rights and freedoms, and of the illusionary perceptions of them, regardless of which country you reside in.

Anytime governmental force is used against it's unarmed citizenry who are participating in a peaceful protest is a direct violation of their human rights and an assault on their freedoms, regardless of what kind of deterrence is used

In the US everyone likes to boost about their democracy and freedoms, but only as long as it would appear, that the citizenry never exercise those same rights and freedoms.

[Ian Ferrin]

Bruce N, on 05 February 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

Anytime governmental force is used against it's unarmed citizenry who are participating in a peaceful protest is a direct violation of their human rights and an assault on their freedoms, regardless of what kind of deterrence is used

The Occupiers are willfully and knowingly violating numerous ordinances and laws. Dispersing, even arresting them is not a violation of their human rights. It's arresting them for violating laws.

Many cities have been extraordinarily tolerant and reluctant to enforce their own laws when it comes to the occupiers. But personally, I believe they have the right to enforce their ordinances. All those city parks deserve to be used by kids and families and frisbee-throwers. Not just occupiers.

Peace,

Ian

[Bruce N]

Ian Ferrin, on 05 February 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Bruce N, on 05 February 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

Anytime governmental force is used against it's unarmed citizenry who are participating in a peaceful protest is a direct violation of their human rights and an assault on their freedoms, regardless of what kind of deterrence is used

The Occupiers are willfully and knowingly violating numerous ordinances and laws. Dispersing, even arresting them is not a violation of their human rights. It's arresting them for violating laws.

Many cities have been extraordinarily tolerant and reluctant to enforce their own laws when it comes to the occupiers. But personally, I believe they have the right to enforce their ordinances. All those city parks deserve to be used by kids and families and frisbee-throwers. Not just occupiers.

Peace,

Ian

The Syrian government also has numerous ordinances and laws, any way you would like to slice it, Human rights to participate in peaceful protest must take precedence over any and all laws used to circumvent those Human rights.

That's true democracy, that's true freedom.

[SoddyBottoms]

Bruce N, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Quote

Or volunteers. ..I'm not looking for sympathy but I did spend a few years after uni volunteering with teenagers and young people for churches etc that couldn't have afforded to employ someone full time.It didn't exactly make me (or any of my friends) rich capitalists...same for millions of people. The amount of capital you have is no measure of a man/woman.

Exactly. If someone is an "A" type personality, that's fine, if you think that all there is to life, is to work, work, work, reproduce, work, work work, and then die , that's what insects do.

If you're a "B" type personality you understand there's more to life then just working and making money and you take the time to saver life as God intended it to be, that's what humans do.

If this is true I am an AB personality.. Volunteers are the salt of the earth although in lots of cases it is not truly for the charity but the social status and the benefits of moving in the right circles ... The statement.. The amount of capital you have is no measure of a man.. Obviously penned by someone who has none and wants to measure up.. Most individuals with capital are well above average intelligence and have been hard working disciplined people,, they are the kind of people that get things done .. This world takes money ..

The human race is in progress and if you value sleeping indoors and eating regular you must take your earning ability very seriously ... That is unless you like being cared for by big brother and enjoy the ride on the working mans back..

One mans lack of responsibility should not be anothers responsibility

[Ian Ferrin]

Bruce N, on 05 February 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Ian Ferrin, on 05 February 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

The Occupiers are willfully and knowingly violating numerous ordinances and laws. Dispersing, even arresting them is not a violation of their human rights. It's arresting them for violating laws.

Human rights to participate in peaceful protest must take precedence over any and all laws used to circumvent those Human rights.

Those 'peaceful' protests are knowingly unlawful. Part of the occupy mindset seems to be 'pushing' the limits of public tolerance. That's not exactly peaceful IMO.