At 12/5/12 11:26 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

At 12/5/12 11:14 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: At a minimum manufacturing industry is and will be replaced completely by automation which is why people in that industry get paid less and less because they are expendable and could be replaced by machines at any given time. Machines don't need things like Health Care benefits, Pension Plans, Vacations, pay increases, and machines don't complain. These previously denoted facts are contributors to why a monetary system is at the minimum illegitimate as the service and manufacturing industry becomes closer to full Automation each year and more and more workers get permanently laid off. Unemployable workers/service industry means that most of America will no longer have any sort of buying power therefor breaking the chain of Employer and Employee "Cyclical Consumerism" and this is not the fault of modernization it is the fault of the monetary system not being able to keep up with the changing times as Industry goes "Full Automation" which will enable far more Americans than ever to actually truly get a change to enjoy Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Oh, lord, does everything come back to 'debt-based fiat currency'? You are nearly as bad as the bible-thumpers who argued that Sandy was God's response to gay marriage in this country. Go buy a 2x4, wrap it in barbed wire, and dildo yourself with it vigorously until your problems are resolved. I promise, it won't hurt... much.

What I said was nothing to do with debt based currency directly at leased as the point was that Automation undermines the monetary system as a whole and not the economy.

But, I do agree with you that the golden age of manufacturing has passed to some extent.

Nope as full automation do to rapidly advancing technologies take the burden off of the people to produce in turn giving them time to purse there dreams instead of labor for income at a dead end job with a no pension for 35 years.

Your assuming that people will magically still have income after their good manufacturing job has been given to Yo Jin Will, who will work for pennies on the dollar 23 hours a day. No, people still need jobs in this economy, whether you like it or not.

If you read my post and then you would clearly understand that what I am suggesting is that money is holding industry back and not the other way around. You are stuck on labor for income because you seem you think that is the definition of economics when what I am suggesting is that economics is inherently illegitimate because of the monetary system it is based on.

A Job I might add that has no relevance in society other than to keep people stuck in the realm of labor for income to keep the dog and pony show going.

You mean, oh my god, people working actually contributes to the economy?

It's not contributing to anything but ruling class self entitlement and greed and not to the peoples right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I repeat, go dildo yourself with a barbed wire bat.

Dually noted.

At 12/5/12 10:41 AM, theburningliberal wrote: I am not sure if I agree with you that manufacturing workers should be paid less. Manufacturing jobs account for a great deal of value added (when American manufacturing produces products that are either exported or sold domestically, it not only provides boosts to our economy at several points along the way, it brings down our trade deficit when we export more).

You have only made the case as to why manufacturing should be encouraged not as to why the factory workers should be paid more.

Yes, manufacturing as an industry adds a great deal of economic value as well as national security value to the nation. However, the value of the industry is not necessarily areason to pay the workers more. Manufacturing requires a lot of hands (whether they be human or robot). On top of that it does not require a lot of skill. Sure, a veteran worker may be able to work with higher efficiency than most, but pretty much anybody with a bloew average inteligence, and below average dexterity can not only do the work, they can excel at it. The transaction costs of finding a worker who is skilled enough, and for the worker aqcuiring the skill, is very low. Because the workers do no need much education or base training (specific, yes, base, no) finding qualified workers is easy, and thus the workers are easily replaced. A second effect of the little education/base training is that the workers are not coming in with massive debts from college and there is no drive to pay more to cover that.

Professional jobs, such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, specialized businessmen, and so on, have high amounts of eduation and base training thus making the workers hader (emphasize of the er in this economy) to find and therefore less replacable. On top of that these workers come in with lare debts for the training and have the expectation that ther jobs will help cover the costs.

On both the demand/replacability and the training cost angles, manufacturing workers do deserve to be paid less.

At 12/5/12 12:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Yes, manufacturing as an industry adds a great deal of economic value as well as national security value to the nation.

Value and nationally securing a countries Economy comes with working together to enrich other countries and in the process not just thinking about number 1. To secure the US Economy and disregard others is a sure way to complete economic dissonance. Don't believe me look at what happened in your own backyard in the Citys Of Detroit, Toledo, and Flint those are prime examples of what happens when you disregard, segregate and forget about responsibility to the people.

rich people are either born wealthy,or were lucky to be surrounded by talented people but they were sociopath's that managed to exploit them for their own profit

At 12/5/12 11:21 AM, adrshepard wrote: I'm not buying it. For one thing, you're assuming that the richest people in the US derive their money from manufacturing, when it's clearly not the case: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/
Sorting by industry, people defined by manufacturing wealth only count about 15, or about %3.8.
Glancing through the list, it's clear that service, entertainment, and advanced technology industries dominate the current climate. You might argue that retail operations like Wal-Mart indirectly benefit from offshore manufacturing, but I'd bet that competition for Wal-Mart contracts is intense and only the companies with the best advantage (like low production costts) can reliably compete.
Plus, why is it inherently negative to lose half of its manufacturing base?

"Might" argue? That is definitely an argument, and the benefits that Wal-Mart makes BILLIONS selling products made overseas, everything from clothes to electronics. Moreover, the only point on the distribution chain for Wal-Mart where Americans are involved most of the time is moving the product from the point of entry to the store itself. In the old model, Americans were involved in not only the transportation, but the design of the product, the building of the factories (and subsequently staffing those factories), the packaging and then finally into the distribution.

This also touches on why it is inherently negative to lose half of our manufacturing base - when we outsource jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, we are taking away jobs that by the virtue of their existence stoke the fires that promote economic growth. When we had manufacturing jobs here in the US on par with the level of the 50's and 60's, you had Americans working and easily able to support themselves by finding good paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. You lose some of the design jobs, all of the construction jobs, all of the manufacturing jobs, some of the distribution jobs... In essence, not only are you offshoring the manufacturing of the product itself, but you are investing in another countries economy by developing infrastructure.

Finally here, you mention that competition for Wal-Mart contracts is intense (which i dont know if that is true, but we'll assume it is for the moment)... So according to your own argument, manufacturing companies with lower costs are going to have an advantage... Now, tell me, which country will have lower production costs - the US where manufacturing jobs generally paid well enough to support a family, or other countries where they keep wages and benefits just high enough to avoid an outcry from American consumers (and where those wages are generally less than half of what McDonald's pays)?

Isn't it possible that a reduction in production costs was needed for the business to stay viable? If it were purely a question of profits, why would they wait until there's a recession?

When a recession occurs, consumer spending goes down. When consumer spending goes down, demand for manufactured products goes down. When demand goes down, businesses have to reduce supply to creating a surplus of product which would drive the price of the product down. So between recessionary drops in consumer spending and the various tax benefits companies find by investing overseas (and not in the US), there are multiple reasons why companies outsource jobs.

From what I understand, the certified foreign reinvestment exemption would make sense if there wasn't so much potential for abuse. Also, the problem you're describing is also cited as a justification for lower corporate tax rates. Wouldn't that increase the wealth gap as you call it?

First, I made a mistake in understanding here. The certified foreign reinvestment exemption lowers (or eliminates) taxes on money earned overseas and brought back to the US. My mistake.

Second, tax rates paid by corporations (a legal entity) don't affect the wealth accumulated by executives (a human entity). What they do affect is the amount of surplus cash a corporation has to spend on wages (both hourly and salary). The biggest problem there is what I describe later in my original post (and the argument you don't address) which is that there is a disconnect between rewards and performance. I have no problem with executives running a business making a bigger annual wage than the people who are at the bottom of the totem pole, but it should be reasonable. Paying an executive $44,000,000 for 20 minutes of work while his employees make around or less than the median income is NOT reasonable (Source.

Except that the tax burden was never shifted, or at least it hasn't yet. The Bush tax cuts reduced everyone's rates, regardless of income, and the only way you can argue that it increased the tax burden is if taxes end up being raised on the non-wealthy to pay for it.

Which brings us back to the argument we had when Bush proposed his tax policy - how are you going to pay for it? Ultimately, Bush didn't, which is one reason we are running annual deficits in excess of 1 trillion dollars and are now debating returning to Clinton-era tax rates.

That's quite an oversimplification of the matter. First of all, you're using examples of the financial sector to suggest that the rich as a whole do not deserve the money they get from working.

You really think a CEO deserves 44 million dollars for working for 20 minutes before resigning? And, again, I am not opposed to executives making more than their underlings. I am opposed to them making astronomically more than their underlings.

You're also ignoring the fact that CEOs do not set their own salaries, rather it's the board of directors for each of the companies.

See here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/how-to-get-a -pay-raise-if-youre-a-ceo

Third, the financial crisis was not solely attributable to CEOs. (truncated for space)

Board, CEO's, now you're just getting into semantics. Bottom line - the leadership of these companies has been increasing their own pay while driving their companies into the ground. Thus, there is a disconnect between rewards and performance.

What I said was nothing to do with debt based currency directly at leased as the point was that Automation undermines the monetary system as a whole and not the economy.

Automation undermines the ability of American workers to find a job that pays a living wage, but it doesn't undermine the monetary system itself. Regardless of how automated we become, we will still have to deal with an economy based on some form of currency. This is why we have social safety nets and charitable giving programs - to let the fortunate help the less fortunate.

If you read my post and then you would clearly understand that what I am suggesting is that money is holding industry back and not the other way around.

Mind illuminating the rest of us on how, exactly? As I see it, the profit motive (the desire to make money while spending money to make a product) is not only one of the driving forces of business and industry, it is often a defining force of business and industry.

It's not contributing to anything but ruling class self entitlement and greed and not to the peoples right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

So... people going to school to get an education in a field that interests them so that they can find a job doing something that they love to do doesn't contribute to the pursuit of happiness?

I repeat, go dildo yourself with a barbed wire bat.

At 12/4/12 05:14 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Everyone can be Trump rich; nothing is standing in your way that can't be overcome.

No, by definition, in an economy, not everyone can hold the % of wealth that Trump does.

Heck Trump didn't even get rich, he was born rich. A significant percentage of current millionaires and above did not earn their fortunes.
Shit what does it even mean to "earn" a fortune? Did Bill Gates earn it? Could he do it again? I doubt it.

There's endless books written by wealthy people on how to get rich, yet I've never seen any of them build a fortune out of nothing twice in their lifetimes.

I'm sure it's possible, but what % of them would fail? I would guess: A lot.

At 12/5/12 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote:

There's endless books written by wealthy people on how to get rich

For $19.95 I will show you how to get rich quick in my best selling book that's already sold Millions LOL. Of course those charlatans they always fail to tell you it's the book that got them rich and not the theoretical scam based on econ that inspired their best seller LOL.

At 12/5/12 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Did Bill Gates earn it?

No and yes. He was born into an already very wealthy family. William H Gates was a very successful lawyer having amassed a good amount of wealth before little Bill graduated high school. So Bill Gates didn't really start on the same plebian level as 99% of Americans, then again, he didn't get the Romney "here's several million to start a business" treatment either.

What he did earn was the conversion of his fairly cushy beginnings into Microsoft's current behemoth status.

There's endless books written by wealthy people on how to get rich, yet I've never seen any of them build a fortune out of nothing twice in their lifetimes.

It's easy. Write a book about how to get rich.

At 12/6/12 12:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

It's easy. Write a book about how to get rich.

So what? All wealth is based on providing SOME service to other people, and those services are based in a basic BELIEF of the consumer that the price is worth it.

So if someone writes a book about how to get rich and gets someone to believe in it and it becomes rich because of it, SO WHAT?

By the way, the service that those books provide is not information about how to get rich. The service is making you feel better.

At 12/2/12 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I find the article be both insulting and lacking in proper logic.

The reason for your rant is that it appears (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you believe that the rich come from wealth and thereby have a cusion of money to fall back on. Basically that the vast majority of the wealthy can take risks because mommy and daddy will give them more money if they fail.

While that does happen...

Every successfull and rich person I know come from very modest means. I've got an uncle who made his millions working in insurance. His dad was a line worker at Ford and my Aunt's dad (my grandfather) was an enlisted man in the Air Force who retired in the '60s when enlisted personnel really didn't get paid all that much. When they had my cousins, he was a HS English teacher...but changed jobs and took the risk of a full commission job. They had no safety net...no family wealth to catch them if they fell. The only support they had was my grandparent's basement if they became homeless.

My ex-wife did NOT have indoor plumbing until she was 17 AND her bat-shit insane mother beat the fuck out her. She is now a Pathologist on her way to joining the rich. Oh yeah...first year of Med School she was married to an E-4 in the Air Force and after we divorced she did the next three years as a single mother!

And so yeah...personality (both its genetic and nuture components) have a LOT to do with getting wealth. The language the guy uses is meant to generate an emotional response to grab your attention. The problem is in some people it generate too strong of an emotional response that his message is lost (and kinda proves his point). Afterall look at the other end of the spectrum.

In Why We Suck Dennis Leary talks about how his dad told him that he could never be president because of the family he was born into. They were not politically connected nor did they have money. I've got one friend who's dad told him growing up that his family wasn't meant to have money and conveyed the message that the best he could hope for was middle class. I see parents at the school I sub/student teach/observe at whose parents don't believe in their future and/or potential.

On the other hand Eisenhower came from modest means and went to West Point because it was free. Reagan also came from modest means (he was born in an apartment building and lived over a store as his dad eaked out a salesman's living). The same with Obama and Clinton. Both sons of single mothers.

So I think the way parents form their child's personality (the messages they send and the models they provide) is HUGE in determining a child's future success. For example, one way that my ex escaped abuse was by studying. For as fucked-up as her parents were...they did value education and know she was smart and could have a future. The one thing they did right was allow her to believe she could accomplish her dream. And that trumped both abuse and poverty.

I think the author makes many great points.

At 12/9/12 05:50 PM, TheMason wrote: On the other hand Eisenhower came from modest means and went to West Point because it was free. Reagan also came from modest means (he was born in an apartment building and lived over a store as his dad eaked out a salesman's living). The same with Obama and Clinton. Both sons of single mothers.

Reagan went to some small private college but spent all time after that as an actor. He only got to where he did in politics through his work for Barry Goldwater. Before that he made some speeches like say for Harry Truman when he was a Democrat but he wasn't a huge political figure. I think the point is usually it's not what you know it's who you know.

At 12/9/12 06:09 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/9/12 05:50 PM, TheMason wrote: On the other hand Eisenhower came from modest means and went to West Point because it was free. Reagan also came from modest means (he was born in an apartment building and lived over a store as his dad eaked out a salesman's living). The same with Obama and Clinton. Both sons of single mothers.

Reagan went to some small private college but spent all time after that as an actor. He only got to where he did in politics through his work for Barry Goldwater. Before that he made some speeches like say for Harry Truman when he was a Democrat but he wasn't a huge political figure. I think the point is usually it's not what you know it's who you know.

The point I was responding to was the idea that wealth comes from wealth and that the rich do not have the same consequences of failure that the rest of society have. So I don't think pointing this out about Reagan has any relevance. (But good try...noticed that you didn't really say anything about the other 3 president's connections and education...) ;)

As for Reagan...he went to a religious private college in the 20s and 30s. Things were a little different back then, so a school like Eureka may not have been that high of a social class sign.

And who you know is a function of getting out and getting involved in things like politics and business. It is also a function of knowing something so that when someone you know is a president or presidential candidate you can do things for them. Look at JFK and Carter. Robert Kennedy was JFK's Attorney General. What position did Billy Carter hold in the Carter White House?

At 12/9/12 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote: The point I was responding to was the idea that wealth comes from wealth and that the rich do not have the same consequences of failure that the rest of society have. So I don't think pointing this out about Reagan has any relevance. (But good try...noticed that you didn't really say anything about the other 3 president's connections and education...) ;)

Yah I wasn't debating that. I was just saying Reagan didn't exactly get there because he was that talented.

As for Reagan...he went to a religious private college in the 20s and 30s. Things were a little different back then, so a school like Eureka may not have been that high of a social class sign.

And who you know is a function of getting out and getting involved in things like politics and business. It is also a function of knowing something so that when someone you know is a president or presidential candidate you can do things for them. Look at JFK and Carter. Robert Kennedy was JFK's Attorney General. What position did Billy Carter hold in the Carter White House?

The Kennedy's were different because each of them were groomed to become President, thus Robert Kennedy became Attorney General not just because he was JFK's brother but because he was actually that talented. Billy Carter didn't do anything in the government though.

But you're implying it was through skill and talent that these people got to where they were when it was mostly just being good enough and meeting the right people at the right time. I think a good example would be when President Grant was looking to pick a Chief Justice he couldn't find any prominent politician who wasn't incredibly corrupt he picked some lawyer he met when traveling through Ohio. Or how Carnegie would've probably died as some factory worker had he not been some intern for Tom Scott. These people partly got to where they did because of their skill but most of it was simply luck.

At 12/9/12 07:09 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/9/12 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yah I wasn't debating that. I was just saying Reagan didn't exactly get there because he was that talented.

That would be like me saying Clinton got where got because he wasn't that talented. But both men were successful Governors. Beyond that, Reagan also succeeded in another endeavor: acting. He did something that very few people get to achieve and that is become a movie star. Many, many people try to do what he did and failed. Yes part of that is knowing people and making connections...making connections is a key feature of successful people...but it's like pro-sports. You don't get to the NFL without having an unusual amount of talent.

Acting talent then translated very well into the political arena in which he was able to be very successful. Furthermore, Reagan was NOT the choice of establishment Republicans. He had a hard fight to beat out the establishment candidate (George HW Bush) much like Obama did in '08. That requires much skill and talent.

The Kennedy's were different because each of them were groomed to become President, thus Robert Kennedy became Attorney General not just because he was JFK's brother but because he was actually that talented. Billy Carter didn't do anything in the government though.

Okay...thank you for further explaining my point.

1) RFK became AG because he had both a connection and talent. Billy only had a connection and no talent...therefore he went no where. And we're talking about nepotism here.

2) Billy Carter and RFK were born into connections. Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower were not. They did things that made connections.

...These people partly got to where they did because of their skill but most of it was simply luck.

Hey...I'm not going to deny that chance does not play a part in success. But this is the lottery mentality that the author talks about. You are saying (essentially) that another working slub, irregardless of talent and personality would be able to achieve what Carnegie achieved. That is preposterous.

At 12/9/12 08:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/9/12 07:09 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/9/12 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yah I wasn't debating that. I was just saying Reagan didn't exactly get there because he was that talented.

That would be like me saying Clinton got where got because he wasn't that talented. But both men were successful Governors. Beyond that, Reagan also succeeded in another endeavor: acting. He did something that very few people get to achieve and that is become a movie star. Many, many people try to do what he did and failed. Yes part of that is knowing people and making connections...making connections is a key feature of successful people...but it's like pro-sports. You don't get to the NFL without having an unusual amount of talent.

Acting talent then translated very well into the political arena in which he was able to be very successful. Furthermore, Reagan was NOT the choice of establishment Republicans. He had a hard fight to beat out the establishment candidate (George HW Bush) much like Obama did in '08. That requires much skill and talent.

I incredibly doubt that. Reagan nearly won the candidacy in '76 AGAINST THE INCUMBENT and he had won the popular vote in the Primary elections back in 1968. Both times he was a formidable candidate. By 1980 he had already been very well known across the nation,by comparison George HW Bush was an obscure politician who wasn't exactly distinguished outside of being director of the CIA (and let's be honest, how many people knew Petreus was Director of the CIA until his affair?). Reagan was pretty much assured the candidacy in 1980, no one not Bush or Anderson had a chance against him. Again he only got there because he made an iconic speech for Barry Goldwater. From there he got a governorship.

The Kennedy's were different because each of them were groomed to become President, thus Robert Kennedy became Attorney General not just because he was JFK's brother but because he was actually that talented. Billy Carter didn't do anything in the government though.

Okay...thank you for further explaining my point.

1) RFK became AG because he had both a connection and talent. Billy only had a connection and no talent...therefore he went no where. And we're talking about nepotism here.

2) Billy Carter and RFK were born into connections. Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower were not. They did things that made connections.

My point is, is that while talent plays a part there are lots of people who have just as much if not more talent who didn't meet someone important thus don't get as far.

Hey...I'm not going to deny that chance does not play a part in success. But this is the lottery mentality that the author talks about. You are saying (essentially) that another working slub, irregardless of talent and personality would be able to achieve what Carnegie achieved. That is preposterous.

Tom Scott just liked Carnegie, and he picked him to be his protege. That's how he got to the top of a company. If Tom Scott didn't do that Carnegie would've probably died as some factory worker.

At 12/9/12 05:50 PM, TheMason wrote: The reason for your rant is that it appears (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you believe that the rich come from wealth and thereby have a cusion of money to fall back on. Basically that the vast majority of the wealthy can take risks because mommy and daddy will give them more money if they fail.

That was part of it, but you're using a very different definition of rich. When I read the article, I was not thinking of the upper-middle class rich, or the slightly wealthy. I was thinking about the truly and full on wealthy. Think 7 figure annual income wealthy.

The second point still applies, even if you include the low-end wealthy. The second point is the baseless and very stupid claim that those who are rich are so because of these things (most of which are complete bullshit anyway) and that those who are not rich are so because they don't think like this. That's a complete and utter crock of shit.

So you know a few rags to slight riches stories. Good for you. Too bad you've been with the lucky and have never actually seen (BLINDERS!!) someone who shares many of the legitimate qualities (education v entertainment, the willingness to take a risk, doing what they love) who is not even in the modestly rich category.

I spoke with a college professor of mine during my short stint with wanting to pursue a PhD and was told that he, a long time professor and somewhat senior in the department, made about $50K a year. Hmmm.... He definitely values education over entertainment. I don't know if taking a PhD was a risk to him but that much schooling isn't cheap. I do know that he was pursing his passion. By the article's logic, this man should be flush with cash. He's not.

I know another person who worked his butt off and stuck with his company for over 20 years to reach a junior VP position (one of about 10 or so positions in the company). According to his bosses he was one of the best, if not the best one of the 10 or so people. He most definitely was top half, and they agreed some of the bottom half were downright worthless. He was definitely in the mildly rich category, but his company decided to do a blind layoff in order to avoid any lawsuits and now he can't find a job. So much for those ways of thinking.

Another person I know was having some trouble at her nursing job and decided to start her own business. She took a major risk and was pursuing a part of the job she both knew well and enjoyed. Now she's lucky to make $35K in a year. Yet, she is still considered an expert at what she does and the State is following her lead.

There were a couple of women I knew who busted their asses to get high levels of accounting degrees and work in the high end firms. They both were highly skilled and gave tons of their time to the firm working toward promotions. Yet, because of their genitalia and their lack of membership in a certainchurch (wealthy white men church) they were pushed out. No other big firm wanted them, as they would only saw the layoffs and assumed they weren't good enough. At worst this killed their chances of achieving any wealth, at best it set it back numerous years.

Now let's switch gears to the other side of the spectrum. At that same accounting firm, there were several average male workers who were all card carrying members of the church. They didn't have very good grades out of school, didn;t try that hard at their job, and frankly, weren't that good. Yet all got prematurely promoted and all still work there, likely making very large salaries. So exactly which of the rich people mentalities did these people have?

What insults me the most about this is that the article, by making a hard distinction says that rich people are inherently better, when we all know that, except in a few cases, getting even mildly rich is just as much about who you now and being in the right place at the right time, as it is about tking risks, being properly educated, and working hard.

Seriously, what does this guy have to say about those who achieve solely through nepotism (ans YES that makes up a huge chunk of the wealthy)? What does he have to say about those who follow all of his mentalities and fail? What does he say about those who follow his mentalities and have life intervene (in the form of disaster, disease, economy, and so on)? That's right, he doesn't. It's a black and white 'fuck you' to the non rich when the real world is not so nice and a hell of a lot more gray.

He should have put a one other mentality in his list to make it more true:

The rich know that who you know is more important than knowing how to do your job or working hard. The poor think that hard work is the key to prosperity.

At 12/10/12 12:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I think we could all agree that the article took some liberties and oversimplified things.

He was definitely in the mildly rich category, but his company decided to do a blind layoff in order to avoid any lawsuits and now he can't find a job. So much for those ways of thinking.

I find that extremely hard to believe. But even so, he'll have the prestige of the former high position and good references. When the economy expands again, he'll get a job.

Another person I know was having some trouble at her nursing job and decided to start her own business. She took a major risk and was pursuing a part of the job she both knew well and enjoyed. Now she's lucky to make $35K in a year. Yet, she is still considered an expert at what she does and the State is following her lead.

If what you say is true, she'll probably end up making a lot more as a consultant later on.

They both were highly skilled and gave tons of their time to the firm working toward promotions. Yet, because of their genitalia and their lack of membership in a certainchurch (wealthy white men church) they were pushed out. No other big firm wanted them, as they would only saw the layoffs and assumed they weren't good enough....

This is the story I have real problems with. No one at a firm is going to fire, or even lay off two educated female employees at the same time who happen to follow a different religion without a really defensible reason. Also the fact you say it has hurt their future employment prospects tells me they were only there for a short time, which means the layoffs were probably based on seniority. If the firm didn't like non-protestant women, they never would have been hired in the first place.

...At that same accounting firm, there were several average male workers who were all card carrying members of the church. They didn't have very good grades out of school, didn;t try that hard at their job, and frankly, weren't that good.

You realize that "they only fired me because I'm ______" is one of the oldest gripes in the book, right?

What insults me the most about this is that the article, by making a hard distinction says that rich people are inherently better, when we all know that, except in a few cases, getting even mildly rich is just as much about who you now and being in the right place at the right time, as it is about tking risks, being properly educated, and working hard.

Perhaps that's true, but when you think about it, how else could it work? The rich are by definition a minority, yet the number of educated people rises all the time. Unless you are exceptionally brilliant or capable, it's going to be difficult to stand out from everyone else and get golden opportunities unless you know someone. Calling it "nepotism" suggests that the people who become wealthy are totally unqualified for their positions and undeserving of it, but do you really think that they're allowed to just cruise along and accumulate wealth without any real effort? Someone or some people have to make a decision along the line that the person is worth a giant salary and luxurious benefits, and even though people like Mitt Romney live entirely from dividends, I've never heard of any one of those people that didn't have a high-level job at some point earlier in their career.

Wealth and connections may give you more opportunities, but whether that opportunity amounts to anything will always depend on the effort and ability of the person.

At 12/10/12 05:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: I find that extremely hard to believe. But even so, he'll have the prestige of the former high position and good references. When the economy expands again, he'll get a job.

Don't underestimate how much age hurts the ability to get a new job.

This is the story I have real problems with. No one at a firm is going to fire, or even lay off two educated female employees at the same time who happen to follow a different religion without a really defensible reason.
Also the fact you say it has hurt their future employment prospects tells me they were only there for a short time, which means the layoffs were probably based on seniority.
If the firm didn't like non-protestant women, they never would have been hired in the first place.

No, no, and no. You're filling in the blanks here.

The department lost 7 women in a span of 1 1/2 years. In such a high turnover setting that alone doesn't appear to be bad. However, the department went from 9 women out of 30 to 2 out of 30. The women were all hired when there was two dept. heads. One of them left leaving just the Mormon head, and thus the pushing out and laying off began.

I have doubt that at least 2 (more likely 3) would have been released in the same period due to regular reasons, but the issue is with the two I mentioned. Not only were they paid worse and promoted later than equal rank comparitors who were average at best (one actually being called, by a high ranking employee, the worst hire ever made), there was numerous events where Mormonism was outright discuss at work functions, and overt comments were made exluding non-Mormons from those conversations. Lest I forget the term "infidel" being tossed around.

One of the women was a manager. She had come from the Boston office (a very high powered office, with glowing recommendations. She came to the office and continued with her stellar performance. Yet, they promoted an average Mormon male (who admitted he was nowhere near as qualified or deserving as the woman) and proceeded to push her out.

The other woman was hired with 2 mormons in her 'class'. One was the worst hre kid, yet he not only got paid significantly more than she did, they laid off the woman and kept him, even though numerous other managers had sworn by the woman and how she had not only excelled, but had single handedly saved the firm's ass on numerous occasions (including one massive client). During a meeting early on, the worst and the Mormon partner began talking about Mormonism and told her (mind you they were the only three people at the function) "You wouldn't understand this conversation. You're not Mormon." The other person in her class was decent, but nowhere near as good as this woman. He was promoted to manager shortly after the woman, who had not even been promoted once, was pushed out (during her maternity leave, mind you).

The point here is that male Mormon workers who were fairly plebian in their work product and their potential were given massive benefits, including lucrative promotions over female non-Mormons who were nothing less than superstars and were easily on the partner track to any objective eye.

So, to say that hard work and a certain "attitude" is the key to wealth over connections and luck is nothng other than a load. A big stinky load.

You realize that "they only fired me because I'm ______" is one of the oldest gripes in the book, right?

When people who are excellent get treated worse than those who are average and the average folk belong to the same extracirricular group as the boss making the treatment decisions (especially when the group is known to discriminate against outsiders and women), the 'excuse' excuse doesn't exactly work.

I do agree that most of the time that excuse is a flat out lie meant to cover up something else. However, when the pattern is strong and overt evidence exists, that excuse becomes much more believable and likely.

Wealth and connections may give you more opportunities, but whether that opportunity amounts to anything will always depend on the effort and ability of the person.

No. That is not entirely true. There is actually two 'ability's when it comes to work. There is ability (lowercase a) which is the ability to do the job. Then there is Ability (capital A) which is the ability to make the people above you like you. Sadly, Ability is seen as 10 times more important than ability.

At 12/10/12 05:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: Wealth and connections may give you more opportunities, but whether that opportunity amounts to anything will always depend on the effort and ability of the person.

Are you familiar with the Peter Principle? The shit floats to the top.

At 12/2/12 01:31 PM, Revo357912 wrote: I honestly think this is very true; it really explains why few in society make it to the top, and why those at the top tend to stay there as well.

But that makes me wonder; can you be born "rich"? After all, according to this article, what determines a person being rich is their thinking, and that is largely affected by personality, which in turn is heavily affected by genetics. I'm not saying that genetics purely determines the personality, but it does indeed play a huge role.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-people-think-differe ntly-from-the-poor-2012-8?op=1

Obviously, the most common way to be born rich is to actually be that. Being born in the right place @ the right time @ to the right people (Mitt Romney's kids.... & Mitt himself for that matter), and therefore, ALREADY have access to wealth and the socio-economic advantages therein.

But to be more specific regarding your interpretation of "born rich", nurture (i.e. family life, childhood, early life experiences, etc.) do play a part in shaping one's outlook on life. The specific conditions under which a person is exposed to is one thing. But It's hard to determine HOW that would effect any given individual positively or negatively What one individual takes from the experience could be self-interpreted differently by a twin brought up in the same environs.

That being said, many people who become rich/wealthy (at least entrepreneurially) poses drives for success, a refusal to setback, etc. etc.. Which are, in and of themselves positive qualities.

Unfortunately, the downside is that, in many cases(if not all), this works itself into arrogant, assholier-than-thou-ish behavior(and the articles tone doesn't help matters read comments by
Pam on Aug 31, 3:08 PM, Snooki Snackhouse on Aug 31, 3:08 PM, GW on Sep 14, 12:11 PM (in SOME way), 66Scorpio on Sep 15, 3:45 PM, hanrahan on Sep 1, 12:20 AM, Yellow Rain on Sep 1, 8:34 AM, Kim Martin on Sep 13, 3:17 PM etc, etc.)

Aren't they rich because they own a sucessful business and/or apart of congress?

Its definitely something in the middle, with the right mindset you are more poised to be rich but its also true becoming rich is a lot about luck and being born to a rich family is a tremendous head start.

Put it this way if your born to rich family all you have to do is "not fuck it up", if your born in poverty you have to build everything yourself despite less education,connections,resources ect;

Also its retarded to think everyone can be rich, money only represents resources , if have more money it represents your share of resources so by having more money your taking resources that someone else would have. The only way to increase the value of money and make everybody richer is to increase the amount of resources we have access to.

At 12/2/12 02:53 PM, JMHX wrote: Having the resources to manipulate the tax code goes quite a bit further than genetics in helping sustain earned and inherited wealth. Though the Marxist historians would have a field day with how this article seems to point to the wealthy as somehow genetically or intellectually superior to the 'common man.'

There's plenty of evidence that IQ correlates with life outcomes as much as if not more than socio-economic status.

Note I said IQ, not Intelligence. IQ Does not measure intelligence any more than a bench press measures strength. IQ Measures whatever IQ measures. What makes IQ Significant is that it is also generally accepted that IQ is a highly heritable trait, I.E. above average IQ parents tend to produce above average IQ offspring.

Charles Murray makes a rather interesting argument that because people are now choosing their partner more and more on the basis of intellectual attainment [i.e. marrying people they meet in college rather than in their neighborhoods], you will see a kind of biological stratification that will keep income inequality entrenched.

That Higher IQ tends to allow you to have a higher income does not mean that someone with an IQ of 160 will necessarilly earn more than someone with an IQ of 125, I'm sure there are other psychological traits [also likely heritable] that increase or decrease one's likelihood to become in the upper income strata.

I know one such behavior is time preference. The more forward thinking you are, and the more willing you are to defer present consumption for the sake of greater future consumption, the higher the likelihood that you will earn more than your peers.

That said, that there is a heritable element to wealth acquisition does not mean non-heritable elements ought to be ignored, any more than would the opposite be true.

At 12/19/12 11:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
There's plenty of evidence that IQ correlates with life outcomes as much as if not more than socio-economic status.

Note I said IQ, not Intelligence. IQ Does not measure intelligence any more than a bench press measures strength. IQ Measures whatever IQ measures. What makes IQ Significant is that it is also generally accepted that IQ is a highly heritable trait, I.E. above average IQ parents tend to produce above average IQ offspring.

Charles Murray makes a rather interesting argument that because people are now choosing their partner more and more on the basis of intellectual attainment [i.e. marrying people they meet in college rather than in their neighborhoods], you will see a kind of biological stratification that will keep income inequality entrenched.

That Higher IQ tends to allow you to have a higher income does not mean that someone with an IQ of 160 will necessarilly earn more than someone with an IQ of 125, I'm sure there are other psychological traits [also likely heritable] that increase or decrease one's likelihood to become in the upper income strata.

I know one such behavior is time preference. The more forward thinking you are, and the more willing you are to defer present consumption for the sake of greater future consumption, the higher the likelihood that you will earn more than your peers.

That said, that there is a heritable element to wealth acquisition does not mean non-heritable elements ought to be ignored, any more than would the opposite be true.

Actually its pretty interesting although IQ dose correlate with high income, it doesn't correlate with how likely your business is likely to be. Entrepreneurs with average IQs are just as likely to succeed as Entrepreneurs with high IQs. So the whole high IQ = high income is mainly based off of increased ability of the jobs there able to do that lower IQ people can't and how much better they do at there job then lower IQ not how great they are at starting a business.

At 12/20/12 04:33 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 12/19/12 11:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
There's plenty of evidence that IQ correlates with life outcomes as much as if not more than socio-economic status.

Note I said IQ, not Intelligence. IQ Does not measure intelligence any more than a bench press measures strength. IQ Measures whatever IQ measures. What makes IQ Significant is that it is also generally accepted that IQ is a highly heritable trait, I.E. above average IQ parents tend to produce above average IQ offspring.

Charles Murray makes a rather interesting argument that because people are now choosing their partner more and more on the basis of intellectual attainment [i.e. marrying people they meet in college rather than in their neighborhoods], you will see a kind of biological stratification that will keep income inequality entrenched.

That Higher IQ tends to allow you to have a higher income does not mean that someone with an IQ of 160 will necessarilly earn more than someone with an IQ of 125, I'm sure there are other psychological traits [also likely heritable] that increase or decrease one's likelihood to become in the upper income strata.

I know one such behavior is time preference. The more forward thinking you are, and the more willing you are to defer present consumption for the sake of greater future consumption, the higher the likelihood that you will earn more than your peers.

That said, that there is a heritable element to wealth acquisition does not mean non-heritable elements ought to be ignored, any more than would the opposite be true.

Actually its pretty interesting although IQ dose correlate with high income, it doesn't correlate with how likely your business is likely to be. Entrepreneurs with average IQs are just as likely to succeed as Entrepreneurs with high IQs. So the whole high IQ = high income is mainly based off of increased ability of the jobs there able to do that lower IQ people can't and how much better they do at there job then lower IQ not how great they are at starting a business.

Not only that, but if anything I see a high IQ having a better chance at blocking chances for one to be really rich, since High IQ parents would be more likely to meet in college, urge their children to go to college, and get careers that limit how much you earn. Yes, it would be higher income, but not a rich income. That's the double edge sword of a business; it can make you rich, or it can break you poor, or simply leave you in the middle.

At 12/20/12 05:14 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

Actually its pretty interesting although IQ dose correlate with high income, it doesn't correlate with how likely your business is likely to be. Entrepreneurs with average IQs are just as likely to succeed as Entrepreneurs with high IQs. So the whole high IQ = high income is mainly based off of increased ability of the jobs there able to do that lower IQ people can't and how much better they do at there job then lower IQ not how great they are at starting a business.

Not only that, but if anything I see a high IQ having a better chance at blocking chances for one to be really rich, since High IQ parents would be more likely to meet in college, urge their children to go to college, and get careers that limit how much you earn. Yes, it would be higher income, but not a rich income. That's the double edge sword of a business; it can make you rich, or it can break you poor, or simply leave you in the middle.

Well I'm not talking about the top 1%, I'm really talking about the top 25%. The upper middle class, or as Charles Murray calls it, the super-zips.
Though I do think that there likely isn't a single person in the top 1% [Barring inheritance] that isn't on the right side of

I remember an investor saying that the future will divided between two classes, the upper class who tells computers what to do, and the lower class that gets told by computers what to do.

At 12/20/12 04:33 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 12/19/12 11:40 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

That said, that there is a heritable element to wealth acquisition does not mean non-heritable elements ought to be ignored, any more than would the opposite be true.

Actually its pretty interesting although IQ dose correlate with high income, it doesn't correlate with how likely your business is likely to be. Entrepreneurs with average IQs are just as likely to succeed as Entrepreneurs with high IQs. So the whole high IQ = high income is mainly based off of increased ability of the jobs there able to do that lower IQ people can't and how much better they do at there job then lower IQ not how great they are at starting a business.

Sorry I didn't see this the first time.

Entrepreneurship is probably not very well related to IQ, or at least the aspects of cognitive ability that IQ tests tend to measure. However since most people are not self-employed and most people do not [and in all likelihood could not] start their own businesses, the fact that having a high IQ opens up jobs to you that would otherwise be impossible is of relevance.

Unfortunately people are simply not prepared to talk about the effect heritable traits could have on inequality. To them it's nothing but racist-pseudoscientific-blasphemy.

At 12/24/12 01:30 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Unfortunately people are simply not prepared to talk about the effect heritable traits could have on inequality. To them it's nothing but racist-pseudoscientific-blasphemy.

Not at all. I have always put forth that there is a large segment of the population, of all races, that just does not have the intellectual depth, stregnth, endurance, and/or gusto to handle a high end job. I know a good amount of this is caused, or at least aided by environment, but there is a large genetic component to this.

I am not one of those who believes that all people can do the hard jobs (By hard jobs, I'm not talking about the NSA code cracking certified genius job, I mean professional jobs such as accountant, doctor, engineer, lawyer, high level businessman, and so on). However, I do know that there are a lot of people who arenlt in those jobs who could definitely handle them competently, and there is a smaller, but still noticeable, group in those jobs that is just not intellectually competent for the job they have.

At 12/24/12 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/24/12 01:30 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Unfortunately people are simply not prepared to talk about the effect heritable traits could have on inequality. To them it's nothing but racist-pseudoscientific-blasphemy.

Not at all. I...

Wasn't referring to you explicitly. But just look at the way that people treat a book like the bell-curve.