Why all the hate on the 1%?

[millirad]

Latte Machiatto! Ha ........... Sold. I'll pack my bag.

 

[Deleted member 22482]

Latte Machiatto! Ha ........... Sold. I'll pack my bag.

But its cold here all year around..

 

[BShanahan14rulz]

So, did you folks see The Simpsons last weekend?

I'm one person. If I see someone else with a plan that I completely agree with, I'm all in. Until then, I lay low, I pay my money in, I pay more money in, and thank God I live where I am. It's better'n being dead where I am.

 

[Tech_Junkie]

See where you really fit in
If you are not living alone yet, plug in your family income

Global Rich List

Peace,
dave

There must be a glitch in that web site. Every time I put in my income this is all I get.

 

[jayrob]

Of course, everyone hates people such as donald trump and paris hilton, but I don't get the hate on CEOs. Sure, they often get multi-million dollar compensations, but they well earn them. They've busted their asses off to get where they are today, and although they might not be the best at what they do they are often the most dedicated.

Look at Billy Fucello, "mr huge". Sure, the man has a private jet. However, he goes to work at 5AM and comes home at 9PM. Often it's the same with most other CEOs. They work 70 hour weeks and have no time to for anything non-company related. If something is wrong, they along with the other board members must haul ass to the office and meet, NOW. Not tomorrow, but within 30 minutes.

That is certainly worth the million dollar paycheck.

It's because people work hard and pay their taxes, but the greedy suckers screwed it all up anyway...

That's it in a nut shell. And they don't know how to fix it.

So it's only natural that people are going to be pissed off. Guess what? They're going to get a whole lot more pissed off.

The rich rule, and they don't care about the worker ants. Only that they keep paying.

Not even the government rules over the rich. They basically tell the government what to do...

 

[Cyparagon]

The site might seem off because (I suspect) it doesn't take into account the cost of living. It just uses raw figures. $500 will buy you a lot more in Ethiopia than it will in Japan.

 

[ElektroFreak]

The "1%" originally coined by OWS only takes US incomes into account. If you go global with the math, even the lowliest of Americans will take a pretty high spot in terms of comparative wealth.

I can see some merit in both sides of the argument, but I side with the idea that there must be more accountability for those in control, both financially and politically. Just because a person "busts their ass" in life and reaps the rewards of success, this does NOT equate to a license to see how much you can screw your fellow citizens. There really does seem to be a whole school of thought among the top 1% of US wage earners that states that once you've had success you are then allowed and even encouraged to trample everyone within sight in the interest of making even more money. Personally I believe that, because America was founded by the people and for the people, it is the responsibility of those who have been successful in our system to give back to the system that gave them success. Most (but NOT all by any means) wealthy people whose opinions I have heard or seen on this topic disagree. They feel that they have "earned the right" to do whatever they want, and they have "earned the right" to disregard all the rest of society if that's what they want to do. Typically it's easier to make money if you have no regard for others.

 

[daguin]

The "1%" originally coined by OWS only takes US incomes into account. If you go global with the math, even the lowliest of Americans will take a pretty high spot in terms of comparative wealth.

I can see some merit in both sides of the argument, but I side with the idea that there must be more accountability for those in control, both financially and politically. Just because a person "busts their ass" in life and reaps the rewards of success, this does NOT equate to a license to see how much you can screw your fellow citizens. There really does seem to be a whole school of thought among the top 1% of US wage earners that states that once you've had success you are then allowed and even encouraged to trample everyone within sight in the interest of making even more money. Personally I believe that, because America was founded by the people and for the people, it is the responsibility of those who have been successful in our system to give back to the system that gave them success. Most (but NOT all by any means) wealthy people whose opinions I have heard or seen on this topic disagree. They feel that they have "earned the right" to do whatever they want, and they have "earned the right" to disregard all the rest of society if that's what they want to do. Typically it's easier to make money if you have no regard for others.

I believe that you have the cart before the horse

It is being a psychopath that allows then to be successful in the first place

Bosses Four Times As Likely To Be 'Psychopaths': Survey Says
What's the key to business success? Well, being a psychopath might actually give you an edge.

Crazy Talk
A study of more than 200 executives by researcher Paul Babiak found that almost 4 percent were considered psychopaths when ranked on the Psychopathy Checklist, a tool therapists use to assess this personality disorder. Babiak, whose findings were reported in his book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, found that in comparison, only 1 percent of the general population shows psychopathic tendencies.
In other words, those who are successful in business could be four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person. What exactly does that mean? Psychopaths lack empathy and don't feel remorse for their actions. That makes them great at manipulating their way to the top.

Peace,
dave

 

[Tech_Junkie]

It is being a psychopath that allows then to be successful in the first place

If that were true I'd be writing this from my private island named Tech Junkia, while dozens of nude 19y island girls picked sand from the insides of my toes with zircon encrusted tweezers, wearing nothing but a jazz discharge party hat. :tinfoil:

 

[lasersbee]

If that were true I'd be writing this from my private island named Tech Junkia, while dozens of nude 19y island girls picked sand from the insides of my toes with zircon encrusted tweezers, wearing nothing but a jazz discharge party hat. :tinfoil:

Isn't that the goal....:eg:

Jerry

 

[millirad]

^He's talking about this island.............................

 

[Deleted member 22482]

Interesting article from Forbes: What would you give to be in the 1%?

What Would You Give To Be In The 1%? - Forbes

 

[daguin]

If that were true I'd be writing this from my private island named Tech Junkia, while dozens of nude 19y island girls picked sand from the insides of my toes with zircon encrusted tweezers, wearing nothing but a jazz discharge party hat. :tinfoil:

The psychopathology must be APPLIED in the world of business

Otherwise, it is just a wild party in the wilderness :wave:

Peace,
dave

 

[HIMNL9]

If that were true I'd be writing this from my private island named Tech Junkia, while dozens of nude 19y island girls picked sand from the insides of my toes with zircon encrusted tweezers, wearing nothing but a jazz discharge party hat. :tinfoil:

ROTFL

^He's talking about this island.............................

Sorry, what island ? ..... i don't see islands, there, just ..... er, you know .....

(edit: oh, now they are called "islands", huh ? ..... :crackup

 

[Bluefan]

I'm still studying, and even there it's clearly not logical. The management/financial studies can be done in 4 years and some people do 2 of those at the same time while the technical studies are supposed to be 5 years but almost nobody passes within 5 years, 6 years is still quite good. Both get a masters degree.

And where do there people end up? I recently saw the income of the different jobs, and technical jobs are nearly all underpaid compared to the management or finanical jobs. I'd say that in general things are out of balance. If I'd run a company then management is supposed to be a small overhead for the guys that do the actual work. CEO's and people can be paid high if they do something for it. If they have a skill set that is unique they should be paid for that. But if they screw up they should pay for it, and not get kicked out with a few million extra ony to start again at the next company.

Outsourcing pulls economies together. The other country's economy grows fast because of the high demand in workers and all the money pumped into the economy. Back in the home country the lower class workers see their jobs dissappear or decline in payment and the value of they jobs approaches that of the other country. The upper class stays somewhat fixed, that makes a huge difference. That's the result of a worldwide economy. My advice: go for a job or education that makes you valuable and not easily outsourced.

I'd say outsourcing and the high paid CEO's are two different problems. Actually high paid CEO's are not a problem as long as the company gets what they pay for and shitty CEO's get paid for what they're worth (hardly anything).

 

[ShortyInCanada]

- Warning - big block posting forthcoming -

Now this is one interesting thread to be glued to at work...

To comment on the picture : I see a lot of signs of obvious troubles within that image. Never-mind that it is a view of the backsides of several young females BUT that there is little tone or muscle definition in most of them. These are young women in the prime years of their lives when they are likely in the best physical condition of their lives. Anyone that is showing excess looseness or much more than tight elastic and responsive skin is already in trouble. When the stresses and conditions of age really start getting a hold of them they are going to be unable to prevent detrimental effects and conditions from taking over their own bodies. They are the future and they will be chronically problematic with poor health and substandard motility. A bad indicator of the lifestyle promoted by the popular culture here in the west.
It is also an indicator of the overall problem(s) being discussed in this thread.

I have always worked incredibly hard with complete dedication to my positions and all I have for it is a lot of injuries and medical problems. I now struggle daily to be able to perform menial jobs that pay terribly and that have no future. I am doomed to keep struggling as one of the growing number of "working poor" until the day I die. There will NEVER be a retirement age or day for me. There will never be a time when I won't be trying to figure out how to make it another month. I have never known "disposable income" and I probably never will. I am far too considerate and thoughtful of others to be a successful CEO.

According to the rich list I'm just about the 602 (601,800th or so) millionth richest person in the world. Unfortunately they don't take into consideration the costs of living in each person's place in the world. I live in one of the most expensive places to be. The ratio of income versus expenses factoring in food costs, and all the necessities needed to live put me in one expensive location. Now I know this and have chosen to remain here due to the other considerations that include it is also one of the nicest/best places to live as well and there is a cost for that. (By all studies and research it still is overpriced though...) The calculations as provided are flawed or seriously over simplified.

As for the CEO's issue : I am thinking that there should be a maximum form of "cap" for incomes. Using the available information that is already available and constantly upgraded by all levels of governments the cost for comfortable living can be described and an acceptable multiplier of that amount can be applied for incomes for residents of that area. If you make more than that then you should pay a hefty portion of those extras to the programs and organizations that benefit those that don't meet the comfortable living criteria in the surrounding areas. This also benefits the `payer' as their continued funding of the programs and organizations would eventually lessen as the people who draw on them become more affluent as a result of having schooling/housing/medical programs available having allowed them to focus on becoming more productive themselves. The whole thing becomes a long term “equalizing” function. The time delay making it worthwhile for the largest earner to keep living there and the longer they stay the less they pay.

I will caution that schooling shouldn't become the only (or even a major) answer for income requirements. There are many skills that one develops and learns over a lifetime and schooling is only a portion of those. I have been able to perform many widely different positions and functions, both physical and technical, incredibly well over the years due to my natural talents and abilities. Few others would be able to match my skills. This despite that I am a terrible student and have extreme trouble in a traditional schooling environment. I have worked with people that have fantastic marks at extensive courses and yet they never manage some of the most basic skills in the jobs they do. Having a degree sometimes means that you are only good at being a student. Not a good worker. And the current systems seem to be turning out more and more of those. Sometimes the ability to do the job the best is due to the ability to plan for what you don't know. Those “good students” frequently overlook this. They have been taught that they are the experts because they “know”.

Moving to Sweden : The percentage of attractive women there is somewhat higher than most of the rest of the world isn't it ? A benefit when needing to find someone to snuggle up with on all those colder nights. I can think of a few ways to keep warm and language wouldn't be much of an issue !