About rich people!

[Dan Hollister]

I'm so tired of seeing rants on here bashing rich people, or saying that the rich fuck over the poor, or that corporations are evil, etc. So before we go further, let me attempt to dispel a few thoughts in an attempt to get people to think before they post.

1) Most of the time people don't get rich to begin with unless they do a service or create a product that you, the public, choose to buy. So if someone makes a million dollars, it's only because you liked their work.

If a band gets rich, it is ONLY because YOU bought their music. If a businessman gets rich, it is ONLY because YOU bought their product.

2) Rich people give more money to charities and good causes than anyone else on the planet. Bill Gates may be worth 40 billion, but he's given away half his worth (20 billion!) to his foundation, which largely tries to stop the spread of AIDS. They easily have more money than any other organization doing this, and it was all given by Gates.

Furthermore, the City of Hope, the top cancer research facility in the world, was started by one of the [rich] founders of H&R Block. He got cancer and nobody said he could be cured, so he started a foundation to do it himself. And kept pumping money into it and now they're the top in the world, and save a lot of lives.

3) Corporations are not "evil." Some are - i.e. the ones embezzling money - but you're talking about a handful of corporations out of about 600,000. How do corporations come to be? Well, they make money because YOU BUY THEIR SHIT. If you don't buy their shit, they make no money.

And keep in mind, corporations are NEEDED in many cases. In all reality, there are some things you can't do with like 5 people. If you are a record label managing 1000 artists, you need a lot of people to keep that working. If you're a pharmaceutical research company, trying to cure cancer, you can't do it alone. Companies are necessary.

The word "corporation" doesn't even mean anything. My old production company was a corporation - of 4 people. Being a corporation means nothing except that you have a few papers signed.

I can't believe how many idiots are on these forums who truly think money is the root of all evil, it's good for nothing, and anyone who has it is evil or greedy. Or that corporations are evil. I mean, what the fuck. So before you post, spare us the pain since we know you're obviously an idiot if you insist on believing that.

[justinevans]

Well the Democrat Poster Family, the Kennedy's got rich by breaking the law during prohibition. People don't realize that if there were no large companies, more people would be poor. ahem, look @ 3rd world countries.

[getupkid53]

1) oil companies don't create shit they refine a natural product. If you don't believe price gouging is going on, you live in a cave. If you live in a cave, you probably shouldn't be writing about politics on the internet (caves have terrible WiFi connections)
2) nobody ever ragged on a band solely for being rich (they earn their keep).
3) I don't care if he gave 20 billion dollars, no one person deserves to have 20 billion dollars in his bank account while 10 miles away from your home, a single mother sits homeless on the corner with her kids and has to beg for change for a loaf of bread.
4) Corporations are a necessary evil (it's only your interpretation that they are not evil, which is fine, because you are entitled to your opinion). For your information, most of the greedy bastards you speak of provide us with everyday necessities i.e. - heat and gas. So don't pull some bull out of your ass to stick up for a bunch of theiving cocks who would rob your mother of her pearls if they knew they could get away with it.
Wait till you're father gets fired from his job because his company'ss CEO doesn't feel comfortable that his private stock margin is only making him 5 million dollars that year (Companies that are profitable downsizing for shareholders sake is bullshit, everyone is making money, people are working, and everyone should be happy. but we all know the CEO's hold the most shares in major corporations).
PS - There are some really wonderful corporations that display great ethics and really pour back into their community (Target). I am not anti-corporation.
5) The guy from HR block only gave a shit about cancer because he had it.... same with Christopher Reeve and paralysis. I'm glad he started a cancer research foundation. I really am. Just don't try to convince me he did it out of the sole reason of philanthropy. Both of those guys were plenty rich and didn't do a damn thing until something affected them.

GREED DICTATES OUR SOCIETY


And yes, there are some wonderful philanthropists and other brilliant rich people that realize you don't need a $20 million mansion in beverly hills. They take meager salaries (500,000k a year) or donate salaries (Steve Jobs) in an effort to break class barriers with their companies. Our number one Fortune 500 company (Walmart) smuggles immigrants in for janitorial work, breaks child labor laws and forces employees to work off the clock. Many major corporations take kickbacks, write off personal expenses, and falsify tax reports (Don't call me uninformed, my uncle is in jail on embezzling charges, he worked for a major corporation). Other large corporations are running lifetime family businesses into the ground without blinking. I'm not against someone being rich. I'm against people who have disgusting amounts of money. I'm against social injustice. I'm against Cameron Diaz having three 5,000,000 dollar houses and griping about how awful poor people have it.

And there is no arguing with consumer stupidity. You are completely right. Don't come in here and say all people do is bitch and don't try to do something about it. You are clueless and rather rude. I rode my bike everywhere this summer. I bought generic food, I boycotted Walmart. Maybe I can't make a difference by myself, but I think people have a right to be informed. Most people didn't get it though or just won't care.

WAY TO GO ON CALLING EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOUR CLOSE MINDED BULL AN IDIOT. THAT MAKES YOUR POST SOUND MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT. I would have at least sat and told you I respected your opinion until you go mouthing off and making your self sound like a Class A dickhead. CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

Also, large Corporations only move to third world countries to increase their own profit margins. They don't care if xiu wong makes any money, they just know he can do something for 1/30th of what it would cost to do it over here and will be appreciative for the opportunity to make money. I'd blame labor unions for making most working class citizens asses about money. If you lived in Minnesota and saw NWA employees you would understand. If I was an assassin, I would definitely wipe out labor union reps, and pull a Jimmy Hoffa with them.

[splitsecond]

uh

[Justin_stacy]

2) nobody ever ragged on a band solely for being rich (they earn their keep)..

But yet the businessman who creates so much more positive, does not?

3) I don't care if he gave 20 billion dollars, no one person deserves to have 20 billion dollars in his bank account while 10 miles away from your home, a single mother sits homeless on the corner with her kids and has to beg for change for a loaf of bread.
.

Who gave you the right to dictate who deserves what? If an individual earned that "20 billion dollars" who are you to say he doesn't deserve to keep it, regardless of whether he needs it?

People reap what they sow, and that goes for good and bad choices in life.

[Dan Hollister]

Ditto. If a woman is sitting homeless on a street corner, sounds like she should get herself a job.

Rich people make themselves rich. It's not like they rob an armored car and start a company with the loot. They do something new, they use their brains, and they work their asses off.

And the old saying, "You give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. You teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime" is true. While I'd love to go give some cash to the woman on the street corner, what's she going to do with it? Eat a while, live a while, and then it runs out and she's back on that corner again waiting for a hand-out. The rich simply giving money to the poor DOES NOT WORK, because no money is PRODUCED when you just hand it down. Eventually the rich man would run out. The whole idea of economics is GROWTH. Simply giving someone else a dollar that they spend, is pointless. Giving them a dollar that they use towards earning more dollars - i.e. education, starting a little business, etc. - is much different.

You want to see some magic happen? Go check out the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. All these guys do is teach the poorest of poor inner city school kids in New York how to manage money and how to be entrepreneurs. 80% of them end up excelling in school who didn't before, and most end up starting small businesses that bring in a few hundred dollars a month. (To start.)

See, the problem with the methodology that rich people are selfish is that the poor people believe it. Go talk to some poor kids, more often than not, are they working their asses off in school to get a good job and make money so they won't be poor? No, most of them don't give a shit about school, because society is too busy telling them, it's not your fault! The rich people are to blame! You're disadvantaged and deserve a handout!

That's bullshit, and you can prove it, purely by looking at the results this foundation gets. For some reason, it is socially acceptable to tell the poor people that they are helpless, and that it's everyone elses fault. But if you instead choose to show them how they CAN control it, they do so. It doesn't matter if they're a single mother, a kid, a man working 3 jobs and still not making ends meet, or even a homeless man. I can cite you examples of people in each of these situations who have still managed to take control of their finances and start a little business or something.

[Katie Schmitz]

whoa, this came out of left field

[open mind]

I'm so tired of seeing rants on here bashing rich people, or saying that the rich fuck over the poor, or that corporations are evil, etc. So before we go further, let me attempt to dispel a few thoughts in an attempt to get people to think before they post.

1) Most of the time people don't get rich to begin with unless they do a service or create a product that you, the public, choose to buy. So if someone makes a million dollars, it's only because you liked their work.

If a band gets rich, it is ONLY because YOU bought their music. If a businessman gets rich, it is ONLY because YOU bought their product.

2) Rich people give more money to charities and good causes than anyone else on the planet. Bill Gates may be worth 40 billion, but he's given away half his worth (20 billion!) to his foundation, which largely tries to stop the spread of AIDS. They easily have more money than any other organization doing this, and it was all given by Gates.

Furthermore, the City of Hope, the top cancer research facility in the world, was started by one of the [rich] founders of H&R Block. He got cancer and nobody said he could be cured, so he started a foundation to do it himself. And kept pumping money into it and now they're the top in the world, and save a lot of lives.

3) Corporations are not "evil." Some are - i.e. the ones embezzling money - but you're talking about a handful of corporations out of about 600,000. How do corporations come to be? Well, they make money because YOU BUY THEIR SHIT. If you don't buy their shit, they make no money.

And keep in mind, corporations are NEEDED in many cases. In all reality, there are some things you can't do with like 5 people. If you are a record label managing 1000 artists, you need a lot of people to keep that working. If you're a pharmaceutical research company, trying to cure cancer, you can't do it alone. Companies are necessary.

The word "corporation" doesn't even mean anything. My old production company was a corporation - of 4 people. Being a corporation means nothing except that you have a few papers signed.

I can't believe how many idiots are on these forums who truly think money is the root of all evil, it's good for nothing, and anyone who has it is evil or greedy. Or that corporations are evil. I mean, what the fuck. So before you post, spare us the pain since we know you're obviously an idiot if you insist on believing that.
i don't really buy all the much.............and alot of the rich produce nothing and/or were born into it.
charity is good and the rich get a nice tax write off for donations to charitable causes which is certainly deserved, but the tax code needs alot of work.
i haven't been around alot lately but i'm pretty sure that everyone around here knows not all companies and corporations are bad, it's just the ones getting sweatheart government contracts, running sweatshops, and cheating on their taxes that are horrible.

[lightcollapse]

bill gates worked his ass off to get where he is today, and he's a fucking genius. don't insult him for being successful. he's so fucking generous, people should be worshipping him. he could buy an island and 20 ferarri's, but instead he fights fucking disease.

[open mind]

why not get off of bill gate's dick for a minute here? you make it sound like he's sacrificed everything to fight disease.
i'm not saying he should be forced to give away his billions to charity or anything mind you, just don't act like he's the fucking messiah.

[selftitled85]

oooh the loves of capitalism.

if you make the rich give their money away then production will fall...this will lead to higher prices...this will lead to people being poorer...this will lead to a much worse situation.

yes ceo's make a lot of money in comparison to the rest of the company. but if you look at output for american companies compared to most countries...america is near the top. capitalism is the main reason. once the govt gets involved hell will break loose.

[open mind]

i love how one random rant is leading to another in this thread.

[chroma23]

Greed runs this country, but it's not really a bad thing. Capatalism>Communism.

[mondeoman]

Well the Democrat Poster Family, the Kennedy's got rich by breaking the law during prohibition.
I've heard that story all my life from my Grandpa.
Anyone else find irony in the fact that a thread praising the wealthy is made by someone with the "last name" of Hollister? haha

[selftitled85]

Greed runs this country, but it's not really a bad thing. Capatalism>Communism.


holy shit im from 15 min from you in hackettstown.

[justinevans]

why not get off of bill gate's dick for a minute here? you make it sound like he's sacrificed everything to fight disease.
i'm not saying he should be forced to give away his billions to charity or anything mind you, just don't act like he's the fucking messiah.

if you had any intelligence, you'd realize he is only leaving 1 million to each of his kids and the rest is going to charity.

[justinevans]

bill gates worked his ass off to get where he is today, and he's a fucking genius. don't insult him for being successful. he's so fucking generous, people should be worshipping him. he could buy an island and 20 ferarri's, but instead he fights fucking disease.

he stole the idea.

[justinevans]

rich people buy the products that the middle class produce. if everything was balanced we'd be like fucking sweden. there is no incentive there to do anything and people get 3/4 of their salary when they are out sick...and there are not many limitations.

[selftitled85]

rich people buy the products that the middle class produce. if everything was balanced we'd be like fucking sweden. there is no incentive there to do anything and people get 3/4 of their salary when they are out sick...and there are not many limitations.

if you havent noticed...the swedish model has started to falter.

[justinevans]

if you havent noticed...the swedish model has started to falter.

that was my point.

[selftitled85]

that was my point.


oh ok. my bad then.


im learning about the sweden model in my contemp econ models class. its interesting but im surprised it lasted so long.

[Justin_stacy]

if you havent noticed...the swedish model has started to falter.

Started? You mean has failed......like most of socialist europe. Which makes it all the more ironic that fools on this site keep promoting similar concepts......

[ReFuSeD!]

Capitalism is great for the frew, bad for the majority. The main concept on capitalism is to make make profit. Yes, many North American families are well off. Even our middle class could be considered "rich" on a global scale. But no one takes into account the outrageous harm that North American corporations present to developing countries around the world. Face it, we fuck over developing countries for the sake of profit. Why manufacture a product in American paying $7/hour for labour when you could go overseas and pay a child $1 a day to do the samething? Why manufacture a product in America when you are losing profts from environmental regulations when you could go overseas and do whatever the fuck you want because they have no environmental laws?

While I'm not a supported of unbridled socialism (or communism for that matter), I find capitalism very dehumanizing. It treats workers as products, attemping to purchase their labour for mere pocket change. I can't help but laugh at those who are praising Bill Gates. Sure, he's given alot of money (alot of it is likely for good PR), but it's mostly pocket change to him. The guy is still ridiculously rich. Do you honestly because 20 million dollars will put him under?

It's really sad because I'm pretty sure the majority of everyone on this site is from middle-class to upper-class families. You have no idea about the social problems that arise from poverty. And you never will, likely. It's so easy criticize the poor from your suburb home, with your suv's, iPod's, and $100 skate shoes, but I'd like to see you (most of which I'm assuming are high school kids living at home with their parents) take a walk in someone else's shoes.

Fuck following your stupid ideologies and how about we stick to one main goal, treat everyone with respect. Maybe one day when you're on the street with no money and no home, you can continue to suck Bill Gate's dick for being such a fine humanitarian. Maybe one day when you're working 50 hours a week for minimum wage you will continue to praise the almighty CEO who reaps in all the profits you produce.

[mondeoman]

Started? You mean has failed......like most of socialist europe. Which makes it all the more ironic that fools on this site keep promoting similar concepts......
Like America is all that great? I mean I love this country but there are severe flaws in our education systems among many other facets of life. I'd go into more detail but I really don't like posting in here plus I have studying to do.

[selftitled85]

Capitalism is great for the frew, bad for the majority. The main concept on capitalism is to make make profit. Yes, many North American families are well off. Even our middle class could be considered "rich" on a global scale. But no one takes into account the outrageous harm that North American corporations present to developing countries around the world. Face it, we fuck over developing countries for the sake of profit. Why manufacture a product in American paying $7/hour for labour when you could go overseas and pay a child $1 a day to do the samething? Why manufacture a product in America when you are losing profts from environmental regulations when you could go overseas and do whatever the fuck you want because they have no environmental laws?

While I'm not a supported of unbridled socialism (or communism for that matter), I find capitalism very dehumanizing. It treats workers as products, attemping to purchase their labour for mere pocket change. I can't help but laugh at those who are praising Bill Gates. Sure, he's given alot of money (alot of it is likely for good PR), but it's mostly pocket change to him. The guy is still ridiculously rich. Do you honestly because 20 million dollars will put him under?

It's really sad because I'm pretty sure the majority of everyone on this site is from middle-class to upper-class families. You have no idea about the social problems that arise from poverty. And you never will, likely. It's so easy criticize the poor from your suburb home, with your suv's, iPod's, and $100 skate shoes, but I'd like to see you (most of which I'm assuming are high school kids living at home with their parents) take a walk in someone else's shoes.

Fuck following your stupid ideologies and how about we stick to one main goal, treat everyone with respect. Maybe one day when you're on the street with no money and no home, you can continue to suck Bill Gate's dick for being such a fine humanitarian. Maybe one day when you're working 50 hours a week for minimum wage you will continue to praise the almighty CEO who reaps in all the profits you produce.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha *cough* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha


ok im done making fun of your idiocy.

[ReFuSeD!]

Yet you offer no critique of my post. Indicate the flaws and you may have a reason to laugh...otherwise you just sound like an ignorant half-wit.

[selftitled85]

Like America is all that great? I mean I love this country but there are severe flaws in our education systems among many other facets of life. I'd go into more detail but I really don't like posting in here plus I have studying to do.


we do have problems but when i went to russia you would be so surprised at how good most of us have it. text books were over 10-15 yrs old and were falling apart yet getting nothing.

we all bitch and moan about how little we have and its complete crap. yes our education needs to work but most of it is caused by the idiocy of the students. when your in hs instead of going and getting drunk or stoned all the time why dont you go read a book or a job or do something worthwhile. instead all you do is bitch and moan about how "little" you have.

[mondeoman]

we do have problems but when i went to russia you would be so surprised at how good most of us have it. text books were over 10-15 yrs old and were falling apart yet getting nothing.

we all bitch and moan about how little we have and its complete crap. yes our education needs to work but most of it is caused by the idiocy of the students. when your in hs instead of going and getting drunk or stoned all the time why dont you go read a book or a job or do something worthwhile. instead all you do is bitch and moan about how "little" you have.
I'm not supporting that Refused guy in any way because I think capitalism has some great traits. But socialism has some very good qualities. In many ways people in Europe have a better lifestyle than us.

[selftitled85]

I'm not supporting that Refused guy in any way because I think capitalism has some great traits. But socialism has some very good qualities. In many ways people in Europe have a better lifestyle than us.


there is only one way they truly have it better then us in. that is in medicare.

europe has a better secondary edu and to an extent elem/middle school but america trumps any country in university education.

socialism has very good qualities, unfortunately 99% of them are infeasible.

[Cal Smith]

Capitalism is great for the frew, bad for the majority. The main concept on capitalism is to make make profit. Yes, many North American families are well off. Even our middle class could be considered "rich" on a global scale. But no one takes into account the outrageous harm that North American corporations present to developing countries around the world. Face it, we fuck over developing countries for the sake of profit. Why manufacture a product in American paying $7/hour for labour when you could go overseas and pay a child $1 a day to do the samething? Why manufacture a product in America when you are losing profts from environmental regulations when you could go overseas and do whatever the fuck you want because they have no environmental laws?

While I'm not a supported of unbridled socialism (or communism for that matter), I find capitalism very dehumanizing. It treats workers as products, attemping to purchase their labour for mere pocket change. I can't help but laugh at those who are praising Bill Gates. Sure, he's given alot of money (alot of it is likely for good PR), but it's mostly pocket change to him. The guy is still ridiculously rich. Do you honestly because 20 million dollars will put him under?

It's really sad because I'm pretty sure the majority of everyone on this site is from middle-class to upper-class families. You have no idea about the social problems that arise from poverty. And you never will, likely. It's so easy criticize the poor from your suburb home, with your suv's, iPod's, and $100 skate shoes, but I'd like to see you (most of which I'm assuming are high school kids living at home with their parents) take a walk in someone else's shoes.

Fuck following your stupid ideologies and how about we stick to one main goal, treat everyone with respect. Maybe one day when you're on the street with no money and no home, you can continue to suck Bill Gate's dick for being such a fine humanitarian. Maybe one day when you're working 50 hours a week for minimum wage you will continue to praise the almighty CEO who reaps in all the profits you produce.

Dehumanizing...........really? If anything capitalism allows an individual to opportunity to reach their potential.

If you wish to live by the idea of treating everyone with respect you should have the respect for how other people wish to spend their money............even if you don't agree with how they spend it, how they donate it, and how much they keep for themselves. Seems you're saying one thing and doing another?

[selftitled85]

Yet you offer no critique of my post. Indicate the flaws and you may have a reason to laugh...otherwise you just sound like an ignorant half-wit.

first off to say most of us here are high schoolers sitting at home is a wrong generalization. im an econ minor international affairs major at james madison univ. my fam recently has come under very hard financial times based on the fucked up market. but im not going to say its someone i dont knows fault or just blindly blame the corporations for this because thats stupid.

the truth is if corporations didnt outsource the price on items here would be much more expensive then they are at the present moment. hence why wal-mart is so cheap.

[Cal Smith]

In any economic system you can pick specifics within that system and say, "well this is better here" and "that is better there".

In reality you have to look at the big areas to see which systems are better. That is growth and standard of living.

[selftitled85]

In any economic system you can pick specifics within that system and say, "well this is better here" and "that is better there".

In reality you have to look at the big areas to see which systems are better. That is growth and standard of living.


and america has a very high standard of living even if you take away the insanely rich.

[mondeoman]

Dehumanizing...........really? If anything capitalism allows an individual to opportunity to reach their potential.

If you wish to live by the idea of treating everyone with respect you should have the respect for how other people wish to spend their money............even if you don't agree with how they spend it, how they donate it, and how much they keep for themselves. Seems you're saying one thing and doing another?
hahaha i can't believe this but I'm agreeing with you.

[Cal Smith]

hahaha i can't believe this but I'm agreeing with you.

then it's clear you're getting smarter every day :kinggrin:

[mondeoman]

then it's clear you're getting smarter every day :kinggrin:
hahahaha Actually I ought to take a picture of that post, it'll last longer.

[Justin_stacy]

Like America is all that great? I mean I love this country but there are severe flaws in our education systems among many other facets of life. I'd go into more detail but I really don't like posting in here plus I have studying to do.

In comparison to Sweden? Yes it really is. As for the two educational systems you have a very valid point. But then again what would you rather have a good education and the ability to use it, or a great education and no ability to ever use it? Which would you prefer?

[mondeoman]

In comparison to Sweden? Yes it really is. As for the two educational systems you have a very valid point. But then again what would you rather have a good education and the ability to use it, or a great education and no ability to ever use it? Which would you prefer?
What do you mean by not being able to use it? Sorry I'm no political science expert by any means.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm not supporting that Refused guy in any way because I think capitalism has some great traits. But socialism has some very good qualities. .

Socialism has some very good qualities, as does communism, but in practice they are both failures. Socialism does not work in the long run. That's a proven fact, if it can't work in Scandinavia, where everyone is exactly the same, in won't work anywhere.

In many ways people in Europe have a better lifestyle than us.

But in most of the area's that point to a successful nation, we have it better then them.....

[Justin_stacy]

What do you mean by not being able to use it? Sorry I'm no political science expert by any means.

If you can't find a job what good does a great education do you? If you can't work you can't use it….

I would point out too, that one of the reasons Scandinavian’s tend to test higher then US is that they stay in school much, much, longer then us, because there are no jobs available to them in the workplace. Why quit college to go on unemployment?

[mondeoman]

If you can't find a job what good does a great education do you? If you can't work you can't use it….

I would point out too, that one of the reasons Scandinavian’s tend to test higher then US is that they stay in school much, much, longer then us, because there are no jobs available to them in the workplace. Why quit college to go on unemployment?
I understand now. To answer your question that does make sense staying in school all the time. However I must disagree with your thoughts that socialism doesn't work. Truthfully total socialism doesn't work but instituting ideas from socialism works great and is used in America as well.
There are obvious flaws in their system then again our system with our Wal-Marts and our millions without health insurance and the millions who get sub-par education isn't great either. I just believe that there can be a medium between the two.

[Rebs]

The animosity against the rich exists, but it seems to me that its mostly because of stereotypes. Yes, I live in a big house and my parents make a lot of money, but both work hard. My step dad was on welfare growing up and my mom was disowned by her parents. My mother has been married 3 times and we worked through it together and used to go days without eating, except for what the state provided me at school. People automatically assume that I have no grip on reality, and that I am a close minded rich-bitch, but sometimes I wish someone would just sit back and not necessarily assume that we are all evil.

[Dan Hollister]

You guys also need to realize that we do not hurt 3rd world countries for our own profit.

You know all those people in China who manufacture our computers for us? You know what they think? They love us! They can't get enough of us! China, India, and most other countries are trying to drive in as many American companies as they can!

Keep it in perspective. Yes, for America, getting paid 50 cents an hour to do hard work sounds "terrible." But in reality, in the countries that are doing this work, that's good money for them. China's entire economy is growing almost entirely by piggybacking off ours.

If anything, our spread into other countries a) globalizes the workforce, and b) strengthens their economies, in addition to our own.

And yeah, whoever said capitalism dehumanizes people... not true. Cal is right. You want to earn more money? Or perhaps you think you have a great idea that other people would pay for? Welcome to America, one of the only places in the world where you can do this.

Face it. If you are not rich, IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF CAPITALISM. Capitalism, by its very nature, means you have 100% control over your own finances, endeavors, job, etc. If you choose to work your ass off, or you choose to get rich, or choose to market your skills, you can - and you'll benefit. The only people who do not benefit are though who a) don't give a shit, or b) are misinformed.

Oh, and someone said medicine is better in socialist nations... that's not better either. It's free, yes. However, you know what the price you pay is? If you're old, or your recovery chances are not high, you're screwed. They won't bother trying to heal you at all.

And if you CAN be healed, they'll make you wait weeks, months, years, for procedures that you can get here in a few days with health insurance.

Everything has a drawback. But Cal is right. You still need to judge us based on our standard of living. Along with our freedoms and our economy. And so far, we're still #1 - by a long shot.

[justinevans]

You guys also need to realize that we do not hurt 3rd world countries for our own profit.

You know all those people in China who manufacture our computers for us? You know what they think? They love us! They can't get enough of us! China, India, and most other countries are trying to drive in as many American companies as they can!

Keep it in perspective. Yes, for America, getting paid 50 cents an hour to do hard work sounds "terrible." But in reality, in the countries that are doing this work, that's good money for them. China's entire economy is growing almost entirely by piggybacking off ours.

If anything, our spread into other countries a) globalizes the workforce, and b) strengthens their economies, in addition to our own.

And yeah, whoever said capitalism dehumanizes people... not true. Cal is right. You want to earn more money? Or perhaps you think you have a great idea that other people would pay for? Welcome to America, one of the only places in the world where you can do this.

Face it. If you are not rich, IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF CAPITALISM. Capitalism, by its very nature, means you have 100% control over your own finances, endeavors, job, etc. If you choose to work your ass off, or you choose to get rich, or choose to market your skills, you can - and you'll benefit. The only people who do not benefit are though who a) don't give a shit, or b) are misinformed.

Oh, and someone said medicine is better in socialist nations... that's not better either. It's free, yes. However, you know what the price you pay is? If you're old, or your recovery chances are not high, you're screwed. They won't bother trying to heal you at all.

And if you CAN be healed, they'll make you wait weeks, months, years, for procedures that you can get here in a few days with health insurance.

Everything has a drawback. But Cal is right. You still need to judge us based on our standard of living. Along with our freedoms and our economy. And so far, we're still #1 - by a long shot.

well we do in a way because of patents and so forth.

[justinevans]

Capitalism is great for the frew, bad for the majority. The main concept on capitalism is to make make profit. Yes, many North American families are well off. Even our middle class could be considered "rich" on a global scale. But no one takes into account the outrageous harm that North American corporations present to developing countries around the world. Face it, we fuck over developing countries for the sake of profit. Why manufacture a product in American paying $7/hour for labour when you could go overseas and pay a child $1 a day to do the samething? Why manufacture a product in America when you are losing profts from environmental regulations when you could go overseas and do whatever the fuck you want because they have no environmental laws?

While I'm not a supported of unbridled socialism (or communism for that matter), I find capitalism very dehumanizing. It treats workers as products, attemping to purchase their labour for mere pocket change. I can't help but laugh at those who are praising Bill Gates. Sure, he's given alot of money (alot of it is likely for good PR), but it's mostly pocket change to him. The guy is still ridiculously rich. Do you honestly because 20 million dollars will put him under?

It's really sad because I'm pretty sure the majority of everyone on this site is from middle-class to upper-class families. You have no idea about the social problems that arise from poverty. And you never will, likely. It's so easy criticize the poor from your suburb home, with your suv's, iPod's, and $100 skate shoes, but I'd like to see you (most of which I'm assuming are high school kids living at home with their parents) take a walk in someone else's shoes.

Fuck following your stupid ideologies and how about we stick to one main goal, treat everyone with respect. Maybe one day when you're on the street with no money and no home, you can continue to suck Bill Gate's dick for being such a fine humanitarian. Maybe one day when you're working 50 hours a week for minimum wage you will continue to praise the almighty CEO who reaps in all the profits you produce.

capitlism = innovation and productivity. competition and high risk/reward.

[Justin_stacy]

There are obvious flaws in their system then again our system with our Wal-Marts and our millions without health insurance and the millions who get sub-par education isn't great either. I just believe that there can be a medium between the two.

It is fair to say that using elements of both does create a sound society, but the foundation must be in capitalism, not socialism. Most of Western Europe is not totally socialistic, but the basis for their society is in socialism, and their capitalistic elements are not strong enough to overcome these burdens. And you'll notice too that the more socialistic a country is the faster they are falling.

With your examples; there is nothing wrong with wal-mart so I’ll bi-pass that one. As for education it is not "sub-par" when it comes to the money spent. City schools spend more per child then most suburban schools (chechout Washington D.C.) and they get more state and federal funding, so money is not the problem. It is the elected school boards, the teachers, the unions and the parents that are creating the failures, and socialism would not solve anyone of those problems. School failure is not solved by chucking money at it.

A thought, could it be that European kids test higher because they have too? If 1,000 kids are fight for the same job, doesn't that demand that you finish top in your class if you want to survive?

Healthcare is a problem and it's sad that 20 million Americans are habitually without it. But yet should all the other Americans suffer because of this? Bureaucracies, particularly America’s, are known failures. Everything they attempt failures or causes unnecessary burdens on the majority, just look at welfare before it was reformed. So why would you want to place your health in their hands. Isn’t that a fair question?
More will loose from universal healthcare then will be help, so it really it isn't a realistic option.


I understand now. To answer your question that does make sense staying in school all the time. However I must disagree with your thoughts that socialism doesn't work. Truthfully total socialism doesn't work but instituting ideas from socialism works great and is used in America as well..

Most that are used in America aren’t exactly what people would call success stories, either.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Ditto. If a woman is sitting homeless on a street corner, sounds like she should get herself a job.

Definately, every poor person can get a job. I mean just look at countries with 0% unemployment rates like... Myanmar! (Forced labour is still labour).

Ignorant statement of the year. It's not like some people get fucked over by sub par education system, being bought up in a background of violence where education is not looked at a priority. And I mean this doesn't make them vunerable to drugs or anything.

I hope you enjoy life in your gated compound.

To JustinStacy, yeah Universal Healthcare, pure evil. I mean just look at Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. I mean these nations have healthcare systems which are just putting everyone at disadvantage. What with the way they put a slight burden on economic growth that means those in the top 5% can't aqquire even more of the total wealth. How selfish.

[Dan Hollister]

Life in a gated compound? You're an asshole for assuming that because I'm pro-capitalism means I'm filthy rich.

I grew up in 2-room (2 room - not bedroom) shack with my mom in Los Angeles who went blind, and was disabled and could not work. We had no car, no computer, no heat sometimes, shitty schools. Living off my mom's social security check from when she could work. I got tired of it. I developed a liking for computers, then movies, and just by opening my fucking eyes, I saw that people were not going to just hand us money, and even if they did, that wouldn't fix the underlying problem of being self-sufficient. I needed to market my skills. So I did.

Yes, I am now writing this post on an Apple Powerbook from a nice apartment in Orange County where I now live, and also have a film studio and get paid to make movies and have a lot of fun. I also earned every single penny myself, without start-up money, without investors, without a lawyer, without counsel, without a college degree, without support from my family, and while only having worked at a "real job" earning minimum wage for a whopping 3 months before I got my ass in gear.

People can do it. People aren't stupid. Everyone has somethign that somebody else needs. It doesn't matter if it's filmmaking, or housecleaning - everyone has some skill they can do that someone else can pay for. And America's system of capitalism allows them to freely do this.

Who can do this? Anyone! Yes - ANYONE. People busy in other careers, single moms, poor minorities, the homeless, people working 3 jobs... if you want to do it, you can do it.

- Soapworks was a company founded by a single mom who had a bunch of kids and a ton of jobs and very little money. She discovered her kids were allergic to most soaps, so she started making her own hypoalergenic soaps. She eventually decided to market them. She's now a millionaire.

- News From Our Shoes was a newspaper founded by A HOMELESS MAN. All that was needed to make a newsletter, after all, was a couple hours at a public library computer and $2 at Kinko's. Eventually his little paper pulled him right out of poverty, along with his homeless friends who assisted him. They new each have a home, News From Our Shoes has an office, and they continue to work on the newslettter, as well as teach the homeless how to change their lives.

Notice how a previously-homeless man himself, who knows how bad life is out there, is NOT running around telling people to just hand down money. He teaches them. He knows that's what works. And he knows it's possible in America to do these things.

You could have a "gated compound" too, if you shut your mouth long enough to recognize what you're good at and bother to market it to other people.

[ReFuSeD!]

we do have problems but when i went to russia you would be so surprised at how good most of us have it. text books were over 10-15 yrs old and were falling apart yet getting nothing.
we all bitch and moan about how little we have and its complete crap. yes our education needs to work but most of it is caused by the idiocy of the students. when your in hs instead of going and getting drunk or stoned all the time why dont you go read a book or a job or do something worthwhile. instead all you do is bitch and moan about how "little" you have.

Much of the point of my post was to state exactly that...North American's and much of Europe has a very high standard of living while the majority of the world lives on a couple dollars a day. Is that America's fault? Not fully, as it is multi-casual, but US (as well as other capitalistic countries) foreign policy definitely marginalizes these countries. You don't have to look much further than Haiti where Canadian and US troops have overthrown coups that intend to prop up highly regulated governments. As soon as these developing countries begin to become more independent and self-sustaining, they have less depedence on our resources and it hurts our economies. Solution? Take them out.

Also, I hate when people say that we should stop bitching about "moaning" about how little we have. Sure, we are extremely well off on a global scale, but that doesn't mean we should stop pursuing better lives. Should we quit fighting for better wages and working conditions because most of us are doing pretty well? That's absolutely idiotic.

[ReFuSeD!]

Dehumanizing...........really? If anything capitalism allows an individual to opportunity to reach their potential.
If you wish to live by the idea of treating everyone with respect you should have the respect for how other people wish to spend their money............even if you don't agree with how they spend it, how they donate it, and how much they keep for themselves. Seems you're saying one thing and doing another?


Capitalism allows mainly individuals with the resources to reach their potential. A child born into a rich family has a substantially higher chance of being successful in life than one born into poverty. Look at some recent studies done lately, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. People living in poverty have very high chances of being unemployed, going to jail, and becoming drug addicts.

Yes, I believe everyone should be able to spend their money how they wish as well, but that certainly is a very hedonistic view as well. I like to believe there is a unity between humans and that everyone is just not out to look after themselves, but with capitalism, it seems the focus is to maximize profits for yourself. Also, I find it dehumanizing working within the capitalistic state. You are constantly in competition with your co-workers and country-(wo)men for your job. Yes, competition is the heart of capitalism, but it's a life-long rat race for many.

People also always tell me capitalism is the most efficient force behind economics today, but it seems the opposite here in Canada. Lately, a few of our State-owned (Crown) corporations have been sold to private companies in leiu of better efficiency. We after our power and telecomunication companies were sold to private companies, there were large-scale layoffs and prices eventually rose. The province bought back the coporations from public outcry and guess what happened? Yes, prices dropped again.

[ReFuSeD!]

Socialism has some very good qualities, as does communism, but in practice they are both failures. Socialism does not work in the long run. That's a proven fact, if it can't work in Scandinavia, where everyone is exactly the same, in won't work anywhere.

Actually, true socialism has never been accomplished as it requires the abolition of the government, something which has yet to happen. Same is also for capitalism. True capitalism has never been seen either as even in America there are many regulations. In many ways, Libertarianism is unbridled capitalism. And however much it may seem, I am not a socialist. While I do agree that true socialism would be superior to capitalism, I don't believe it to be some ideological savior for the human race.

[ReFuSeD!]

You guys also need to realize that we do not hurt 3rd world countries for our own profit.

You know all those people in China who manufacture our computers for us? You know what they think? They love us! They can't get enough of us! China, India, and most other countries are trying to drive in as many American companies as they can!

Keep it in perspective. Yes, for America, getting paid 50 cents an hour to do hard work sounds "terrible." But in reality, in the countries that are doing this work, that's good money for them. China's entire economy is growing almost entirely by piggybacking off ours.

Indeed, many of those countries are glad to recieve the shitty wages we give them. Many live in extreme poverty and will take whatever they can get. True, if it wasn't for the measly pocket-change we gave them, they would probably have no income at all, but does that make it right to exploit the poor? It is quite disgusting with how little respect we give these people. Show a little empathy and try taking a walk in their shoes. That's all I'm trying to say.

[Cal Smith]

Capitalism allows mainly individuals with the resources to reach their potential. A child born into a rich family has a substantially higher chance of being successful in life than one born into poverty. Look at some recent studies done lately, the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. People living in poverty have very high chances of being unemployed, going to jail, and becoming drug addicts.

Yet does everyone not have that chance? I agree some have a better chance, but I'd rather have that chance over no chance.

Yes, I believe everyone should be able to spend their money how they wish as well, but that certainly is a very hedonistic view as well. I like to believe there is a unity between humans and that everyone is just not out to look after themselves, but with capitalism, it seems the focus is to maximize profits for yourself. Also, I find it dehumanizing working within the capitalistic state. You are constantly in competition with your co-workers and country-(wo)men for your job. Yes, competition is the heart of capitalism, but it's a life-long rat race for many.

You are looking at this concept that there has to be a winner and a loser. That's not the case. If one succeeds the other does not have to lose.

Also I'd point out the amount that the US gives in charity each year. Not just the government aid, but primarily citizens. I think that would be a strike against what you're arguing.

People also always tell me capitalism is the most efficient force behind economics today, but it seems the opposite here in Canada. Lately, a few of our State-owned (Crown) corporations have been sold to private companies in leiu of better efficiency. We after our power and telecomunication companies were sold to private companies, there were large-scale layoffs and prices eventually rose. The province bought back the coporations from public outcry and guess what happened? Yes, prices dropped again.

look at China as a whole

[Cal Smith]

Indeed, many of those countries are glad to recieve the shitty wages we give them. Many live in extreme poverty and will take whatever they can get. True, if it wasn't for the measly pocket-change we gave them, they would probably have no income at all, but does that make it right to exploit the poor? It is quite disgusting with how little respect we give these people. Show a little empathy and try taking a walk in their shoes. That's all I'm trying to say.

I agree with you here for the most part, but I would add a large shoulder of the blame goes to these countries government. More regulations, unions, and most likely not taking buy off's from companies could help a lot.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Life in a gated compound? You're an asshole for assuming that because I'm pro-capitalism means I'm filthy rich.

I grew up in 2-room (2 room - not bedroom) shack with my mom in Los Angeles who went blind, and was disabled and could not work. We had no car, no computer, no heat sometimes, shitty schools. Living off my mom's social security check from when she could work. I got tired of it. I developed a liking for computers, then movies, and just by opening my fucking eyes, I saw that people were not going to just hand us money, and even if they did, that wouldn't fix the underlying problem of being self-sufficient. I needed to market my skills. So I did.

Yes, I am now writing this post on an Apple Powerbook from a nice apartment in Orange County where I now live, and also have a film studio and get paid to make movies and have a lot of fun. I also earned every single penny myself, without start-up money, without investors, without a lawyer, without counsel, without a college degree, without support from my family, and while only having worked at a "real job" earning minimum wage for a whopping 3 months before I got my ass in gear.

People can do it. People aren't stupid. Everyone has somethign that somebody else needs. It doesn't matter if it's filmmaking, or housecleaning - everyone has some skill they can do that someone else can pay for. And America's system of capitalism allows them to freely do this.

Who can do this? Anyone! Yes - ANYONE. People busy in other careers, single moms, poor minorities, the homeless, people working 3 jobs... if you want to do it, you can do it.

- Soapworks was a company founded by a single mom who had a bunch of kids and a ton of jobs and very little money. She discovered her kids were allergic to most soaps, so she started making her own hypoalergenic soaps. She eventually decided to market them. She's now a millionaire.

- News From Our Shoes was a newspaper founded by A HOMELESS MAN. All that was needed to make a newsletter, after all, was a couple hours at a public library computer and $2 at Kinko's. Eventually his little paper pulled him right out of poverty, along with his homeless friends who assisted him. They new each have a home, News From Our Shoes has an office, and they continue to work on the newslettter, as well as teach the homeless how to change their lives.

Notice how a previously-homeless man himself, who knows how bad life is out there, is NOT running around telling people to just hand down money. He teaches them. He knows that's what works. And he knows it's possible in America to do these things.

You could have a "gated compound" too, if you shut your mouth long enough to recognize what you're good at and bother to market it to other people.

Go work at a Soup Kitchen on Christmas day like I have every day for the last 6 years and tell everyone that. Society is fixated on an image of perfection and sucsess, if you're told enough times you're nothing, you're lazy and you are bludging then you believe it. Humans aren't black and white as you would like to believe. You're an asshole for asuming all homeless people can just get a job, and that it's an option of choice for them to live there. For every corporation you list that has been created by someone homeless i'm sure I can list you right back one that has been passed down through family wealth. Hilton Chain, Johnson & Johnson, Heinz. There's one to match your examples. It's a rare occourance for someone completely down and out in society to go onto such greatness.

America's system of capatalism allows anyone to get a job? Maybe, sure. Does it allow them to get a job that substantiates for themselves? Not always. It's a characteristic of Capatalistic societies that there are always jobs on the fringes that when you take the expenses associated to income of the job (Rent, food etc) they often don't provide at all. Work three jobs your solution? Unions fought for this thing called the 40 hour week, a simple workers right.

Why should the chief executive of Johnson & Johnson who inherited his fathers shares, and his father before that work a 4 hour week if he chooses while an employee cleaning his house may have to work three jobs and hardly meet the status quo?

I don't want a gated compound for my life, my desire is to earn enough to live and retire. I don't care about the fixation on being rich that seems to sit so well in a corporate america.


I agree with you here for the most part, but I would add a large shoulder of the blame goes to these countries government. More regulations, unions, and most likely not taking buy off's from companies could help a lot.

Yeah but the nations that try and do that lose out, it's like dogs begging for the last scrap of meat. The dog that goes down to the lowest level will always win. Corporations pit nations against each other, hell even states within the USA are doing this now.

[Kram41]

Dan, just curious... Are you taking your first course in economics now? Because when you take your first courses in macro- and micro-, most people tend to become very conservative, and then the more they learn and the more they think, become more and more liberal.

The problem with most Conservatives is that their argument always looks like this: "Look at our country, it's the best off economically in the world, so it must be perfect." Sure, I totally agree that America has the best economic system in the world, however that doesn't mean that our system doesn't have tons of room for improvements.

There are plenty of people in this country, (and even moreso in others) that get rich by being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people and playing the right game. Sure, America gives people the best chance to succeed and the most opportunity, but that doesn't mean that it is still severely flawed and our education system gives certain people a much greater chance of succeeding and others nearly insurmountable circumstances to overcome, simply based on who their parents are and where they live.

[mondeoman]

Dan, just curious... Are you taking your first course in economics now? Because when you take your first courses in macro- and micro-, most people tend to become very conservative, and then the more they learn and the more they think, become more and more liberal.

The problem with most Conservatives is that their argument always looks like this: "Look at our country, it's the best off economically in the world, so it must be perfect." Sure, I totally agree that America has the best economic system in the world, however that doesn't mean that our system doesn't have tons of room for improvements.

There are plenty of people in this country, (and even moreso in others) that get rich by being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people and playing the right game. Sure, America gives people the best chance to succeed and the most opportunity, but that doesn't mean that it is still severely flawed and our education system gives certain people a much greater chance of succeeding and others nearly insurmountable circumstances to overcome, simply based on who their parents are and where they live.
I love you. That's basically the point I was trying to get to on the last page. And you are like the last person who I thought would say that. haha

[Dan Hollister]

To "youcomebeforeyo" -
'm sure you can indeed list many more companies handed down by wealth than those created by homeless people. But... so what? Not everything is merit-based, true. But the Johnson&Johnson execs are not stealling money from anyone else. In fact, because they continue to run the company, thousands of people that work under them have jobs. I'm not saying nepotism is great; I don't agree with it. But it doesn't make a huge dent in capitalism as you would like to believe. According to the SBA, nearly 90% of all new companies in any given year are founded by those who have a) never done so before, and b) could not supply at least 51% of the capital themselves, i.e. were not rich.

I, too, wish to just have enough money to live happily and retire. I'm not living richly right now; what I have now is already overwhelming compared to what I used to have. I'm not buying Hummers and beachside properties, and have no desire to. But that's the whole point. Entrepreneurship doesn't mean you're trying to start a multi-billion dollar corporation. Starting a small business can provide you with sometimes less income than a traditional job. For instance, a mom-and-pop store is still often a corporation, but they don't usually make millions of dollars. They probably make the same as a couple computer programmers out there. But the point is they have freedom, they're getting paid for their skills and their earnings are based on how well they do them. And most of the time, there's a great reward to be had when "work" is no longer work, but something you love to do.

And for those less fortunate... sure, it's not easy. I'm not saying any homeless man can just go start a business with the snap of his fingers. But I'm saying it's possible, but how are they going to know that when all we do is try to give them freebies and blame their losses on everyone else? It's not entirely their fault either that they are on the street - but they DO have a good deal of power in terms of getting themselves OFF the street.

And to "analbumleakage" -
While I understand what you're saying, that's not entirely true. You can't honestly tell me with all seriousness that the people who understand economics best are all liberals. I might be tempted to say the opposite but I won't because I cannot back that up either. But I do know for certain that there are very, very intelligent economists on both sides of the field. Neither side is necessarily right, either. There's brilliant people who still believe in trickle-down and other failing ideas. But don't turn this into a partisan debate. Nobody can say who is better, I think both parties would do severe damage to this country. This is still one of few issues that I feel this [relatively conservative] way on, I'm not some hardcore republican.

And no, I'm not in my first sets of econ classes. I also agree with you that there is room for improvement in our system. But in order for us to improve on an idea, we at least should be able to agree that the idea is worth improving. People saying capitalism is nothing but evil and there's people left out in the cold... that's not an entirely a great attitude towards change. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that it's not perfect. But I'm not willing to say that right now, everyone still has a shot of taking control of their wealth, right now, as is.

I'm by no means an ecomonist. I don't speak for all economic theories. I only speak from my experiences, which still to this day amaze me. I get paid purely based on my merit, how well I perform my work. My fundamental viewpoint still stands - and that is, that we all have skills. We all do things, and we all need things done. Someone out there would probably pay for you to put whatever your skills are, at work. Finding that niche isn't the easiest thing on the planet... but why not give it a shot?

[Dan Hollister]

Oh, and just FYI, if you look at a CEO's timetable, they don't generally work 4 hour weeks. They generally work just as long, if not longer, than anyone else. In some cases, they often work 60, 70, 80 hours. Maybe more. Many CEO's live and breathe the work they do. A CEO isn't a glory position. Companies rise and fall based entirely on their leadership. It's not some symbolic job that requires no work. I would to see some proof of a CEO working 4 hour weeks before you tout a "fact" like that.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Actually, most wealth is not earned, it is simply passed on through the family. In any case, say what you will, but the truth is that when you have wealth in our society you are one of the favored, and if you have no capital, then you're looked down upon.

[getupkid53]

1)Ditto. If a woman is sitting homeless on a street corner, sounds like she should get herself a job.

2) The rich simply giving money to the poor DOES NOT WORK, because no money is PRODUCED when you just hand it down. Eventually the rich man would run out. The whole idea of economics is GROWTH. You want to see some magic happen? Go check out the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. All these guys do is teach the poorest of poor inner city school kids in New York how to manage money and how to be entrepreneurs.
See, the problem with the methodology that rich people are selfish is that the poor people believe it. Go talk to some poor kids, more often than not, are they working their asses off in school to get a good job and make money so they won't be poor? No, most of them don't give a shit about school, because society is too busy telling them, it's not your fault! The rich people are to blame! You're disadvantaged and deserve a handout!

3)That's bullshit, and you can prove it, purely by looking at the results this foundation gets. For some reason, it is socially acceptable to tell the poor people that they are helpless, and that it's everyone elses fault. But if you instead choose to show them how they CAN control it, they do so. It doesn't matter if they're a single mother, a kid, a man working 3 jobs and still not making ends meet, or even a homeless man. I can cite you examples of people in each of these situations who have still managed to take control of their finances and start a little business or something.

1) The fact that you believe everyone can get a job makes you that much more ignorant. You didn't factor in that not all people are homeless by choice. You pretty much just stated that every homeless person is just a lazy ass and can / should find a job. If that were true, you can be the first president to bring the US to a 0% unemployment rate. I'm really glad you rose from the ashes to become something, I really am. You made the most of a bad situation. It's great you took an interest in movies and computers. I'm sure if you went to the inner city of chicago and visited the projects you'd realized that people are so poor, they can't afford tv's, and their schools can't afford computers. Not every poor person has the opportunity you had.
A 40 year old stay at home mom of three kids has her husband leave her. She hasn't had a job in 20 years and has no skills and has a high school education. Now she has 4 mouths to feed and no experience in the work force. She will possibly land a cleaning job. She has no phone, no address, and no car. How does she get to work? Who will take care of her kids while she has a job? How many minimum wage jobs will it take her to feed four people? As much as you like to think that everyone in this world has the opportunity to 'rise up', you are sadly mistaken.

2) Bill Gates should stop donating money to the fight against aids because it's not generating any income (that was extreme sarcasm). You are right. People shouldn't just walk down the street handing money out. I was inferring that sometimes people need a little boost. Maybe the woman on the street can't get a job because she has no car or money for bus fare to get to one. You failed to factor in the numerous amount of variables that come with being homeless. You act like these people asked for it and then revel in their own misery. You really hit a double edged sword with the whole 'poor kids don't try and that's why they are poor' deal. Yes, there are alot of kids in school that are just perpetuating the cycle of the welfare lifestyle. There also are alot of poor kids who will never see an opportunity like middle class / affluent people (Yes, there are great stories of people rising up from the dumps, but what makes them great stories is that they are highly uncommon).
Look at alot of the Muslims / Hindus in our country. I would bet you all my money that each one of those people is smarter than us. I have friends with degrees in law and medical fields and have to work security or at the gas station because there is no opportunity for them to practice their profession without re-enrolling in an american university.

3) That foundation is awesome. I'm really glad they are helping out. Tell me again what percentage of poor americans have the opportunity to be enrolled in this program? I'm also sure that every poor family in America believes that their problems come from the affluent American society that they will never be a part of. Kids being born into poverty is like just like kids being born into wealthy households. It's all they know, and its what they come to expect from life.

And on the bill gates issue. He does own ferrari's. He owns a 120,000,000 dollar house that will 'adapt' to his mood. He owns everything you could imagine, probably more, and still has 20 billion dollars in the bank. What do you think if he gave 5 billion of that to the foundation for entrepenuership? He'd still have a meager 15,000,000,000 in his bank, and would really a create a shitload of income. If it costs 10,000 dollars for each kid to enroll in that program, that donation would put 150,000 kids through it, with an 80% success rate, that is 120,000 more children equipped to work and handle money. That's insane. So you keep arguing that Bill gates' money should sit in his bank account accruing interest while those 120,000 kids are lacking the education they need. And as for Bill Gates only donating a million bucks a piece to his kids, that is all the more reason to donate more to charity.

[justinevans]

I love you. That's basically the point I was trying to get to on the last page. And you are like the last person who I thought would say that. haha

i'm about to graduate from college with a degree in finance and economics...what most people don't realize is that it was "liberals" that started the whole free-trade idea...check it out, Adam Smith.

but there has been a shift in paradigm.

the conservative view is now hands off, less government. that is the way it should be.

[justinevans]

Definately, every poor person can get a job. I mean just look at countries with 0% unemployment rates like... Myanmar! (Forced labour is still labour).

Ignorant statement of the year. It's not like some people get fucked over by sub par education system, being bought up in a background of violence where education is not looked at a priority. And I mean this doesn't make them vunerable to drugs or anything.

I hope you enjoy life in your gated compound.

To JustinStacy, yeah Universal Healthcare, pure evil. I mean just look at Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. I mean these nations have healthcare systems which are just putting everyone at disadvantage. What with the way they put a slight burden on economic growth that means those in the top 5% can't aqquire even more of the total wealth. How selfish.

actually Canada and Sweden are going through problems. you don't have the right to choose your doctor. there is healthcare out there for the poor. if a hospital denied health care they could easily face a lawsuit. its like this you either save the whales or save the people. you can't save everything. there is not enough money. Also those countries you speak of have ALOT less people than our country. We also have a lot more immigrants then their countries. Also, a universal healthcare means HIGHER TAXES FOR EVERYONE!

[justinevans]

Indeed, many of those countries are glad to recieve the shitty wages we give them. Many live in extreme poverty and will take whatever they can get. True, if it wasn't for the measly pocket-change we gave them, they would probably have no income at all, but does that make it right to exploit the poor? It is quite disgusting with how little respect we give these people. Show a little empathy and try taking a walk in their shoes. That's all I'm trying to say.

are we exploiting them though? they buy things at cheaper prices then we do here. 5$ a day actually goes along way in places like mexico.

[justinevans]

Actually, most wealth is not earned, it is simply passed on through the family. In any case, say what you will, but the truth is that when you have wealth in our society you are one of the favored, and if you have no capital, then you're looked down upon.

someone earned it. all the rich are not descendants of kings, queens, dukes, and duchesses. i'm of royalty and I am far from rich. Someone earned it at first. Don't knock families that invested their money into banks and companies. Well except the Kennedy's. They did it illegally.

[justinevans]

1) The fact that you believe everyone can get a job makes you that much more ignorant. You didn't factor in that not all people are homeless by choice. You pretty much just stated that every homeless person is just a lazy ass and can / should find a job. If that were true, you can be the first president to bring the US to a 0% unemployment rate. I'm really glad you rose from the ashes to become something, I really am. You made the most of a bad situation. It's great you took an interest in movies and computers. I'm sure if you went to the inner city of chicago and visited the projects you'd realized that people are so poor, they can't afford tv's, and their schools can't afford computers. Not every poor person has the opportunity you had.
A 40 year old stay at home mom of three kids has her husband leave her. She hasn't had a job in 20 years and has no skills and has a high school education. Now she has 4 mouths to feed and no experience in the work force. She will possibly land a cleaning job. She has no phone, no address, and no car. How does she get to work? Who will take care of her kids while she has a job? How many minimum wage jobs will it take her to feed four people? As much as you like to think that everyone in this world has the opportunity to 'rise up', you are sadly mistaken.

2) Bill Gates should stop donating money to the fight against aids because it's not generating any income (that was extreme sarcasm). You are right. People shouldn't just walk down the street handing money out. I was inferring that sometimes people need a little boost. Maybe the woman on the street can't get a job because she has no car or money for bus fare to get to one. You failed to factor in the numerous amount of variables that come with being homeless. You act like these people asked for it and then revel in their own misery. You really hit a double edged sword with the whole 'poor kids don't try and that's why they are poor' deal. Yes, there are alot of kids in school that are just perpetuating the cycle of the welfare lifestyle. There also are alot of poor kids who will never see an opportunity like middle class / affluent people (Yes, there are great stories of people rising up from the dumps, but what makes them great stories is that they are highly uncommon).
Look at alot of the Muslims / Hindus in our country. I would bet you all my money that each one of those people is smarter than us. I have friends with degrees in law and medical fields and have to work security or at the gas station because there is no opportunity for them to practice their profession without re-enrolling in an american university.

3) That foundation is awesome. I'm really glad they are helping out. Tell me again what percentage of poor americans have the opportunity to be enrolled in this program? I'm also sure that every poor family in America believes that their problems come from the affluent American society that they will never be a part of. Kids being born into poverty is like just like kids being born into wealthy households. It's all they know, and its what they come to expect from life.

And on the bill gates issue. He does own ferrari's. He owns a 120,000,000 dollar house that will 'adapt' to his mood. He owns everything you could imagine, probably more, and still has 20 billion dollars in the bank. What do you think if he gave 5 billion of that to the foundation for entrepenuership? He'd still have a meager 15,000,000,000 in his bank, and would really a create a shitload of income. If it costs 10,000 dollars for each kid to enroll in that program, that donation would put 150,000 kids through it, with an 80% success rate, that is 120,000 more children equipped to work and handle money. That's insane. So you keep arguing that Bill gates' money should sit in his bank account accruing interest while those 120,000 kids are lacking the education they need. And as for Bill Gates only donating a million bucks a piece to his kids, that is all the more reason to donate more to charity.

the thing about AIDS.....you have to educate those people first. there are urban legends that if you fuck someone without the disease...you are cured...not to say they are not going to die malaria the following week either. Here in America people are educated enough about AIDS. There are outlets to become tested and so forth. I have little remorse for those who obtain AIDS presently in America. In Africa and other 3rd world countries, they lack the education to even know they have it sometimes. Also, there are not many doctors there that could administrate the once a day procedures to the ill there.

Bill Gates will be donating billions to charity. what is your point? Who are you to really say he even has to donate anything? Just be happy he is and stop bitching. How much money did you donate last year? Don't answer, it is not important.

We should really be worried about China's population and Army. That is going to be the real problem in the next few years.

[getupkid53]

the thing about AIDS.....you have to educate those people first. there are urban legends that if you fuck someone without the disease...you are cured...not to say they are not going to die malaria the following week either. Here in America people are educated enough about AIDS. There are outlets to become tested and so forth. I have little remorse for those who obtain AIDS presently in America. In Africa and other 3rd world countries, they lack the education to even know they have it sometimes. Also, there are not many doctors there that could administrate the once a day procedures to the ill there.

Bill Gates will be donating billions to charity. what is your point? Who are you to really say he even has to donate anything? Just be happy he is and stop bitching. How much money did you donate last year? Don't answer, it is not important.

We should really be worried about China's population and Army. That is going to be the real problem in the next few years.

The thing about aids is...... I was totally kidding, I'm pretty sure i even put a big quote right next to it so you knew i was kidding.

The bill gates thing, I don't hate him, just using him as an example. His money has probably done alot of great things for AIDS research. I was just making a point that Dan thought giving money away is useless. He (gates) has more than enough money to continue his lavish lifestyle and donate more. If you think anybody in this world deserves to have 20 billion dollars, thats fine. I don't think so.. Also, Bill Gates royally fucked his partner to gain his empire. Then get screwed in the ass when they took half of it away.
And if you think only rich people who donate matter, you need to get the fuck over yourself. It's average people like you and me who sponsor 3rd world children for food / clothing / education (unless sally struthers gets their first... that south park episode is gold).

[Jesse2]

3) I don't care if he gave 20 billion dollars, no one person deserves to have 20 billion dollars in his bank account while 10 miles away from your home, a single mother sits homeless on the corner with her kids and has to beg for change for a loaf of bread.

what is she doing having kids if she needs to beg just to eat?


You can't claim that all rich people are the same, because they aren't. Why do people that work for their money not deserve it? Why do people that work for their money owe that money to people that don't do shit to earn it.

There are plenty of opportunities to make money and be successful in America. It's amazing what hard work can do.

[getupkid53]

what is she doing having kids if she needs to beg just to eat?


You can't claim that all rich people are the same, because they aren't. Why do people that work for their money not deserve it? Why do people that work for their money owe that money to people that don't do shit to earn it.

There are plenty of opportunities to make money and be successful in America. It's amazing what hard work can do.

You obviously didn't read the post above you, and who are you to determine how and when somebody became homeless. You have no idea the circumstances about people's lives. You make assumptions, and your scrutiny is flawed. It's unfortunate, but hardwork doesn't (always) equal success. You should try to argue your logic with the 75% of startup businesses that fail in the first five years. Tell them if they work a little harder they will be successful because that's all it takes.

[Jesse2]

You obviously didn't read the post above you, and who are you to determine how and when somebody became homeless. You have no idea the circumstances about people's lives. You make assumptions, and your scrutiny is flawed. It's unfortunate, but hardwork doesn't (always) equal success. You should try to argue your logic with the 75% of startup businesses that fail in the first five years. Tell them if they work a little harder they will be successful because that's all it takes.

haha, that's funny. are you calling me out for making assumptions when you know absolutely nothing about me? that's great. how about this... i spent 6 weeks each year of high school on community service trips with my Church. I spent 2 of those weeks ENTIRELY in homeless shelters. I know that laziness isn't the only cause of homelessness, believe me. That said, I have ZERO respect for someone that endangers the well-being of a child by submitting them to that lifestyle.

So maybe my "assumptions" are a little more based on fact than yours.

also, i never said hard work promises wealth. i said that there are plenty of opportunities for success in America, and I will argue that until my fingers fall off.

[Kid Kilowatt]

someone earned it. all the rich are not descendants of kings, queens, dukes, and duchesses. i'm of royalty and I am far from rich. Someone earned it at first. Don't knock families that invested their money into banks and companies. Well except the Kennedy's. They did it illegally.
The fact that someone earned it does not change the fact that those who have it now did little to earn it. Would like to make the argument that Paris Hilton earned her money?

[Kid Kilowatt]

are we exploiting them though?
Poor conditions + Extremely hard work + Low Wages = Exploitation

[Kid Kilowatt]

what is she doing having kids if she needs to beg just to eat?


You can't claim that all rich people are the same, because they aren't. Why do people that work for their money not deserve it? Why do people that work for their money owe that money to people that don't do shit to earn it.

There are plenty of opportunities to make money and be successful in America. It's amazing what hard work can do.
The problem with the system in America is nepotism is a feature to it, so we have those with wealth having access to those oppurtunities first.

[getupkid53]

There are ample opportunities, but not everyone gets them. Don't come off all high and mighty like you are the only person who has ever worked a soup kitchen, or handed out clothes, or worked with the homeless or needy. Congratulations on volunteering. Also, I never called you out. I said your logic is flawed, it is. Just because you spend time with homeless people doesn't mean you know what they are /were / went through. Don't even try to say that your words are based on fact after spending two weeks volunteering with the homeless. Nothing you said was based on fact. Merely a strong opinion, which you are entitled to.

I also was stating that the woman most likely had kids before being forced to the streets. It's not like she's out screwing every joe blow and getting pregnant. All I said, is you don't know what situations they come from. I never said I did, I just stated the fact that you didn't. And you still don't. And you most likely never will.

[Jesse2]

There are ample opportunities, but not everyone gets them. Don't come off all high and mighty like you are the only person who has ever worked a soup kitchen, or handed out clothes, or worked with the homeless or needy. Congratulations on volunteering. Also, I never called you out. I said your logic is flawed, it is. Just because you spend time with homeless people doesn't mean you know what they are /were / went through. Don't even try to say that your words are based on fact after spending two weeks volunteering with the homeless. Nothing you said was based on fact. Merely a strong opinion, which you are entitled to.

I also was stating that the woman most likely had kids before being forced to the streets. It's not like she's out screwing every joe blow and getting pregnant. All I said, is you don't know what situations they come from. I never said I did, I just stated the fact that you didn't. And you still don't. And you most likely never will.

Dude, you missed my point entirely. I was saying, how can you accuse me, a faceless screenname on the internet of making baseless assumptions? You don't know my situation anymore than I know some homeless lady's. That time I spent at those shelters was not for applause, but rather ONE example of how little you know about me, or anyone else arguing my side of this debate. I don't claim to be humanitarian of the year, or anything like that, so don't try and put that bullshit spin on it.

So just because this lady had kids before she was poor makes it okay to force her children to be homeless as well? That's not endangering the welfare of those children? I never once called her a prostitute or anything like that, but REGARDLESS of the situation, if some lady can't provide for her children then she shouldn't be raising them, and that was the point I was making.

[Cal Smith]

I think some of you are missing the major point. You keeep bringing up individual cases, and anyone can bring up an individual case and make some point out of it.

Once you realize no matter what system you have you will have poverty to some degree then you can look at which system combats that best. I'm gonna have to argue that if you look at growth, and standard of living, you can determine that.

It's pointless to bring up a poor woman who did nothing with her life begging, or bring up a poor woman who worked her whole life and still has nothing begging. Look at the big picture.

[youcomebeforeyo]

actually Canada and Sweden are going through problems. you don't have the right to choose your doctor. there is healthcare out there for the poor. if a hospital denied health care they could easily face a lawsuit. its like this you either save the whales or save the people. you can't save everything. there is not enough money. Also those countries you speak of have ALOT less people than our country. We also have a lot more immigrants then their countries. Also, a universal healthcare means HIGHER TAXES FOR EVERYONE!

So why aren't taxes here in New Zealand or in Australia through the roof then? New Zealand's tax rates are right in the middle of the OECD.

Higher taxes for everyone yes, but a good tax system (like New Zealand's) will mean those that tax less pay less. Though i'm sure this an ideological debate when it comes to tax.

[ReFuSeD!]

the conservative view is now hands off, less government. that is the way it should be.

Do you really support that though? I find Libertarianism (ie. Laissez-faire capitalism) to be Anarchy for the rich. They both generally require the abolition of government and forms of authority, yet Libertarianism seeks to maintain capitalism. Are you really free (ie. liberated) working for a slave-wage?

As Chomsky once said, true Libertarianism (unbridled capitalism) would likely not last as it would self-destruct. With no environmental or labour regulations, do you really expect corporations to risk losing profit in order to save a species or pay their workers fairly? Doubtfully. Sure, the odd one might, but even today there is alot of resistance from these corporations pertaining to the environment and labour laws.

[open mind]

if you had any intelligence, you'd realize he is only leaving 1 million to each of his kids and the rest is going to charity.
how does not knowing the contents of the man's will reflect upon my intelligence?

[ReFuSeD!]

actually Canada and Sweden are going through problems. you don't have the right to choose your doctor. there is healthcare out there for the poor. if a hospital denied health care they could easily face a lawsuit. its like this you either save the whales or save the people. you can't save everything. there is not enough money. Also those countries you speak of have ALOT less people than our country. We also have a lot more immigrants then their countries. Also, a universal healthcare means HIGHER TAXES FOR EVERYONE!


Canada and Sweden are not perfect, but your information is seriously flawed. I live in Canada and I most certainly do have the right to choose my doctor, and I do so regularly. Secondly, your statement that the USA has alot more immigrants is taken out of context. While the USA has more total immigrants, Canada has more immigrations per persion capita anually. Hell, statistics say that Toronto's population consists of 40% of people who were born out of Canada. Thirdly, yes, universal healthcare does mean higher taxes, but, on average, Canadians pay less for healthcare than Americans do. What we pay for in taxes, you pay in insurance. And what is the aim of these insurance companies? To make profit! Yes, they spend your money on such things as advertising and PR reps when all of it could be going to improving general healthcare. You may counter argue and say "but the USA has better quality of healthcare". Well, Canada's life expentency is slightly higher and our infant mortality rate is lower.

Let me leave you with this though...
Why don't they privatize the whole education system? Those lazy bastards living in poverty don't deserve the right to an education anyways...they should be busy finding a job! How is health any different? Are you saying that a child born into a poor family should be refused the same healthcare as you? I'd like to see you turn away someone for treatment.

[save_me]

bleh. dont care

[lovely864md]

bleh. dont care

then dont post.

I work at a work camp over the summer where I help to build homes for under privelaged people. Some of the people Ive met while working are so incredibly nice and hardworking that it makes me sick to look at all the rich people who simply throw money away. Sometimes when I get home from workin there I honestly hate all these corporations for taking away these peoples jobs by outsourcing them to India, just to put a fatter check in the CEOs pocket. But I can also see the better side, with the corporatiosn that arent corrupt. I guess with any system peopel are goin to take advantage of that, but it really makes us look like assholes as a country.

My parents both grew up in small towns and had to pay their ways through college, I live in suburbia and my parents will pay to send me to a state school. But most of the kids I know have absolutely no idea what is going on all around them. They just embrace it because its easy, and thats what the world tells them to do.

I cant really actually process what Im writing right now because I feel like shit, but hopefully there was a point somewhere in there.

[ReFuSeD!]

But most of the kids I know have absolutely no idea what is going on all around them. They just embrace it because its easy, and thats what the world tells them to do.
I cant really actually process what Im writing right now because I feel like shit, but hopefully there was a point somewhere in there.

Yea man. I'm paying my way through University right now and it can get pretty tough at times, but I can always expect to come home to a warm bed and a plate of food and we all take that for granted. I work in the inner-city so I'm around the poor quite a bit and they're far from lazy. Without a lie, I've known people who work 8 hour days every day of the week walking around city garbages and finding bottles to get money for. Several times I have witnessed homeless people infront of my work place jump into garbages to collect scraps. I'm sorry, but I'm sure these people would prefer to work an office job for 40 hours than go through trash for 40 hours. Most are not lazy and they have to fight to survive. In Canada, I've also noticed that 3/4 of these poor people are Aboriginals. Seems like quite an odd coicidence to have the majority of a race to be poor by choice.

[The Revisionist]

Capitalism is sweet.

[ReFuSeD!]

bleh. dont care


Then stay out of the fucking politics forum and continue your pathetic existence of listening to terrible music and pretenting like people give a fuck what you have to say on Myspace.

[gillianhsieh]

i thought it would be interesting if you (Refused!) knew that ~1/3 homeless people are homeless because they're mentally ill and do not have the capacity to work. the thing is that they are put in mental institutions because their families don't have the capability to take care of them or maybe even won't, and then when they're discharged they have absolutely no skills and they are probably still as ill as when they were put into the mental institution. it's pretty sad. i mean... i like capitalism but i think pure capitalism leaves some people behind and it's a little socially irresponsible. i only know this because i worked at a mental institution for a little bit.

i dunno, and although i haven't read more on this but i feel like the middle class is slowly dissolving away due to rising costs and outsourced jobs cause a lot of companies can't afford to pay for their workers benefits, which is good for consumers cause goods are still cheap, but what good is having cheap goods when you don't have the means to buy it anyway.

in a more conservative vein, there is this weird mentality that there are some things that you just WON'T do because they're sort of below you, you know, like some people won't be janitors and some people won't mow other peoples lawns. i kind of thing if you are that poor and trying to feed your family, there is something you can do about it, if you are able to work, and there are sympathetic people who even if they don't really need their leaves raked, will let you rake their leaves if you give them your sob story.

not that i should be talking. i am clearly just another rich bitch who doesn't get it. i mean hello. i go to northwestern. you can probably discredit me right now. hilariously, this last bit isn't a joke, i am worried that i know nothing about anything.

[Cal Smith]

i can't listen to the crys of outsourcing.

project for those who hate outsourcing.........

first, look at how many new jobs have been created since NAFTA and other large trade agreements
second, find the largest corporation which outsources jobs and see how much they've grown and how many new jobs in turn they've created here in the US

[gillianhsieh]

i didn't say i hated outsourcing. i'll admit that outsourcing leads to economic benefits that ripple through the entire economy. but it's true that companies cant afford to pay for workers' benefits (ie goodyear & ford) and the labor market has been particularly weak, and it is true that companies are turning to other sources of labor because american labor is getting to be unaffordable (medical insurance esp.) also outsourcing is a significant problem for those in the IT industry.

social mobility is def. declining though, and anyone will say it. american tax policy is terrible on the lower middle class, they carry the brunt of it because they aren't poor enough to have benefits and aren't rich enough to be able to afford anything at all.

and you can't deny that american technology is lagging behind now because of the huge expense it would be to update our currently outdated but extremely ingrained infrastructure, this only holds our nation back because our laborers don't have the competitive edge that others do, and there is no point in hiring americans anymore cause we suck.

the average american grad student scores in the 20th percentile on the GRE, and i mean...yeah i am sure i am going to score ~20% too, but isn't it sad how we all get completely OWNED by other students? and i don't even know how i am going to compete in the real world cause lets be real, i can't. the only reason a graduate school would want me is because i can speak english. of course my job is going to be outsourced. so some other kid is going to get a service industry job in america at the expense of my high tech/engineering job. that just destroys any incentive to be in any sort of sci/engineering industry and kills social mobility even more. and nations w/o a middle class, thats what we refer to as a 3rd world nation.

i know i must be missing something important that's why i hesitate to say i dislike outsourcing. it does give me a really bad feeling though.

[Dan Hollister]

Outsourcing creates more jobs than it destroys, and eventually these jobs are higher-paying.

Look at computers. When computers were getting popular, a lot of people were put out of business. Number-crunchers, bookkeepers, writers of various sorts. And there was an uproar. But then what happened? We saw the dawn of an age where thousands upon thousands of people had to be trained in computer science and engineering to design, create, and maintain, the computers. It opened up many more jobs than it destroyed.

Now, I'm not saying it's a happy thing. My own father was displaced by outsourcing, and he still has not recovered or gotten a new job. (Over 2 years now.) But I won't be surprised if in a few years, sure, most of the engineers might be in India, but all the designers and managers are now all Americans, and there's more of those positions available than ever before. And they'll pay better than the engineering jobs that were destroyed. And more people will ahve them.

[youcomebeforeyo]

If they're in India though how do you know they will pay better? Companies outsource for cheaper costs including labour, it makes no sense to outsource if the labor ends up costing the same or more than it did in the United States.

[Dan Hollister]

Companies don't actually try to SAVE money with outsourcing; what they usually do is use outsourcing to hire MORE people.

Let's say 10 engineers work for you. You outsource them to India, where you pay 1/4 the wages.

However, in order to stay competetive, you still need to remain innovative. Most companies do this by spending the same amount on engineers that they did before, but they'll just hire 4 times as many. This ends up costing the same, but they earn a lot more money because more products are created. This is generally how it is done. A company that remains stagnant will not earn any money.

Because of this, eventually as they hire more engineers and create more products, there will be a growing need for more managers to manage these new engineers, designers to design the new products they're creating all of a sudden, more marketing people, etc. All of these positions generally pay much higher than your basic task-oriented programmer. And as the company earns money based on what they save in India, they will hire people in America for the higher-end positions.

[Kram41]

Companies don't actually try to SAVE money with outsourcing; what they usually do is use outsourcing to hire MORE people.

Let's say 10 engineers work for you. You outsource them to India, where you pay 1/4 the wages.

However, in order to stay competetive, you still need to remain innovative. Most companies do this by spending the same amount on engineers that they did before, but they'll just hire 4 times as many. This ends up costing the same, but they earn a lot more money because more products are created. This is generally how it is done. A company that remains stagnant will not earn any money.

Because of this, eventually as they hire more engineers and create more products, there will be a growing need for more managers to manage these new engineers, designers to design the new products they're creating all of a sudden, more marketing people, etc. All of these positions generally pay much higher than your basic task-oriented programmer. And as the company earns money based on what they save in India, they will hire people in America for the higher-end positions.

I recommend you read The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman. You seem like you'd really enjoy it and get a lot out of reading it (I certainly did).

[Dan Hollister]

I actually did read it. Good stuff. :)

[gillianhsieh]

oh. the labor overseas is def. cheaper than american labor for sure because we don't have to worry about benefits for them, and the cost of living is so low in other countries. outsourcing is VERY beneficial for companies.

i don't think management is where a country's strengths should lie. people who have skills can easily manage themselves, it's really dangerous when you don't know much about what you're using or managing for that matter, like if you can't do a job yourself but your'e trained in management then you're just another one of those dilbert style incompetent boss types. and then what about when people start realizing they don't need to be managed, then your upper crust management job is easily displaced.

[ReFuSeD!]

i thought it would be interesting if you (Refused!) knew that ~1/3 homeless people are homeless because they're mentally ill and do not have the capacity to work. the thing is that they are put in mental institutions because their families don't have the capability to take care of them or maybe even won't, and then when they're discharged they have absolutely no skills and they are probably still as ill as when they were put into the mental institution. it's pretty sad. i mean... i like capitalism but i think pure capitalism leaves some people behind and it's a little socially irresponsible. i only know this because i worked at a mental institution for a little bit.


I did know that, and it's a good point. The disabled and elderly often feel the wrath of capitalism the most.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Once you realize no matter what system you have you will have poverty to some degree then you can look at which system combats that best. I'm gonna have to argue that if you look at growth, and standard of living, you can determine that.
Look at nations, like Norway, with far more socialist influences, and their high standard of living.

[Cal Smith]

Look at nations, like Norway, with far more socialist influences, and their high standard of living.

Look at the petroleum Norway has too. If you have the resources which turn a profit (which Norway does), along with a relatively small population and you can afford it then of course you can run an efficient welfare state FOR A TIME.

The US does not have the resources in which to fund a population that blankets that of Norway. You comparing Norway's standard of living to that of the US is like me comparing the US GDP to that of Norway's.

Just look at when Populism was a craze. Many countries succeeded for a time and saw growth, BUT once the money runs out where do you go?

[Dan Hollister]

i don't think management is where a country's strengths should lie. people who have skills can easily manage themselves, it's really dangerous when you don't know much about what you're using or managing for that matter, like if you can't do a job yourself but your'e trained in management then you're just another one of those dilbert style incompetent boss types. and then what about when people start realizing they don't need to be managed, then your upper crust management job is easily displaced.

People aren't going to realize they don't have to be managed. Why? Because people do need to be managed.

Do you really think 5,000 engineers who don't talk to each other are going to know what to do if there isn't a manager? Programmers don't DECIDE what they program; designers think of the idea, and programmers make it happen. Without the designers and the managers, there would be no program.

The Dilbert style manager is rare. While it's true that many managers don't know much about the industry they are in (and they should), they aren't there for that reason. They are there to manage people. They know how to motivate people, think on their feet, etc. And they are there for their foresight and competetiveness. In business, that is more important than being the best programmer, because being a good programmer doesn't mean you have the ability to make leadership decisions; it means you can program. That's it.

Look around at how many rules-based people there are. I have a friend, for instance, who is BRILLIANT with design and programming; she is amazing at it. But she has no motivation. She always has to ask, what do I do next? I'm done, what do I do now? What now? She is not self-structured. Therefore, regardless of her skills, she should not be trusted to run a design or programming firm, even if she's the best at it, because she doesn't have the vision, motivation, or ability to make things happen on their own.

And there's A LOT of people like that. Managers are not there because of their insane technical skills. They are there because they know how to motivate people. And while I, too, wish that more managers understood their industries better, it still doesn't make that much of a difference. A manager who knows how to motivate people is still better than someone who knows the industry better than anyone else on the planet but who does not have the foresight to move forward.

Welcome to Planet Earth, my friend. Where management is an absolute necessity, whether it's McDonald's, Microsoft, or government. There is no way around it.

[ReFuSeD!]

That's because in a capitalist society, the worker is alienated from his/her work. Their only incentive and motivation is their wage which, for many, is low. That is why jobs that are more satisfying require less management. An artist who loves to paint will not need motivation or commands as what to do next. Ofcourse you will need to be pushed to do a job you don't enjoy, especially when the wage isn't enough incentive.

[richter915]

uhm

kill whitey

that is all

[Dan Hollister]

That's because in a capitalist society, the worker is alienated from his/her work. Their only incentive and motivation is their wage which, for many, is low. That is why jobs that are more satisfying require less management. An artist who loves to paint will not need motivation or commands as what to do next. Ofcourse you will need to be pushed to do a job you don't enjoy, especially when the wage isn't enough incentive.

That's not true at all.

Yes, sometimes an artist who loves to paint will not need motivation. But we aren't talking about artists who love to paint. There's 2 points you are missing.

1) We aren't talking about a simple painting. Let's take, say, Sony for example. Sony releases hundreds of technology products per year. Computers, cameras, projectors, TV's, video game systems... etc. No matter HOW good, talented, or passionate you are about engineering, there is NO WAY that anyone can invent hundreds of products a year all by themselves. It takes tens of thousands of brains to produce that kind of work. And when you have tens of thousands of brains, you need a few people to lead the way and direct them. All those people are not going to just instinctively know what to do next.

Your point about the artist is flawed. In a similar fashion as a single artist and a single painting, there are programmers out there who make little shareware software programs all by themselves. I use many of them, and they are quite good. But they aren't Microsoft Office. They aren't Final Cut Pro. The more complex the product, the more brainpower is needed. The fact is that on Planet Earth - whether it's computers, entertainment, medicine, or anything else - most tasks, if you want them to be done well, require teamwork, and require more than one person. And when there is more than one person working, there needs to be a clear goal. You need managers to do that.

2) It is a simple fact that people on this planet have different personalities and different needs. Some are very driven, and will always be driven. Some are very rules-based and needy, and will always be rules-based and needy. Both could be great artists, or great programmers, or great doctors. Both may love what they do. But that doesn't mean they have the ability to be INNOVATIVE in their field.

Look at the people working at, say, the DMV. They don't stay at the DMV because the government is oppressing them and alienating them. They work at the DMV because, well, that's what they need. Some people simply DO NOT FUNCTION unless they are given a task to follow. You cannot expect everyone to be the artist who paints on their own. Some people really do need to be told what to do. There are leaders and followers. There are people who make rules and people who need rules to follow in order to function. That is life. In all reality, we AREN'T all equal in this regard.

[gillianhsieh]

And there's A LOT of people like that. Managers are not there because of their insane technical skills. They are there because they know how to motivate people. And while I, too, wish that more managers understood their industries better, it still doesn't make that much of a difference. A manager who knows how to motivate people is still better than someone who knows the industry better than anyone else on the planet but who does not have the foresight to move forward.

Welcome to Planet Earth, my friend. Where management is an absolute necessity, whether it's McDonald's, Microsoft, or government. There is no way around it.

i have two replies to that
1) v. depressing.
2) shouldn't managers have experience w/ lower level jobs before they become managers? you can't be a good manager if you haven't experienced what you're managing. what if you start from a managing job, then you have no clue what the people below you are thinking plus they're like... half a world away so you aren't that sympathetic anyway. then you are condemed to be a sucky manager. not that there is any way to guarantee people are good at their jobs anyway, but it would be i think easier to be a good manager if you moved up to it based on merit.

[gillianhsieh]

actually i really take the second one back. i mean.... the american GOB system is of equal shittiness anyway.

[splitsecond]

I cant wait until I am rich and I can drive by all you peasants in my giant limo and throw silver dollars at you.

[richter915]

I cant wait until I am rich and I can drive by all you peasants in my giant limo and throw silver dollars at you.
and I can't wait until I kill whitey

whitey = you.

[ReFuSeD!]

That's not true at all.

Yes, sometimes an artist who loves to paint will not need motivation. But we aren't talking about artists who love to paint. There's 2 points you are missing.

1) We aren't talking about a simple painting. Let's take, say, Sony for example. Sony releases hundreds of technology products per year. Computers, cameras, projectors, TV's, video game systems... etc. No matter HOW good, talented, or passionate you are about engineering, there is NO WAY that anyone can invent hundreds of products a year all by themselves. It takes tens of thousands of brains to produce that kind of work. And when you have tens of thousands of brains, you need a few people to lead the way and direct them. All those people are not going to just instinctively know what to do next.

Your point about the artist is flawed. In a similar fashion as a single artist and a single painting, there are programmers out there who make little shareware software programs all by themselves. I use many of them, and they are quite good. But they aren't Microsoft Office. They aren't Final Cut Pro. The more complex the product, the more brainpower is needed. The fact is that on Planet Earth - whether it's computers, entertainment, medicine, or anything else - most tasks, if you want them to be done well, require teamwork, and require more than one person. And when there is more than one person working, there needs to be a clear goal. You need managers to do that.

2) It is a simple fact that people on this planet have different personalities and different needs. Some are very driven, and will always be driven. Some are very rules-based and needy, and will always be rules-based and needy. Both could be great artists, or great programmers, or great doctors. Both may love what they do. But that doesn't mean they have the ability to be INNOVATIVE in their field.

Look at the people working at, say, the DMV. They don't stay at the DMV because the government is oppressing them and alienating them. They work at the DMV because, well, that's what they need. Some people simply DO NOT FUNCTION unless they are given a task to follow. You cannot expect everyone to be the artist who paints on their own. Some people really do need to be told what to do. There are leaders and followers. There are people who make rules and people who need rules to follow in order to function. That is life. In all reality, we AREN'T all equal in this regard.


You don't require managers though. I've been in groups where we have accomplished goals without the need of an overseer. As long as an organized group distributes the workload among themselves they can achieve their goal. Why can't they rely on the group as a whole for motivation and guidance? There doesn't need to be a required leader position.

[Dan Hollister]

Have you been in groups with hundreds or thousnads of people who have been able to do that?

Loot at Apple. It's no secret that Steve Jobs is the entire backbone of the company. WIthout him there, there would've been no iPod, no iTunes, no G5, they wouldn't care about design... etc. Sure, without Steve, the Apple engineers COULD have made an iPod... but who would've thought up the idea in the first place? Who would've had the foresight to see how that would change the world? Steve is creative, and knows how to motivate people. Without him there, Apple would've failed a long time ago. (It almost did... right up until he rejoined in 1997 and things changed all over again.)

You're still missing the point. A company does not simply have to make a product. They have to make the RIGHT product at the RIGHT time. You're right, any engineer can go and build something. But how many times have companies released products that failed miserably? Or were well-crafted, but simply were not what the world wanted? Or companies that missed their deadlines, released products way way later than the competition?

All of those things are at the discretion of managers. Just like the engineer specializes in engineering, the manager knows much more about how to motivate people, how to meet deadlines, how to make a product that is cost-effective, etc. The engineer doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making those decisions on their own.

As I said before, your fundamental flaw is that you think people don't need managers. And you're right, some people don't. (Those people will end up being managers.) But most do. Perhaps YOU were able to accomplish something without help, but are you honestly telling me you've NEVER met a person who wasn't self-motivated? If so, get out a little bit. I would say more thean 50% of people out there work better when they are given a task to complete, rather than innovating on their own. Some people just... can't do it.

You also seem to think that the Dilbert manager is a truism. Whereas it's only a truism in the technical sense. The rise and fall of virtually every company is determined based on the leadership of the managers. If the managers suck, the company will fail. If the managers rock, the company will thrive. This has been proven in the world... a lot. If managers didn't matter, WebVan would still be around, and Apple would be long-dead.

Look, I totally get what you are saying. But you just need to take a look at how businesses function, because if you did, you simply wouldn't be saying what you are saying. The business model evolved to the way it is now, because for the most part, it WORKS MUCH BETTER this way.

[splitsecond]

and I can't wait until I kill whitey

whitey = you.

Dude, I am 6.25% Cherokee. I am offended.

[ReFuSeD!]

If the managers suck, the company will fail. If the managers rock, the company will thrive. This has been proven in the world... a lot.

Sorry, but you cannot prove that. Literally, it is impossible.

[splitsecond]

Sorry, but you cannot prove that. Literally, it is impossible.

Are you really that ignorant? I mean, lower employee's performance is vital, but without great leadership and innovation up top, a company can never live up to its full potential.

[Dan Hollister]

Sorry, but you cannot prove that. Literally, it is impossible.

Are you kidding me?

You hear about how CEO's are often fired, replaced, etc? It's because they suck and ruin the company. Plain and simple.

ReFuSeD!, not only is it POSSIBLE to prove how important managers are... it's actually quite SIMPLE. How? You take a look at a company's profits, margins, stock, market share, approval rating, etc. You look at this at different intervals. When you look at these numbers under different managers, they will usually be different.

Examples:

- Hewlett Packard. A couple years ago they hired Carly Fiorina as CEO. A few months back, they fired her. Her decision to acquire Compaq and a few others got HP really screwed. So they fired her. The new CEO they brought in made NO changes to the product line iself - i.e. the products and services HP offered were the same as those under Carly. The difference was in marketing, efficiency of production, emphasis on certain products, and plans to enter other industries. And already HP's profits are way up, and the new CEO is getting a lot of praise.

The downfall of HP during that time was caused by Carly. Plain and simple. As soon as they ousted her, the company went soaring again. Seems pretty clean-cut to me.

- Apple. You cannot tell me honestly that Apple was doing just as good under Sculley as it does under Steve Jobs. Why? Let's see... Steve started Apple... brought it to a multi-billion dollar company... then got fired. Apple then went through I think 4 other CEO's. Apple was near bankruptcy for about 5 years during that time. They were doing horribly. They re-hire Steve, and oh look, suddenly the company profits are up about 5-fold, suddenly they have all sorts of new items... iPod, iTunes Music Store, the G5... they entered all kinds of markets... did the other CEO's have a clue to enter the market? For Apple to enter the music industry would've shocked everyone. Apple? In music?

But under Steve Jobs, they did, and now they're the leader. Under his leadership - twice - the company rose. During the time at which he was NOT present, Apple was a miserable company nearly bankrupt. Again... looks pretty clear to me.

This happens all the time. But since you apparenly don't believe me, then explain to me how it is NOT true. Why don't managers help? And don't give me some bullshit about dehumanization of workers or "people don't need management" I want cold hard facts like the ones I am giving to you. Where is your proof that managers are unneccesary or that their influence is insignificant? Tell me why the above examples - and the thousands of others - are incorrect.

[selftitled85]

steve jobs is prob the best ceo out there.

[selftitled85]

and refused...the only other logical way for a company to work would be to use the model japan uses. what they do is they have a committee in which everyone has equal say as to wages for people...what gets produced and so forth...the catch is it takes forever for anything to get accomplised because everyone needs to agree. with a ceo in place you have a clear cut agenda for everyone to follow and generally agree with.

[ReFuSeD!]

and refused...the only other logical way for a company to work would be to use the model japan uses. what they do is they have a committee in which everyone has equal say as to wages for people...what gets produced and so forth...the catch is it takes forever for anything to get accomplised because everyone needs to agree. with a ceo in place you have a clear cut agenda for everyone to follow and generally agree with.

Exactly. He was arguing that you need a manager for a company to work. I was simply stating that you don't necessarily need one. I didn't say it would be more efficient, but a company can still run without a ceo, simple as that. Also, you cannot prove it. Infact, as I'm sure you probably learned in 9th grade, you cannot prove anything. You can give substantiating evidence for it, but you cannot prove it, much like you cannot prove gravity or evolution.

[Dan Hollister]

Haha. So basically you're just toying with words. We can't prove anything. So as far as I'm convinced, I have seen no proof that you even exist. :)

Well I get your point. You are right, a company wouldn't require managers to exist. So for that, I apologize for my rantings if that was your only point. But I still stand by my belief that a company does need managers in order to be efficient, competetive, and longlasting in the market. I would consider it a very dangerous thing for a company to exist without management. And in most cases in the United States, you're legally required to have officers anyway.

[ReFuSeD!]

Haha. So basically you're just toying with words. We can't prove anything. So as far as I'm convinced, I have seen no proof that you even exist. :)

Well I get your point. You are right, a company wouldn't require managers to exist. So for that, I apologize for my rantings if that was your only point. But I still stand by my belief that a company does need managers in order to be efficient, competetive, and longlasting in the market. I would consider it a very dangerous thing for a company to exist without management. And in most cases in the United States, you're legally required to have officers anyway.

Indeed, I agree you need them in today's capitalist economy, especially because alot of these coprorations are huge with branches all over the country and/or world.

[oldwirehands]

I dropped out of High School. My fault? Yes, I made the choice. I was forced to decide "Do I want to stay in school and graduate 3 years later when I'm 21? Do I want to keep having my parents put their money into my education which is getting nowhere? Can they afford to keep me in school and send me to a psychatrist who will prescribe me with medication that will cost even more money?" The answer was no. I have bipolar disorder. When I was in high school, I was either very depressed or very happy. Being depressed does not motivate you. I tried so hard to fight it. I wanted to do well in school. Sometimes I did but it was only for a short time when I was happy. I couldn't do it.

It was also hard for me to find a job. Not because I couldn't find one, but because I wasn't motivated to go get one. Finally, some light shined into my life. As cheesy as it sounds, my girlfriend has really turned me around. I still have bipolar disorder but I'm not depressed as often as I used to be at all. It gave me motivation to find a job. After actually looking for a job for two weeks, I got one. Great pay and benefits for being part time.

If I can get a job in a matter of two weeks of really looking, then no one should have too much more of a problem. I wasn't even living at home when I got the job. I was homeless and living in my car. After I got the job, my parents let me back in.

Both arguements make good points. There are people that spend way too much money on themselves. So what if you're making 7 figures a year. You can still live very nicely without over spending. There are beautiful homes with plenty of room that are between 100,000 and 500,000. Two to four people do not need 10 acres and a 5,000,000 home with 8 master bedrooms, 6 baths, an indoor pool, ect. If you're making 500,000,000 you don't need to make another 500,000,000. You're already set for a very wonderful life.

I live in "the richest town in Indiana" but you'd never know it. I live in a town amongst millionairs. They own construction companies. They live in practical houses and have worked their asses off.

I'm just stating the logic. If living in 10 bedroom home for just you and whoever your fucking is the only way you'd want to live, then be my guest. Its America.

[VinnyVegas]

I double posted in the wrong forum...