New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

have you ever actually met a wealthy individual?

Yes

Originally Posted by lookout123

i'm not talking about the paris hilton type, but the kind that probably lives in your neighborhood.

Yes

Originally Posted by lookout123

I spend a good portion of my time with the entry level wealthy (it's my job) and I can tell you that people you would villify as wealthy don't think of themselves as wealthy.

Ok. MRMV. I deal with people every day that have some wealth and think that it gives them all kinds of entitlements.

Originally Posted by lookout123

in fact, they continue to work hard and accumulate more because they are afraid they haven't worked hard enough to survive retirement yet.

Generality. You really shouldn't lump people together like that. I'll accept that have heard that. I think there are aother reasons, as well.

Originally Posted by lookout123

what defines a glutton?

Technically "1 a : one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking". I use the term to include wealth.

Originally Posted by lookout123

someone with $10 more than you? $10,000? $1,000,000?

I'm not going to quantify what's enough. Just like you know when your belly is full, you know when you have enough.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Wait forget all that. Serious question here. Where in your scale does a person who makes $60,000 per year fall?

Right between $59,999.99 and $60,000.01.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Are they one of the righteous poor or one of the villainous wealthy?

People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is. They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high. They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.

[lookout123]

I deal with people every day that have some wealth and think that it gives them all kinds of entitlements

the fact that you follow this with:

Generality. You really shouldn't lump people together like that. I'll accept that have heard that. I think there are aother reasons, as well.

is pretty humorous. I make a statement about the wealthy people i work with and you call it a generality. Mind you that my job is to ask all the really personal pertinent questions about money, goals, and motivations. But you say you deal with wealthy people and they feel like they are entitled to something. sounds like a generalization to me. maybe even a little hypocritical.

But more importantly it doesn't change the fact that you have established some level of "enough" and anyone who sets themselves to the task of accumulating more than that is deemed to be a glutton. But you can't be pinned down to actually define what "enough" is.

You sound like the sniveling little kid in the corner who is angry that someone has nicer shoes than him. The kid with the nicer shoes must be a self centered asshole or he wouldn't have nicer shoes than you.

Right between $59,999.99 and $60,000.01.

cute. another person who is either too arrogant or too afraid to answer someone else's question.

People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is.

How exactly do you figure that? If a homebuilder builds enough homes in the first 5 months of the year to pay his bills, what should he do for the other 7 months? Shut down the business and go home, he wouldn't want to be gluttonous after all. Screw the guys who he provides jobs for, Mr Homebuilder has "enough". Or should he just give all of the profits to the employees? That seems reasonable. He'll continue taking all the risks of being in business and just give anything over "enough" to the employees.

They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high.

BS. Companies that grow add jobs, they also tend to reward those people at the top with more than "enough". That's the way it works. Make profit, reap reward. Companies who quit growing soon have to start cutting jobs.

They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.

wow. have you thought of running for office? you've got the rhetoric and the buzz words. now can you tell me what it means? How do you define the middle class? is it an annual income amount? is it a certain number of toys quotient? what is it?


answer a question with something quantifiable please.

[Undertoad]

People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is.

How exactly do you figure that?

This is the zero-sum pie slicing theory which says that if you have a bigger slice of the pie, it indicates that somebody else has a smaller piece. If you have a large slice you should give some of yours back, so that smaller-sliced people can have a slice closer to your size.

It is a broken way of looking at economics. Almost nothing in economics is "zero sum". If you look at it on a national scale, clearly and obviously the American pie of 1907 is tiny and the pie of 2007 is huge. This is due to the creation of wealth that happens when innovations, education, productivity and dynamism multiply upon themselves.

(I had to use the term "American pie". Sorry, there was no alternative.)

A free market does not guarantee people equal sizes of the pie. But it does seem to be the best guarantor of a pie that increases in size... until the poor people of 2007 live nearly as well as the moderately rich people of 1907.

[lookout123]

zero sum only works in a world where nothing is created or subtracted. In the market, not even commodities fit the bill there. The closest is real estate, but they've tested the boundaries with that even.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is the zero-sum pie slicing theory which says that if you have a bigger slice of the pie, it indicates that somebody else has a smaller piece. If you have a large slice you should give some of yours back, so that smaller-sliced people can have a slice closer to your size....

Simplified illustration:
A - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $500,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $100,000. That leaves $200,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

B - Your company generates $1,000,000 in sales. As Bruce said, the CEO decides who is worth what amount and who gets how much. He keeps $100,000 for himself. He pays each of his 3 executive vice presidents $50,000. That leaves $750,000 to split among the 50 front-line revenue-generating employees.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A free market does not guarantee people equal sizes of the pie. But it does seem to be the best guarantor of a pie that increases in size... until the poor people of 2007 live nearly as well as the moderately rich people of 1907.

I don't think I've said "equal", have I?

Eventually, if the disparity between rich and poor continues to increase, the climate will be similar to 1917 Russia and 1789 France.

UT, do you disagree that

People who have enough and continue to accumulate wealth are part of the reason there's as much poverty as there is. They are part of the reason that welfare rolls are as high as they are, and part of the reason your taxes are high. They are also part of the reason that America's middle class is disappearing.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the fact that you follow this with:

is pretty humorous. I make a statement about the wealthy people i work with and you call it a generality.

I thought we were trading generalities. Good enough for the goose...

Originally Posted by lookout123

Mind you that my job is to ask all the really personal pertinent questions about money, goals, and motivations. But you say you deal with wealthy people and they feel like they are entitled to something. sounds like a generalization to me. maybe even a little hypocritical.

Sure is a generalization. Sure is as valid as your observation. Sure isn't hypocritical.

Originally Posted by lookout123

But more importantly it doesn't change the fact that you have established some level of "enough" and anyone who sets themselves to the task of accumulating more than that is deemed to be a glutton. But you can't be pinned down to actually define what "enough" is.

You know what enough is.

Originally Posted by lookout123

You sound like the sniveling little kid in the corner who is angry that someone has nicer shoes than him. The kid with the nicer shoes must be a self centered asshole or he wouldn't have nicer shoes than you.

Here we go with the insults. So I'll respond that you sound like the 3 year old brat who won't share his toys with his sister, even though he's not using them. "They're mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine" ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by lookout123

cute. another person who is either too arrogant or too afraid to answer someone else's question.

I answered the question. Let me try again: you know what enough is.

Originally Posted by lookout123

How exactly do you figure that? If a homebuilder builds enough homes in the first 5 months of the year to pay his bills, what should he do for the other 7 months? Shut down the business and go home, he wouldn't want to be gluttonous after all. Screw the guys who he provides jobs for, Mr Homebuilder has "enough". Or should he just give all of the profits to the employees? That seems reasonable. He'll continue taking all the risks of being in business and just give anything over "enough" to the employees.

Is that how you define enough?

When the top guys keep more than enough, there is less to go around for everybody else.

Originally Posted by lookout123

wow. have you thought of running for office? you've got the rhetoric and the buzz words. now can you tell me what it means? How do you define the middle class? is it an annual income amount? is it a certain number of toys quotient? what is it?

Since you don't want to contribute any of your precious loot to help others, what happens to them? Do they starve? Die from lack of nutrition/healthcare? Can you sleep at night knowing you contributed to their demise? Would you treat your parents that way? How much would you have to make before you would part with a penny? $1,000,000? $10,000,000? $100,000,000?

Your can't see the forest for the questions.

Originally Posted by lookout123

answer a question with something quantifiable please.

Ok. You know what enough is.