<p>That argument would work better if people who fail didn’t make so much money. O’Neil from Merrill and Prince from Citicorp were failures. Yet, they are going to be incredibly rich.</p>
<p>Barrons, what was the book title that addressed this? Do you remember?</p>
<p>I just made that up. I agree failure pays too well. Here’s an interesting take on the future housing market.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01birth.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/us/01birth.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us</a></p>
<p>Barrons, I enjoyed the article.</p>
<p>OK, here’s the kind of thing that makes me believe retire as soon as you can afford to. He was exactly my age. Works at a major competitor.</p>
<p>"West Coast Studley Executive Dies After Sudden Illness
Veteran Executive and Past Chairman/President Helped Brokerage Become Top Tenant Rep Firm in the Midwest</p>
<p>Jacque M. Ducharme, vice chairman of Studley Inc.’s western region and past president and chairman of the tenant rep brokerage, has died following a sudden and brief illness, according to the company. He was 58. </p>
<p>Ducharme died Dec. 20 after an infection quickly overwhelmed his body’s defenses and caused organ failure. </p>
<p>Studley officials credited Ducharme with pioneering the idea of teamwork during an era when commercial real estate brokers viewed themselves, and were viewed by the larger business world, largely as entrepreneurial individualists. </p>
<p>Ducharme, who worked for Studley for 35 years after joining its Chicago office in 1972, was a well-liked and well-respected executive and negotiator who rose quickly through the ranks and served at virtually every level of management for the New York-based firm. Under his leadership as branch manager in Chicago, his office became the largest tenant representation firm in the Midwest, according to his biography on the Studley Web site. </p>
<p>In 1996, Studley appointed Ducharme as chairman and in 2000, he was named president, moving to the New York following a longtime residency of Chicago. As part of Studley’s 2001 management buy-out, he moved to San Francisco as vice-chairman of the western region to build the firm’s business in Northern California. </p>
<p>“This is a tragic loss,” said Studley President Michael Colacino. “Jacque spent 35 years with Studley and was truly part of the fabric of this company. He will be missed by all.” </p>
<p>“He was a true professional and visionary; respected, admired and loved by all those who had the pleasure of working with him,” recalled Studley Chairman/CEO Mitchell Steir. </p>
<p>Born in Pasadena, CA, Ducharme received a bachelor’s in economics from the University of Nebraska and an MBA from the University of Chicago. He was a board member of the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society, among other civic and industry activities. </p>
<p>He is survived by his wife Mary Prchal and his mother Beatrice Ducharme, his sister, two brothers and other extended family, according to his obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle.</p>
<p>Barrons, that is too young. Do you represent tenants in leasing office space?</p>
<p>Do you know Mihalovich and Partners?</p>
<p>No, I work with lenders, pension funds, major investors, etc doing financial analysis and asset valuation. I’m not nice enough to be a broker, don’t golf and I like numbers. I’m in a division of a large full service commercial RE firm.</p>
<p>“I’m not nice enough to be a broker, don’t golf and I like numbers.” </p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>I got the idea form Ducharme’s obituary that he was involved in office leasing.</p>
<p>“No, I work with lenders, pension funds, major investors, etc doing financial analysis and asset valuation. I’m not nice enough to be a broker, don’t golf and I like numbers.”</p>
<p>I have a lot of respect for those that do this for a living.</p>
<p>Oh, he was. Studley competes with our office leasing brokers a lot in major cities. It’s a pretty small world so all the major firms know each other pretty well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nowhere in my postings do I state anything claiming that there has been a massive redistibution of wealth. There’s been a massive CREATION of wealth; our economy has been very busy making a bigger pie. That’s the dynamic that many fail to grasp; mostly the wealth redistribution advocates. </p>
<p>Wealth redistribution thinking is the ‘zero-sum game’ way of thinking that [P.J</a>. O’Rourke](<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6845]P.J”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6845) notes is a fallacy: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the reason we have today’s inequality, [almost</a> double what it was in the mid-1970s](<a href=“http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html]almost”>Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA), is that many have been in the productive sections of the economy and have benefited from it. There has been an economic neon sign brightly lit for decades announcing loud and clear that some economic activity is more productive (and thus more rewarding) than others. </p>
<p>There’s a great blog posting/paper by a Harvard and Princeton-trained small business man (Warren Meyer: Coyote Blog) that explains this in exquisite detail: [Wealth</a> Creation and the Zero-Sum Fallacy](<a href=“http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/wealth_creation.html]Wealth”>Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » Wealth Creation and the Zero-Sum Fallacy).</p>
<p>So to momof2inca’s [question:[/url</a>] </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is to inform our fellow citizens that the economy will compensate well for economic activity that results in high productivity. These opportunities are available to the vast majority of our citizenry. </p>
<p>“How do you turn that ‘theory’ into practical advice?”, one might ask. It’s being done everyday: [url=<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/study_us_workers_are_worlds_most_productive/]U.S”>http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/09/03/study_us_workers_are_worlds_most_productive/]U.S</a>. workers are the most productive in the world](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059747155-post76.html]question:[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059747155-post76.html). Here’s just one example:</p>
<p>Someone at UPS, maybe a driver or a supervisor, probably made the observation that left-hand turns were not as efficient as right-hand turns. That individual then forwarded a suggestion on up-the-line which resulted in a package flow software program. That one little idea is now saving UPS a lot of money:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chances are the individuals involved with this productivity improvement have been reconginzed and rewarded. At a minimum they’ve made their company more efficient, resulting in less costs (to the company and its customers) and more profits. Profits that are then available to pay the workers, pay taxes, reward shareholders, reinvest in the company, etc.</p>
<p>StitchInTime, can you grasp the fact that in the modern era America’s economy has always grown? That the wealth of our nation has always increased over time? Wealth has always been created, the pie has always gotten larger. Except, until about 1980, all segments of society benefited from that growth, in proportions which were basically stable for many decades. Since then, all growth has benefited only those at the top.</p>
<p>Because if you can get a handle on those basic truths, maybe you can drag yourself away from your straw man arguments and face reality: wealth is being redistributed upwards. Just because it’s not a static system doesn’t mean the levers aren’t being pulled to shift the inevitable growth of wealth one way or another. All of the increase in national wealth which had historically been shared by the poor and middle class has been shifted upwards, to the wealthy, for thirty years. That’s wealth redistribution in a dynamic economy.</p>
<p>And your homespun anecdote actually demonstrates that fact. The millions saved by UPS due to the driver’s observation? Mr. Productivity may or may not have been thrown a bone by management (“chances are” - gotta love that), but the millions all got sent upstairs. All that gobbledy-gook about paying workers, rewarding shareholders, etc? Remember, for thirty years, none of the net benefit stays at the lower and middle class level. All of it goes upstairs. And it’s not because all of the growth in wealth has been created by the wealthy, it’s the result of numerous conscious legal and policy decisions in hundreds of different areas. “The economy” actually will reward high productivity - it just doesn’t necessarily reward all of those who are actually responsible for that productivity any more.</p>
<p>So don’t lie to yourself, despite the slickly-packaged propaganda: income has been and continues to be redistributed in our economy, from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. Warren Buffet is right: Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning. How much longer do you think that can that go on before the losing side starts to fight back? And what do you figure the consequences of that will be?</p>
<p>kluge: Amen.</p>
<p>We could go on about Congress as well…regularly voting themselves raises but not willing to raise the minimum wage. How can they justify this?</p>
<p>It makes me sick to my stomach.</p>
<p>Anyone who takes a job where their pay is not tied directly to their production is a bound to lose. You will be paid according to the LCD person they can get. Free yourself and become a company of one. Then you can have what you want.</p>
<p>And Warren Buffett made most of his money through collusion and price-fixing. Nobody is that good.</p>
<p>And interest free loans. Or maybe he was being paid to borrow money.</p>
<p>And Warren Buffett made most of his money through collusion and price-fixing. Nobody is that good.</p>
<p>Any proof .or are you just slandering him …</p>
<p>“There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.” – Dwayne Andreas, former CEO of Archer, Daniels, Midland</p>
<p>Barrons, you’ve really hit the nail on the head. (Not about Warren Buffet, necessarily – I have no idea how he made his money. About the other part.) What you say is spot-on true as a philosophy for an individual making the best of things for himself in today’s world - but not everyone can do that. I am self-employed, and have been able to reap the benefits of the increase in my personal productivity arising from technological advances. But not everyone can be self-employed, and not every job in America has its compensation tied to productivity. </p>
<p>The fact is, we have created an economy where an employer can find that LCD employee and pay him or her accordingly, which means that the increased profits arising from increased productivity don’t have to be shared with the people who are producing the goods and services. Employers don’t have to tie compensation to productivity, so they don’t - simple business decision. And that’s a big part of why we have the growing disparity between the group which has been reaping the benefit of the growth of wealth over the past 30 years and the group which isn’t. You can argue whether it’s “right” or “fair” or “natural” - I guess those value judgments are subjective. My concern, however, is that the long term consequence of heading this direction is a nation divided between haves and have-nots (and have-no-hopes-to-share) which usually leads to social disintegration of a nasty variety. It’s a problem which will affect my kids more than me personally, but as a dad I don’t feel right about just looking the other way as I see it unfold.</p>
<p>"No matter how hard they worked and how much they wanted it, they couldn’t do what was expected. They need help (more time, more practice, more repetition, a different way of learning, etc…). "</p>
<p>I don’t agree. There are lifestyle choices that affect generations. My husband and I make a good living, but we work very hard to do so. No college and he graduated high school functionally illiterate, but by working our butts off, we have a kid in college and a nice home. In certain cases, unless you just take the kids into the custody of the state, the ability to become a contributing member of society will never happen. I heard on tv last week a definition of “lower class” which was something like “people who move ahead by working more hours” and that certainly applies to us. I have a huge problem with income redistribution because income is only an issue for people who work for a living and no one should be penalized for working for a living. At least in my state, the safety net is quite coddling and enough is enough.</p>
<p>Just curious kluge - as a member of the top decile group, what additional percentage of your income do you think should be taken away from you in the form of higher taxes?</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059751089-post91.html]#91[/url]”>quote</a>…Except, until about 1980, all segments of society benefited from that growth, in proportions which were basically stable for many decades. Since then, all growth has benefited only those at the top.</p>
<p>Because if you can get a handle on those basic truths…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>“Since then, all growth has benefited only those at the top.”:</p>
<p>
</p>