<p>I am sorry- I am sure you mean well, but exactly what decade are you living in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know many who have tried to start a business in the last decade and if they havent’ gone under they are struggling mightily.
Savings- just aren’t what they used to be- Cost of Living goes up much faster than many investments & much faster than income. </p>
<p>Our buying power for my H & I is less than what we experienced thirty years ago & that is not because of a lack of hard work or effort, but comparing our income to basic expenses.</p>
<p>It’s not so much incentive to work as incentive to start companies and employ other people. I’m seeing wealthy entrepreneurs bypass the US, starting their new companies in places with lower cost labor and good tax rates and incentives.</p>
<p>I’m seeing wealthy entrepreneurs bypass the US, starting their new companies in places with lower cost labor and good tax rates and incentives.</p>
<p>You might talk to Boeing about that.
Re the article I posted earlier- when you have your manufacturing in countries that do not have the needed experience/work ethic ( Italy) or even in other states where cost is lower but the same lack of experience etc. applies- then maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that it isn’t quite the money saving venture they thought it would be.
<p>I’m sick of people whining that they don’t make enough money, but when you look at their background, I think to myself: “What did you really think you were going to do with a Women’s Studies degree?”. </p>
<p>I was a child of the 70s recession - my father lost his small business, we had a car repossessed from our driveway and almost lost our house. I was 15 when the car was repossessed overnight from just outside my window. It was the only time I saw my father cry. That was my Scarlet O’Hara moment - “As God is my witness, I will never be hungry again…”</p>
<p>From that time on, I knew that I needed to find a job that would ensure financial security and have been financially on my own since I graduated from high school. I also vowed never to be self-employed. My parents did not pay $0.01 for my college education. </p>
<p>Yes, expenses go up, but you need to learn to live on a very reduced budget and never overstretch themselves financially. If everyone added up all their cash outflows, they would probably be amazed at the little things. </p>
<p>Life has changed from when our parents were our age. There is no guarantee of lifetime employment except for some government employees, however, there is a huge risk/reward tradeoff.</p>
<p>*I’m sick of people whining that they don’t make enough money, but when you look at their background, I think to myself: “What did you really think you were going to do with a Women’s Studies degree?”. *</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>Hey…and get with the program…It’s now called, “Gender Studies.”</p>
<p>*However, at the same time a lot of rich people say that they like their job or business and would still do it even if they make a lot less money. *</p>
<p>But, they aren’t going to hire new employees or expand their business which creates more jobs.</p>
<p>I’ve never gotten a job from a poor person.</p>
<p>For every Boeing there are thousands of companies doing business successfully abroad.</p>
<p>But your point is a good one. The more sophisticated the product is, the more a well educated work force is critical. That is exactly what those imagining a global economy have told us for a long time. The US should no longer have the role of manufacturing simple things, we need to be thought and skill leaders.</p>
That’s a common sense, nuanced comment. But it won’t fit on a bumper sticker. That’s why so many people prefer to say things like:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
That must be it… Anyone who’s concerned about the now-undeniable ongoing concentration of wealth in America into fewer and fewer hands is just a whiny, rich-hating, rich-envying, commmunist. Yeah, that’s it - they’re just jealous, “pure and simple”!! We don’t have to listen to anything they say - they want to turn America into Communist Russia!!! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Back in the real world, the facts are straightforward. According to IRS statistics, the concentration of taxable income in the top 1% of American taxpayers has gone from 11% to over 20% in just 25 years. And that didn’t “just happen.” Sure, tax policies which are more favorable to the wealthy than anything we saw in the second half of the 20th century are part of the explanation for increased concentration of wealth - the average percentage of income tax paid by the top 1% of taxpayers - with annual incomes averaging over $1M per year - is less than 23%, and it goes down for the top 0.1%. But that’s only a part. Union-hostile laws, industry deregulation and legal philosophies which favor the more powerful are probably much more significant factors. But nothing will be done in any of those areas until recognition of the basic, inarguable facts becomes more widespread. (It won’t hurt to withhold support from the bumper-sticker sloganeers such as those cited above, either. Sneering and name calling doesn’t help - and generally signifies a lack of a valid argument.) Tax data is here: [SOI</a> Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile](<a href=“http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]SOI”>http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html) download table 5.</p>
<p>An intensely stratified society is not good for anyone. It’s not a question of “hating rich people” - I know lots of legitimately rich people and don’t hate them at all. It’s just a question of addressing societal change like responsible adults and recognizing that how we perceive our society does matter, what we consider acceptable does matter, and how we express our opinions about those things – does matter. </p>
<p>I’m concerned about the increased concentration of wealth not because I envy the rich, but because I’m concerned about the kind of society my now-adult children and my as-yet theoretical grandchildren will inherit from us. And if wealth continues to become increasingly concentrated I don’t like the way that society looks.</p>
<p>But your point is a good one. The more sophisticated the product is, the more a well educated work force is critical.</p>
<p>I agree that there are some places that are able to control the manufacturing end, even when they subcontract out.
My Yamaha guitar for example- is now made in China ( to save money) and it is an excellent instrument for the price.
But with more complicated structures you need to have even tighter control on production specs and materials- you don’t save any money going with the lowest bidder.</p>
<p>“where cost is lower but the same lack of experience etc. applies- then maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that it isn’t quite the money saving venture they thought it would be.”</p>
<p>True. But then again, they don’t have to contend with the Boeing mechanics who never miss an opportunity to go on strike and hold up production, even in the midst of a severe recession.</p>
<p>“I’m concerned about the increased concentration of wealth not because I envy the rich, but because I’m concerned about the kind of society my now-adult children and my as-yet theoretical grandchildren will inherit from us.”</p>
<p>You should be concerned if your children:</p>
<ol>
<li>Took it easy.</li>
<li>Bumed around for 22 years.</li>
<li>partied. </li>
<li>studied some obscure thing like romance language or music history.</li>
<li>Are just plain lazy.</li>
<li>They don’t want to work where jobs are.</li>
</ol>
<p>It is fun to show graphs and articles, but in reality there are millions and millions of jobs out there which only require a body to do the work. Are you suggesting that those people be paid $100/hr to reduce the gap?</p>
Because my concern with a continually increasing concentration of wealth has nothing to do with “envy.” I assume my kids will wind up on the relatively affluent end of the spectrum. In terms of personal wealth I figure they’ll be okay.</p>
<p>My concern with increasing concentration of wealth is this: extremes are bad for society. The extremes in terms of concentration of wealth are, on the one hand, everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth, and on the other, one person owns everything, everyone else has nothing. Of course, neither extreme is ever experienced, but as you approach the extreme social malignancies increase. With no disparity of wealth, incentive to create and achieve are blunted. With extreme disparity of wealth, the talented poor cannot achieve success, the elite wield power regardless of personal talent or merit, and the powerless majority becomes restive. In a society with a healthy degree of wealth disparity the rich are richer than the middle class, and there are still poor people, but the gaps between them aren’t insurmountable. Hard working poor people can consistently become middle class; clever and industrious middle class can become wealthy; lazy and foolish rich can become poor. And “a rising tide lifts all boats” which gives everyone a stake in increasing overall national wealth. </p>
<p>I view the distribution of wealth in the U.S. from the 1940’s to the 1970’s to represent a healthy balance between the extremes. But for the past 30 years we’ve been moving steadily away from that balance and toward the extreme of concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands. It has become harder (and rarer) for the poor and middle class to move up, and it’s become harder (and rarer) for the wealthy and their offspring to fail badly enough to drop down the scale. Increases in national wealth have not benefited anyone below about the 90th percentile for the past 3 decades, with the bulk of that increase in wealth accruing to the very wealthy. There’s no reason for the vast majority of Americans to care if the nation’s wealth increases - they won’t see any of that increase themselves anyway - their boats stopped rising thirty years ago. I don’t think that that creates a healthier society. If the trend continues I foresee a disfunctional social order and attendant strife. That’s why that’s not the kind of nation I want to bequeath to my children and grandchildren.</p>
<p>I also perceive the ad hominem disparagement of people who raise this concern - sneering accusations that they’re just motivated by “jealousy” or “hate the rich” as being distasteful examples of the triumph of propaganda over rational debate. I mean - that claim pretty much drowns out any thoughtful assessment of the issue, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Hey Kluge,
Have DS, 25, heir to two families wealth, ME/CS engineer, moderatedly working, solvent, and money in bank. Unattached.
DP’s screening for DIL.</p>
<p>kluge,
DS is smart because he learned from DP. He knows that if either the Government or Parent is going to finance something; He’s going to let Government/Parent do the financing. :)</p>
<p>Hmm…S is 20, probably wouldn’t mind financing pre-med girlfriend. But she has to be smart, funny, produce good looking grandchildren (many years in the future) and be alot nicer than kluge.</p>