The wealth gap & other ills.... Warning: long and could make you sick

[hikerchick]

enough[/b].

It's not okay, though, for so many people to have so insanely much while others lose their jobs. The jobs they were educated for, trained for and worked hard at. And they lose health insurance. Are you really okay paying more tax $ to support these unlucky people while the lucky guys pull down the big bucks?

Life is not fair. But that doesn't make it okay.

How do you propose to make it okay? Jobs pay what the market will bear. If they could get CEOs to work for what farmers make, surely the corporations would do that. I never said that farming doesn't require brains. It requires many things, brains, heart, luck. So does being an executive, a surgeon, an attorney. People choose the occupations they choose and pretty much know going in what the rewards might be. So what do you propose? Legislation to make all jobs pay the same? To punish someone for succeeding while others fail? I guess I am not sure what you propose to do to change the way life shakes out.

 

[Beekissed]

I guess I am not sure what you propose to do to change the way life shakes out.

I don't think she is proposing anything...merely commenting on the sad fact of things. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

There are a lot of things we lament on this forum.....we don't call it whining, nor complaining, we call it commiserating. The OP is having a bad patch in life....we all do and I think she realizes this and has stated over and over that she does. She also has reiterated that you clearly misunderstood her point.

I think both sides of this issue have made their points....now it's starting to sound like a tautology....

 

[hikerchick]

I guess I am not sure what you propose to do to change the way life shakes out.

I don't think she is proposing anything...merely commenting on the sad fact of things. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

There are a lot of things we lament on this forum.....we don't call it whining, nor complaining, we call it commiserating. The OP is having a bad patch in life....we all do and I think she realizes this and has stated over and over that she does. She also has reiterated that you clearly misunderstood her point.

I think both sides of this issue have made their points....now it's starting to sound like a tautology....

trust me, I am having a horrible patch in my life. It just doesn't bother me that not everyone is suffering. I am happy for people who are doing well, even though I am not. I made the choices that I made, and now I am paying the price. Same goes for the more fortunate. They made the choices that they made and are now reaping their rewards.

It wasn't the OP, but some other posters who stated that it was NOT OKAY for some people to make more than others. That was what I was responding to, not the original post.

 

[Wildsky]

It wasn't the OP, but some other posters who stated that it was NOT OKAY for some people to make more than others.

which post. i am too far behind to dig

 

[hikerchick]

It wasn't the OP, but some other posters who stated that it was NOT OKAY for some people to make more than others.

which post. i am too far behind to dig

It doesn't really matter. The consensus here as far as I can see is that it is wrong for some people to earn more than others. That when people make large amounts of money, it is "sickening".

I have friends who make 4 times what I do. I dated a guy who made half what I do. He said my friends made him sick. He chose not to go beyond high school; he chose to make a living doing manual labor. My friends chose to get Master's degrees and become tax attorneys. While my date was sitting home watching TV, my attorney friend is working far into the night. But she made him sick. I think it was plain simple jealousy.

 

[me&thegals]

This is getting tiresome. I guess you will insist on seeing jealousy where none exists. Do you honestly read about any of us on SS wishing, dreaming and hoping for incredible wealth? Many of us work for self sufficiency because of the wonderful sense of satisfaction we get from it, EVEN IF we could be spending that same time at work earning more money.

NOBODY has said "it is wrong for some people to earn more money than others." Some have said it's not good for society when that gap widens. Some have said it is bad manners for an extremely wealthy person to complain about their decreased wealth in front of jobless people. And some have said it just bad manners to talk about money, period.

And please don't pretend that ALL of life is about choices. Some people do not have the brain power to rise to the top income brackets. Some don't have the family support and education abilities to do so. Some don't live in the right country to do so. Blah, blah, blah. Life is about so many other factors beyond choices, although choices do play a big part.

Plus, it drives me nutty that people expect only the "top" to do well. Why? All the rest of society's jobs need to be done, not just the CEO jobs. In fact, I would argue that many CEO jobs are less pertinent to the world turning round day after day than the "lower" jobs. WHY must the other jobs be so lowly valued?

You also have not answered my question. If you believe that job pay is all based on intellect, hard work and ability, do you truly believe that it is reasonable for this gentleman in question to earn 333 times more than I do? I'm happy with what I earn. But, is his job actually WORTH 333 times more than mine?

 

[Wildsky]

The biggest problem I see, is the top management earning WAY too much in salaries and bonus checks. And the hourly workers just barely scraping by.
Yes the top management might have a few extra brain cells, and might have gone to college for a couple more years, but really does that mean they get hundreds of thousands more than the person who didn't go to college, or only went for a year?

It doesn't make sense, the hourly workers work just as hard, if not harder for their tiny paycheck, you don't see them flying around the country first class and having everything paid for by the company!

(Our top management etc. are still giving themselves bonus checks, while at the same time they've decided to take 5 paid vacation days from each employee for 2010. For the top management, they don't need paid vacation time, if they don't feel like showing up to work, they dont' they "work from home" )

 

[hikerchick]

And please don't pretend that ALL of life is about choices. Some people do not have the brain power to rise to the top income brackets. Some don't have the family support and education abilities to do so. Some don't live in the right country to do so. Blah, blah, blah. Life is about so many other factors beyond choices, although choices do play a big part.

Plus, it drives me nutty that people expect only the "top" to do well. Why? All the rest of society's jobs need to be done, not just the CEO jobs. In fact, I would argue that many CEO jobs are less pertinent to the world turning round day after day than the "lower" jobs. WHY must the other jobs be so lowly valued?

You also have not answered my question. If you believe that job pay is all based on intellect, hard work and ability, do you truly believe that it is reasonable for this gentleman in question to earn 333 times more than I do? I'm happy with what I earn. But, is his job actually WORTH 333 times more than mine?

You are correct, there is so much more than choice involved. There is talent, luck, brains, etc. I believe I also mentioned that jobs pay what the market will bear. The plain fact is, a CEO can command more salary than a clerk. That is pure economics. People get the salaries that they do because someone is willing to pay it. It has nothing to do with one's value to society. It has to do with what someone is willing to pay. Food is an extemely valuable commodity in societal terms; but the fact is, people are not willing to pay much for it. So farmers do not make much. People are willing to pay a premium for corporate stocks, however,which is why CEOs earn so much. It has nothing to do with what I consider reasonable; it has to do with the market. Salaries have nothing to do with fairness. Is it reasonable that a diamond should be worth more than a lump of coal? Both are extracted at great cost from the earth. The market has determined the diamond's worth. It works the same way with CEOs and farmers.

 

[Wildsky]

You are correct, there is so much more than choice involved. There is talent, luck, brains, etc. I believe I also mentioned that jobs pay what the market will bear. The plain fact is, a CEO can command more salary than a clerk. That is pure economics. People get the salaries that they do because someone is willing to pay it. It has nothing to do with one's value to society. It has to do with what someone is willing to pay. Food is an extemely valuable commodity in societal terms; but the fact is, people are not willing to pay much for it. So farmers do not make much. People are willing to pay a premium for corporate stocks, however,which is why CEOs earn so much. It has nothing to do with what I consider reasonable; it has to do with the market. Salaries have nothing to do with fairness. Is it reasonable that a diamond should be worth more than a lump of coal? Both are extracted at great cost from the earth. The market has determined the diamond's worth. It works the same way with CEOs and farmers.

I think we all understand that - what most of us are talking about its that it shouldn't BE like that, we're just yapping between friends, and yes we know things aren't fair, and we don't like that, thats all we're talking about.

 

[hikerchick]

You are correct, there is so much more than choice involved. There is talent, luck, brains, etc. I believe I also mentioned that jobs pay what the market will bear. The plain fact is, a CEO can command more salary than a clerk. That is pure economics. People get the salaries that they do because someone is willing to pay it. It has nothing to do with one's value to society. It has to do with what someone is willing to pay. Food is an extemely valuable commodity in societal terms; but the fact is, people are not willing to pay much for it. So farmers do not make much. People are willing to pay a premium for corporate stocks, however,which is why CEOs earn so much. It has nothing to do with what I consider reasonable; it has to do with the market. Salaries have nothing to do with fairness. Is it reasonable that a diamond should be worth more than a lump of coal? Both are extracted at great cost from the earth. The market has determined the diamond's worth. It works the same way with CEOs and farmers.

I think we all understand all that - what most of us are talking about its that it shouldn't BE like that.

Ok - the issue is with the free economy? I guess the question I have then is, what is the option? Have the government set salary ranges for jobs? I just don't get what people think should happen here.