Paul Ryan's outrageous use of the word "envy"

Post Reply New Topic

Crushing their workers into poverty for the sake of making a buck.

-Bill, otherwise known s Kraichgauer

I have not seen any workers (outside the prison system) being forced to take work with anyone. How is this crushing done? If not by force, then by what?

ruveyn

And yet you're the one who is rooting for policies that would bring us much more in line with the robber baron age and the dark ages by killing all the policies that brought this country to greatness in the 40s, 50s, and into the 60s.

I defined "destruction" as not having 20% of GDP lopped off in the name of austerity as did Ireland.

If the choice is to work or starve people are forced to work indeed.

I've come across some very interesting and contrasting pieces of information and ideas in the past week, and confess to having pretty much stayed blind of both Ayn Rand and her disciple Paul Ryan. But, no, I absolutely cannot accept the underlying hypothesis, which is that the poor are that way because they lack the brains or where-with-all and, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to leach off of those who do have the brains and where-with-all. That is utter #*!@&*@! as anyone who has AS out to be able to understand. Wealth is a combination of things including instinct, birth, social skills, and a whole lot more. Many brilliant AS end up poor because they can't handle the sensory issues of a workplace. Under Ms. Rand and Mr. Ryan's extension, they are valueless leaches and deserve to have nothing.

Most of these successful and rich people didn't do it alone. They used the ideas of someone else, someone without the social and instinct skill set, and then built it up. Many of the greatest thinkers, the inventors of much we rely on today, never became rich from their ideas. Someone else did. Creating wealth involves a team, and failing to recognize the value of the wisdom of the guy over in the corner, who may not have the full skill set, is to fail to fully utilize all available aspects of your community team.

Mr. Rand doesn't want to cut cash handouts, he wants to cut food stamps and health care. He wants to say to those who haven't figured out how to make money that they don't deserve to live. How can anyone in this community accept that hypothesis?

People buy into it because they hope to someday be the guy at the top, and they don't want anyone taking away their money. My father never made over $50,000 a year, and yet he amassed an estate nearing $2 million dollars. He thought someone was after his money, and he would have loved the tea party.

But when we're talking about top tax rates, NO ONE is after the money of someone like my dad. FACT. I KNOW who pays what. His fear was unfounded. Liberal tax proposals mostly are designed to encourage people like him and allow them to keep their wealth. He was never "rich" for purposes of this discussion, and my mom living off that estate has not had to pay a cent of taxes for years. Which, to me, liberal as I am, is the right answer: she is living on a prior accumulation, not "making" money. The tax law as it stands works perfectly for that scenario. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of political pandering and does not understand what they are talking about.

So. Can cutting the top tax rate from 35 to 25 % benefit the economy as Mr. Ryan believes it will? NO. Economists are overwhelmingly saying no. We're already at the point where taxes no longer inhibit choice. I know this from working with the honestly and truly wealthy, and all sorts of economic analysis has been making the same point.

Trickle down only works if there are laws in place to insure it works. Part of gathering wealth is to make sure you utilize every trick in the book. If you don't, you are giving away competitive advantage to the next guy, and smart business people never give away competitive advantage. Wall Street today includes experts appalled at the ethical behavior of their own companies, but they don't see themselves as able to stop it and still stay in business, because if they don't push the envelope, the next guy will. What they prefer is for the laws to tell everyone where the edges of the envelope are, so that everyone is honest and the law evens the playing field.

But when you do all that while neglecting those at the bottom of the rung ... you increase homelessness and you decrease the pool of human asset from which to draw. If you cut health care to the poor, you increase the spread of disease to all, and increase the volume of preventable disability. It's foolish policy and ends up costing more than if you had just done some maintenance in the first place. The poor don't need hand outs, but they do need to LIVE and be given a place in society.

On the parenting board we talk a lot about investing in our kids. It is something you HAVE to do. They can't grow up and stand on their own without some upfront investment. That hand up now leads to a bigger return tomorrow.

Problem is, conservative ideology doesn't see it. Not on a societal level, at least.

So, why do people who aren't rich continue to buy into it? Because they hope to be rich. But statistics show that while they may become like my dad, they aren't very likely to become like Bill Gates. It's time to stop talking FOR people like Bill Gates and let them speak for themselves. I'll tell you, they are NOT crying rivers over the 35% tax rate.

A little history book my kids listen to actually has an excellent example from the dawn of the industrial age. When the trade worker supply got too high because factories now could do the work, it actually reached a point where factory owners could offer pay that wouldn't even buy a loaf of bread for a family, because, well, these was always someone else so desperate that they would decide half a loaf was better than nothing, and thus undercut the other job applicants.

It was not, of course, sustainable, and led to all sorts of other movements and political changes.

But leave people desperate enough and that is exactly what someone holding all the cards has the ability to do: offer you work at half a loaf of bread a day.

If we say everyone has to work, period, or they don't eat, people will be desperate enough to walk into situations where they are clearly and obviously exploited. The value of the work they do doesn't go down just because they are hungry enough to do it for less. But to keep competitive advantage, you can bet the company owners will pay the least they can get away with.

A friend of mine lucked into investment banking 20 years ago. He called it the easiest money he ever made. He told it was insane how easy the job was and how much they got paid.

He retired 15 years ago before turning 40.

And it's all gotten "worse" since.

That industry lives in it's own little bubble where they believe they must pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their top talent. But "talent" is such an odd term for a job that involves a whole lot of luck, and that is dependent on fees from grandma and grandpa investors (lets get real, who pays the salary of those Morgan Stanley Brokers? People like my mom!! !!). Plenty of solid and bright people would do the job for a whole lot less, but it's an industry that sells a dream, and dreams are a tough thing to negotiate.

They are forced to work because they need food, shelter, and medical care for themselves and their families.
There have always been plenty of employers who have kept wages low, and working conditions much to be desired, knowing that many people can't do any better.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What would you recommend? Taking away business from their owners by force and violence?

Half the small capitalists in this country started out as working stiffs. Why can't your precious Proles start their own businesses too?

ruveyn

I have no problem with people being successful in business - I just want them to pay their workers well, and give them decent working conditions.
And what's wrong with being a worker? Why do you think people are of worth only if they start their own business?
And finally, where the hell did you get the idea that I'm in favor of seizing businesses by force?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Also, in a anarcho-capitalist society with absolute ownership rights and no public domain to speak of, a small number wealthy people can come to claim ownership over every resource needed for survival. But they still need government to forcibly protect all those resources they are hoarding while leaving the rest to starve. So I'd say hoarding resources is an act of force. The wealthy capitalists will rely on government to protect their property from falling into the hands of the desperate starving masses. I'd like someone to explain to me how this hypothetical situation is freedom rather than tyranny?

Oh, capitalists and their apologists claim that they have the "freedom" to hog all the resources. They even claim that when the rest of us cry foul, we're the ones infringing on their freedom.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You can't start a business when you are starving. It takes resources to start a business. Almost everyone I know has the dream of starting a business, but very few will have the opportunity to actually do it.

The current crop of upstart wealthy capitalists by and large started from privilege, and had the connections to investors because of that privilege. The kind of world where you can save $20 and start a small business with a pencil and a piece of paper are pretty much in the past. Very little in our current economy works that way.

You know the main reason I wanted my son to consider attending a private high school? Because I wanted him in that social circle. I wanted him to become known on a friendly basis to the people who can give him the capital to further his invention ideas. I want him to have the opportunities I never did.

Money begets money. You don't even have to be brilliant. When I was doing the career thing and making the big bucks, free weekend stays at all sorts of fancy places was the norm. The minute I quit to raise kids, and could have really used getting something for free, it was all gone. My husband, in his very intellectual and important career, doesn't get to flirt with the edges of privileged society.

^^^^This needs repeating.

I really wish people actually understood this...as well as the post that marshall quoted.

Just because you are born poor doesn't mean you can't end up being rich. A good example is Sean Hannity at Fox News.