The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

Whenever I've thanked my employer for my job (I've not always done so--I wish I had), it's been notable how genuinely moved the boss was. You can tell two things:

1. It really does mean a great deal to them to have a grateful employee.
2. They're not thanked nearly as often as they should be.

 

Probably depends upon the individual more than anything else - but in my experience - employees in the industries that are traditionally unionized are almost resentful of their employers rather than grateful. They seem to be always looking to the next raise instead of worrying about doing a good job.

The employees that tend to be more sucessful are usually the ones that are most grateful for their job.

Could there be some sort of a corelation there? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Could be. I know all of my employers have thought I did a very good job. Also, my temporary call center job offered me a permanent position for their new client that starts tomorrow. I talked to my would-be new temporary employer and she told me to take the permanent position at my current place of employment.

 

You started the thread with

Obama has been calling anyone who earns $250,000 or more the rich. You now seem to be disagree with that fact completely.

 

At that time they didn't have washing machines, drycleaners, microwaves, no iron clothing or Molly Maids so there was a demand for live in housekeepers.

They also didn't have two or more cars - families with teenagers can have four or more cars now.

So who is better off?

I say that we are.

Perhaps you would have done better than hiding in the briar patch all of your career had you been less concerned with "classes".

 

Wow, at the preoccupation union folks have with "classes."

I guess it's important, if you're a union person, to know who you are supposed to resent.

The well-organized unions (teamsters and SEIU come to mind) do a good job, because they go ahead and tell their folks who to dislike, resent, and speak ill of. That way, we're all clear on who's simply rich, who's "filthy rich," and of course, the ultimate evil folks, those who "made their mony by stickin' it to the working man."

Man, I make such a terrible union goon. I'm not the least bit interested in being angry at someone because they have more than I do. Oh well.

 

I'm getting kind of sick of the classify, classify, classify stuff. The reality is there will always be some with more and some with less, even if you divided up all the wealth in the world (which I'm sure you would love), by the end of the day somebody would have gained more (by luck, by wise investing, by stealing) and somebody would have lost what they had (by foolishness, by misfortune, etc.)

By your own standards I'm considered working class poor. In my opinion I pay too much taxes for what I make, especially when you add in all the consumption taxes (phone, gas, sales, etc.). I don't necessarily have a problem with paying taxes in general - we need roads, infrastructure, a strong military, etc. And I don't mind some of my money going to help the less fortunate through social programs. My problem is that there is so much wasteful spending at all levels of government (local, state,national), and social programs have gone from giving people a helping hand when they are down on their luck to making it a way of life.

What you and others have been failing to address is that our system rewards failure. If I took half a year off next year and decided to go fishing, lay around the house and watch Judge Judy for 6-months, I would probably not have to pay taxes at all and get a "refund" I never earned. Instead, I'll will work 40 to 60 hours a week when my workload demands it, probably not take a vacation at all, and send in my check to the IRS every quarter.

 

Congrats Paul. Just guessing, but I figure they saw something they liked in you, you probably showed up for work on time, didn't call in sick every other day, take extended lunch breaks, treated the customers respectfully, and had a good attitude. As a result you are being rewarded with a permanent job, when some of the others who may not of displayed your attitude are likely not being given the same opportunity. Do you feel like its fair to give them some of your next paycheck since they didn't take advantage of the opportunity the way that you did?

 

That's an accurate assessment. I do take my employment seriously and try to excel at the job. They hired 35 people for the temp project and kept 8 for permanently for the new client.

I kind of found myself in an awkward situation with that. I applied for and accepted another temporary job in a mens' clothing store. Because I wasn't sure when the job would end, I went ahead and gave 2 weeks notice to my current employer. Then they tried to get me to stay permanently. I needed some job stability, so I didn't want to decline the permanent job, but I also didn't want to bail out on the clothing store after accepting. I'm in college, so doing both would be near impossible.

I ended up calling the manager at the clothing store and explaining the situation. I told her I wouldn't back out on her if it would cause undue hardship, but I wanted to take the permanent job. I knew her because I temped for her last year, so that probably helped. She told me to take the permanent job and said it was a no-brainer. I also might still do a little bit of work for her once my semester in college is over, right around Christmas. I'm glad I was able to get out of that without burning any bridges.

I assume you're talking about unemployment compensation. To answer your question, I don't have a problem. Under Florida law, you can receive unemployment unless you resigned or were terminated for willful misconduct. If it was merely performance issues, you can still get unemployment.

A few comments on that- There's a difference between performance issues that result from an employee being not able to do the job or a bad fit, etc. and ones that result from an employee just not giving a darn. There's also shades of gray in between the two. If an employee is terminated for not trying to do a good job, I think a case could be made that he should not be eligible for unemployment. However there are shades of gray between the two extremes in performance issues, so I support the law as is.

The people at my job who didn't get kept on weren't terminated due to willful misconduct or performance issues, but rather lack of work. That still isn't changed by the fact that the management choose the best ones to keep.

I view unemployment as a valuable safety net as a form of mandatory social insurance. Imagine how much worse the economic recession would be without it, both from a humanitarian and economic perspective without it. I don't believe the humanitarian aspect needs further explanation. The economic aspect is when recipients spend their money on the basic needs of life, it causes a stimulus to the economy greater than the amount spent because of the multiplier effect. For example $1 in unemployment benefits increases the GDP by $1.61 a year later.

 

Sounds like you handled it very responsibly. :thumbs:

I agree with you to a certain degree, it is an important safety net for unforseen circumstances. But with the numerous extensions of unemployment benefits do you think some folks take advantage of the system? At what point do continual unemployment benefits take away the incentive to try a little harder to find another job- maybe change careers, relocate, or take something no one else wants. I know of a couple of folks who are on unemployment and work side jobs for individuals doing house cleaning, farm work, etc. Since they get paid in cash, this doesn't go back into the system. Your thoughts?

 

I think with anything there are going to be people who take advantage of the system. The thing is most people aren't like that. A lot of my co-workers in my temp jobs have been professionals who lost their jobs. I spent four months working for the Census Bureau and worked under three different crew leaders because I worked three operations. Each successive operation used fewer employees. For the first, I was one of 1200 enumerators in my local office, second there were about 250 of us, and only 14 of us in the third and final one.

The first crew leader is a nurse who was out of work. She was also on the same crew as me during the second operation as an enumerator. She did this as a temp and she temped at Toys R' Us over the holidays last year. My second crew leader was an M.B.A. and he worked in finance. My final one was a lawyer who recently passed the bar but hasn't been able to find a job. I also knew many other well-educated people who worked as enumerators making much less money than they would if they worked in their professions. Out of the temps in my call center job, I know of at least four who have masters degrees working there for nine bucks an hour. Of course, there were also a lot of people there who did customer service as a career, but at least half the people were vastly overqualified.

I posted all that to say that these people could have sat on their rear ends just collecting unemployment, but they didn't. Now, they did make more doing the temp work than unemployment, but I still think it says a lot about them that they worked instead of not working.

The last thing you brought up is people working under the table while getting unemployment. First off, they could be reporting it. You just don't know. Secondly, even if they don't it's wrong, but it's not as bad as a lot of other things. If it's a steady thing they're doing, then I have a huge issue. If they just got paid $20 to mow their neighbor's lawn as a one time deal, they should report it, but I'm not freaking out if they don't.

I'm all in favor of unemployment extensions. I was never on unemployment compensation, but I'll use myself as an example of how bad the job market is. I started looking for a job in March 2009. I temped for that clothing store for one week in December 2009, but excluding that, I didn't get hired until the Census Bureau hired me in April 2010. That's thirteen months looking for a job. I just started a permanent job. That's twenty months before I found one. I should point out that I did have a job for a few years in high school as well.

I know I've been writing novels here. In short, I don't think most people abuse unemployment compensation. The fact is most people are wiling to work even if they're making less money/are over-qualified, etc. Those who do abuse unemployment compensation need to be dealt with, but even if people get benefits they shouldn't the multiplier effect still applies and stimulates the economy.

 

No, I think that he is talking about your idea to give tax money to employers so that they can pay their employees more.

He is asking how much of your pay at your new full time job would you be willing to hand over so that the person taking the other part time job can make more money?

You obviously got the full time job because you are a capable hard working employee so it is only fair that you give part of your pay for other less capable and less hard working employees.

After all why should they make less than you just because you work harder and work more hours?

 

I'm torn on that, because just cutting everything for them seems to hurt the economy, and again, they do not invest it all back; they take a lot of it elsewhere. But if the taxes for them are already in place, I do not think we should be fighting to get them eliminated (while complaining that the poor are the ones being given too much, which I believe has been greatly exaggerated as it is).

Like now, with the Bush tax cuts for the weathy Obama wants to end, I think that since every couple of decades or elections, they do get these cuts, and while everyone else is suffering the tight economy, they should be able to forego that for now. they can't have it all the time. They'll obviously get it back eventually anyway.
But it seems we're made to believe that they "deserve" it, yet when things are tight for the rest of us, we're a the same time blaming the poor, and telling them to be content or work harder, but we're not content either, and someone could say we're not working as hard as those on the top. But you all don't seem to think that way. Something is just wrongly being taken from you, or attemted to be taken from you, and it is all flowing downward.

Again, thousands was a mistake.

But instead, when we feel we do not have as much as we should, and the entire economy is faltering, we just point the blame in the opposite direction. That's all people are doing. We imagine that the other end of the spectrum is getting all the money, and we definitely care what they are getting! (since it is seen as not "earned"). My point is, that is very unrealistic, and not really accurate.

If the question is where the money (tax, costs, and everything else) is really going, then the truth is truth, whether they "earned" it or not, what should be done about it or not, whether we should be jeallous or not, etc.

But when people assume that they "earned" all of it, that is deciding the same thing. Again, part of the issue is that there is a lot of pulling of strings and manipulation and dirty dealing going on in being able to gain so much economic power. That was all the comparison to the past was really about. It is not like some fixed principle of a person works this much harder than everyone else, so they make this much more money than everyone else.

the competition in this case is paying more to lure them away from the competitors. If you just start up some company (which will likely be small), it will be hard to compete, as it will be hard pay more to match the others.

But then what happens, is one company pays the CEO's a certain amount. The competitor then wants to pay even more, and then the next one will want to pay even more. The pay rate is goign up, and where will all this money come from? Likely, what they charge the consumer. But we think it's only big bad government regulation and taxation, and greedy unions full of shiftless lazy workers who are to blame for this.

Am I saying then that they didn't earn more than others at all? No. Am I saying the government should take it from tham? No.

Still, I think we should at least be wise to this part of the game, and not always blame the underdog, which these arguments always get into.
Everyone wants more, not just certain groups.

That was great you did all that, but I see a danger in this as well. We hold it a good thing, "deserving" so much wealth, if you work yourself into the ground like that. So don't envy those CEO's and entrepreneurs (and the sports & entertainers as well, while we're at it), instead, go and work 80 hours a week like they did.
But that's not really good for anybody; not their own health, as well as their families. Christians often will point this out when telling the flock not to envy these people, but then we turn right around and seem to justify and look up to it.
A lot of that is just as much greed as the person who has given up on the system yet still tries to get over without working. It becomes mammon.

Just curious, since you worked those kinds of hours. Are you in that rich bracket? (for those kinds of hours, that should put you up way above just $200,000. Isn't that what the top executives of big companies work?)
If not, then why do you think you have not "earned" as much as they, or do you think you did?

I think there is a lot more to just "drive" and risks. I think natural talent, personality, and some things out of our control, such as timing (especially when you're talking about "risk"), also have to do with it.

 

FYI illegals pay taxes.

What needs to occure is to have a culture change in Corporate America. Investors should be the first to have this Change of heart. What I mean is that Investors are wanting the hightest rate of return with the lowest risk. The problem is that higher rates of return with out the normal risk encoured are being manufactured by fund managers, CEO's etc... Thus a high rate of return today makes a problematic issue later. We are too short sighted. Slow steady growth used to be the mantra of companies now its manage assets and cash flows so as to manufacture a quarterly statement showing greater share value than in actuality. Often companies are bleed to show significant revenue in the short term quarterly reports. In the end after a CEO or a CFO short 5 year term is up the company is revealed to have mismanaged is flows. Companies also need to understand slow steady growth is healthy if you want longevity and that employees are stakeholders just as worthy and invested as any shareholder. Companies should find a way to operate while valueing its workforce. If more people had the view that Milton Hershey did I think american businesses wouldn't have as much problems as they do now. Also as a Government I would put higher taxes on companies that out source jobs to other countries and lower taxes on companies that stay in country highering americans. I would make the taxes prohibitedly hard on companies that out source call centers and IT to india, manufacturing to China etc... And I would lower taxes on foriegn companies that manufacture here in the US and also lower their inport cost. But this isn't how we think these days.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but I think it is ultimately semantical, as I do see a lot of conservatives talking about "fairness". (Right after telling others "life is not fair").
So to them, it means "everybody ogutht to have exactly what they earned". same basic difference. Life just doesn't work that way. In this fallen world, life is neither fair, nor just. But people expect it to be so for themselves. All I'm saying, is that if people are so unhappy with the way things are, at least be accurate in who you're claiming is getting everything you think you're losing.

You assume I just go along with everything the liberals say. The only reason I seem to lean their way, is because they are the only ones challenging some of these conservative policies or ideologies I see as slanted. (Where the liberals are slanted in favor of government, the conservatives are slanted in favor of big business. I see both as pretty much the same thing). And even then, I think they let too much stuff slide, and push for the wrong things (like necessarily more government).

I don't know at this point what the solution is. I just wish people would be wiser and not blame one side only, when really, the whole system is broken, ane benefitting the few at the expense of everyone else, whichever form that takes.

I don't discriminate between the largess on either side. I've always been highly critical of my own agency, as you have heard about that stuff way back in the last recession, when fares were going up, and services were cut. Though it does seem govt. CEO pay is not quite as crass as private, but then again, they are still sitting in power and have all sorts of other percs and influence.

But you get angry at those who you think are working less. Same difference, ultimately. (Again, the parable of the vineyard workers comes to mind). We are driven to what I have come to call "inertia". We want the most benefit at the least expense. So whether we are angry at someone havign more benefit, OR less expense (or both!), it is all the same thing, untimately.

And we're ALL like that.
Again, all of what you two are saying goes both ways. Everyone wants more, and is unhappy with what they have. The top executive pushing himself to work 80, 100 or more hours also is miscontent. He is just driven to work (often to an unhealthy extent), and then thinks he is owed more, even if he is not working more. To him, the benefit simply outwieghs the expense (which might not even be seen as an expense, if he is energized by the competition to climb to the top). But then the benefit ends up never being enough, and thus he thinks he is entitled to more, regardless of the state of the company, the economy, the effect it has on health and family, spiritually, etc.

The thing that bothers me about these issues is that this type of talk just as much seems to treat it as being these two separate species, the rich and the working class, and one is all good, and the other all greedy and lazy. In accusing the liberals, unions, etc of making the rich evil, you end up doing the same exact thing. Overgeneralizing, as if all rich earned everything fairly and justly, and all workers, poor and unions are bitter, undeserving and lazy. But we as Christians should know better.

 

Sorry, I've done no such thing.

First, I don't equate "poor" and "workers" with "unions." Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

Second, I've not said all rich folks earned their money fairly.

What I have condemned is wealth envy. And I have no qualms about stating that I think unions and liberals capitalize more on that.

 

Perhaps we could take this liberal mindset of "top/bottom" distribution of wealth and break it down even further into subsets.

Among the "working class" that liberals like to talk about there are those who are at the top in terms of wages and there are those who are at the bottom.

I would say that union workers would be at the top of that subset and minimum wage workers would be at the bottom.

We could reduce the gap between union wages and minimum wages by imposing a cap on union wages of four times the minimum wage.

That would be fair right?

No?

Well than let's impose a conficatory tax on union wages over four times the minimum wage.

That would be fair right?

After all why should someone make more than four times someone else just because they belong to a union?

 

A few thoughts. First I never said everyone or anyone should work 80 hours/wk, you missed my point completely. My point is that many people don't see and/or understand the risk and effort that some have put in for many years prior to the current point in time. It is only after all that when people then look at someones situation and say he isn't working hard enough for or doesn't really deserve what he is earning, in comparison to what others are earning. My point is not that everyone should, but rather than anyone has the opportunity to do so, and that for those that do it is wrong, and detrimental to our country's economy to want to punish people that take that risk and employ so many of the workers in this country.

As far as whether it is good or not to work hard, well I believe that when a man is young, healthy and able it is a good thing (and biblical) to work hard an be as productive as possible. But you missed this point again, it has nothing to do with greed, I have never cared much about money or "things" as you allude to, what I cared about was creating something that was good, accomplishing something of value, being fair to and helping people in the process. As far as what is good for my family as you also allude to, I worked hard while I was younger in order that I might be blessed enough to be able to be home and spend as much quality time with my wife and children as we raise our children. I think the bible gives us many examples of a father being able to have his son around him, along side him throughout the day to learn about God, and what is important in life. For myself it was worth every hard hour of work while younger in order to have that time later with him, my other children, and of course my wife.

But we are getting off the topic here, and this thread it not about how much or how little is right for a young man to work in life, but instead the OP is about people paying themselves more than some feel is deserving, and not paying enough taxes. My only point in giving some behind the scene insight is that people like yourself that choose to judge how deserving others are from afar, might better realizes that there is a lot of sacrifice that goes into many people's life in order for them to accomplish what you are judging. And really what does if or not you believe working more is best or not for a person or their family have to do with whether or not they should be taxed more? If someone chooses to do so why tax them more even if it wasn't good for them or their family? How is that relevant?

Lastly as far as you asking my income. Not that it is any of your business, but I was never a "top executive of a big company" as you put it, just a regular guy that worked hard and created a small company. I never paid myself that much to be in the top bracket as you suggested I should have. I paid myself enough for our needs, didn't waste and invested enough for our future. But again you missed the point, I am not defending people in the highest bracket from higher taxes because I am one of them, I am defending them because I understand and appreciate the hard work, planning and effort that must have went into creating the situation where they earn what they do. I don't begrudge their success, and I don't want our country to punish it.