• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do the wealthy spend their money on? It wasn't entirely what I expected

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
I've listened to the video many times before.
He actually said it.
That is unlike Al Gore, who didn't say what was attributed to him.
As for Obama's context, he was dishonestly creating a straw man,
ie, the myth that entrepreneurs believe they succeed by doing every
task personally without using any infrastructure. He was selling
pure hokum to manipulate the masses into believing they're entitled
to a bigger piece of someone else's pie. Entrepreneurs are no
smarter or harder working, & therefore don't deserve what they've
built. He was selling entitlement to more than what they worked for.
No. He wasn’t. Look, you obviously had some nerve hit by some tag-line in a political commercial somewhere. You suggested that we can’t find common ground, but I’m standing on it, and I’m trying to bring you back down.
In that speech, Obama was doing two things. 1. Rallying the crowd into the idea of all Americans working together are a stronger force than an America divided. and 2. Opposing the extension of Bush era tax cuts as proposed by his opponent, Mitt Romney; for many of the reasons we are discussing in this very thread. That decreasing the income disparity that has afflicted the US; to make sure that hard working people can be assured of a living wage. That the chance for upward mobility actually remain alive. That the infrastructure that made the US great in the second half of the 20th century continue.
That is what his speech was about. If you don’t believe me, then perhaps you can believe reality.
Here.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
to make sure that hard working people can be assured of a living wage.

This is an error. Working hard does not equate a value solely to maintain a/the requirement of a standard of living. You are burdening a lot of markets for the sake of others. Keeping in mind that a standard of living includes buying items after all. Companies sell those items. This is misplaced sympathy and not actually helping people to improve themselves. They merely became overpaid labour which can be replaced by overqualified employees which will offer more to a company than those you think you are helping. I would simply hire someone with bobcat, and other, certs to cover all "dirt removal" thus getting real value for my money. The unskilled labour still loses.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
This is an error. Working hard does not equate a value solely to maintain a/the requirement of a standard of living. You are burdening a lot of markets for the sake of others. Keeping in mind that a standard of living includes buying items after all. Companies sell those items. This is misplaced sympathy and not actually helping people to improve themselves. They merely became overpaid labour which can be replaced by overqualified employees which will offer more to a company than those you think you are helping. I would simply hire someone with bobcat, and other, certs to cover all "dirt removal" thus getting real value for my money. The unskilled labour still loses.
Uh. Okay? o_O
Obviously “hard working” implies being capable too. If I hire you to put wheels on cars on a factory line, but you spend the day “working hard” by trying to hammer side panels onto the car rear bumpers......yeah. I’m not gonna pay you.
The key in my statement is “living wage”. Employers cannot pay salaries to their capable and hard working employees, where the salary cannot hope to keep the worker and his/her family alive and content. If you do, then soon you will have no workers.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Uh. Okay? o_O
Obviously “hard working” implies being capable too.

It doesn't nor it is even reflective of reality. After all if people were all capable they wouldn't be working dead-end low wage jobs now would they?


If I hire you to put wheels on cars on a factory line, but you spend the day “working hard” by trying to hammer side panels onto the car rear bumpers......yeah. I’m not gonna pay you.

This is not about value of the work thus irrelevant.

The key in my statement is “living wage”.

Arbitrary term.

Employers cannot pay salaries to their capable and hard working employees, where the salary cannot hope to keep the worker and his/her family alive and content. If you do, then soon you will have no workers.

Exactly. So the business dies, those businesses which do pay better wages retain their employees, gain access to the market gap and a new source of employees to pick from. You just advocated for a market solution which requires no enforced wage standards to meet a standard of living......
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
.....

You just advocated for a market solution which requires no enforced wage standards to meet a standard of living......
Not exactly. You believe that the market corrects problems rapidly. It does not. Paticularly when the problem has been decades in the making. Pay has not kept up with inflation and “cost of living”, while public assistance, and other support agencies have dried up.
Occasional nudges from government are necessary, before the mobs rise up.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Not exactly. You believe that the market corrects problems rapidly.

Wrong.

Paticularly when the problem has been decades in the making. Pay has not kept up with inflation and “cost of living”, while public assistance, and other support agencies have dried up.
Occasional nudges from government are necessary, before the mobs rise up.

There is no obligation for employers to increase wages to meet other market demands. The mob rising up isn't necessarily a bad thing considering worker's rights, wage and related history. Perhaps consider that some of these businesses actually need to die for the health of the market and worker to improve.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
They invest in business to make more money. They provide jobs. One needs the capital to get a business off the ground. So either they themselves or the banks were they keep their money is invested back into the economy. So jobs, funding for small business, plus whatever they personally spend. Buying cars, buying houses, going on vacation, making use of local business to support their own business ventures. Google for example looks for a location to support its business needs, local business support, personnel. Pays taxes to the local government etc.
Lol, trickle down economics.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I thought it was made supporting tax relief.

No it was about how important the rich are to the economy as per investment and consumerism based on disposable income. Obviously the rich have a lot of money to take risk/reward actions. Who keeps the wheel turning so to speak
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
No it was about how important the rich are to the economy as per investment and consumerism based on disposable income. Obviously the rich have a lot of money to take risk/reward actions.
Follow the links to the previous posts. It was about taxing the wealthy.
 
Top