[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Steve, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point.

You made a direct statement. I addressed it. That you had other points is irrelevant to me. You were wrong on that one, at least where I'm concerned.

I do understand that things are getting worse, or at least not getting better. That said, the specifics you used to illustrate the point were incorrect, and that's what I addressed.

You just explained to me that you dont need up market dwellings, a flashy new car and smart phone to to be happy, so by the same logic why does anyone need a $2 million bonus for example?

Maybe they don't. Maybe athletes don't need multi-million-dollar salaries either. That said, it's not up to you or me to decide that. I like to illustrate this with the story of Michael Schumaker. Back in 1995, after two World Championships Ferrari asked Schumaker to drive for them. Schumi said he would do it for $1 million per race. Ferrari didn't even hesitate. Then they didn't have to pay a dime, because Shell Oil thought it was worth that much to have their logo on Ferrari's cars, and said if Ferrari would dump Agip and go with Shell they would pay Schumi's salary. So does Schumaker really need $16 million a year? I'd say no. But he was worth it to both Ferrari and Shell, and they were the ones spending the money, not you or me.

And maybe that CEO doesn't "need" a $2 million bonus. But that is the decision of the board and the shareholders, and maybe he's worth it to the company.

The amount of money in the system has increased over the decades, but the vast majority of us have not seen very much of it at all, as it gets filtered in to the pockets of the elite.

So they get more than you, or me, and people like me are homeless from time to time. Is it wrong? Morally, yes, almost certainly. Socially? Maybe. Legally? No, but to change that would take absolute authority, a dictatorship. Maybe you know someone who could be trusted to run that. I don't. Barring some other solution, I'd rather starve than give any government that kind of power.

Am I suggesting an income rebalance in line with socialism? No, I am suggesting balancing it back as it was around the 1970s & 80s (where it was more favorable towards the average joe. So yes it is do-able because we have done it before.

Sounds good, and I posted my above before reading this one from you. But again, how to make that happen?

Ok so when you sign up to this plan, you pay the network provider a monthly fee right? Isn't that what a plan is? so heres the question, what are you paying for each month? Line rental? You know that doesn't actually cost them anything right?

Of course, but you flat-out said the only way to get a smartphone was to buy it on credit, and you were wrong.

Do you think Network providers are merrily making a loss on these 'free' handsets they are supposedly handing out? Although it maybe appears to be 'free' the way it is presented to the customer, I can assure you that you are indeed paying them for it.

I have a blackberry-capable (which I never use) and very functional phone I paid $30 for. No plan. I pay by the minute - $15 per month, and I can drop it any time I want. Unlike some, I don't talk 1000 minutes per month. I don't even talk 100 minutes per month. If you're stupidly addicted to your phone then sure, you have to pay a lot. That's not anybody's fault but your own. No phone company is taking advantage of me, and your criticism of that is, in my case at least, once again wrong.