Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sea Demon
With the exception of the Saudi Prince, these people are providing global goods and services at an astronomical rate. And they've expanded or acheived greater success through nominal economic expansion. Maybe you have an HP desktop or a Dell. Is Michael Dell evil to you? Are the shareholders of HP evil to you for getting returns on their investments? How about MS shareholders? Are you jealous? Of course, you have the disease called "wealth envy". So you don't get how real wealth is gained, earned, or how risk capital can be turned into profits. And how that is actually good for a nations economy.
|
Of course, my ideas are not the result of any reality, only some form of irrational jealousy based on not being rich. And here you support the standard capitalist economic benchmark of more production is better. If you sell it then its good, then you're a good person. Nevermind that on that list is the family that owns Wal-Mart which is accused of being exploitative of its workers, and theres Bill Gates who, at the time of that article, had just seen that court ordered split of Microsoft. Further you assume that since I disagree with our paradigm that I therefore lack an understanding of how the economic machine functions. I never said capitalism didn't work. In fact it works wonderfully, for who its meant to.
Quote:
|
BTW, who should assign the value of someone's work? Remember, you nor the government owns jobs in the private sector. The employer does. And every employer I've come into contact with has paid the fair market value for the work done, and for the cost of living in the area lived in. If the employer does not pay a wage commensurate with a competitive wage, he won't be able to cover the positions. The reason why low skilled occupations, like burger flipper, meat packer, and such don't make as much is because the market is saturated with low skilled people looking for those types of jobs. And the turn over is rather high in those occupations. That's also why higher skilled jobs, and higher education will usually result in a higher net worth.
|
All good points. However these low rent jobs which don't support a sustainable living require no qualifications. To get a higher net worth as you say you need higher education. Here enters the limitations of poverty. To get a higher skill level you need to go to a school generally. So poverty immediately handicaps anyone who wants to compete with someone with money. Its hard to get ahead with low skilled jobs that don't pay enough for post-secondary, and this is still ignoring the social implications of poverty which might otherwise retard fruther the process of 'success'.
I can't imagine every poor person chooses to be poor, or that poverty is purely a result of sloth. Its such a facile idea.