Can we expect comparable commentary?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The rich do not always get rich because they are more productive. Quite often, they get richer because they have positioned themselves closer to the money, or to those who decide how they should be compensated.

Roger Smith pretty much spent the 80's as president of GM in a period in which they made increasingly worse automobiles, worse because of the designs and cost-cutting measures made by Roger and his cronies, not because of the workers who assembled them. One cannot make anything but a Vega out of Vega parts, for example.

The Vega and the GM diesel V8 COULD have been great cars, but measures to economize their production caused them to be among the worst cars GM has ever turned out.

And yet Roger got a fat raise each year, as GM lost market share and made some of the dumbest decisions in industry history.

Many US CEOs are hideously overpaid. The line workers increase their productivity each year, but their raises are mostly at the rate of inflation or actually lower. As a rule, the CEO is paid more because he has positioned himself closer to the money, rather than improving his productivity.

I teach about 15% more students this year than last year, but none of the professors at my university got a raise. The administration didn't get one, either. The enrollment of Freshmen and Sophomores is up, but not enough to make up for the Juniors and Seniors who have transferred out, mostly because student aid has not kept up with inflation.

 

[_JS]

Not sure what you are asking. Please explain or expand on the question.

Why should success matter as a condition to whether the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?

[_JS]

The perpetuation of failure.  Done all the time by well inentioned enablers, and then via the application of guilt get large throngs of folks to support it as well, including Governments

So, you consider Joseph and Mary to have been failures? Did the quote above come from Christ?

[Mucho]

The rich getting richer because they somehow work harder or better is one of the most laughable of all RW fantasies. From my years of experience in dealing with capitalist pigs, the only thing that they might do more or better than most is play golf.

[sirs]

The perpetuation of failure.  Done all the time by well inentioned enablers, and then via the application of guilt get large throngs of folks to support it as well, including Governments

So, you consider Joseph and Mary to have been failures? Did the quote above come from Christ?

Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures.  perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure.  I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure.  A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?

[_JS]

Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures.  perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure.  I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure.  A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?

So you think some of the poor have been unsuccesful, but not all? You said rewarding unsuccesful behavior is equal to rewarding failure.

So how should the poor be helped? Which of the poor are not unsuccesful?

[sirs]

Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures.  perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure.  I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure.  A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?

So you think some of the poor have been unsuccesful, but not all?

Umm, yes

You said rewarding unsuccesful behavior is equal to rewarding failure.

Slightly taken out of context.  Perpetuating failure can easily be attached to rewarding failure and vice versa.  However, simply being poor does NOT automatically equal being a failure.  That's your illogical leap

So how should the poor be helped?

By facilitating and promoting the most optimal circumstances that the poor can use to step out of being poor.  Simply taking money from "the rich" and giving it to "the poor" does in no way facilitate the poor to make better choices and be more responsible, in their lives.  Many can just sit back and keep getting money that been taken from "the rich", since there's no incentive to stop being poor.  <Enter the government and well intentioned enablers>

Which of the poor are not unsuccesful?

Double negative, huh?  Those that are moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes.  We always seem to forget those follks, and instead keep implying that the "the poor" is this one big mass of the same folks that never change in any way, never allowed to exit their poor ranls.  They just sit there and be poor, insidiously stomped on and taken advantage of by "the rich"

[_JS]

Those that are moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes.

So, to be a succesful "poor" individual you need to be moving from the poor classes into the middle and upper classes?

How do you balance that with this statement?

However, simply being poor does NOT automatically equal being a failure.

What if one is poor and shows no sign of "moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes?"

By facilitating and promoting the most optimal circumstances that the poor can use to step out of being poor.  Simply taking money from "the rich" and giving it to "the poor" does in no way facilitate the poor to make better choices and be more responsible, in their lives.  Many can just sit back and keep getting money that been taken from "the rich", since there's no incentive to stop being poor.

So, by your estimation the poor in nations with large welfare programs like Denmark and Sweden should live very irresponsibly? Have you ever wondered if this is true? Just as an assumption, do you think those below poverty in Denmark and Sweden are far more irresponsible than Americans (who have a much smaller welfare state and lower benefits)?

We always seem to forget those follks, and instead keep implying that the "the poor" is this one big mass of the same folks that never change in any way, never allowed to exit their poor ranls.  They just sit there and be poor, insidiously stomped on and taken advantage of by "the rich"

We do?

[sirs]

Js, you seem to be under the illusion that everything is static.  That there are poor, and it's the same poor.  Then there's everyone else (middle & upper classes) and they remain that.  The middle and upper class always keeping the poor in their place, no one transitioning 1 way or the other. 

The problem is it's all fluid.  Poor are poor for whatever reason they are.  "NOT because their failures, but for whatever circumstances have put them there.  "Failuers" in how I'm using it are in refernce to the acts of those who are poor.  Failures are those who don't try to better themselves, who sit on their arase and just keep getting handouts by those well intentioned enablers.  Those who are poor, but trying to better themselves, perhaps even *gasp* declining Governmental assistance, are not the failures I reference.  And before you ask, just because folks receive governmental assistance, doesn't make them "failures" either.  It's what they do with themselves, that determines if they're failures or not. 

And might I add, failures are not limited to "the poor".  There are plenty of failures in the middle and upper classes as well, somtimes even turning into "the poor".

Getting the jist of this yet?

[_JS]

Sirs,

What I see is you not answering my questions. Now, will you answer my questions, or not?

We can discuss economic fluidity between classes if you desire, but not without actual statistics.

You gripe a great deal when people won't answer questions, will you answer mine?

[sirs]

Sirs, What I see is you not answering my questions. Now, will you answer my questions, or not?

I'm not planning on answer a false representation of my position, by taking my statement out of context.  I made it clear what I'm referring to as "failures"  If you care to acknowledge what I reference as failures and not some nebulus poor = failure, then perhaps we can go from there. 

Providing that acknowledgment, you may ask your semantically laden question from that point

[BT]

Not sure what you are asking. Please explain or expand on the question.

Why should success matter as a condition to whether the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?

Success is the yardstick on which compensation is often based.

BTW if a poor person were successful at an endeavor they could very well no longer be poor, relatively speaking.

[Plane]

Ben does not address the role of luck in this essay.


Ben Stein

 http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/24513


My little brain simply can't stop putting things into categories and seeking to find the patterns in life.


One of the many patterns I've noticed is that some people in the United States are much richer than others. We have a nation filled with opportunity: free education, easy investing, and cheap interest rates. And yet there's stunning financial inequality.


Disparity by the Numbers


According to my wonderful pal, Phil DeMuth, the top 1 percent of all wealth-holders in the U.S. own about 44 percent of the financial assets of the country, mostly in stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent own about 80 percent of the financial assets of the nation.


The top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners in the nation earn about as much as the bottom 40 percent. That is, about 130,000 high-income Americans earn as much as the bottom 120 million Americans combined.

To me, this is stunning -- almost frightening. But the real question it poses is, how did the ones at the top get there? Obviously, some do it through inheritance, and some have spectacular athletic or musical abilities. But what about the others? How did they get to the pinnacle of wealth?


Think First, Get Rich Later


I'll to offer some homely speculation. First, as the genius financial planner Ray Lucia would say, the first step is to have a plan to save. Without equilibrating assets and liabilities by accumulating lots of stocks, REITs, and cash, you won't get there


But I'm looking for something more basic here. How do you get the income to start saving meaningful sums?


Here's a clue: think. In 1996, when I started shooting "Win Ben Stein's Money," I was assigned a bodyguard named Yaniv. He was a former Israeli soldier, and as tough as old boots. We worked together happily for about 900 shows, and then we worked on "Star Search" together, after which we went our separate ways.


Occasionally, Yaniv would help me set up electronics equipment. He always did a great job because he read the instructions and then followed them.


Up the Ladder


Not long ago, I bought some new stereo equipment for my house and I called Yaniv to come over to install it. He showed up in an immense truck and told me what he'd been doing for the past few years.


He'd become a construction foreman on a jobsite building condos. He was so good at reading instructions that he became a contractor. He was so good at that, investors hired him to build still bigger buildings and paid him a good chunk of the profits.


Now he's building large developments and gets an even bigger share of the startlingly large profits. If a unit costs $300,000 to build, it's not unusual for it to sell for $600,000 to $800,000. Of course, you have to factor in the cost of the land, permits and legal issues, advertising, and the time value of money. But all in all, the profits are consistently immense.


Yaniv, a 32-year-old who still gets a thrill out of his Ford truck, is well on his way to being in the top 1 percent and, after that, the top one-tenth of 1 percent.


Outstanding in Your Field


How did he do it? He reads instructions. Yaniv reads building plans very carefully, then he reads permit applications carefully, and soon a building is done.


Beyond that, he reads life's instructions carefully, too. People make a lot of money building condos in Los Angeles even in an economic slowdown, so Yaniv entered a field that leads to making money.


If he'd continued on as a bodyguard he would've had fun, but he never would've gotten rich. And here his experience proves the great advice of Warren E. Buffett: It's better to be medium-good in a great field than great in a medium field. There are some fields where a lot of money can be made, and real estate development is one of them.


Law is another one, at private firms. Medicine -- if you're a surgeon -- is another, and finance is the highest-paid one. Starting a restaurant isn't a moneymaking field. Teaching and writing, except in the rarest of cases, aren't either. Acting is almost never highly paid, and police work never is highly paid.


Making the Choice for Wealth


Please notice a pattern: the most interesting and psychologically rewarding work is rarely the best-paid. So choices must be made.


If your goal is to be in that top 1 percent of wealth-holders, you have to do what Yaniv did. Follow the instructions to where the money is, and to where it isn't.


There's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about people who have money that's better than people who don't. But if you want it anyway, simply follow the instructions as to where to find it. It's not that complicated.

[Plane]

Sent to me in an e-Mail



A
 Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese team won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior executives was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the American rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 Steering Supervisors, 3 Area Steering Superintendents and 1 Assistant Superintendent Steering Manager.
 
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Quality First Program," with meetings and dinners for management and a free pen for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
 
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
 
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.