People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:




The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

---

They had dthe chance but elected Obama anyway; their chickens have come home to roost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Sure, I can too. Is that what is being protested? How is the "wealth gap" generally stealing? If the CEO of company X has stolen from you, why go to the streets and protest? Why wouldn't you sue?

---

Good point :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

---

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

---

Well chuck34 has a point. We are yet to get any definitive answers on why people today are less likely to succeed than people from a generation ago. What are these so called problems/barriers in place that prevents them from moving up the ladder(s) in life. The answer is: there is none! People are hoping that by protesting they will magically get what they want, as if there is a room in the sky that just needs to be unlocked and then all their problems will go away. The sad fact is nothing is going to change unless individuals sort things out for themselves (ie: get down to work lazy ass).

Guaranteed if you put these Occupy protesters into a locked stadium, dropped 1 billion dollars onto the field and said share it out equally amongst yourselves, there would be chaos!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

You can work menial jobs and do correspondance and night classes to get your degree just like millions of people have done. It's hard yes, but not as hard as you may think and not that expensive either.

---

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

not that expensive either.

---

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

In the US you're looking at US$19,000 per student on average.

FEH and PAH!
State Education Subsidies Shift Students to Public Universities



For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

---

I hear what you are saying, but doing it via correspondance (ie: at home in your spare time) costs virtually nothing at all. The prices you quote are for attending varsity full time I presume?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Correct, Correlation is not causation. So then, how about a look at the causes?
This four page abstract is a good starting place on the subject:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/InequalityMobility.pdf

If you just look at wages, the ability to command higher wages largely comes about through higher education. If you move further down the wage ladder you reach a point where people can not afford to go to university or tertiary education. People who start their working career having completed a tertiary education are able to command higher wages for a longer period of time; multiply that effect over 30 years until the next generation and the ability to send your children to a tertiary institute should increase if you yourself already went and that's just one feedback loop.

---

Perhaps you are unaware of the student loans that you can get here in the US. Basically you can get a loan for pretty much nothing (no colateral, very low interest, etc). And you don't even have to start to pay down this debt until after you are done with school. So if you have very little money now, but see that with an education you can make quite a bit, and improve your life, what is stopping you? This falicy that it takes money to get an education in the US is just simply not true. There are an over abundance of loans, grants, scholarships, etc that render this argument moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If you move from the bottom of the wage ladder to the top, the marginal utility of money decreases and the marginal propensity to save increases. People earning a subsistence wage or not much better than it, do not experience the same abilities to invest or save if indeed at all.
The thing is with the income derived from savings and investment, it still has to be generated by the production of goods and services. This means that people who do derive incomes from savings and investment are being rewarded for other people's labour.

---

So those savings and investments are of no use to anyone? Have you ever heard of this new concept of "Capital"? It takes capital (or money people invest) to start a business, to expand a business, to conduct research into new processes/products, etc. Do you think that when people buy stock in a company that all of that money just goes directly into the pockets of the CEO's? Without capital, without investment, no one has a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Also, the actual aggregate supply curve for labour kinks to the left at some point. There is either a point where people can not physically provide any more labour by working longer hours and/or the other reason is that generally the aggregate supply curve for labour bends back on itself and we reach a point where higher wages are demanded for less work.

---

For a static position you are correct. But to think that no one ever advances within a company, or makes advancement by changing companies is foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is also the issue of market power when it comes to wages. Workers and Business Owners never have the same power when it comes to the negotiation of wages. Once upon a time when workers collectively bargained they did hold more power but government policies in a lot of Western countries have actively cut union's power and membership of unions have been generally falling for the past 30 years anwyay.

---

Another reason that union membership has fallen is that people got wise to their scam. Why should I be a member of a union when all they do is take money out of my pocket with nothing to show for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

In most industries, wage earners are price takers whereas business owners are price makers.

---

So who is FORCING someone to work for less than they desire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The thing is though, if you do "fall behind" as everyone else moves on at a faster rate, then the chances of you or your children having the ability to catch up decrease.

---

So we are somehow supposed to stop someone from falling behind? How do you propose we do that? If I take the inititive to get ahead, and do, and someone else doesn't take responsibility for themselves, and they fall behind, who's fault is that? Am I to be punished for someone else's lack of motivation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Several questions need to be adressed: Has a university education become more expensive relative to wages?

---

It is more expensive. However, there is plenty of financial aid out there (loans, grants, scholarships, etc.). So that should not be an excuse for not getting a useful education. That is one of the problems today, too many people with art history, liberal arts, and other "non-productive" degrees. Realistically how can you justify a $50-80,000 or more education for a degree where you can only realisically hope to earn about $30,000 on the high end? Common sence when getting an education is something that too many people done exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Are people who have wealth in a position to change legislation to ensure they keep it?

---

Wealthy people have the money, sure. But aren't we being told that there are 99% of people that think the way of the occupiers? That's a voting majority is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Have wage earners gained or lost market power over the past 50 years?

---

Depends on your prospective. If you told the poorest of the poor in the US 75-80 years ago that the poorest of the poor today would have at least one car, a house, flat screen TVs, air conditioning, X-Box, cable/satilite TV, etc., that they would thing that we have a pretty darn good society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

A zero-sum game is one in which one participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of other participant(s). Since accounting for losses, gains, profits and expenses is always balanced (credit and debits are always equal), the net result at any given time is ALWAYS zero.

---

Apparently you do not know what profit is. Profit is the money left over after you account of your expenses, overhead, wages, etc. So if your company is running a profit the net result is NOT zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Philiposhically over the long run? I'm sure I don't know the answer.
Economics might be a zero sum game. In a broad sense, externalities are never accounted for and maybe one day when the world has been buggered up environmentally, then maybe it is.

---

Please point me to the economics text book that says it is a zero sum game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

At some point the Baby-Boomers will start wanting pensions as well; there's about 80 million of them in the US and they sure as heck didn't pay for it.
Maybe our great-grandchildren will be paying a hideous price for the debt accumulated and the environmental destruction of the planet. Who knows?

---

Ah, welcome to the T.E.A. Party my friend. You just described one of the main "pillars" of that movement, that government keeps promising things that they can not possibly pay for except on the backs of our great-grandchildren. So let's get real about this and stop spending beyond our means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why does this matter to you? I really can't understand this problem you, clearly (unlike some who share your views) not an unintelligent person, have with the notion of someone successful and hard-working holding a different view from yours on the operation of the world economy. This question you have thus far failed to answer, making your protestations about others allegedly doing so rather hollow.

---

I am not sure I understand what you are asking me here. I was responding to Race, who is apparently successful, why he could do it but others can not. I'm asking him what barriers have been errected that stop someone from moving up. I'd ask you the same question.

And you seem to be implying that I am not answering questions. Which ones have I not answered? I will answer them now. I do try to answer direct questions with direct answers, but perhaps I have missed some?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Screw those people. They were demanding too high a wage:

The Free Market decided that the people of Waukesha were too expensive and so it ditched them like the scum they are. Maybe they should take the personal responsibility for their own situation and get the education they need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced.

Chuck34 told me so. I believe him.

---

And Rollo's solution to this is to somehow FORCE GE to stay in Waukesha? That will do one of two things.

1) Drive up the cost of products produced there (X-Ray equipment). Which drives up the cost of healthcare, something that is already a huge issue. Which drives up the cost of health insurance. Which drives down the net income for many people, particularly on the low end of the wage scale. Which will widen the "wealth gap" even further. I thought you were against the "wealth gap"?

2) GE will take a loss. Sure they have the market cap. to wether that for a while, but if you start adding up a little here and a little there, over time they may start opperating at a loss company wide. No company can do that for long. So in the long run GE could go bankrupt, putting even more people out of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It; might have escaped you attention but in the UK for instance, the maximum tuition fee is now £9,000/yr. Unlike when I wen through, a student could be up for as much as £36,000 fora four year course. Perhaps you'd like that in perspective, a brand new 5-series estate will set you back for less than that.

---

So you went through school. Now it is less expensive to go through school in the UK. And this is a problem how? What made you special, why could you do it at a high cost, but people can not do it now at a lower cost? Your logic is escaping me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

For someone further down the economic ladder, £36,000 is a lot of money. I'm sorry but you don't appear to live in that world and I'm afraid you appear quite callous as a result.

---

As 555 said those numbers are for "top" schools, there are plenty of other options out there, corresondance schools, on-line schools, vocational institutions, etc. My wife is going to start on her masters the first of the year. When she is completely done she will have paid a total of $10,800. And her earnings potential will basically double from $45k to $80k~ish starting. Sounds like a d@mn good investment to me. And luckily we are in a position that we can just pay the tuition, but if we needed to we could take out student loans at a very low interest, and not have to start paying it back until she is done. What the hell is the excuse for someone "further down the economic ladder" for not getting an education?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What the hell is the excuse for someone "further down the economic ladder" for not getting an education?

---

Exactly :up: There is no excuse if there is a will to do it.

The point here is that GE chose to spend 2 billion supporting chinese interests while there CEO serves as the job czar. On top of that GE pays no taxes. So you can call those people scum and so on but in the end when the middle class in America stands up the world will know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why? How does it effect your life? What is preventing you from "getting ahead"?

---

Why does it have to be about my life? Maybe I am not egocentric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Well consider this: This sh!t ain't gonna last much longer and the next wave of protesters are going to get higher up the rung. GE needs a good asskicking for this

As if we need any more evidence that Obama is the most anti-American President our country has ever seen, we see this…



Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......Their biggest employer just moved out.General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha, WI to Beijing.In addition to moving the headquarters,the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States.So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.Thanks Jeff, you're a "real" American....give Barrack our Best !!If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does. Please pass this information to others and think about it before you buy a GE product.For Snopes verification of this information, go to:snopes.com: General Electric China Move

---

Excellent example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I hear what you are saying, but doing it via correspondance (ie: at home in your spare time) costs virtually nothing at all. The prices you quote are for attending varsity full time I presume?

---

I don't think there is any chance to get a serious engineering, for example, degree via correspondence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And Rollo's solution to this is to somehow FORCE GE to stay in Waukesha? That will do one of two things.

1) Drive up the cost of products produced there (X-Ray equipment). Which drives up the cost of healthcare, something that is already a huge issue. Which drives up the cost of health insurance. Which drives down the net income for many people, particularly on the low end of the wage scale. Which will widen the "wealth gap" even further. I thought you were against the "wealth gap"?

2) GE will take a loss. Sure they have the market cap. to wether that for a while, but if you start adding up a little here and a little there, over time they may start opperating at a loss company wide. No company can do that for long. So in the long run GE could go bankrupt, putting even more people out of work.

---

You failed to see the big picture once more.
Who will pay for the GE equipment produced in China if people in the US lose their jobs.
Is it so bloody difficult to think more than one step in advance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I bloody love this forum!! :laugh: :up:

---

Sure you do, as many others who've been around this forum forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

As 555 said those numbers are for "top" schools, there are plenty of other options out there, corresondance schools, on-line schools, vocational institutions, etc.

---

And you think that if one goes for one of the 'not top schools' will they have an equal chance to get to the top with those who go to a 'top' school?
It doesn't look to me that this is the much claimed equality you and 555 are in love with.
In reality you just admitted to the fact that there is no such thing as equal chances, maybe only in theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Why does it have to be about my life? Maybe I am not egocentric.

---

I use "you" as an example just as many use "people". The argument goes something like "people just can't get ahead". One way to break that down is to personalize it. If "you" can get ahead, why can't "people"? Why is one person's situation any different than another's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I don't think there is any chance to get a serious engineering, for example, degree via correspondence.

---

Start out with a vocational/tech school degree then go to a main campus to get an engineering degree. I know plenty of people who have done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You failed to see the big picture once more.
Who will pay for the GE equipment produced in China if people in the US lose their jobs.
Is it so bloody difficult to think more than one step in advance?

---

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And you think that if one goes for one of the 'not top schools' will they have an equal chance to get to the top with those who go to a 'top' school?
It doesn't look to me that this is the much claimed equality you and 555 are in love with.
In reality you just admitted to the fact that there is no such thing as equal chances, maybe only in theory.

---

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I use "you" as an example just as many use "people". The argument goes something like "people just can't get ahead". One way to break that down is to personalize it. If "you" can get ahead, why can't "people"? Why is one person's situation any different than another's?

---

Ever heard about chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?

---

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Ever heard about chance?

---

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?

---

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?

---

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.

---

We have to limit their influence on society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?

---

Who says I didn't go?
Just to be clear I'll repeat it, it's not about me, I am doing great, thank you.

But then what about you answer my questions instead of posting red herrings?
So can everyone go to the same top university which pretty much means they will get a well paid job afterwards? The answer is obvious, which is why you are dodging it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.

---

I'm not going to argue GE's business model with you. Personally I think it's flawed, but I don't know all the in's and out's of their business.

But lets take your example on out to it's logical conclusion. GE moves to China, no one can afford their products now because they don't have jobs, GE sells less product, GE goes under, there is still a demand for appliances etc., other companies spring up to meet said demand. The business cycle in a free market system is actually fairly efficient. Static analysis, which you seem to want to employ, misses many factors such as the fact that GE is not the only company in the world that makes what they make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Who says I didn't go?
Just to be clear I'll repeat it, it's not about me, I am doing great, thank you.

---

Ok so let's say you did go. What is stopping Joe Blow from Kokomo from going too? Is it simply school size? If so what is your solution to that, FORCE MIT to accept anyone who applies?

Speaking of dodging questions you dodged mine. "Do you (or one so as we don't personalize it to ioan) need to go to MIT to be successful?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

But then what about you answer my questions instead of posting red herrings?
So can everyone go to the same top university which pretty much means they will get a well paid job afterwards? The answer is obvious, which is why you are dodging it.

---

Show me the law that says you must go to MIT to be a success. From personal experience I know plenty of people who did not go to such a school that are very successful, and plenty of people who went to those schools who are worthless.

Besides who ever said that sucess was tied to going to a "top school"? I sure haven't argued that.

You asked for a reason why inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility. In #1054

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So those savings and investments are of no use to anyone?

---

In the context of an individual who has no savings, then yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Another reason that union membership has fallen is that people got wise to their scam. Why should I be a member of a union when all they do is take money out of my pocket with nothing to show for it.

---

Of course and I agree with you. 30-50 years ago it wasn't the case though. The unions did have more market power to negotiate on wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So who is FORCING someone to work for less than they desire?

---

The market price for labour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So we are somehow supposed to stop someone from falling behind? How do you propose we do that? If I take the inititive to get ahead, and do, and someone else doesn't take responsibility for themselves, and they fall behind, who's fault is that? Am I to be punished for someone else's lack of motivation?

---

How about a governmental policy of free education. It will take a longish view but in the long run the quality of the labour force will be improved. It's mainly the reason why Germany produces so many more highly technical manufactured goods and why they tend to be of better quality.
German built cars are easily better than anything America produces, German technical instruments are better... heck in 2010 Germany exported more than the US did and were second only behind China. What does that say about the German people?

As for the question of motivation, it's not necessarily an individual thing. Clearly its far bigger than that and society itself helps to shape those motivations. If someone "fell behind" then their children will start from a far worse position, if you then multiply than by about 80 million times, then you describe US society pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Apparently you do not know what profit is. Profit is the money left over after you account of your expenses, overhead, wages, etc. So if your company is running a profit the net result is NOT zero.

---

One company is not THE ECONOMY. DUH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Please point me to the economics text book that says it is a zero sum game.

---

How about YOU prove something for a change? I gave a pretty good definition of the concept and made an assertion, but you seem very timid to show your workings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So let's get real about this and stop spending beyond our means.

---

Yay! Let old people die off because they can't eat! Soylent Green is your solution maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ok so let's say you did go. What is stopping Joe Blow from Kokomo from going too? Is it simply school size? If so what is your solution to that, FORCE MIT to accept anyone who applies?

---

It looks like school size might be one problem, that the free market, which some think is the holly grail of humanity, will take care of that and only those who can afford it will have a chance to get there.
Looks like not everyone has equal chances after all, isn't it?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Speaking of dodging questions you dodged mine. "Do you (or one so as we don't personalize it to ioan) need to go to MIT to be successful?"

---

Depends what you define as successful.
Obviously people have been more or less successful without an MIT diploma, however the chances to be successful with such diploma are much higher then if you got a diploma from an unknown university.

It doesn't look like everyone can get the same education, in the same university and as such they won't have the same chances to be successful (definition pending), yet we are told that the chances are equal no matter if you are born rich or poor, or if you are born in Somalia or the US.
I wonder what percentage of people from Peru are successful compared to the percentage in Switzerland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Show me the law that says you must go to MIT to be a success. From personal experience I know plenty of people who did not go to such a school that are very successful, and plenty of people who went to those schools who are worthless.

---

Let's not exaggerate, not sure how many people who studied at the MIT are worthless, but certainly not plenty, especially not from your personal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Besides who ever said that sucess was tied to going to a "top school"? I sure haven't argued that.

---

Success has it's ways, majority of them goes through top quality education, some of it through hard work and chance.

If you mean that being successful with and without a TOP university diploma are equal then I am rather sure we are talking about different kinds of success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

You asked for a reason why inequality is the reason for the lack of mobility. In #1054
In the context of an individual who has no savings, then yes.

---

You completly miss the point. Someone's savings/investments allow someone else to build/expand a business. Thus giving someone without savings a job. The basis of Capitalism is captial. Capital is the money that those evil rich people use to invest in business and pay people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The market price for labour.

---

So you have a choice. Work or don't work. If enough people don't take the job at a low wage, the wage will increase. Why do you think that janitors, garbage men, and septic tank pumpers make more than minimum wage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

How about a governmental policy of free education. It will take a longish view but in the long run the quality of the labour force will be improved. It's mainly the reason why Germany produces so many more highly technical manufactured goods and why they tend to be of better quality.
German built cars are easily better than anything America produces, German technical instruments are better... heck in 2010 Germany exported more than the US did and were second only behind China. What does that say about the German people?

---

There are many issues that effect US exports, product quality, etc. than simply education.

And our government already borrows $0.40 of every $1 it spends, you suggest we up that by providing "free" education? And why would a "free" education change they dynamics in this country? You can already get an almost free education if you simply apply for loans, grants, and scholarships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

As for the question of motivation, it's not necessarily an individual thing. Clearly its far bigger than that and society itself helps to shape those motivations. If someone "fell behind" then their children will start from a far worse position, if you then multiply than by about 80 million times, then you describe US society pretty well.

---

Why do you have this obsession with lumping everyone together? Do you have no concept of personal responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

One company is not THE ECONOMY. DUH.

---

So you are now suggesting that if one company makes profit that another must have a decreased profit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

How about YOU prove something for a change? I gave a pretty good definition of the concept and made an assertion, but you seem very timid to show your workings.

---

What would you like me to prove? I'm not the one running around claiming there are all these problems that need fixing. Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. I feel I've been pretty responsive in stating why many of your "solutions" will not work, but if you feel that I have not fully answered something let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Yay! Let old people die off because they can't eat! Soylent Green is your solution maybe?

---

When did I say that? Quite the opposite in fact. The government in the US has been doing that for years and years. They have promised that there will be Social Security money for people when they retire, yet they raid the trust fund to pay for their own pet projects causing the system to be on the verge of bankruptcy. What do you suppose will happen when Social Security finally collapses, and all those that have been promised it will be there find that they no longer have any money for retirement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why do you have this obsession with lumping everyone together? Do you have no concept of personal responsibility?

---

Can't answer for Rollo, but this highlights how these problems seem to be viewed differently:

1. There is no problem because an individual can progress[/*:m:rk4wt2c6]
2. There is a problem because in a global context inequality is increasing[/*:m:rk4wt2c6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Can't answer for Rollo, but this highlights how these problems seem to be viewed differently:

1. There is no problem because an individual can progress[/*:m:1yhwd1jx]
2. There is a problem because in a global context inequality is increasing[/*:m:1yhwd1jx]

---

Do you not believe an individual can progress? If not, what is stopping them? If you do believe that an individual can progress, why can't a "group"? After all what is a group other than a collection of individuals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

After all what is a group other than a collection of individuals?

---

A group is a collection of individuals who work together to achieve a common set of goals. A politcal movement for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

A group is a collection of individuals who work together to achieve a common set of goals. A politcal movement for example.

---

Ok so you don't believe in individual responsibility then. Everyone must do things in a "group" or "movement". If you do not believe that an individual must do for himself first, that everything must be done in a group, then I don't think we have anything else to talk about. You can go on looking for your collective salvation, and I will continue to take care of myself first, then my friends and family, and those around me.

Have fun. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ok so you don't believe in individual responsibility then. Everyone must do things in a "group" or "movement".

---

You deduce that from what exactly :confused: (You're wrong)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

You deduce that from what exactly :confused: (You're wrong)

---

I deduced that from your cryptic non answer to my questions. You only want to talk about the group, never the individual because it sets your argument up to "win". So I'll ask again. If an individual can make progress, why can't another? Why can't the "group"?

Your original two choice "views" were typically too black and white. You want to make this about the "group" because if one does not do well, then you can claim that no one is doing well. That is a false choice. If one can do well, what is stopping others?