Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

If someone profits off the labor of others, the person most likely had to take some sort of risk in opening his/her own business.

The worst thing that can happen to an employee is losing their job.

The owner of a company can lose EVERYTHING if their business fails.

Someone who works hard, but doesn't risk any of their own capital, may only go so far in the world.

Big risk, big rewards.

Small risk, small losses.

usamamasan1 wrote:

take ownership and stop hating on those who win, that's all. must suck being on the outside looking in. I would hate it, but I would work my way in.

You will never be allowed in!! I can assure you that. Unless you have a net worth of over $5,000,000. Do you?

My dad was on EI last year and he's one of the hardest working people I know.
We had to take him to get X-rays the other day (covered... being in Canada and all ) and it turns out he had been working all week on a fractured foot.

mike...mike...mike...please do not use logic.

mikepegg44 wrote:

_ wrote:

And this is the point I think so many seem to miss. The very wealthy can only get that way through the exploitation of others. It's not that poor people work proportionately less hard than rich people; it's that the fruits of their labor go to the rich people and not to put food on their own tables. Therefore, much of the money in very rich people's bank accounts actually belongs (by right, if not ownership) to the poor. It wouldn't kill them to give just a little of it back. Some day they're going to take it back.

so creating a service people want or need is exploiting others? writing software that gets you millions is exploiting people? Did your buddy Warren B. only exploit people to get where he is?

If the person who works at a factory isn't happy with their station they can always try to improve it.
Your feelings on who the money actually belongs too is ridiculous...they aren't stealing from their poor workers...in fact without the rich person giving them a job they would have less money than they already do. It isn't exploitation to simply pay someone to put screws in a radio, or bend a windshield...as soon as it it robotic who will they be exploiting? Do some abuse the system absolutely...but the money they make doesn't belong to anyone else...and if the poor "take it back" as you say they will actually be stealing it...

This whole idea that if you are successful you were born that way has got to go...for everyone who complains that there are those on this board that stereotype the poor and welfare recipients, there are more that mis-characterize the rich as evil pricks that don't give a fuck about anyone...neither are true as a general rule

Good example of a Boss who makes millions on HIS IDEA is a guy named Greg Olson...he invented the powerblock while working for another company and took his idea and ran with it...he is now very wealthy...does he exploit the workers who manufacture the powerblock...or is he helping the workers by paying them to do a job that wouldn't be available otherwise?

There is just as much wrong in stereotyping the rich as there is in stereotyping the poor...

I'm not stereotyping the rich & I never said all rich people were necessarily born that way. I'm merely pointing out the system by which many people get rich. And I haven't mis-characterized "the rich" as evil pricks who don't give a fuck about anyone - I only characterize the selfish ones that way.

We all know that corporations are in a race to the bottom in terms of how fairly they will compensate their employees. That's why outsourcing exists. That's why there is a movement toward fair trade - because the current system is generally not fair.

Did Gates exploit people by inventing software? Not that I know of. But does he exploit people in the manufacture & (possibly) sale of that software. I'm sure he does. Did Buffett make his billions off the exploitation of others? I'm sure he did too. (At least they have the decency to give back.)

We all know that people in low-pay, low-control jobs have little ability as individual to improve their conditions.

The argument that workers should be thankful to those who exploit them is what's ridiculous. Why should they not be compensated fairly, at a wage that enables them to provide for themselves & their families? Just so the people at the top can get rich? Bullshit. And therein lies the exploitation you say doesn't exist.

You remind me of a common scenario around here. Native artists make jewelry, et cetera for a living, but then, after all their hours of labor, must often sell it to tourist shops for very little profit because their ability to sell directly to the public is very limited. The shops sell the Natives' craftwork at, literally, like a 1000% mark-up and they get all the profit. The Native people in this scenario are dirt poor, worse than most people in this country could even imagine, while the store owners are very wealthy. But the Natives were the ones who had 100 of the creativity to make the jewelry & did 85% of the work.

Are you really telling me that we should ADMIRE - or even accept - these store owners just because they had the "genius" to exploit the poor Indians?? Do you really think they deserve to be living so high on the hog while the people upon whom their entire profit is based can't feed their own children? Are you actually defending such practices as fair distribution of wealth? And you don't think those rich exploiters should have to so much as contribute a portion of their salaries toward the basic living expenses of the Native peoples?

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

_ wrote:

And this is the point I think so many seem to miss. The very wealthy can only get that way through the exploitation of others. It's not that poor people work proportionately less hard than rich people; it's that the fruits of their labor go to the rich people and not to put food on their own tables. Therefore, much of the money in very rich people's bank accounts actually belongs (by right, if not ownership) to the poor. It wouldn't kill them to give just a little of it back. Some day they're going to take it back.

so creating a service people want or need is exploiting others? writing software that gets you millions is exploiting people? Did your buddy Warren B. only exploit people to get where he is?

If the person who works at a factory isn't happy with their station they can always try to improve it.
Your feelings on who the money actually belongs too is ridiculous...they aren't stealing from their poor workers...in fact without the rich person giving them a job they would have less money than they already do. It isn't exploitation to simply pay someone to put screws in a radio, or bend a windshield...as soon as it it robotic who will they be exploiting? Do some abuse the system absolutely...but the money they make doesn't belong to anyone else...and if the poor "take it back" as you say they will actually be stealing it...

This whole idea that if you are successful you were born that way has got to go...for everyone who complains that there are those on this board that stereotype the poor and welfare recipients, there are more that mis-characterize the rich as evil pricks that don't give a fuck about anyone...neither are true as a general rule

Good example of a Boss who makes millions on HIS IDEA is a guy named Greg Olson...he invented the powerblock while working for another company and took his idea and ran with it...he is now very wealthy...does he exploit the workers who manufacture the powerblock...or is he helping the workers by paying them to do a job that wouldn't be available otherwise?

There is just as much wrong in stereotyping the rich as there is in stereotyping the poor...

I'm not stereotyping the rich & I never said all rich people were necessarily born that way. I'm merely pointing out the system by which many people get rich. And I haven't mis-characterized "the rich" as evil pricks who don't give a fuck about anyone - I only characterize the selfish ones that way.

We all know that corporations are in a race to the bottom in terms of how fairly they will compensate their employees. That's why outsourcing exists. That's why there is a movement toward fair trade - because the current system is generally not fair.

Did Gates exploit people by inventing software? Not that I know of. But does he exploit people in the manufacture & (possibly) sale of that software. I'm sure he does. Did Buffett make his billions off the exploitation of others? I'm sure he did too. (At least they have the decency to give back.)

We all know that people in low-pay, low-control jobs have little ability as individual to improve their conditions.

The argument that workers should be thankful to those who exploit them is what's ridiculous. Why should they not be compensated fairly, at a wage that enables them to provide for themselves & their families? Just so the people at the top can get rich? Bullshit. And therein lies the exploitation you say doesn't exist.

You remind me of a common scenario around here. Native artists make jewelry, et cetera for a living, but then, after all their hours of labor, must often sell it to tourist shops for very little profit because their ability to sell directly to the public is very limited. The shops sell the Natives' craftwork at, literally, like a 1000% mark-up and they get all the profit. The Native people in this scenario are dirt poor, worse than most people in this country could even imagine, while the store owners are very wealthy. But the Natives were the ones who had 100 of the creativity to make the jewelry & did 85% of the work.

Are you really telling me that we should ADMIRE - or even accept - these store owners just because they had the "genius" to exploit the poor Indians?? Do you really think they deserve to be living so high on the hog while the people upon whom their entire profit is based can't feed their own children? Are you actually defending such practices as fair distribution of wealth? And you don't think those rich exploiters should have to so much as contribute a portion of their salaries toward the basic living expenses of the Native peoples?

well, those people can and should band together and sell the works they have created at a fair of some kind...contacting newspapers or websites to get the word out. It isn't exploitation of someone to act as a middle man...plenty of industries operate that way and it creates more jobs.


"The very wealthy can only get that way through the exploitation of others."

the problem is it is stereotyping the rich...when you simply don't qualify it before people read it to mean that rich business owners can only get that way by exploiting the poor...if you don't think you and others on the board portray the rich as evil pricks that don't earn their wealth then I suggest you re-read a lot of threads about them...It is as okay to think that as it is okay to think that all hispanics are illegal immigrants...sure some are but not all are and the majority aren't.

_ wrote:

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. The "free" market is the enemy of the fair market. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer for a reason - and it's not because our market system is equitable.

Then, I guess you should move to China or somewhere that salaries are set (realizing the irony here is that China is actually moving more toward Western free market than not).

It is fair. Fair does not mean equal. I would like to find the person that is providing a service that society highly values that is being undercompensated. I mean, it's nice to make jewlery, but if society doesn't value it, it's not UNfair that you don't get compensated for making it.

Again, the only place that is bastardized is unionized jobs. Places like teaching where tenure is treasured over actual competence.

You can moan all you want that folks are getting paid unfairly. But it's wrong. Again, if you think you're not making enough, you should by all means go into your bosses office and tell him so. And he can say no. And you can say, "I quit! I'll find a job that compensates me properly!" And you will (though it may not be any higher than your last job).

I think we forget what the word FAIR means. It is fair that Bill Gates has Billions. We as consumers have given him that because he has provided a good that we valued. Meanwhile, folks that make the chips that helped him get that rich get paid less b/c there are people that will take those jobs at the prices they are paid.

And before we get back into the Paris Hilton argument - her granddaddy earned that money, and he's allowed to "spend" it however he sees fit, including giving it to layabout ancestors.

mikepegg44 wrote:

well, those people can and should band together and sell the works they have created at a fair of some kind...contacting newspapers or websites to get the word out. It isn't exploitation of someone to act as a middle man...plenty of industries operate that way and it creates more jobs.


"The very wealthy can only get that way through the exploitation of others."

the problem is it is stereotyping the rich...when you simply don't qualify it before people read it to mean that rich business owners can only get that way by exploiting the poor...if you don't think you and others on the board portray the rich as evil pricks that don't earn their wealth then I suggest you re-read a lot of threads about them...It is as okay to think that as it is okay to think that all hispanics are illegal immigrants...sure some are but not all are and the majority aren't.

To really be profitable, you have to sell to tourists, and THE place to sell Native crafts to tourists is Old Town. They could band together all they want and could never buy a shop in Old Town, if any space were to ever even go on sale. They are allowed to sit on the sidewalk & sell, but you have to have a permit and even then only a limited number of people with permits are allowed to be there on any given day. This is determined a week in advance by lottery. But the waiting list for a permit is so long that they actually stopped putting people on it. The people I know who have permits have gotten them because they were passed down through many generations of their families. It's just practically impossible to get a foot in the door here. It's just not as easy as you seem to think it is.

There's nothing wrong with being a middle man - unless you are gouging craftspeople for your own profit. My point is not that middle men are bad; it's that people should be paid fairly and they're not.

You're not paying attention to how I am qualifying things. I have never said anything about all rich people; I have only made generalized statements about obscenely rich people. And maybe there are people who get to be obscenely rich without ever exploiting others, but I can't think of any. Can you?

I get really frustrated when people tell me what I think when I just told them they're mistaken. Pretty sure I know more about what I think than you do. I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted my comments.

Again, it's the system I have a problem with... and those who support it... and those who talk shit about people with less money. It just so happens that most of the people who talk shit about people with less money have more money.