Wealth Distribution in America

Status
Not open for further replies.
SoonerAviator said:
So who benefits (monetarily) from the globalization/productivity increases of the general workforce? The CxOs, the shareholders/stock market guys.
Click to expand...
When you say
shareholders/stock market guys
Click to expand...
what I hear is "pension funds, 401(k)s, IRAs, and retirees".

CALPERS, for example, holds about $132B in market investments.
 
StraightnLevel said:
When you say

what I hear is "pension funds, 401(k)s, IRAs, and retirees".

CALPERS, for example, holds about $132B in market investments.
Click to expand...
They are a part of that, sure. But when I say "stock market guys" I'm thinking more along the lines of fund managers and institutional investors. People who either profit from the transactions directly, or have enough shares that it even matters. Ricky from the shipping department who has a hundred shares in his 401K and got a hundred dollars in dividend payments this year isn't much better off than he was before. If he got a $0.25/hr raise he could have benefited more from that this year, as well as every subsequent year.
 
SoonerAviator said:
ut when I say "stock market guys" I'm thinking more along the lines of fund managers and institutional investors.
Click to expand...

That's not a differentiation. I'm a retiree. I use several fund managers. So do many, many retirees. Fund managers and institutional investors are handling pension funds, IRAs, 401ks, etc., etc.
 
Half Fast said:
As I showed very early in this thread, that "squeezing" has pushed more of the middle class up than it has down. Maybe squeezing isn't such a bad thing?
Click to expand...
The part of that I think you are omitting is that the size of the middle still shrank. So some did move up, but a similar portion moved down into the lower-class. So is it better to have a smaller middle class as long as the lower and upper class grow? Eventually you'll have a plutocracy where you have the wealthy and the poor with few in the middle-ground.
 
Again, I think it's all really a shell game with definitions. Talking about a "shrinking" middle class while looking at all the nice cars, homes, big screen tvs, and smart phones doesn't quite square with my reality.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The part of that I think you are omitting is that the size of the middle still shrank. So some did move up, but a similar portion moved down into the lower-class. So is it better to have a smaller middle class as long as the lower and upper class grow? Eventually you'll have a plutocracy where you have the wealthy and the poor with few in the middle-ground.
Click to expand...

No, not a "similar" portion. Over 50 years, the middle class shrank by 11%; 4% moved down and 7% moved up. It's better to have a smaller middle class as long as upward mobility is improved, and it's helpful if class sizes are discussed in the context of class mobility.

And @Salty makes an excellent point. "Wealth" is not defined solely by dollars and percentages; the real crux is how lifestyle, health, comfort, etc. improve. The "poor" are largely wealthier than the middle class of 50 years ago. The tide has been rising and it's brought up all ships.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Eventually you'll have a plutocracy where you have the wealthy and the poor with few in the middle-ground.
Click to expand...

BTW, what is the ideal size for the middle class? If it should't shrink, should it grow? And if it should grow, should that be accomplished by moving the top down? Was the ideal size for the middle class what it was 50 years ago when it was 11% larger?
 
Salty said:
Talking about a "shrinking" middle class while looking at all the nice cars, homes, big screen tvs, and smart phones doesn't quite square with my reality.
Click to expand...

IMHO,....

Part of what you're seeing is shrinkage from upward movement; part of it is an upward shift within the middle class (the precursor to moving to the top class); and some of it (sadly) is deficit spending, buying on credit.
 
Half Fast said:
No, not a "similar" portion. Over 50 years, the middle class shrank by 11%; 4% moved down and 7% moved up. It's better to have a smaller middle class as long as upward mobility is improved, and it's helpful if class sizes are discussed in the context of class mobility.

And @Salty makes an excellent point. "Wealth" is not defined solely by dollars and percentages; the real crux is how lifestyle, health, comfort, etc. improve. The "poor" are largely wealthier than the middle class of 50 years ago. The tide has been rising and it's brought up all ships.
Click to expand...
I'm not in disagreement about the poor having (overall) a better standard of living today than they did in 1950. People, in general, are not flat out destitute and scrounging for shelter or scraps of food. However, I do find it odd that it's ok to take that increase in productivity in the workforce and dole it out to the wealthiest individuals at a much higher rate than those on who's backs directly resulted in the increased productivity. I think there has been a disconnect at the highest levels of management with regard to executive compensation, offshoring, and profit sharing. I see it every day in manufacturing, where the line-level employees are struggling to get $15/hr, but we aren't allowed to give raises or step-promotions because the top executives have mandated such purely based off of what the market will see in the impact to the financials. Company still makes millions, but if we make a few million less, the board/investors won't "like it."
 
StraightnLevel said:
Hang on there.

Think about it for a moment. If you bought a house in 1990 for $100K, and today you sell it for $350K,
Click to expand...
That might be true, but I just looked up the house I sold in 1989 for $92k.
It recently sold for $750k.
:mad: :eek:
 
SoonerAviator said:
However, I do find it odd that it's ok to take that increase in productivity in the workforce and dole it out to the wealthiest individuals
Click to expand...
Who is this person or entity that doles out the proceeds of increased productivity? I can't say I've ever heard of that theory before.
 
Half Fast said:
BTW, what is the ideal size for the middle class? If it should't shrink, should it grow? And if it should grow, should that be accomplished by moving the top down? Was the ideal size for the middle class what it was 50 years ago when it was 11% larger?
Click to expand...
That, in essence, was part of the entire reason for starting this thread. What do we deem acceptable as an American society/financial system? Is there a reason the 1.0% should as much wealth as as the Top 10% combined? Should the Top 10% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%? These percentages (0.1/10/etc) are all arbitrary at some point, but the idea is that the concentration of the country's wealth is in the hands of the very few. Would we better off as a country with a 70% middle class, a 15% upper class, and a 15% lower class? It's a discussion, and the answer is often different depending on which class you currently ascribe to.

A big portion of the answer of why we are where we are revolves around legal/tax structure and income. A big portion resides in general human nature and lack of financial acumen. I believe something like 30% of the Top 1% Wealthiest Americans inherited the wealth from their family. There's nothing wrong with handing down those fortunes to future generations, but I'm sure there are some large cons to that as well, when those subsequent generations are running the family businesses (Waltons for example) and end up stripping all of the profits for themselves while leaving the workers out to dry. There isn't a single-solution answer, especially to a problem that may not be a problem.
 
JOhnH said:
Who is this person or entity that doles out the proceeds of increased productivity? I can't say I've ever heard of that theory before.
Click to expand...
They're often referred to as a CFO/CEO. You take profits and decide what to do with them. Do we re-invest in the company by giving raises or other benefits? Do we do a stock buy-back? Do we declare a quarterly dividend? As you generate more profit on the same number of employees (sometimes due to automation, sometimes due to process improvement, etc), you have a choice on what to do with those profits. Sometimes the answer is just to keep it in the bank for a rainy day. Often, when you have a certain type of Board of Directors to answer to, the answer has to do with shareholder perception rather than actual business function.
 
SoonerAviator said:
That, in essence, was part of the entire reason for starting this thread. What do we deem acceptable as an American society/financial system? Is there a reason the 1.0% should as much wealth as as the Top 10% combined? Should the Top 10% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%?
Click to expand...
I think this thread illustrates well that there is no "american society/financial system". There are a bunch of americans, each of whom have different opinions. Some think that it's not acceptable. Some think that it is.
 
SoonerAviator said:
and dole it out to the wealthiest individuals at a much higher rate than those on who's backs directly resulted in the increased productivity.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. That sounds like a line from 1917 Russia. I don't think those workers have stripes on their backs, nor do I think increased productivity has happened because they worked harder. Rather, productivity increases have resulted from increased and improved automation, tooling, DFM, line optimization, etc., etc. If you want to reward those whose efforts increased the productivity, look toward the ones who designed automation, tooling, and so forth.


SoonerAviator said:
where the line-level employees are struggling to get $15/hr, but we aren't allowed to give raises or step-promotions because the top executives have mandated such purely based off of what the market will see in the impact to the financials.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could at least remove the chains so those line-level employees could leave and find new jobs.
 
172andyou said:
I think this thread illustrates well that there is no "american society/financial system". There are a bunch of americans, each of whom have different opinions. Some think that it's not acceptable. Some think that it is.
Click to expand...
Right, but if we look down the road 40 years, and the middle class continues its decline and has all-but-disappeared, you'll have a few hundred thousand people doing "really well", and a few hundred million people who are paycheck-to-paycheck, more people on gov't assistance than not. That is one of the things that starts the fall of an empire, in my opinion. So should there be a balance than maintains a healthy middle class?
 
Half Fast said:
Oh brother. That sounds like a line from 1917 Russia. I don't think those workers have stripes on their backs, nor do I think increased productivity has happened because they worked harder. Rather, productivity increases have resulted from increased and improved automation, tooling, DFM, line optimization, etc., etc. If you want to reward those whose efforts increased the productivity, look toward the ones who designed automation, tooling, and so forth.




Maybe you could at least remove the chains so those line-level employees could leave and find new jobs.
Click to expand...
It's not slavery or indentured servitude, nor am I comparing it to such. However, it's incredibly short-sighted to pretend that improvements to processes don't occur because of ideas and procedures set in place by line-level employees. It's not always some white-collar engineer jerking of in AutoCad to design an efficient manufacturing cell. Sometimes employees are the reason for the productivity increase. Sometimes businesses pay for lack of compensation through extremely high-turnover, but they continue sending profits outside of the business because the shareholders are happy. Line level employees often don't have skills or means to find higher-paying work. A large portion of that is on the worker, but there has to be a point where we admit that a large portion of the American workforce just doesn't have the aptitude for highly-skilled work. You can't take most guys who have worked in shipping/receiving for 20 years and send them to school to be Engineers or Linemen . . . or Pilots.

So you pay them as little as possible, even if the company is having record-breaking results. Even if that does nothing for the little guy, but the CEO who gets paid a couple-hundred thousand in stock each year gets a nice bump. Buy hey, Ricky in Shipping has a 401K and saw it jump up $200 this quarter because your company posted a dividend/stock jump so Ricky's mutual fund increased a tiny bit.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Is there a reason the 1.0% should as much wealth as as the Top 10% combined? Should the Top 10% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%?
Click to expand...

You're not considering what percentage of wealth was created by the top 1% (or 0.1%,or whatever), and what percentage they are entitled to keep of what they created. And anyway, is that for us to say? As @2-Bit Speed said, if they've committed crimes then prosecute them. Otherwise, seeking to "re-distrubute" their wealth is nothing more than envy.

SoonerAviator said:
I believe something like 30% of the Top 1% Wealthiest Americans inherited the wealth from their family.
Click to expand...

The way you phrased that makes it sound like the top 1% inherited all of their wealth. I don't think that's the case. The average inheritance of the top 1% is only about $700,000. Less than 1/4 of US millionaires received any inheritance at all.

172andyou said:
I think this thread illustrates well that there is no "american society/financial system". There are a bunch of americans, each of whom have different opinions.
Click to expand...

Well, that sounds downright American, doesn't it?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Sometimes employees are the reason for the productivity increase.
Click to expand...

And sometimes they receive awards, bonuses, promotions, etc., for those ideas.

SoonerAviator said:
Line level employees often don't have skills or means to find higher-paying work.
Click to expand...

Then I'd say they're being paid what they're worth. Should a company pay more for raw materials because its profits are up, or should it pay the market price?

SoonerAviator said:
A large portion of that is on the worker, but there has to be a point where we admit that a large portion of the American workforce just doesn't have the aptitude for highly-skilled work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you consider a "large portion" but many people do quite well in trades or even unskilled jobs, but even if they don't I fail to see how it would justify a re-distribution of wealth by taking it from those who created the wealth.

SoonerAviator said:
Buy hey, Ricky in Shipping has a 401K and saw it jump up $200 this quarter...
Click to expand...

Y'know, a few years ago I paid a business visit to Bell Helicopter in Dallas. Walking down the hallway with one of the Bell engineers, he pointed out to me an elderly gentleman who was sweeping the floor. From what he told me, that janitor had been with the company for over 40 years and had been receiving profit sharing, etc., and investing in the 401k. He was worth several million. So I suspect Ricky in Shipping can do just fine; whether he does is up to him.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Is there a reason the 1.0% should as much wealth as as the Top 10% combined?
Click to expand...
Is there some reason that they shouldn't? They create far more wealth than they keep, much of it going to the middle class in the form of jobs and investment returns in their retirement plans.

SoonerAviator said:
They're often referred to as a CFO/CEO. You take profits and decide what to do with them.
Click to expand...
Those at the top didn't get there from salary, they got their because the businesses they started, and/or ran, increased significantly in value because it succeeded in the market, hired employees, and provided goods and services which benefitted millions.

Do we re-invest in the company by giving raises or other benefits? Do we do a stock buy-back? Do we declare a quarterly dividend?
Click to expand...
All of which is distributing the wealth to others who aren't the CFO/CEO.

SoonerAviator said:
Right, but if we look down the road 40 years, and the middle class continues its decline and has all-but-disappeared, you'll have a few hundred thousand people doing "really well", and a few hundred million people who are paycheck-to-paycheck, more people on gov't assistance than not.
Click to expand...
That assumes that the standard of living of the bottom quintile is static. It isn't. It continues to increase. Even if everyone is "rich", there's still a bottom quintile.

What is important is that the bottom quintile's standard of living continues to increase and that mobility, between the quintiles, remains robust.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The part of that I think you are omitting is that the size of the middle still shrank. So some did move up, but a similar portion moved down into the lower-class. So is it better to have a smaller middle class as long as the lower and upper class grow? Eventually you'll have a plutocracy where you have the wealthy and the poor with few in the middle-ground.
Click to expand...
Consider a not insignificant part of the population is in the position of my parents as well. Retired, in their mid-80's. Living off MRDs and SS and still putting money back in the markets because they've done all the traveling and have all the things they want. They spend very little money.
 
Half Fast said:
You're not considering what percentage of wealth was created by the top 1% (or 0.1%,or whatever), and what percentage they are entitled to keep of what they created. And anyway, is that for us to say? As @2-Bit Speed said, if they've committed crimes then prosecute them. Otherwise, seeking to "re-distrubute" their wealth is nothing more than envy.



The way you phrased that makes it sound like the top 1% inherited all of their wealth. I don't think that's the case. The average inheritance of the top 1% is only about $700,000. Less than 1/4 of US millionaires received any inheritance at all.



Well, that sounds downright American, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
It was 21% per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not 30%. Here is a key point from a UBS report:

- Of the 137 people in the global study who achieved billionaire status in the 12-month study period, 53 of them inherited $150.8 billion collectively, more than the $140.7 billion that was earned by the 84 new self-made billionaires in the same time period, the UBS study says.

Again, I didn't say anything about taking their existing wealth and redistributing it. I'm sure that's a perfect solution for some people, but not one I'm remotely interested in. However, there are all sorts of gov't policy which aims to limit earnings or transfers of wealth. The Estate Tax is one such example aimed at inheritances that doesn't come into play for most US citizens, but is certainly a concern for the upper-earners. Entire tax strategies are devised in order to limit the amount of impact taxes and such will have upon death. Again, I don't want this to be so limited into thinking this is just about Jeff Bezos wiping is rear with $100 bills while flying to his private island. The ownership of a lot of that wealth in the richest part of the population is in equities. There is a lot of institutional control there. What Warren Buffet decides affects entire industries, entire classes of workers both wealthy and poor. Should that ownership continue to be amassed in the hands of the few? Again, it's philosophical.
 
Cluemeister said:
Don't forget the top 1% is a fluid group. Despite the popular images of fat cats sitting in 1920's tuxedos, lighting cigars with $100 bills, people move in and out of this group regularly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, especially when those valuations are heavily tied to market equities. It's why there's an article every other week discussing whether Elon or Bezos is the "richest man".
 
Larry in TN said:
Is there some reason that they shouldn't? They create far more wealth than they keep, much of it going to the middle class in the form of jobs and investment returns in their retirement plans.


Those at the top didn't get there from salary, they got their because the businesses they started, and/or ran, increased significantly in value because it succeeded in the market, hired employees, and provided goods and services which benefitted millions.


All of which is distributing the wealth to others who aren't the CFO/CEO.


That assumes that the standard of living of the bottom quintile is static. It isn't. It continues to increase. Even if everyone is "rich", there's still a bottom quintile.

What is important is that the bottom quintile's standard of living continues to increase and that mobility, between the quintiles, remains robust.
Click to expand...
If the CxO is compensated with stock shares (which we have already discussed has become common since the late-80's), they are in fact distributing wealth to themselves. They have an incentive to send money to shareholders, because they are a significant shareholder and their compensation is often tied to stock price metrics.
 
SoonerAviator said:
- Of the 137 people in the global study who achieved billionaire status in the 12-month study period,
Click to expand...

The post I replied to spoke of the top 1%. Do you realize what a teeny, tiny percent 137 people comprise? And frankly, I really don't care what they inherited; that was up to whoever owned the wealth to begin with.

Isn't my wealth mine, to do with as I choose? If I choose to bequeath it to my children, or to my church, or to Biker Mamas of America, whose business is it but my own?

SoonerAviator said:
However, there are all sorts of gov't policy which aims to limit earnings or transfers of wealth. The Estate Tax is one such example aimed at inheritances that doesn't come into play for most US citizens, but is certainly a concern for the upper-earners. Entire tax strategies are devised in order to limit the amount of impact taxes and such will have upon death.
Click to expand...

I can't discuss taxes without violating the ROC, and I'd prefer not to have the thread locked.

SoonerAviator said:
Should that ownership continue to be amassed in the hands of the few? Again, it's philosophical.
Click to expand...

Philosophically, certainly. Those few should be free to own whatever they choose, and they should be free to do as they like with whatever they own. If they acquired ownership through criminal action, then prosecute. Otherwise, champion their freedom as you would your own.
 
SoonerAviator said:
They're often referred to as a CFO/CEO. You take profits and decide what to do with them. Do we re-invest in the company by giving raises or other benefits? Do we do a stock buy-back? Do we declare a quarterly dividend?
Click to expand...
What you are saying here has NOTHING to do with wages.

Wages are driven by market forces, not by CEO directives.

What I think you are failing to account for is that the 7% that @Half Fast is referring to who moved upwards out of the middle class did so because THEY were the ones driving the productivity gains. The people in R&D, manufacturing engineering, automation systems, process improvement, and similar areas are the people who improve productivity. The capital used to fund the investment in productivity gains comes from the shareholders.

Think about it for a moment. Consider a machine operator who runs a machine that can product 50 widgets per shift; he works 40 hours per week. After 3 years of development and $2M of investment, the manufacturing engineering team installs a new machine that they designed which outputs 150 widgets per shift. They train the operator, and a week later he is running a new machine and producing three times as many widgets....but he has gained no new skills, he is not working any more hours, and the difficulty of his position has not increased. The manufacturing engineering team, however, has created a whole bunch of value in their machine design, and now hires an additional junior engineer to maintain the new machine. The engineer who came up with the concepts at the core of the machine gets promoted and gets a healthy bonus, pushing up his income. The investors get the ROI for the $2M that they invested, and it is returned over the next several years. The VP who suggested and approved the project gets a slightly larger bonus, and the CEO gets to keep his/her job because the company hit their earnings targets.

This is how it works in the real world.
 
Larry in TN said:
That assumes that the standard of living of the bottom quintile is static. It isn't. It continues to increase. Even if everyone is "rich", there's still a bottom quintile.

What is important is that the bottom quintile's standard of living continues to increase and that mobility, between the quintiles, remains robust.
Click to expand...
This needs to be repeated over and over again until it sticks. The fortunes of the top 0.01% are irrelevant. What matters is how the bottom half are doing relative to how they were doing a decade ago.
 
SoonerAviator said:
It was 21% per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not 30%. Here is a key point from a UBS report:

- Of the 137 people in the global study who achieved billionaire status in the 12-month study period, 53 of them inherited $150.8 billion collectively
Click to expand...
Sounds like they are inheriting ownership in their family businesses. What's wrong with that?

The Estate Tax is one such example aimed at inheritances that doesn't come into play for most US citizens, but is certainly a concern for the upper-earners.
Click to expand...
An envy-driven tax that leads the wealthy to use their capital inefficiently in order to minimize their tax burden. Society would be better off if those incentives were removed and the wealthy deployed their wealth efficiently where it would produce more growth and wealth for many.

SoonerAviator said:
If the CxO is compensated with stock shares (which we have already discussed has become common since the late-80's), they are in fact distributing wealth to themselves.
Click to expand...
Only a fraction of it. Some of it comes to me, and those like me, with retirement plans and other investments.

The company has already earned the money so the value of the company has already increased. When money is distributed, the value of each share drops in proportion to the distribution.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What you are saying here has NOTHING to do with wages.

Wages are driven by market forces, not by CEO directives.

What I think you are failing to account for is that the 7% that @Half Fast is referring to who moved upwards out of the middle class did so because THEY were the ones driving the productivity gains. The people in R&D, manufacturing engineering, automation systems, process improvement, and similar areas are the people who improve productivity. The capital used to fund the investment in productivity gains comes from the shareholders.

Think about it for a moment. Consider a machine operator who runs a machine that can product 50 widgets per shift; he works 40 hours per week. After 3 years of development and $2M of investment, the manufacturing engineering team installs a new machine that they designed which outputs 150 widgets per shift. They train the operator, and a week later he is running a new machine and producing three times as many widgets....but he has gained no new skills, he is not working any more hours, and the difficulty of his position has not increased. The manufacturing engineering team, however, has created a whole bunch of value in their machine design, and now hires an additional junior engineer to maintain the new machine. The engineer who came up with the concepts at the core of the machine gets promoted and gets a healthy bonus, pushing up his income. The investors get the ROI for the $2M that they invested, and it is returned over the next several years. The VP who suggested and approved the project gets a slightly larger bonus, and the CEO gets to keep his/her job because the company hit their earnings targets.

This is how it works in the real world.
Click to expand...
OR . . . the machinist you hired has done this stuff before. He comes into the operation and says "if you machine the Z-axis with this tool, it'll cut 5-minutes of machining time off of each widget". Productivity and throughput increases, the company sells more widgets. More profits. You could give the machinist a bonus, but instead you give the CEO a bonus because he "did so great". THAT'S ALSO HOW IT WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD. I have seen it in manufacturing at places I have worked, and places I have consulted in. I have also seen great results from Engineers and Plant Managers who get rewarded (or overlooked). It's not a universal truth that those at the top "just earned it". Sometimes there is a lot of timing and good fortune that contributes to the success of a business and an individual.
 
Larry in TN said:
Sounds like they are inheriting ownership in their family businesses. What's wrong with that?


An envy-driven tax that leads the wealthy to use their capital inefficiently in order to minimize their tax burden. Society would be better off if those incentives were removed and the wealthy deployed their wealth efficiently where it would produce more growth and wealth for many.


Only a fraction of it. Some of it comes to me, and those like me, with retirement plans and other investments.

The company has already earned the money so the value of the company has already increased. When money is distributed, the value of each share drops in proportion to the distribution.
Click to expand...
Again, it's self-serving when those with control of the purse strings decide to line their own pockets, even though it's "only a fraction of it". The front line guy making $15/hr can't afford to buy much stock or 401K contributions, but he thanks the CFO for the couple of pennies added to his retirement, lol.

Edit for clarification: I'm not saying that CFOs are often ignoring the little guy, or so greedy that they choose to reward themselves over the blue collar guys. I'm just saying sometimes the profits come before the workforce, and those who benefit the most are the upper-class citizens whose wealth is derived largely from stock performance. Moving the profits away from the lower levels.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
OR . . . the machinist you hired has done this stuff before. He comes into the operation and says "if you machine the Z-axis with this tool, it'll cut 5-minutes of machining time off of each widget".
Click to expand...
Yes, machinists do this. That's why experienced and/or certified machinists and welders get paid more than assemblers or non-skilled machine operators.
 
CEO's don't just walk in to a company and say "I'm your CEO, give me wads of money". Generally speaking, they've already proven they have a talent for increasing profits. They've likely spent decades proving themselves before they make the huge salaries. Not that luck doesn't have a lot to do with it as well.
 
Very interesting thread and perspectives.

My grandfather drove a truck all his life. They lived modestly. Lived in the same house they bought in 1969 drove a stripped down chevy pickup truck and retired at 70 and did nothing but mow his grass for the next 16 years very comfortably. The keeping up with the Joneses removes alot of people from the class they currently abide in.

I have no issue with someone that slugs it out and builds a successful business and lives their best life whether it's a guy with a lawnmower that makes it happen or the top 1%.

One of the most wonderful things about America is the fact you can shoot your best shot whenever you feel the urge. For some people thats factory work for some driving a truck for some building a multimillion/billion dollar business. I will never begrudge anyone because they are more successful than me. In fact I like to hear their story if they are willing to share.
 
Kitch said:
Very interesting thread and perspectives.

My grandfather drove a truck all his life. They lived modestly. Lived in the same house they bought in 1969 drove a stripped down chevy pickup truck and retired at 70 and did nothing but mow his grass for the next 16 years very comfortably. The keeping up with the Joneses removes alot of people from the class they currently abide in.

I have no issue with someone that slugs it out and builds a successful business and lives their best life whether it's a guy with a lawnmower that makes it happen or the top 1%.

One of the most wonderful things about America is the fact you can shoot your best shot whenever you feel the urge. For some people thats factory work for some driving a truck for some building a multimillion/billion dollar business. I will never begrudge anyone because they are more successful than me. In fact I like to hear their story if they are willing to share.
Click to expand...
I agree. Frankly, I think I'm now more successful than I deserve. But there were decades in the past that I provided far more value than my compensation reflected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top