Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No one said any different. In fact, I've noted that *many* people take these opportunities. And it's not a matter of "slacking." But when someone takes the stance that they have no choices at all, then all that's left for them is victim hood. Doesn't mean life isn't hard -- hell, I lived a year in rural NY with no heat or running water. But until someone sees options, at the very least sucky options, that's a way out. Those working two or three jobs--which I have done as well--aren't slackers (why would you think that???) but rather exercising their options as they see them.
I didn't say that those working 2 or 3 jobs are slackers; I quite clearly differentiated between the two groups.
quote:
From there, they have better options. They are stuck in the $/hr model, and so can only add more hours to get more dollars. But there are only so many hours. Only when they change paradigms, at least in part, can they leverage their time and free their income from the time clock.
How about just paying them more money per hour, so they can get the same amount of money without having to work so much? Or the pressure can be taken off from the other side in the form of lower prices, lower rents, lower utilities. There are plenty of things that can be done at the societal level. For example, if everyone currently paying a mortgage on their home had their accounts marked "paid in full" and no longer had to worry about mortgage payments, that would be a tremendous boost to the economy. There are plenty of little things like that which could be done to take the pressure off the working class. So what if the banks have to eat the costs? It's about time they started pulling their weight for a change.
I know you're determined to be all Don Quixote on this. But you're enshrining several assumptions.
First, I totally hear you on the wage issue. Henry Ford and Peter Drucker got it right. Workers are a resource, and they are also markets. Once again, preaching to the choir. Yup, plenty of short-sighted business practice out there. AND there's plenty of forward-thinking new-business-paradigm practice out there. When all stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, workers, are winners in the deal, business can thrive, for everyone's benefit.
But second, you're totally missing the point. Those workers would *still* be stuck with an income ceiling, because they would *still* be caught in the "time is money" trap, trading hours for dollars. Only when getting outside of that box can they get what they really want -- to do meaning work and to spend much of life enjoying the fruits of that work, rather than working most of life and then finally retiring on whatever meager savings they've put together. It doesn't have to be that way, unless you *insist* on remaining in the time is money trap and remaining at the mercy of others.
Yes, but you still seem to be overlooking these "others" who they're at the mercy of. These are the ones who are the problem, not the ones who just want to do honest work at a livable wage. You say it's all about choices and suggesting that people "choose" to be caught in a trap, but what about the choices of these "others"? Okay, so maybe they're not as clever or ambitious as others, but there's no reason they should be "trapped" just because they want to do an honest day's work. There are measures which can be taken to ease the pressure on this segment of the population.
quote:
When I was struggling, no heat, no running water, working three jobs, beat up small old trailer, living hand to mouth, moving money from creditor to creditor instead of making any headway, I had a series of epiphanies. And the first was, that to get ahead in the system I was living in, I would have to better understand and to use the advantages of that system. But all those advantages went to capital. So--dirt poor, overworked, broke . . . I somehow would have to start gathering capital. Note--not "but I can't do that," but "OK...somehow, I have to start doing this. So...how?"
It doesn't even have to be money. That's among the key economic misunderstandings--it's about resources. For example, today I live in a gorgeous country estate that I probably couldn't afford to purchase--and it's all paid for. How? While struggling in this freezing, burnout cornfield I had bought (with credit) to call "home," I asked the state forester for help (they do it for free) and advice and bought 3000 trees (not all at once) for a dime a tree, 12" plants, and planting them myself, with a shovel. Today, I live in a beautiful garden-ish meadow surrounded by a lush park and forest, with 100 fruit and nut trees, berry patches, vineyards, and veggie gardens. Cost? A few hundred dollars, spent over time. Value of that timber when mature? Over a half million dollars, if I choose to log it (or more likely thin it). Yeah, it could be harmed in a storm, fire, etc., but point is, life is good, simply by realizing I had options, even then.
Yes, I've heard of other success stories as well. Famous Amos just baked some cookies one day and became...Famous Amos. I don't deny that such successes do happen, and I'm not even arguing against that. Some people do very well, and some people don't. But then again, not everyone actually wants a large country estate. A lot of people are perfectly content living on less, but that doesn't mean they have to be trapped.
quote:
Your banking point is just silly. First, it would be stealing from private citizens, and second, it would undermine the banking system, meaning the ready access you enjoy to safe deposits, checking, credit cards, loans, and the ability to get a mortgage would be gone or severely limited. The economy would grind to a halt. Remember the crash in 2007/2008? How a banking confidence crisis undermined the economy? That's what you're prescribing. Homeowners would get a windfall, and then be unemployed. The poor would be fucked.
What do you do when there are no jobs? Guess what....there's another option . . .
That's how economies work. Resources are better allocated through products and services.
It's the banks who create the trap, and they're the ones who will need to be dealt with. Housing is one of those traps, as people have to spend an inordinate amount of their income just to have a place to live. All the banks did was drive up the prices, and the only reason for the crash was because people realized that these houses weren't actually worth as much as the banks said they were.
|
RE: Why are so few people wealthy? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread