Depression and Millionairs

[Zierro]

Why should the wealthly help anyone but themselves? Or help anyone beyond those directly around them (family, friends)?

 

 

 

I don't know. Kind of the neighborly thing to do. Usually, I don't care about people at all but when it comes to necessities I think at least something should be done.

[Sam]

Possessions are't needed to be comfortable in life.

[BlueLancer]

 

Here's my personal stance, while yes, everyone should donate, no one has to. If you worked your [wagon] off your whole life, wouldn't you want to enjoy the fruits of your labor? Whether it's 40,000, 400,000, 4,000,000, or even 40,000,000 dollars, it's yuor money, keep it. And actually, a lot do give to charity, simply because it's a tax write off, and taxes are a [bleep] for rich people. You usually see people on TV who don't give to charity, but many do, Warren Buffet for one. I think he donated a whole hell of a lot to Africa.

 

 

 

Warren Buffett is giving the major portion of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which researches AIDS, cancers, etc... Once he dies.[1] Bill Gates is likewise going to put forward the mass of his wealth in the foundation, and will only leave a few million dollars to his immediate offspring.

 

 

 

It's funny how the same people, teens that tell beggars asking for some coins in a java game to go .... themselves, are the same people who claim if they made 40 million -real- dollars, would be the first in line to donate it all into charity.

 

 

 

I can't say it's impossible, but at least when I came across an inheritance 8 years ago, my life changed entirely. It wasn't in the millions like figures mentioned here, but a significant sum with a house property that I split 50% with my brother. I started investing the money, and so should everyone who comes across any significant money.

 

 

 

You will help many more people during the course of your life, if you just put aside the money you have & donate the annual interest to charity (if you like donating).

 

 

 

Take a realistic sum for example that some people here on tip.it will likely inherit once older.. About 100-200k dollars. Even in a 9% annual fund, you'll be giving up to $18,000 dollars a year into charity for the rest of your life (up to about 70-100 years from now depending on your health). Ignoring inflation that's over $1.2 million during your lifespan.

 

 

 

It would make no logical or mathematical sense to just throw it all away at once if you truly want to help people.

[mistywerty]

I'd say that most millionaires earned their money fairly. It's their choice what they do with their money; that's the way life works.

 

 

 

Anway, most rich people DO donate to charities. Take Bill Gates for instance, he set up his own charity, donated his fortunes to it and lives off less money than most of us do now :roll:

[Ginger_Warrior]

People n here no my stance on capitalism well enough.

 

 

 

What annoys me at the moment are the managers of the Big 3 in America. Why should the US Fed bail them out? Those guys have earned millions in their lives through bad financial management. I dare someone to try and argue either of those three have deserved the amount they've got when they've been so negligent to the state of their business and the future state of the economy.

 

 

 

There is no crisis of capitalism here. This is capitalism. The weakest companies die, and with them, hundreds of workers get laid off. That's why the money should be invested into public work schemes, to keep the builders in a job, to keep primary industries running, to provide jobs in the public sector to those who will lose them over the next year, to put money in their pockets, to keep the tills rolling on High Street.

 

 

 

I don't see why millions of tax payers money should go to three managers who have proved their incompetence already. So they can go make the same [bleep] up again?

[BlueLancer]

People n here no my stance on capitalism well enough.

 

 

 

What annoys me at the moment are the managers of the Big 3 in America. Why should the US Fed bail them out? Those guys have earned millions in their lives through bad financial management. I dare someone to try and argue either of those three have deserved the amount they've got when they've been so negligent to the state of their business and the future state of the economy.

 

 

 

There is no crisis of capitalism here. This is capitalism. The weakest companies die, and with them, hundreds of workers get laid off. That's why the money should be invested into public work schemes, to keep the builders in a job, to keep primary industries running, to provide jobs in the public sector to those who will lose them over the next year, to put money in their pockets, to keep the tills rolling on High Street.

 

 

 

I don't see why millions of tax payers money should go to three managers who have proved their incompetence already. So they can go make the same [bleep] up again?

 

 

 

I don't know why more people don't just simply agree with the above.

 

 

 

The current situation is exactly what capitalism is supposed to do; Weed out the incompetent companies. Those 3 car companies are obviously creating a huge inventory of low-selling and some of them massively petrol-consuming cars, if there is no buyer market for them, why should they be bailed out?

 

 

 

Try this way... A company hired 5,000 people to create tourist souvenirs for the Beijing 2008 olympics. The products range from handmade mugs to flags, t-shirts and fan products. The pricing has been solely designed for the wealthy tourists visiting the olympics. The entire business depends on them.

 

 

 

Once the olympics are over and the buyer market disappears, why would those 5,000 people keep making mugs and t-shirts when there is no longer anybody to buy them? Why on earth would the government sponsor those people to keep making objects that no longer have a viable market?

[Mylez]

I'd say that most millionaires earned their money fairly. It's their choice what they do with their money; that's the way life works.

 

 

 

Anway, most rich people DO donate to charities. Take Bill Gates for instance, he set up his own charity, donated his fortunes to it and lives off less money than most of us do now :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, but I wouldn't say *most* as alot don't. :-#

 

 

 

This is a tricky subject, and will naturally cause alot of controversy due to current events. :|

[oegly41]

You don't earn millions by working hard. With honest labour, you will not be able to earn more than two or three USQ (United States Quid) throughout your life, which you need to keep alive in certain parts of the world. If you want more than this, you need to make investments, which doesn't require effort at all. It is just about winning the "nature and nurture"-lottery, and then being in the right place at the right time. There is no definable standard for what someone "deserves", so no-one can say that they deserve wealth any more than others. Defining people as "Hard Working" or "Lazy" is completely ignorant.

 

 

 

[rant]

 

And could you stop referring to "Our Nation"? I am sick of Americans acting like they own the internet and don't know the difference between "Our Nation" and "Our World". (Not bashing every American here, but a surprisingly large amount.)

 

[/rant]

[purfishx]

Honestly, because its their money and they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it.

 

 

 

Why would you care about the other guy when you're living the life, buying whatever you want and having a ball?

 

 

 

Meh, I know I wouldn't care.

[angryjoe]

investments, which doesn't require effort at all. It is just about winning the "nature and nurture"-lottery, and then being in the right place at the right time.

 

I requires alot of effort actually you total cretin.

[Quoi_Tu]

[hide=]

People n here no my stance on capitalism well enough.

 

 

 

What annoys me at the moment are the managers of the Big 3 in America. Why should the US Fed bail them out? Those guys have earned millions in their lives through bad financial management. I dare someone to try and argue either of those three have deserved the amount they've got when they've been so negligent to the state of their business and the future state of the economy.

 

 

 

There is no crisis of capitalism here. This is capitalism. The weakest companies die, and with them, hundreds of workers get laid off. That's why the money should be invested into public work schemes, to keep the builders in a job, to keep primary industries running, to provide jobs in the public sector to those who will lose them over the next year, to put money in their pockets, to keep the tills rolling on High Street.

 

 

 

I don't see why millions of tax payers money should go to three managers who have proved their incompetence already. So they can go make the same [bleep] up again?

[/hide]

 

I don't know why more people don't just simply agree with the above.

 

 

 

The current situation is exactly what capitalism is supposed to do; Weed out the incompetent companies. Those 3 car companies are obviously creating a huge inventory of low-selling and some of them massively petrol-consuming cars, if there is no buyer market for them, why should they be bailed out?

 

 

 

Try this way... A company hired 5,000 people to create tourist souvenirs for the Beijing 2008 olympics. The products range from handmade mugs to flags, t-shirts and fan products. The pricing has been solely designed for the wealthy tourists visiting the olympics. The entire business depends on them.

 

 

 

Once the olympics are over and the buyer market disappears, why would those 5,000 people keep making mugs and t-shirts when there is no longer anybody to buy them? Why on earth would the government sponsor those people to keep making objects that no longer have a viable market?

 

 

 

Following ideas of capitalism, the US shouldn't have a significant financial market at all right now. Without the financial market our economy would have crashed and brought down many other countries with it. There is a good reason we don't follow pure capitalism.

 

 

 

That example is akin to the government paying an ice cream truck to stay in business in the winter. It doesn't make any sense. To expand the allegorical ice cream truck to the auto situation, the government is thinking of keeping it in business because it also sells hot chocolate.

[l0rd]

What your asking is to do some extreme taxing on people who make over a certain amount of income.....which is outrageous.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if your talking about a voluntary type of money-giving, well that already exists and is called charity.

[snowager286]

You have no idea how hard it is to be Hannah Montana. She is manipulated by people every day, working hard, singing classes, acting classes, and has millions of fans whom she has to be sure to appeal to.

 

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers?

 

 

 

I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement.

 

 

 

 

I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see...

 

 

 

-Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions

 

-Kick started a singing career, making billions

 

 

 

Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers.

 

 

 

You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege?

 

 

 

Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.)

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see...

 

 

 

-Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions

 

-Kick started a singing career, making billions

 

 

 

Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers.

 

 

 

You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege?

 

 

 

Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.)

 

 

 

People pay for the entertainment she provides. There is no all powerful wealthy being who assigns salaries to people; people assign salaries to people. Don't like Miley Cirus? Then don't buy any of her products. Or go one step further and don't support Disney in any way. A coal miner does not have the same skill set that an investor has. There in lies the difference in amount of money earned.

 

 

 

Teachers are not required to have anything more than B.A. No public school will require more than that. I don't know where you got the idea they had to have a Master's.

[snowager286]

I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see...

 

 

 

-Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions

 

-Kick started a singing career, making billions

 

 

 

Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers.

 

 

 

You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege?

 

 

 

Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.)

 

 

 

People pay for the entertainment she provides. There is no all powerful wealthy being who assigns salaries to people; people assign salaries to people. Don't like Miley Cirus? Then don't buy any of her products. Or go one step further and don't support Disney in any way. A coal miner does not have the same skill set that an investor has. There in lies the difference in amount of money earned.

 

 

 

Teachers are not required to have anything more than B.A. No public school will require more than that. I don't know where you got the idea they had to have a Master's.

 

 

 

If you want to get the 55k salary you need a masters, plus, teachers with just a B.A tend to get the harder positions in the school( teaching the low end students and such). I know this because both of my parents were teachers, and my sister is one.(oh and note that the teaching conditions vary between states.) The point I was trying to get at about the coal miners and such, was that they did more to deserve their pay the many of the super rich. Not that coal miners should receive millions, but that nobody deserves to make millions.(that came off way more communist then I intended, I don't mean that nobody should be a millionaire but that nobody has honestly done enough work to justify keeping that much money for themselves.)

[GGunitfan10]

life is fair to a point

 

 

 

Hannah Montanna, in the example above, is not some lucky tart that got millions overnight. She allows herself to be manipulated into an object that the people will admire, and is paid a fraction, just as the companies that support and brought her up.

 

 

 

Coprorate CEOs are brillant people, that look at all the facts and know when to make the right investments. They have been harmed in this recession too, as many banks, and as a result corporations, are feeling financial strain. But why should they give out billions of their money when they might need that security down the road. Fortune is not a peice of elitesm or greed, it's security.

 

Hate to tell it to you, but the people that make the money usually deserve it. And the people that don't make the money, in most cases, don't. Luck of course plays a role, but not as often as you might think.

 

Oh really?

 

Then how come the big three are begging for a bailout? Because while the other countries realized that people want fuel efficient cars, The CEO's had a brilliant idea to make more hummers and SUV's. If we would have stopped making those and made more compact and more fuel efficient cars that wouldn't have happened.

[BlueLancer]

 

Then how come the big three are begging for a bailout? Because while the other countries realized that people want fuel efficient cars, The CEO's had a brilliant idea to make more hummers and SUV's. If we would have stopped making those and made more compact and more fuel efficient cars that wouldn't have happened.

 

 

 

Those are just three CEO's of major american corporations.

 

 

 

If it wasn't for the entepreneurship of most original american companies' CEO's, your parents wouldn't even have a job in any industry to begin with. There would be no viable public jobs either due to a lack of tax income.

 

 

 

I just find it funny how today's young people are so against corporations and hold them as the origin of all evil. You (not just you, everybody) would have nothing in your current life if it wasn't for corporations providing you services & providing the government with tax revenue.

 

 

 

Before corporations started providing jobs to the population, your relatives were farming, gathering diary products from livestock and hunting wild game less than a hundred years ago. Even under communism in DDR/Soviet Union, private property was scarce; Long shifts in smoggy factories for nominal food pay. Unless they were noblemen, merchants or royalty; your ancestors had likely next to no viable property and spent their entire lives in hard physical labour.

 

 

 

Sure, it may be questionable some of them make up to 500 times more money just by salaries (not even counting bonuses or stock options) than their workers. Some companies are already putting salary caps on the top executives. That still doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded. Top jobs are regulated by demand and supply just like everything else. If company X wont pay a skilled CEO $5 million a year, another ambitious company will pay him $6M a year to secure him.

[snowager286]

 

Then how come the big three are begging for a bailout? Because while the other countries realized that people want fuel efficient cars, The CEO's had a brilliant idea to make more hummers and SUV's. If we would have stopped making those and made more compact and more fuel efficient cars that wouldn't have happened.

 

 

 

Those are just three CEO's of major american corporations.

 

 

 

If it wasn't for the entepreneurship of most original american companies' CEO's, your parents wouldn't even have a job in any industry to begin with. There would be no viable public jobs either due to a lack of tax income.

 

 

 

I just find it funny how today's young people are so against corporations and hold them as the origin of all evil. You (not just you, everybody) would have nothing in your current life if it wasn't for corporations providing you services & providing the government with tax revenue.

 

 

 

Before corporations started providing jobs to the population, your relatives were farming, gathering diary products from livestock and hunting wild game less than a hundred years ago. Even under communism in DDR/Soviet Union, private property was scarce; Long shifts in smoggy factories for nominal food pay. Unless they were noblemen, merchants or royalty; your ancestors had likely next to no viable property and spent their entire lives in hard physical labour.

 

 

 

Sure, it may be questionable some of them make up to 500 times more money just by salaries (not even counting bonuses or stock options) than their workers. Some companies are already putting salary caps on the top executives. That still doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded. Top jobs are regulated by demand and supply just like everything else. If company X wont pay a skilled CEO $5 million a year, another ambitious company will pay him $6M a year to secure him.

 

 

 

So you think it was simply industry alone that changed the situation of our ancestors? If you do, your dead wrong. For most of Industry's early life it exploited workers in horrific ways. Children worked for 16 hour shifts for little pay, and adults did not fair much better. Orphans performed dangerous jobs that could kill them for little more then privilege to sleep in tiny beds and eat disgusting food. The fact is that only through the hard work of trade unions and legislation have we reached this level. You cannot deny that corporations don't really care about their workers, as long as they, can make a profit they don't care about the condition of their workers.

 

 

 

The problem with your statement that the CEO's salaries are determinded by supply and demand is that often enough, CEOs raise their own salaries.(to disgusting levels) Why exactly do these CEOs of failed auto companies deserve more then their employees? What qualifies them for their atrociously massive salaries, except for the loose concept of "hard work"?

[Quoi_Tu]

If you want to get the 55k salary you need a masters, plus, teachers with just a B.A tend to get the harder positions in the school( teaching the low end students and such). I know this because both of my parents were teachers, and my sister is one.(oh and note that the teaching conditions vary between states.) The point I was trying to get at about the coal miners and such, was that they did more to deserve their pay the many of the super rich. Not that coal miners should receive millions, but that nobody deserves to make millions.(that came off way more communist then I intended, I don't mean that nobody should be a millionaire but that nobody has honestly done enough work to justify keeping that much money for themselves.)

 

 

 

Unfortuantely, starting as a teacher in NC with a master's is only 40K.

 

 

 

They don't deserve what they earn? I know for a fact I will make more than the average person because I plan to go to graduate school. Factory workers are rarely required to have anything more than high school. Why do they deserve to make the same as someone like me who will be in school until I'm 26?

 

 

 

 

So you think it was simply industry alone that changed the situation of our ancestors? If you do, your dead wrong. For most of Industry's early life it exploited workers in horrific ways. Children worked for 16 hour shifts for little pay, and adults did not fair much better. Orphans performed dangerous jobs that could kill them for little more then privilege to sleep in tiny beds and eat disgusting food. The fact is that only through the hard work of trade unions and legislation have we reached this level. You cannot deny that corporations don't really care about their workers, as long as they, can make a profit they don't care about the condition of their workers.

 

 

 

The problem with your statement that the CEO's salaries are determinded by supply and demand is that often enough, CEOs raise their own salaries.(to disgusting levels) Why exactly do these CEOs of failed auto companies deserve more then their employees? What qualifies them for their atrociously massive salaries, except for the loose concept of "hard work"?

 

 

 

Industry raises the standard of living in countries. What you're suggesting in your first paragraph is that people were forced to work for those companies. They weren't. Chinese citizens choose to work at sweat shops contrary to popular belief. Because of American companies, countries in southeast Asia are seeing better standards of living. In fact, many factories in China are there to create a foot hold in their rapidly growing market.

 

 

 

CEO salaries are the result of basic economic principles. I do agree they are inflated, but disagree they should make as much as their employees. If they should make as much as a factory worker, than a factory worker should be able to do a CEOs job, which they can't.

[Zierro]

I just find it funny how today's young people are so against corporations and hold them as the origin of all evil. You (not just you, everybody) would have nothing in your current life if it wasn't for corporations providing you services & providing the government with tax revenue.

 

 

 

You're right - we got a lot of benefits out of corporations, but sometimes businesses can become corrupt and that is where I think the line should be drawn. I like to look at the big picture: after you die, all that matters is what you left behind. I don't see where putting money before people comes into play there. Oh and it's not just young people of today, by the way. It's the writer of A Christmas Carol too.

[snowager286]

Industry raises the standard of living in countries. What you're suggesting in your first paragraph is that people were forced to work for those companies. They weren't. Chinese citizens choose to work at sweat shops contrary to popular belief. Because of American companies, countries in southeast Asia are seeing better standards of living. In fact, many factories in China are there to create a foot hold in their rapidly growing market.

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true, your right that nobody forced those people to work at those factories. They could have starved. You see, a marvelous little thing had occurred right before the industrial revolution. It's called the agricultural revolution, during this much forgotten revolution farming techniques imporved so much so that the amount of food producded per acre increased massively. also, less farmers were needed for farm this land and many landowners started to buy out land from the poorer farms meaning that they no longer had a job. At the same time medical breakthroughs made it so that far fewer people died. This had the unsurprising result of increasing the population. So what does a rapidly increasing population do when they can't farm anymore? They go to work in factories and get whatever factory job they can get just to survive.

 

 

 

What was true then is true now. What do you expect the Chinese people to except to work in sweatshops? what land can they farm? what other jobs are there?

 

 

 

 

CEO salaries are the result of basic economic principles. I do agree they are inflated, but disagree they should make as much as their employees. If they should make as much as a factory worker, than a factory worker should be able to do a CEOs job, which they can't.

 

 

 

I disagree, judging from what I've seen a factory work should be able to drive a company into the ground just as well as the man whose parents paid for his college. All kidding aside the only thing that seperates many CEOs from their employees is that the CEO's parents made enough money for them to go to college. Meanwhile, the employees parents couldn't have afforded a college tuition. True, the worker could have worked his behind off and gotten a scholarship, but if he had worked hard and not gotten the scholarship, he would have wasted all that hard work for nothing.

[Quoi_Tu]

Industry raises the standard of living in countries. What you're suggesting in your first paragraph is that people were forced to work for those companies. They weren't. Chinese citizens choose to work at sweat shops contrary to popular belief. Because of American companies, countries in southeast Asia are seeing better standards of living. In fact, many factories in China are there to create a foot hold in their rapidly growing market.

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true, your right that nobody forced those people to work at those factories. They could have starved. You see, a marvelous little thing had occurred right before the industrial revolution. It's called the agricultural revolution, during this much forgotten revolution farming techniques imporved so much so that the amount of food producded per acre increased massively. also, less farmers were needed for farm this land and many landowners started to buy out land from the poorer farms meaning that they no longer had a job. At the same time medical breakthroughs made it so that far fewer people died. This had the unsurprising result of increasing the population. So what does a rapidly increasing population do when they can't farm anymore? They go to work in factories and get whatever factory job they can get just to survive.

 

 

 

What was true then is true now. What do you expect the Chinese people to except to work in sweatshops? what land can they farm? what other jobs are there?

 

 

 

So, we shouldn't advance and discover new technologies? According to what you said, that would have made sure everyone had a fair and decent job.

 

 

 

You don't understand what I'm saying. What were the Chinese workers doing before the sweatshops? Think about it. Poor, starving, and jobless or have a home, some food, and crummy working conditions. Same applies to US industrilazation without as much foreign corporate intervention.

 

 

 

 

CEO salaries are the result of basic economic principles. I do agree they are inflated, but disagree they should make as much as their employees. If they should make as much as a factory worker, than a factory worker should be able to do a CEOs job, which they can't.

 

 

 

I disagree, judging from what I've seen a factory work should be able to drive a company into the ground just as well as the man whose parents paid for his college. All kidding aside the only thing that seperates many CEOs from their employees is that the CEO's parents made enough money for them to go to college. Meanwhile, the employees parents couldn't have afforded a college tuition. True, the worker could have worked his behind off and gotten a scholarship, but if he had worked hard and not gotten the scholarship, he would have wasted all that hard work for nothing.

 

 

 

And for not working hard and getting a college education the factory worker is a factory worker. It's not a completely fair system. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not become poorer; they just remain stagnant. Also people are created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals.

[Saru Inc]

People n here no my stance on capitalism well enough.

 

 

 

What annoys me at the moment are the managers of the Big 3 in America. Why should the US Fed bail them out? Those guys have earned millions in their lives through bad financial management. I dare someone to try and argue either of those three have deserved the amount they've got when they've been so negligent to the state of their business and the future state of the economy.

 

 

 

There is no crisis of capitalism here. This is capitalism. The weakest companies die, and with them, hundreds of workers get laid off. That's why the money should be invested into public work schemes, to keep the builders in a job, to keep primary industries running, to provide jobs in the public sector to those who will lose them over the next year, to put money in their pockets, to keep the tills rolling on High Street.

 

 

 

I don't see why millions of tax payers money should go to three managers who have proved their incompetence already. So they can go make the same [bleep] up again?

 

 

 

 

 

That's eerily similar to FDR's plan, which we all know DID NOT WORK.

 

 

 

And to the post about Capitalism relying on greed. Get over yourself, capitalism relies on people willpower, intuition, and creativity. It is the best functioning economic system that we know of so far. While Socialism is better, it will NEVER work in the real world. As nice as it is, there's no use crying about it and blaming all your problems on Capitalism.

 

 

 

Blue Lancer also brings up some good points. Industry helps people; it doesn't harm them.

 

 

 

Snowager286, it doesn't make sense, to compare something so long ago, to nowadays, and say it's STILL wrong.

 

 

 

Things can change over time; while yes, the industry was awful back in the day, now they DO care for the worker. Ever heard of HR? Child Labor Laws? OSHA?

 

 

 

Besides, the company wouldn't be there, if it wasn't for the workers.

[BlueLancer]

 

I disagree, judging from what I've seen a factory work should be able to drive a company into the ground just as well as the man whose parents paid for his college. All kidding aside the only thing that seperates many CEOs from their employees is that the CEO's parents made enough money for them to go to college. Meanwhile, the employees parents couldn't have afforded a college tuition. True, the worker could have worked his behind off and gotten a scholarship, but if he had worked hard and not gotten the scholarship, he would have wasted all that hard work for nothing.

 

 

 

Becoming a CEO or becoming rich has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to afford college earlier; There are countless top executives in Fortune 500 companies who have barely any formal education beyond the required minimum or became drop-outs in their youth.

 

 

 

It takes a very specific person type to head a company from scratch to greatness, not even a small percentage of the average work force is up to the stress, dedication and non-book smart intelligence it demands of a person.

 

 

 

It makes no sense for the mind behind the operation to be paid similar wages compared to the manual labourer who only assembles parts and does what he's told. All the responsibility and expectations, even legal consequences of the operations, fall on the CEO, not the common factory worker working under orders.

 

 

 

He's the one having to explain problems to capital investors. He's the one going to jail if tax fraud or large scale embezzlement goes undetected for years. He is the one whose family will be in potential danger if the company goes unexpectedly under and unlawful elements of the financial society decide to extract revenge or extort returns. No serious skilled person is going to take the job without a proper financial encouragement significantly higher than that gained of physical, ordinary labour.

[l0l0lpur32]

You have no idea how hard it is to be Hannah Montana. She is manipulated by people every day, working hard, singing classes, acting classes, and has millions of fans whom she has to be sure to appeal to.

 

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers?

 

 

 

I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement.

 

 

 

 

I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see...

 

 

 

-Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions

 

-Kick started a singing career, making billions

 

 

 

Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers.

 

 

 

You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege?

 

 

 

Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.)

 

2 words: supply and demand. If what you are saying was true (that the "super rich" do "FAR less than many professions that earn far less", and the people in said professions could do what the "super rich" do), then they wouldn't be "super rich".