Okay, I know I mentioned posting something this week on Sharia Law but I have not completed my research on the topic enough to post anything. That being said, I have a hypothetical situation that I struggling with and seek guidance from my devoted readers; and others of course. Let's say one was born into a family of four that had a household income of $30,000. While one grew up within that household things were tight and there was not a lot of extra's to be enjoyed. After successfully completed High School and avoided any pitfalls one is faced with two options:
- To go onto college, earn a degree and obtain a career with unlimited upside potential.
- To skip college, obtain a minimum wage position and look for public assistance at every opportunity.
Now, I'd like to think that everyone would chose option A. Here is the caveat though, as one earns more money and improves their lot in life one is expected to shoulder more and more of the burden of paying for entitlement programs and other public assistance to ensure those that did not go onto college, or a trade school, are taken care of. A friend of my on Facebook is always spouting, "Spread the Wealth". What type of society will exist if we "spread the wealth"? I understand that many of the richest people in America are pledging to donate 50% of their wealth to charity upon death. Well, imagine how much more they'd be able to give if the inheritance tax doesn't back up to 50%. Generational wealth is one thing but what incentive do we leave our youth if they are given two paths: work hard, keep less or work less, get more?
Wealthy Americans are not the enemy and will not bring down the United States; rather they will simply move out your state or our country if we continue to use them as ATM machines. Now, I am not a member of the wealthy class but I aspire to get there someday. When I do get there, I want to be in control of my money and to whom it is doled out to. I read the demonizing of Wall Street for the excessive bonuses. What people fail to see is that these people are paid on performance of the company and some of the decisions they make will not be popular. Other's rail against them because of the bailouts and that is one to bring up. Our Government should not be in the business of bailing companies, union pensions, or any other public or private institution out. If these groups cannot prosper and be held accountable then why on Earth would anyone want to choose option A above?
Entitlements need to go. Public employee Unions need to go. I am not advocating that those that in the system now be completely shut off from them; rather I am saying we need to phase them out. The bulk of the money that was given states for "Race to the Top" is being funneled into Union pension funds. The bailout of Detroit was to ensure Union pensions. Don't get me wrong Unions have their purpose but they also hold companies and America hostage. So I go back to my original question above. Which option would you choose?
Really, that's the two options? Your hypothetical is seriously flawed and you limit the options to support your conclusion. So all those that don't go to college only earn minimum wage? None of those who do go to college earn minimum wage? Only those on assistance did not go to college? Not everyone has unlimited potential even if they went to college? In fact, I'd guess the vast majority do not. In fact, no one does since the pool of money is limited and what one person takes, another can not, and we do not print an unlimited supply of money.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone even finishes high school and some of those go on to be succesful. And they don't because of a variety of factors.
Not all education experiences are the same and return the same level of knowledge.
You make it seem like those who "don't work" live a better life then those that do. I'd suspect if you asked people on assistance, that most would say they would much rather have a job that pays a living wage. But I suspect you are embracing the concept of welfare recipients that suits your argument.
The post has serious flaws.
Education does not guarantee success. Hard work and determination does not even guarantee success.
What about the person who goes onto college, earn a degree and there are no jobs in their field, are stuck in a minimum wage job and cannot afford to pay back their student loans and are on assistance?
ReplyDeleteThen what?
It also makes an assumption that even among the educated, that montary compensation is the ulitmate driving force and baramotor of success. It's not for all. Maybe you define success by the checks you deposit in your bank account but others do not. In fact, many, myself included, find that determining success in that manner leads to an empty unfulfilled life.
ReplyDeleteWhat about those who would love to go to college but can't afford to? Or those with mental health or chemical dependency problems?
ReplyDeleteKevin Garnett sure seems to have done well by only earning mininmum wage since he didn't go to college.
Look at the actual demographics:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.utexas.edu/depts/ic2/et/learner/general.html
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
Here's a link exploring the attitudes toward work of those receiving assistance:
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v2/wynn.htm
There conclusion, those receiving help have stronger values towards work then those who don't.
Is really that difficult to answer the question? I believe we all know that other factors will come into play but can't we stick with original question?
ReplyDeleteViper, I have to agree with the people commenting above. This is a pretty poor attempt at a blog entry. Not only is it overly simplistic in its hypothetical, it's entirely transparent, a convenient excuse for you to rail against those people, institutions and/or policies with which you disagree. Your time might have been better served by continuing to do research on the Sharia law post.
ReplyDeleteNo, because the original question is faulty in its limited options and those options are based on stereotypes that aren't accurate. It would be like me asking you to answer yes or no: Did you stop beating your spouse today? Those two answeres aren't the only response.
ReplyDeleteSorry, forgot to post my option. I'd choose A but I worry that the current climate and regime will bring back higher taxes. I too want to keep my money.
ReplyDeleteAnon from 12:42pm, it's not a difficult question to answer. You're right. The problem is (in addition to what other commenters have stated) that the question is, in my view, immaterial to the objective of the original blog entry. Viper doesn't really care what your answer would be; he'll still get his opinions out there for all to see. Honestly, who would choose the second option?
ReplyDeleteWho would choose it if all things were equal, I think is the better question. But they aren't equal. Far from it.
ReplyDeleteClark, How many times has Viper posted an open-ended question without offering his view only to be lambasted for not offering it? Perhaps that is why he added his portion at the end after asking for others to address.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Viper will reveal his intention by keeping things simple and having an option that most people will decidedly pick. Then again perhaps he won't. All I know that having simple hyperbole's does start the conversation. I wonder why people didn't start off their answers with A or B then bring up their objections or state what if's.
In the end, doesn't it all boiled down to these to simple situations?
Anonymous 12:42pm
Holy Cow - One cannot win for losing. Give me a few here to read through them in greater detail.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I recognize that my two options are overally simplistic and I meant it to be that way. I understand that going to college does not guarantee a high paying job or that one does not have to go to college to obtain a high paying job. The simple approach was to address the notion of those that believe that "spreading the wealth" will bring posperity and or economic revival is flawed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people, mostly, that "don't work" prefer to be working and making a living wage. The trouble is that our economy is not improving with all the government spending going on. Nor will it get better with more government spending. The CBO has stated that based on current spending and new entitlement programs our deficit is unsustainable. To help drive this point home was the point of this overally simplistic question and answer scenario.
Viper,this is Hilarious!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou post an attack to my daily"Spread The WEALTH"
post with two simple answers????
Oui Vey!!!!!!
The CEO's of said companies are now complaining that they don't want a law passed that will show that they make up to 5000 times their average employee........
Who is worth FIVE THOUSAND TIMES more than another person in a workforce????
They earn this money by sending jobs over seas,with lax labor laws,and environmental standards...No huge college degree needed to know that if you can screw people over,you make more money....
in closing if one jerk isn't sitting up there making 5000 times his average employee,he could hire 5000 people.....
SPREAD THE WEALTH!!!!!!!!!!
Ahh Dnew makes his presence known.
ReplyDeletednewblackmessiah, Spread the Wealth - So you really think that if a company stops paying the CEO, as you say it, 5000 times their average employee that translate into hiring more people? Are you naive? If product is not selling then no new hires.
ReplyDeleteThen maybe you could have done a better job of addressing that simple notion about spreading the wealth instead of having an absurd hypo take up a large portion of the posting and having a headline and closing question about what you would do regarding that question. That's suppose to be constructive to the format.
ReplyDeleteSecond, this posting seems set-up for you to rant about big government and that only without out any attempt at finding middle ground or advancing the debate, like you claim you do. When you start with such an extreme for options, don't be surprised that people can't get past those. You can't really be surprised by those responses
Third, how many CEOs actually make 5,000 times? That would be what, 70 million a year? This is just another extreme view that is suppose to shock and polarize people. Who is worth that much? Probably no one. If that is what someone wants to pay them, go for it. How much money does the average worker of a piss poor run company with no profits make? Eventually none. Plus better performance drives stock value which creates wealth outside the company.
Some wealth has to be spread. Otherwise you have a consolidation of wealth and those without never can get. Important programs don't get funded. There is a difference between equal and fair. So should the rich pay more, I think so, because they can afford to and everyone benefits from a society where all have access to basic services, quality education, and everything else we need.
The problem isn't CEO pay, it's that their are very few manufacturing jobs left. Those on the lower end of the education and skill set can't find jobs. What else are they suppose to do but to look for help? It's not about not wanting them, it's that those types of jobs are going overseas and we are all part of that cause by demanding cheaper goods and expecting higher returns in the market.
How do we address the lack of lower end mfg jobs? Honestly, the market won't do it, I think. I really think, and you won't like this Viper, that we need government incentives to keep plants here along with addressing our trade problems.
Anon from 12:42,
ReplyDeleteMy only point was that the question or hypothetical was completely transparent and unnecessary for the blog entry. The question is so absurd that it could be considered rhetorical.
If Viper wants to rail against his usual targets, then fine, that's his prerogative. While I disagree with him on virtually everything he writes, it's his blog and he cam write what he wants. But don't be fooled into thinking that the hypothetical was anything more than a cheap excuse for him to go on a rant.
And as for why people didn't start off their comments with their choice between the two decidedly simplistic options? See my comments above.
"After successfully completed High School and avoided any pitfalls one is faced with two options:
ReplyDeleteTo go onto college, earn a degree and obtain a career with unlimited upside potential.
To skip college, obtain a minimum wage position and look for public assistance at every opportunity."
What? I know I'm late to the party but WHAT? Seriously, we only have these two options?
What about joining the military? What about going to technical college and getting a certification as a welder (avg salary - 60k) or a plumber (avg salary - 80k) or start your own landscaping company (salary unlimited)
Why do you assume that there are only two options?
Truman - I just wanted to start the conversation with two primal options. I know there are other factors to consider but wanted to narrow the focus.
ReplyDeleteClark, do you not see the bigger issue with this simplistic approach? Sure, Viper is trying to take a quick hit but at the same time an important question exists. Are we as a society becoming to co-dependent on the government for all aspects of our lives? If so, how are going to pay for it?
ReplyDeleteAnon, I do see the bigger "issue" that is being raised with this simplistic approach. I put the word "issue" in quotes though because I believe the "issue" you refer to (dependency on the government) is a politically expedient issue for the right to raise at this time.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the first to admit that I haven't done research to back up my opinion but that wouldn't be the first time that someone on this blog has just thrown out their opinion without factual support.
Now I'm sure some would laugh out loud at my view that Americans are not becoming too dependent upon government and cite possible, emphasis on possible, increase in people on welfare or food stamps, or the very real increase in people collecting unemployment or the new health care law. But I have to say that all of those things are, in my view, safety nets. They're not there to replace hard work and effort. True, some in society abuse those safety nets, but too often people are demonized for accepting a bit of help from the government. Are they really bad people? Are they really looking for public assistance at every opportunity? Or do they need a bit of help to get them through troubling times?
I'll adapt a saying that people have about lawyers; lawyers are the scum of the earth, the worst people in the world...until you need one; then, they're an invaluable resource that is absolutely necessary. You could say the same thing about these safety nets that are available if needed.
It makes me think of a comment Viper made a while ago. He said that basic health care is a privilege, not a right. That's easy to say when you have health care and have had it for most, if not all, of your life.
"What people fail to see is that these people are paid on performance of the company and some of the decisions they make will not be popular."
ReplyDeleteReally? So the bonuses paid at the end of 2008 and 2009 were for company performance? Let's detail that company performance.
Lehman Brothers - Chpt 11 Bankruptcy 2008
Goldman Sachs - 15 billion in TARP funds as solvency questions arose in 2008 around their 1/2 trillion dollar subprime securitization portfolio. However, 1 billion in bonuses paid in 2008 based upon "retention" needs, not performance.
Merrill Lynch - sold to BOA in rushed deal with details withheld from shareholders until deal was completed (in breach of SEC requirements) in order to stave off 51.8B in losses in 2007-2008 coming from subprime securitization portfolios. Sold to BOA at a 61% discounted price to Sept 2007 valuation (pre-collapse). Merril received 6.8B in TARP money prior to the sale. 3.8B in bonuses were paid by BOA to the Merril employees as part of the purchase agreement for "prior performance".
Please, tell me how these were "performance based" bonuses again?
You claim to be a free-marketer, but then you make statements like you did above. But the truth is, in a free market all of these companies would have been insolvent. But for the TARP bailout they would have died. So to say the bonuses were paid for performance is a bold faced lie.
In the case of Merrill Lynch, this is a company that had to be sold at a 61% discount (loss) to investors because of the companies reprehensible behavior in the subprime mortgage securitization market.
I guess what I'm saying is that your partisan underpants are showing and you're spouting off nonsense you heard from Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity again. Because an objective observer cannot rightfully claim that the bonuses paid were for performance. It's completely untrue, as the facts prove.