World welcomes Obama win

#226
#226
TennNC said:
My question is if there's a successful company where most workers are NOT making significantly less than the few high-income earners at the top?
Click to expand...
those taking the risk make the largest returns, but law firms, M&A shops, Consultant offices, full of nothing but high earners (who all start that way because of their qualifications). MDs are poviding a valuable service and get paid well for it. Many don't have office staff.
 
#227
#227
BigPapaVol said:
you spouted a worn out mantra of those courting votes of the poor. You said people are wealthy because they are subjecting less wealthy people or they're getting wealthy at the expense of others. It's tired tripe and is exactly not true. People earn much money because someone even wealthier views them as worth the money or they are selling products to people willing to pay for them. That's capitalism.

I suppose entrepreneurs don't register with you, but there are hordes of them that make enormous money without paying any staff whatsoever. Investment bankers make huge money because of specialized skills and relationships. Ditto McKenzie consultants. Those people all make tremendous cash because of their education, ability and plain hard work. It's not even remotely because someone else is having to work cheap. Ergo, one of the reasons large swaths of people are wealthy hs nothing to do with a subordinate labor force, making your comment wrong rather than misquoted.
Click to expand...

Tell me where the wealth the McKenzie consultant or investment specialist comes from? You don't think there are people doing work and getting paid much less to "produce" whatever it is that's ultimately generating transactions?

How do houses get built? How are diamonds mined? Sneakers made? Grain harvested? Fruit picked? Goods transported? Trees cut and hauled? Coal mined? Fish caught? Cars made? Burgers served?

Seems to me the only way someone can get wealthy without a subordinate labor force is inheritance or a government hand-out, and even then, I doubt they are mutually exclusive.
 
#228
#228
BigPapaVol said:
those taking the risk make the largest returns, but law firms, M&A shops, Consultant offices, full of nothing but high earners (who all start that way because of their qualifications). MDs are poviding a valuable service and get paid well for it. Many don't have office staff.
Click to expand...

all service jobs. so the question becomes, who are they providing that service to? who pays them for that service? Where is that money generated?
 
#229
#229
BigPapaVol said:
those taking the risk make the largest returns.
Click to expand...

Of course.

And they know that they can't do it alone. It requires an economic system that's basically pyramid-shaped. And it's in their (I'll admit I'm included in this) best interest to keep the base productive. If that means I pay more in taxes, so be it.
 
#230
#230
TennNC said:
I don't disagree with anything you're writing. I'll try to explain using my company as an example.

The company is owned by partners. They have revenue and expenses. They want to keep expenses down and revenue up - that's how they make a lot of money. They need people working to generate revenue. So the more they can get out of those people while paying them as little as possible, the more they'll make. If the company is top-heavy, they're not going to make a lot of money b/c they're not producing as much for what they're paying (paying a few people a lot in salary). If it's bottom heavy (paying a lot of people much less in salary), they put more money in their pockets b/c they're getting a lot of production (revenue) for what they're paying (payroll).

My question is if there's a successful company where most workers are NOT making significantly less than the few high-income earners at the top?
Click to expand...

However, they cannot underpay these people. These people are getting paid based upon their value to the company; otherwise they would leave and go somewhere else. Nobody is working in servitude.
 
#231
#231
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I have a feeling that many of the younger Obama supporters do not understand what "rich" is. I also imagine that they donot understand that truly rich people never take it on the chin. When the marginal tax rates go up, so do the number of loopholes. The wealthy hire good tax advisors (not the guy in the wrinkled shirt at an H&R Block next to the Subway) to erase their liability. The folks in the middle always get shafted whenever we decide to "tax the rich".
Click to expand...

"Rich" is all about what perspective you have.

Global Rich List
 
#232
#232
TennNC said:
Tell me where the wealth the McKenzie consultant or investment specialist comes from? You don't think there are people doing work and getting paid much less to "produce" whatever it is that's ultimately generating transactions?

How do houses get built? How are diamonds mined? Sneakers made? Grain harvested? Fruit picked? Goods transported? Trees cut and hauled? Coal mined? Fish caught? Cars made? Burgers served?

Seems to me the only way someone can get wealthy without a subordinate labor force is inheritance or a government hand-out, and even then, I doubt they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

you're stuck in a 1930 mentality. McKenzie consultant shops are small teams who build their own relationships, generate their own deliverables and charge obscene money, which will pay the overhead, the royalty fees, then the small team generating the value. It's the style of economy we're transitioning to. It's why your crew is shouting that we need to keep manufacturing stateside. It's leaving. We're wisely moving toward value added services.

A Md in my former shop would make on the order of $5 million to $10 million per year. He had the company name behind him and a 3 - 5 person team working for him. The team was extremely well paid, the company made their share from him generating the business, but those directors made themselves freaking rich and the team all resided in the top 5% of earners as well.

The old method of rallying the downtrodden worker types is going the way of those mfg jobs, to China.
 
#233
#233
VolDad said:
However, they cannot underpay these people. These people are getting paid based upon their value to the company; otherwise they would leave and go somewhere else. Nobody is working in servitude.
Click to expand...

VolDad, I never once said they were underpaid or in servitude. So why would you bring up that point? Did you see me post that?
 
#234
#234
TennNC said:
all service jobs. so the question becomes, who are they providing that service to? who pays them for that service? Where is that money generated?
Click to expand...
you're slipping quickly toward the Marx argument, so I'll bow out here since the inevitable end is that the only reason wealth exists is because the proletariat has been shackled to provide it.
 
#235
#235
BigPapaVol said:
you're stuck in a 1930 mentality. McKenzie consultant shops are small teams who build their own relationships, generate their own deliverables and charge obscene money, which will pay the overhead, the royalty fees, then the small team generating the value. It's the style of economy we're transitioning to. It's why your crew is shouting that we need to keep manufacturing stateside. It's leaving. We're wisely moving toward value added services.

A Md in my former shop would make on the order of $5 million to $10 million per year. He had the company name behind him and a 3 - 5 person team working for him. The team was extremely well paid, the company made their share from him generating the business, but those directors made themselves freaking rich and the team all resided in the top 5% of earners as well.

The old method of rallying the downtrodden worker types is going the way of those mfg jobs, to China.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Who pays McKenzie for its services? What's the source of their revenue?
I'll answer for you - clients. Clients who are making the money to pay McKenzie by selling something - follow the chain down enough, and it's because somebody is physically producing something, doing it very efficiently and very cheaply.
 
#236
#236
TennNC said:
VolDad, I never once said they were underpaid or in servitude. So why would you bring up that point? Did you see me post that?
Click to expand...
but you're implying exploitation, which is the basis of Marx's system. Pretend you're not, but you are absolutely dragging this to the basic class struggle. The piece you're missing is the fact that the opportunity to bypass working for the man is out there for every one of us. Nobody is absolutely relegated to a predestined lot in life.
 
#237
#237
BigPapaVol said:
you're slipping quickly toward the Marx argument, so I'll bow out here since the inevitable end is that the only reason wealth exists is because the proletariat has been shackled to provide it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never made that statement. Not once have I said people are shackled or forced to do something. But if there weren't a lower-paying labor force, there wouldn't be wealthy people.
 
#238
#238
BigPapaVol said:
but you're implying exploitation, which is the basis of Marx's system. Pretend you're not, but you are absolutely dragging this to the basic class struggle. The piece you're missing is the fact that the opportunity to bypass working for the man is out there for every one of us. Nobody is absolutely relegated to a predestined lot in life.
Click to expand...

bro, I've never said that and in no way will go there, b/c I don't believe it. It's very simple -- it's in the interest of higher-income workers to keep a productive, efficient base of workers in place. See my post above:

"And it's in their (I'll admit I'm included in this) best interest to keep the base productive. If that means I pay more in taxes, so be it."
 
#239
#239
TennNC said:
You didn't answer my question. Who pays McKenzie for its services? What's the source of their revenue?
I'll answer for you - clients. Clients who are making the money to pay McKenzie by selling something - follow the chain down enough, and it's because somebody is physically producing something, doing it very efficiently and very cheaply.
Click to expand...
and most likely producing it in China, where they're getting to provide cheap labor. That reltionship helps them too.

How 'bout that. My big client generated the technology, hired us to raise money in his early stages. Built his plant in China. His product worked, he hit it big and we took him public. He got rich, investors got rich and we made enormous fees. Chinese people who had no work otherwise got jobs. Who was exploited so everyone could make all that money? Surely it couldn't be win - win. That wouldn't fit the class warfare model that says the wealthy are so via exploitation of the laborers.
 
#240
#240
TennNC said:
bro, I've never said that and in no way will go there, b/c I don't believe it. It's very simple -- it's in the interest of higher-income workers to keep a productive, efficient base of workers in place. See my post above:

"And it's in their (I'll admit I'm included in this) best interest to keep the base productive. If that means I pay more in taxes, so be it."
Click to expand...

Are you liberal or just playing a devils advocate?
 
#241
#241
BigPapaVol said:
and most likely producing it in China, where they're getting to provide cheap labor. That reltionship helps them too.

How 'bout that. My big client generated the technology, hired us to raise money in his early stages. Built his plant in China. His product worked, he hit it big and we took him public. He got rich, investors got rich and we made enormous fees. Chinese people who had no work otherwise got jobs. Who was exploited so everyone could make all that money? Surely it couldn't be win - win. That wouldn't fit the class warfare model that says the wealthy are so via exploitation of the laborers.
Click to expand...

Find a post where I said lower-paying workers are exploited. You won't and you can't. It's a fictional argument you're having with yourself. And you seem to be winning. Against yourself.

When China catches up to us economically and those workers demand higher wages, where will you take the plants then? To somewhere you can reduce payroll and at least maintain the same level of productivity. Which means that you making money depends on ensuring there are enough laborers (those actually producing the product) making significantly less money.
 
#242
#242
TennNC said:
Nope. Never made that statement. Not once have I said people are shackled or forced to do something. But if there weren't a lower-paying labor force, there wouldn't be wealthy people.
Click to expand...
you don't have to make the statement. I'm saying people are wealthy because they generate something that others demand, want or need. The fact that they figured out how to generate it profitably made them wealthy. If they weren't out there and the risk captial available, the labor force could keep their butts at home.

It's not a chicken or egg debate. Jobs for others exist because entrepreneurs and investors took the risk first, not because someone dreamt the idea of a labor force.
 
#245
#245
BigPapaVol said:
you don't have to make the statement. I'm saying people are wealthy because they generate something that others demand, want or need. The fact that they figured out how to generate it profitably made them wealthy. If they weren't out there and the risk captial available, the labor force could keep their butts at home.

It's not a chicken or egg debate. Jobs for others exist because entrepreneurs and investors took the risk first, not because someone dreamt the idea of a labor force.
Click to expand...

okay. I agree with everything you're saying in this post.

profitably = minimizing payroll and maximizing productivity.

you're right - it's not a chicken/egg debate. You need both. Which is the point I think I made several pages back.
 
#246
#246
TennNC said:
Find a post where I said lower-paying workers are exploited. You won't and you can't. It's a fictional argument you're having with yourself. And you seem to be winning. Against yourself.

When China catches up to us economically and those workers demand higher wages, where will you take the plants then? To somewhere you can reduce payroll and at least maintain the same level of productivity. Which means that you making money depends on ensuring there are enough laborers (those actually producing the product) making significantly less money.
Click to expand...

you don't have to use the word exploited to have it at the base of your argument. Your talk of my winning an argument with myself doesn't change the class struggle basis in everything you're saying. You are absolutely pointing to some subjected group of laborers as the basis of wealth in the world.

Call it anything you like, but you're not changing your argument from tired Marxism. If you can't see that entrepreneurial spirit and risk taking are at the core of wealth generation in our country, then you're stuck in your emotional argument for the exploited forever. More power to you. I think the exploited are fortunate that they have steady jobs and market incomes. The day they become overly disgruntles with being the backbone upon which the risk takers become wealthy, they are welcome to change their lives.
 
#247
#247
BigPapaVol said:
you don't have to use the word exploited to have it at the base of your argument. Your talk of my winning an argument with myself doesn't change the class struggle basis in everything you're saying. You are absolutely pointing to some subjected group of laborers as the basis of wealth in the world.

Call it anything you like, but you're not changing your argument from tired Marxism. If you can't see that entrepreneurial spirit and risk taking are at the core of wealth generation in our country, then you're stuck in your emotional argument for the exploited forever. More power to you. I think the exploited are fortunate that they have steady jobs and market incomes. The day they become overly disgruntles with being the backbone upon which the risk takers become wealthy, they are welcome to change their lives.
Click to expand...

BPV - 2

vs.

BPV - 0
 
#248
#248
TennNC said:
You need both. Which is the point I think I made several pages back.
Click to expand...
No. The point you made was that the lone route to wealth is minimizing payroll. You made very clear that wealth can't exist without it. If you said otherwise without simply agreeing with me or quoting me, you'll need to prove it.

You've gone way out your way to talk about where the basis of the money to pay the wealthy comes from. I went out of my way to say that wealrh originated long before the work force.
 
#250
#250
vader said:
I understand that tempers run a bit hot when it comes to politics, let's all just try to keep it somewhat civil.
Click to expand...

Civility is a product of mutual respect and the will to allow people that disagree with you to make a point. Most on here that understand that. Then others, well, not so much.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top