The Money Mustache Community

General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: dude on September 08, 2017, 09:17:21 AM

Title: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 08, 2017, 09:17:21 AM
The notion of who is middle class and who is rich in this country has been the subject of much debate in the MMM forums, so I thought many would find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Bucksandreds on September 08, 2017, 09:59:29 AM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: StarBright on September 08, 2017, 10:32:05 AM
great read- thanks!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: soccerluvof4 on September 08, 2017, 11:19:45 AM
While a good article its pretty much what I would have expected. Theres extremes in everything but most people like to keep things private and while money helps alot of things its not the solve all.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KCM5 on September 08, 2017, 11:50:22 AM
Interesting read, until the opinion part at the end at least.  It feels like the opinion part was written by someone else and represents the views of NYT, where the rest of the article is much different.

I wouldn't call the people interviewed 'obsenely wealthly' as the article states.  These people ranged in assets from a few million to 50M and incomes I saw were as low as 250k.  In NYC it's hard to call $250k wealthy at all.  Most of the people in this article are at the bottom of the 1%. 

And $6 bread in NYC seems high, but outrageous, probably not.

The median income in NYC is somewhere around $55k. Let's not pretend that making $250,000 isn't an incredible amount of money, even in NYC. Additionally, they all had net worths in the millions, many of which were inherited. So what if it's the bottom of the 1% or the top?

Continued societal stratification won't end well for any of us. It would behoove us to consider the implications and possible solutions (returning the estate tax to previous levels, looking at dividend tax rate, consider adding another tax bracket for income over $500k or something, etc)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: slappy on September 08, 2017, 12:03:06 PM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

I was thinking something similar. If they are so concerned about it, why not increase the wage of the servant/nanny? It's not like they can't afford it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Mustache ride on September 08, 2017, 12:12:26 PM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

Why is that a problem? It is up to the person to decide just how much something is worth. It is also up to the nanny to decide what she wants to do for a career. No one is forcing the nanny to work for whatever they make. They chose to become a nanny and make X amount of dollars. If the nanny thinks they aren't being paid what they are worth they should look for someone who will pay them what they want. There is a market for a reason, people decide what something is worth. Obviously some people are born into favorable situations and there are barriers to entry in some careers, but to diminish someone else's accomplishments and worth just because they have too much of it creates a disincentive to strive for that.

Two opposite sides of the spectrum, look at welfare and then most of us on here. There are people on welfare who don't work because they would rather get "free" money than just a bit more for actually working. I look down on those people and call them freeloaders, but honestly if I were in their shoes I'd probably do the same thing. Then there are people like most of us here who are using loopholes or inefficiencies in the tax code to get out of paying a large portion of taxes. Sure people say they would be ok if taxes were increased, but I don't see anyone willingly signing up to do this unless it's forced upon them.

End of rant.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 08, 2017, 12:18:16 PM
Quote
Some even identified as “middle class” or “in the middle,” typically comparing themselves with the super-wealthy, who are especially prominent in New York City, rather than to those with less.

The author should take the plank out of her own eye. How is it morally acceptable that those of us who just happen to be born in the industrialized West (including the author) have such immense wealth, while much of the rest of the world scratches by on less than $2/day?  If you have a roof over your head, clothes to wear, don't have to worry about when you'll have your next meal, don't have to worry that the water you drink will make you sick or kill you - well, you're rich. Rich by today's standards, and certainly rich by historical standards.

We are all extremely privileged. The folks interviewed in the article seem like decent people, aware of their privilege, and generally not acting like asshats wasting money on ostentatious displays of wealth. Almost seems the author is frustrated that these folks are not so easily vilified.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Tass on September 08, 2017, 12:50:13 PM
These people ranged in assets from a few million to 50M and incomes I saw were as low as 250k.

I wouldn't call the people interviewed 'obsenely wealthly' as the article states.

Uh. Any net worth in the 7 figures should be considered very wealthy, even if you don't want to use the judgmental adjective "obscene." 150k income is also nothing to sneeze at. Maybe not in the top 1%, but easily in the top 10%, even in NYC, surely...

Interesting article!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jjandjab on September 08, 2017, 01:58:35 PM
I gotta say the article, to me, was nothing interesting and quite cringe-worthy (this is how a sociology professor spends their days...)

Let's take almost anything in the world that is coveted or valuable - money, beauty, athletic ability, musical talent, intelligence, etc... Now let's take the 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 or greater who are just super rich, or incredibly beautiful, fast, can play virtuoso piano with barely any instruction, etc... Some of those people will flaunt it. Others will minimize it and be humble and never talk about it. Many will have mixed feelings. How is this not quite common sense having observed society?

And all society since the beginning of time has been based on a hierarchy of power/money. Again, some people at the top flaunt it and take advantage of others, some are supremely generous, and others are a mix. This is not uniquely American (as implied early in the article) nor something new. Unless you are the one at the absolute bottom or top someone will always be in the "middle" so to speak.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SecretSquirrel on September 08, 2017, 02:00:32 PM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

And the nanny's sofa costs more than some people's yearly pay in other parts of the world. So what?

I don't understand the logic in thinking that if person A has $100, and person B has $1, then we must take money from person A, and give it to person B. Unless person A has stolen the money from person B, or otherwise has obtained it illegally, who is to say the $100 is unfair or wrong?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 08, 2017, 02:21:10 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal

seriously, just pay her more if you are worried about it, that is what everyone else does.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mathlete on September 08, 2017, 02:49:36 PM
I'm a big fan of newspapers in general and I read the times somewhat regularly. So I'm not in the "fake news" camp to be sure.

I remain ever skeptical of unfactcheckable opinion pieces though. Especially ones that are designed to feed into preconceived notions that readers already have.

All that said, I don't doubt that the general thrust, at least, is accurate. It makes you want to shake these people and scream, "If you're so embarrassed about the $4m apartment, then go across the Hudson, buy a nice 3-2, and put the difference in a scholarship fund for underprivileged youth."
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mathlete on September 08, 2017, 02:56:31 PM
The author should take the plank out of her own eye. How is it morally acceptable that those of us who just happen to be born in the industrialized West (including the author) have such immense wealth, while much of the rest of the world scratches by on less than $2/day?  If you have a roof over your head, clothes to wear, don't have to worry about when you'll have your next meal, don't have to worry that the water you drink will make you sick or kill you - well, you're rich. Rich by today's standards, and certainly rich by historical standards.

We are all extremely privileged. The folks interviewed in the article seem like decent people, aware of their privilege, and generally not acting like asshats wasting money on ostentatious displays of wealth. Almost seems the author is frustrated that these folks are not so easily vilified.

You can handwave away any discussion by bringing up something worse that is tangentially related.

We can recognize that living in the US is a huge privilege and still discuss the subject of inequality within our borders.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 08, 2017, 03:02:26 PM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

And the nanny's sofa costs more than some people's yearly pay in other parts of the world. So what?

I don't understand the logic in thinking that if person A has $100, and person B has $1, then we must take money from person A, and give it to person B. Unless person A has stolen the money from person B, or otherwise has obtained it illegally, who is to say the $100 is unfair or wrong?
This is an age old debate that is much more complicated than I care to get into but a few thoughts.

1) The person who has 100 times more money almost certainly didn't work 100 times harder or provide 100 times more value to society, they just had better opportunities.
2) On "fairness", that's not the issue so much as what will make society work the best. As someone mentioned already, extreme consolidation of wealth has lead to revolution in the past.
3) A different way to think about income: person A has a salary of $20,000 and person B of $30,000. Assume the necessities of life cost $10,000 and as we all know the cost of living doesn't increase with your income. So While person B has an income of 50% more, they are actually able to accumulate 100% more.



Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Tass on September 08, 2017, 03:41:44 PM
Some of those people will flaunt it. Others will minimize it and be humble and never talk about it. Many will have mixed feelings.

I don't think this article describes people who are humble about their wealth. What's interesting is the fact that they are a little ashamed of it, at least in certain contexts, and don't really know where that shame comes from or how to address it - except by avoiding the topic altogether. And like I said earlier, I don't think having wealth is inherently obscene, but how you use it can be, and it sounds like most of those interviewed here are relatively frivolous spenders. One of the couples spent $600k a year and had no idea how they did it.

It doesn't make them bad people, but I do think it reflects the same inattention to exploding consumption that MMM targets in the middle class.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: scottish on September 08, 2017, 05:31:02 PM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

And the nanny's sofa costs more than some people's yearly pay in other parts of the world. So what?

I don't understand the logic in thinking that if person A has $100, and person B has $1, then we must take money from person A, and give it to person B. Unless person A has stolen the money from person B, or otherwise has obtained it illegally, who is to say the $100 is unfair or wrong?
This is an age old debate that is much more complicated than I care to get into but a few thoughts.

1) The person who has 100 times more money almost certainly didn't work 100 times harder or provide 100 times more value to society, they just had better opportunities.
2) On "fairness", that's not the issue so much as what will make society work the best. As someone mentioned already, extreme consolidation of wealth has lead to revolution in the past.
3) A different way to think about income: person A has a salary of $20,000 and person B of $30,000. Assume the necessities of life cost $10,000 and as we all know the cost of living doesn't increase with your income. So While person B has an income of 50% more, they are actually able to accumulate 100% more.

Suppose I invent a great things that makes life better for millions of people.   I'm able to partner with a business guy/gal who can turn it into a product and we sell millions of units and make $10M/year each  in profits.  Additionally we create several hundred jobs, providing employment for many people.

Is this fair?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Mikenost12 on September 08, 2017, 06:27:47 PM
  dang, i skipped the Equifax stuff and now i'm down this rabbit hole. Income inequality is bad actually for the economy, the rich have lower velocity of money, the poor spend it on goods and services that create more jobs. If your 100x wealthier than most you don't buy 100x the cars and sofas. Of course capitalism is the best system, but unregulated you pay nothing, bribe politicians, destroy competition, have children working in factories, poison the rivers, etc...
   Taxing the wealthy at much higher rates was fine in the United States, 40s, 50s 60s, etc... Investment income and inherited investment income is the source of most wealth inequality. It is getting much worse. I'm not sure the ultra wealthy making 5 or 10% less is unfair or would sap them of their motivation to work. The Walton Family or Koch Brothers just might have to struggle making slightly less so teachers in their states could get paid more.
   Obligatory video I forgot how to link to:
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM


If the states are the laboratory of democracy, then Brownback's experiment (which he framed as a test of trickle down, as a test of supply side), should be entered as evidence. The policies the ultra-wealthy promote are actually toxic not just to the Country but ultimately the consumers they need

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: MrsPete on September 08, 2017, 07:08:07 PM
Who else really liked that photograph of a glass of champagne hidden inside a red Solo cup?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 08, 2017, 07:51:09 PM
The author should take the plank out of her own eye. How is it morally acceptable that those of us who just happen to be born in the industrialized West (including the author) have such immense wealth, while much of the rest of the world scratches by on less than $2/day?  If you have a roof over your head, clothes to wear, don't have to worry about when you'll have your next meal, don't have to worry that the water you drink will make you sick or kill you - well, you're rich. Rich by today's standards, and certainly rich by historical standards.

We are all extremely privileged. The folks interviewed in the article seem like decent people, aware of their privilege, and generally not acting like asshats wasting money on ostentatious displays of wealth. Almost seems the author is frustrated that these folks are not so easily vilified.

You can handwave away any discussion by bringing up something worse that is tangentially related.

We can recognize that living in the US is a huge privilege and still discuss the subject of inequality within our borders.

We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 08, 2017, 09:20:46 PM
When I was a teenager, I used to babysit the children of the professional elite in London, a city very similar to NYC even though it's a different country. Never seen yachts and private jets, but I've seen the inside of more million dollar homes than I care to count, probably closer to the 2-3 million mark now. Almost all the men were some sort of executive at a large companies. Women had a lot more variety, with a good chunk of stay-at-home mothers.

The woman in the article who describes her family dinners and reading to her children fits my observations. My clients took great care of their kids, who were always well-mannered and highly intelligent. They don't need reminding that eating vegetables and brushing your teeth is important. They almost never get yelled at, by anyone. Their table manners are impeccable and are far from the entitled brat stereotype. Their homes were always filled with nice things, but rarely flashy. They'd think nothing of calling a cab for me to get me home if they came back later than expected. I've picked up kids from school in London and delivered them to their parents in Paris, and then gone back to London in one afternoon. Best of all, I was always paid handsomely for what amounted to very little actual work. Best job ever.

You can detect hints of a very comfortable lifestyle if you know what to look for, but to the untrained eye these families look completely normal.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: okits on September 08, 2017, 10:56:51 PM
When I was a teenager, I used to babysit the children of the professional elite in London, a city very similar to NYC even though it's a different country. Never seen yachts and private jets, but I've seen the inside of more million dollar homes than I care to count, probably closer to the 2-3 million mark now. Almost all the men were some sort of executive at a large companies. Women had a lot more variety, with a good chunk of stay-at-home mothers.

The woman in the article who describes her family dinners and reading to her children fits my observations. My clients took great care of their kids, who were always well-mannered and highly intelligent. They don't need reminding that eating vegetables and brushing your teeth is important. They almost never get yelled at, by anyone. Their table manners are impeccable and are far from the entitled brat stereotype. Their homes were always filled with nice things, but rarely flashy. They'd think nothing of calling a cab for me to get me home if they came back later than expected. I've picked up kids from school in London and delivered them to their parents in Paris, and then gone back to London in one afternoon. Best of all, I was always paid handsomely for what amounted to very little actual work. Best job ever.

You can detect hints of a very comfortable lifestyle if you know what to look for, but to the untrained eye these families look completely normal.

What are the most obvious tells?  I'm curious to know both to increase my stealthiness when I want to be inconspicuous, but also to keep a look out for new friends who might be open to personal finance conversations (it's nice to not have to deflect or pretend around people, and it's most easily done with others in similar circumstances).

I enjoyed your comment, PDK.  Thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Monkey Uncle on September 09, 2017, 05:36:29 AM

Suppose I invent a great things that makes life better for millions of people.   I'm able to partner with a business guy/gal who can turn it into a product and we sell millions of units and make $10M/year each  in profits.  Additionally we create several hundred jobs, providing employment for many people.

Is this fair?

Would you be able to make $10M/year without the efforts of those several hundred people?  How much of the total revenue are you sharing with them in exchange for enabling you to make $10M/yr?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Capt j-rod on September 09, 2017, 06:01:22 AM
I assume that many of us have read The Millionaire Next Door.   This basically reinforces the findings of that book. I live in a smaller rural community. There are many farmers. You can line them up and then try to pick the farmer who is in debt up to his ass and then pick the millionaire. Shiny and big does not equal money. Many educated people with successful businesses fly under the radar in a pick up truck and a pair of wranglers. Location has very much to do with wealth. It takes three times as much money to be "wealthy" in NYC as it does in my area. The book Rich Dad Poor Dad jokes that the rich will never pay taxes. Why? because they know money and how to make it and shelter it. Lottery winners usually go broke because they don't know about money. You would never guess my net worth or my income from just sitting down and talking unless I told you. You would never know that my neighbor is a multi millionaire by going to the eagles club and drinking bud light with him. Our balance sheets tell a different tale. I always enjoy this site for the great advice. I am into preserving capital and using it to make more money rather than being dependent on employers and others to stabilize my future. Mustachians know about money and how to use it as a tool... That's what makes us able to retire.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Tetsuya Hondo on September 09, 2017, 06:06:49 AM
We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I think the CEO making an 8-figure salary is preventing the advancement of others. Consider that a few decades ago a CEO made roughly 20 times their employees and now it's over 300 times. Along the way, top execs have started paying themselves more while paying employees less and taking away benefits to boot. They sit on each others boards and rubber stamp each others' salary packages. It's a rigged system where rewards are completely disconnected from their actual performance. You can sink a company and still leave with a $100M plus for the pleasure. We've also slashed the tax rates for the top percentiles, so now they're paying in less of a percentage of wages than ever, which could go to things like public education, which can help others to advance.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 09, 2017, 06:47:21 AM
We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I think the CEO making an 8-figure salary is preventing the advancement of others. Consider that a few decades ago a CEO made roughly 20 times their employees and now it's over 300 times. Along the way, top execs have started paying themselves more while paying employees less and taking away benefits to boot. They sit on each others boards and rubber stamp each others' salary packages. It's a rigged system where rewards are completely disconnected from their actual performance. You can sink a company and still leave with a $100M plus for the pleasure. We've also slashed the tax rates for the top percentiles, so now they're paying in less of a percentage of wages than ever, which could go to things like public education, which can help others to advance.
Ah, goody. A "rich hater"... Glad to have identified ya.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Leisured on September 09, 2017, 06:51:46 AM
Nice link, dude. Two ideas stand out for me: the rich person who thought that affluence only applies to people who fly by private jet; and the other rich person who said that affluence means not having to worry about money. I agree with the second idea.

I first saw the word 'affluent' in the sixties, and affluent then meant a person who is comfortably off, like say a suburban doctor or lawyer. The people the journalist interviewed are beyond affluent; they are rich.

In Australia, in the eighties, there was a TV sitcom where one of the characters said that her ambition was to 'effluent', meaning 'affluent.'

Nice post, PDK. Sounds like being Jeeves is a good job.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Imma on September 09, 2017, 11:00:12 AM
The more I read about the privileged, the more I believe in wealth taxes and high inheritance taxes. The reason these people hide their expenses from their servants is so that the servants don't demand a higher salary. When your new sofa costs more than what you paid your nanny for half a year then there is a problem. Obscene wealth and income inequalities have always lead to bad consequences (Wars and Revolutions.)

I'm not a rich hater (a word I've learned from this thread!) but I do agree with this. There is a difference between earned wealth and inherited wealth.

You are born with nothing and you die with nothing. Whatever happens in between is your own responsibility. I don't have children, but if I did I would make sure they wouldn't give them lifelong wealth on a silver platter. I think it would be better if inheritance taxes would rise so income tax could be lowered. People earn their income, you don't earn or deserve an inheritance. It's something that happens to you. It would be much more fair if everybody had to start at square one. ( of course, it would be impossible to give everyone exactly the same start in life and I don't want anything extreme, but I think everyone can agree that some children are starting miles ahead of others which makes it very hard for others to keep up with them).

My country has had inheritance tax since the 1850s, when a progressive, liberal politician came into office. Back then nearly all of the land was in the hands of the aristocracy. For peasants (my ancestors) there were very few options: stay in the countryside and work yourself to death on a tenant farm, or go to the city and work yourself to death in a factory. It wasn't slavery, but it wasn't very far from it either because if you wanted to move to another estate, you often needed a letter of recommendation. Inheritance tax destroyed the landed aristocracy in two generations. Of course they still complain about this injustice, but it allowed many tenants, again including my own ancestors, to buy their own little farm and work for themselves. Owning property allowed them to vote, to send their kids to school, to pay doctor's bills, and to eventually retire. I think it's one of the most important laws in the history of our country.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Tetsuya Hondo on September 09, 2017, 11:04:34 AM
We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I think the CEO making an 8-figure salary is preventing the advancement of others. Consider that a few decades ago a CEO made roughly 20 times their employees and now it's over 300 times. Along the way, top execs have started paying themselves more while paying employees less and taking away benefits to boot. They sit on each others boards and rubber stamp each others' salary packages. It's a rigged system where rewards are completely disconnected from their actual performance. You can sink a company and still leave with a $100M plus for the pleasure. We've also slashed the tax rates for the top percentiles, so now they're paying in less of a percentage of wages than ever, which could go to things like public education, which can help others to advance.
Ah, goody. A "rich hater"... Glad to have identified ya.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

C'mon, you're better than that. Do you refute what I said, is any of it inaccurate, or can you just sling insults? Because if it's the latter, then you might want to reexamine your beliefs here. Maybe you're on shakier ground than you realize.

The fact is, inequality is not a constant. It has changed over time and for the worst in recent decades. Our policies and the actions of some have led to that.

As for being a "rich hater," I have no problems with the rich so long as they don't game things to the disadvantage of others. I believe that those that work the hardest and take risks to better themselves should be rewarded. However, wealth does not spring forth in a vacuum. Certain conditions help it grow, including infrastructure, a reliable judicial system, an educated populace, etc. I do have an issue with wealthy people who don't realize that. Especially those that were born on third base and think that they hit a triple.

I'm in the upper percentiles myself. Hell, we even had a nanny until recently. I empathize with some of the people in the article and even have similar stories. My only issue is that things have gotten out of whack. Allowing this issue will fester, will come back to bite us in the long run.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: scottish on September 09, 2017, 11:05:56 AM
We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I think the CEO making an 8-figure salary is preventing the advancement of others. Consider that a few decades ago a CEO made roughly 20 times their employees and now it's over 300 times. Along the way, top execs have started paying themselves more while paying employees less and taking away benefits to boot. They sit on each others boards and rubber stamp each others' salary packages. It's a rigged system where rewards are completely disconnected from their actual performance. You can sink a company and still leave with a $100M plus for the pleasure. We've also slashed the tax rates for the top percentiles, so now they're paying in less of a percentage of wages than ever, which could go to things like public education, which can help others to advance.
Ah, goody. A "rich hater"... Glad to have identified ya.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

But what if he's a good CEO who build the business up by himself, instead of the typical executive who knows little but how to play politics and utter pithy statements?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Lski'stash on September 09, 2017, 11:31:02 AM
I read "The Millionaire Next Door" recently, and I thought this article was an interesting dichotomy to it. The affluent talked about in the book didn't buy the expensive things that needed the price tag taken off because it the price was so outrageous. They were, by all accounts, frugal who had saved their money. The affluent talked about in this article were mainly super high earners and heirs. I thought the first person may have actually been slightly frugal until it came out that they had spent $600,000 the year before! I wonder what their net worth would be without the $500,000/year job?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 09, 2017, 11:56:56 AM
What are the most obvious tells?  I'm curious to know both to increase my stealthiness when I want to be inconspicuous, but also to keep a look out for new friends who might be open to personal finance conversations (it's nice to not have to deflect or pretend around people, and it's most easily done with others in similar circumstances).
Honestly, it's hard to point out at any particular thing, it's more of a package deal. Kinda of like how you can spot tourists without them saying a word. None of the things I'm about to list are an absolute giveaway, and I can think of someone who was the complete opposite, but these things tend to show up with regularity.

Home location and size is pretty obvious. If all your children have their own rooms in K&C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Borough_of_Kensington_and_Chelsea), you are most likely doing very well. In the UK schools have uniforms, and that's another indication of which school you've chosen to associate with, and they don't even have to be private to be exclusive.

Outsourcing is another one. You wouldn't need my services if you have a nanny, but somebody comes once or twice a week to clean your house and iron your clothes. You may have private tutoring lessons for your children.

Then there is speech. Well-spoken, often multilingual parents and children. They rarely raise their voice. Communication whether by phone/email/text is a breeze because they communicate for a living.

Family dinners, with high quality ingredients. Probably a wine cellar to chill your wine. There is a quality centrist newspaper or magazines floating in your living room. Paintings on the walls. One or more musical instruments, and the children practice daily. Young children are being read to every night, and the older ones are voracious readers. Screen time is limited.

You are on top of current international affairs, and regularly travel overseas for work and pleasure.

You wear quality clothing that fits. You don't have visible tattoos or piercings. Your haircut is unremarkable and your teeth look great. On the weekend, you wear timeless classics. You either play or follow country club sports such as golf, tennis, sailing. You walk tall and straight, and generally convey an air of confidence.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 09, 2017, 12:25:09 PM
We can discuss the subject of inequality within our borders. Personally, I think inequality of wealth is much like inequality of intelligence, or inequality of effort, or inequality of most other things. It will exist and trying to vilify those who have more of one thing than others is absurd. The CEO making an 8-figure salary isn't preventing an 18 year old kid from becoming a CEO or stopping a janitor from going to school and becoming an engineer that starts his own multi-billion dollar company. So faulting them for being worth a lot of money to the job market is pretty ridiculous.

Actually, I think the CEO making an 8-figure salary is preventing the advancement of others. Consider that a few decades ago a CEO made roughly 20 times their employees and now it's over 300 times. Along the way, top execs have started paying themselves more while paying employees less and taking away benefits to boot. They sit on each others boards and rubber stamp each others' salary packages. It's a rigged system where rewards are completely disconnected from their actual performance. You can sink a company and still leave with a $100M plus for the pleasure. We've also slashed the tax rates for the top percentiles, so now they're paying in less of a percentage of wages than ever, which could go to things like public education, which can help others to advance.
Ah, goody. A "rich hater"... Glad to have identified ya.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

C'mon, you're better than that. Do you refute what I said, is any of it inaccurate, or can you just sling insults? Because if it's the latter, then you might want to reexamine your beliefs here. Maybe you're on shakier ground than you realize.

The fact is, inequality is not a constant. It has changed over time and for the worst in recent decades. Our policies and the actions of some have led to that.

As for being a "rich hater," I have no problems with the rich so long as they don't game things to the disadvantage of others. I believe that those that work the hardest and take risks to better themselves should be rewarded. However, wealth does not spring forth in a vacuum. Certain conditions help it grow, including infrastructure, a reliable judicial system, an educated populace, etc. I do have an issue with wealthy people who don't realize that. Especially those that were born on third base and think that they hit a triple.

I'm in the upper percentiles myself. Hell, we even had a nanny until recently. I empathize with some of the people in the article and even have similar stories. My only issue is that things have gotten out of whack. Allowing this issue will fester, will come back to bite us in the long run.
Refute it. Nope. Put it in actual, realistic context, sure. The vast majority of CEOs aren't making 300 times what the janitor makes. Most aren't pulling in 50 times what the lowest paid employee of the company makes. The highest compensated ones, however, have seen an increase in their relative pay to the lowest paid though. Of course, the have gone from managing a much smaller workforce, and/or revenue, and/or number of customers, and/or some other significant increase in their responsibilities.. while having more companies need people with such skills/experience while not having a significant increase in the number of qualified people for such positions..  all things driving their salaries up while the janitor or secretary etc have had zero increase in their responsibilities and no shortage of qualified applicant for their positions.

So, yeah, some jobs pay more now, but they also deserve it as a general rule based on the basic rules of supply and demand and fair compensation for increased responsibilities and the associated accountability... Now, if the janitor went from cleaning 500 sq ft to 50000 sq ft then they should have got a pay raise too. I haven't heard any stats saying their responsibilities have been increasing over the past 40 years though. As sch, the CEO with a ton more responsibility now getting a larger pay raise makes a lot of sense to me...

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Fomerly known as something on September 09, 2017, 04:59:47 PM
What struck me with this article is that these rich people were having a hard time recognizing that they were in fact rich.  They also see that having a 2nd home in the Hampton's or spending $600,000/year is normal.  Yes it is normal among your rich peers but it is not normal by any stretch.   
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: okits on September 09, 2017, 07:55:32 PM
What are the most obvious tells?  I'm curious to know both to increase my stealthiness when I want to be inconspicuous, but also to keep a look out for new friends who might be open to personal finance conversations (it's nice to not have to deflect or pretend around people, and it's most easily done with others in similar circumstances).
Honestly, it's hard to point out at any particular thing, it's more of a package deal. Kinda of like how you can spot tourists without them saying a word. None of the things I'm about to list are an absolute giveaway, and I can think of someone who was the complete opposite, but these things tend to show up with regularity.

Home location and size is pretty obvious. If all your children have their own rooms in K&C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Borough_of_Kensington_and_Chelsea), you are most likely doing very well. In the UK schools have uniforms, and that's another indication of which school you've chosen to associate with, and they don't even have to be private to be exclusive.

Outsourcing is another one. You wouldn't need my services if you have a nanny, but somebody comes once or twice a week to clean your house and iron your clothes. You may have private tutoring lessons for your children.

Then there is speech. Well-spoken, often multilingual parents and children. They rarely raise their voice. Communication whether by phone/email/text is a breeze because they communicate for a living.

Family dinners, with high quality ingredients. Probably a wine cellar to chill your wine. There is a quality centrist newspaper or magazines floating in your living room. Paintings on the walls. One or more musical instruments, and the children practice daily. Young children are being read to every night, and the older ones are voracious readers. Screen time is limited.

You are on top of current international affairs, and regularly travel overseas for work and pleasure.

You wear quality clothing that fits. You don't have visible tattoos or piercings. Your haircut is unremarkable and your teeth look great. On the weekend, you wear timeless classics. You either play or follow country club sports such as golf, tennis, sailing. You walk tall and straight, and generally convey an air of confidence.

Thanks, PDK, that's really interesting, and reminiscent of some of the generationally-wealthy people I have done work for (very nice in person, genteel manners, calm and collected, not flashy but all their belongings are in good condition, as are they.  They are very engaged with their children and the kids are similarly nice.)  None have seemed unaware of their privilege, and some were from families noted for their philanthropy.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on September 09, 2017, 10:58:44 PM
One thing the article touches on that I've experienced in my own dealings with extremely wealthy people is that they are incredibly cheap. They do not tip well and they try to avoid paying liveable wages to the people who work for them. That's probably how they ended up making 100 times the wages of their employees. No wonder they are ashamed of themselves. They are really unpleasant to be around.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 10, 2017, 09:53:11 AM
some jobs pay more now, but they also deserve it as a general rule based on the basic rules of supply and demand and fair compensation for increased responsibilities and the associated accountability...

Since when have people ever been paid for responsibility or accountability?  That's a crock of shit.

There is a municipal engineer who tests your drinking water every day.  He makes about $85k/year, and if he screws up then literally millions of people will die.  He has more real responsibility than virtually anyone else in the country, but he's not paid for it.

I work an office building where I sit at a computer and wiggle my fingers all day over a keyboard.  There are other people who wiggle their fingers in my same building for approximately 25% of what I make, and there are people who wiggle their fingers for twice what I make.  It's not like you can tell who works the hardest based on their paycheck, or who is the most dependable, or who has the most work stress or responsibility, or even who has the most specialized skill set.  Mostly, the size of a particular person's paycheck corresponds with the sizes of the paychecks of the other people they communicate with, and not with the actual work they do or the topic of their communication.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 10, 2017, 10:00:58 AM
I know a farmer in my state who makes roughly twenty million dollars per year in profits.  He works hard every day to provide for his large family.  He runs a business, and there is the ever present risk of drought or commodity price fluctuations, and most people believe he earns his money honestly. 

I know a farmer in Mexico who makes roughly $5000 per year.  He works hard every day to provide for his large family.  He runs a business, and there is the ever present risk of drought or the risk or price fluctuations, and most people believe that he earns his money honestly. 

These two men both work hard, in basically the same industry, with basically the same business model, and yet one of them is among the wealthiest people on the planet and the other legitimately fears his children might starve this year.  What's the difference?  It's not the amount of responsibility they have, and it's not how hard they work every day. 

The difference is privilege.  One of them was born into a stable democracy with advanced infrastructure that supports his operations.  He gets tax breaks and crop insurance, and a steady and reliable supply of irrigation water, and access to chemicals and pesticides, and a political system that enforces his property rights, and a ravenous market of consumers who want his product.  The other was born into a much less stable country, where his land is often ruined by neighbors or criminals, his crop is routinely stolen or destroyed, his water supply is often contaminated or totally dry, and he has no way to collect, store, distribute, or profit from whatever production excess he can manage, other than a roadside fruit stand that is routinely robbed by the corrupt state and local police.

It's important to recognize your privilege.  Yes, the American farmer works hard and considers himself morally virtuous, but so does the Mexican farmer.  The vast wealth an American farmer can accumulate is not due to his actions or his superiority, but due to the incredibly fortunate and secure environment into which he was born and in which he now operates his business.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 10, 2017, 10:12:22 AM
Well said, sol.

Capitalism doesn't care about who deserves what the most. Markets are supposed to find their own equilibrium, and that's that.

It's useful to be reminded how much we stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. Who here can build a refrigerator from scratch?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Kay-Ell on September 10, 2017, 11:43:16 AM
"In contrast, the people I spoke with expressed a deep ambivalence about identifying as affluent. Rather than brag about their money or show it off, they kept quiet about their advantages. They described themselves as “normal” people who worked hard and spent prudently, distancing themselves from common stereotypes of the wealthy as ostentatious, selfish, snobby and entitled."

I was struck by how accurately this paragraph describes the majority of us in the MMM community. How often do we discuss the awkwardness of our friends or colleagues finding out that our net worth has a few more zeros than theirs? Or try to differentiate ourselves from other, more frivolous and irresponsible, wealthy people? We sometimes work overtime to catelogue all of the ways in which we are being virtuous with our wealth and privilege; we don't spend lavishly on ourselves, we give back or plan to give back once retired, we focus on the important things in life and don't let ourselves get caught up in the consumer lifestyle, etc, etc.

I think, just as it's easy for the "obscenely rich" to believe that their multi million dollar homes, fleet of luxury cars  and lavish vacation are really quite normal and unremarkable because everyone else at their country club shares the same lifestyle, it's easy for the decidedly middle class to believe their 2300sq/ft house that uses up 1/3 of their paycheck in mortgage payments, financed SUVs, and massive flat screen TVs (purchased on credit cards of course) is normal and average because all of their coworkers have followed similar paths in coping with their 40+ year wage servitude. Similarly, the family of 4, working a combined 2.5 jobs on minimum wage, running out of food stamps mid month and buying name brand shoes even though they have a mailbox full of late notices threatening to shut off their utilities probably can't see another way to live because everyone in their apartment complex lives basically the same way. I think one of the reasons this forum and this community are so important to us is because it finally provided a community that validates our lifestyle values. Other people who value frugality, don't judge us for driving old cars or resent us for having no debt. But most of all don't think we are selfish or lazy for exiting the workforce early and living off of our pile of cash while they are still chained to their desks and married to consumerism. I'm proud of and grateful for this community... *and* articles like this one can be a good reminder that we are not immune to our own biases and stereotypes. Our privilege is not average (which is not to say Moreno people found y be where we are if they worked toward it). To me it's worth being grateful each day that we live in a time and a place where we were afforded an abundance of opportunity and inspired down an extremely rewarding path at a time in our lives when we couldn't seize those opportunities.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 10, 2017, 07:47:19 PM
It's important to recognize your privilege.  Yes, the American farmer works hard and considers himself morally virtuous, but so does the Mexican farmer.  The vast wealth an American farmer can accumulate is not due to his actions or his superiority, but due to the incredibly fortunate and secure environment into which he was born and in which he now operates his business.
Same thoughts here. The "deep ambivalence" us rich people feel should not be compared with the much more serious problems of those without our privileges.

And, yes, as a New Yorker, 250k a year is still very good money. It's not "buy a townhouse in Chelsea" money, but it is, "rent a nice apartment with enough bedrooms for your family in almost any neighborhood, and cover all other expenses" money, which is something the vast majority of New Yorkers cannot afford to do. My family is on track to spend $165k post tax this year in NYC, including $10k of one-time medical and dental costs, living in a very desirable neighborhood and paying for full-time childcare.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 10, 2017, 07:54:16 PM
Quote
"When I used the word “affluent” in an email to a stay-at-home mom with a $2.5 million household income, a house in the Hamptons and a child in private school, she almost canceled the interview, she told me later. Real affluence, she said, belonged to her friends who traveled on a private plane."
I hate when I hear about people like this. You're rich as fuck. Own it. Stop being so fucking fragile that you get offended when someone uses a euphemism usually used to describe a the social class one or two rungs below where you are actually.

Quote
"In context of New York City, especially its private schools, heightened their fear that their kids would never encounter the “real world,” or have “fluency outside the bubble,” in the words of one inheritor."
Send your kid to fucking public school then.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Gondolin on September 11, 2017, 07:59:05 AM
Quote
Send your kid to fucking public school then

But what would the Joneses think?? I pity these nouveau riche who are too busy complaining that they're not as rich as their neighbors to enjoy their incredible fortune.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 11, 2017, 08:06:27 AM
"In contrast, the people I spoke with expressed a deep ambivalence about identifying as affluent. Rather than brag about their money or show it off, they kept quiet about their advantages. They described themselves as “normal” people who worked hard and spent prudently, distancing themselves from common stereotypes of the wealthy as ostentatious, selfish, snobby and entitled."

I was struck by how accurately this paragraph describes the majority of us in the MMM community. How often do we discuss the awkwardness of our friends or colleagues finding out that our net worth has a few more zeros than theirs? Or try to differentiate ourselves from other, more frivolous and irresponsible, wealthy people? We sometimes work overtime to catelogue all of the ways in which we are being virtuous with our wealth and privilege; we don't spend lavishly on ourselves, we give back or plan to give back once retired, we focus on the important things in life and don't let ourselves get caught up in the consumer lifestyle, etc, etc.

I think, just as it's easy for the "obscenely rich" to believe that their multi million dollar homes, fleet of luxury cars  and lavish vacation are really quite normal and unremarkable because everyone else at their country club shares the same lifestyle, it's easy for the decidedly middle class to believe their 2300sq/ft house that uses up 1/3 of their paycheck in mortgage payments, financed SUVs, and massive flat screen TVs (purchased on credit cards of course) is normal and average because all of their coworkers have followed similar paths in coping with their 40+ year wage servitude. Similarly, the family of 4, working a combined 2.5 jobs on minimum wage, running out of food stamps mid month and buying name brand shoes even though they have a mailbox full of late notices threatening to shut off their utilities probably can't see another way to live because everyone in their apartment complex lives basically the same way. I think one of the reasons this forum and this community are so important to us is because it finally provided a community that validates our lifestyle values. Other people who value frugality, don't judge us for driving old cars or resent us for having no debt. But most of all don't think we are selfish or lazy for exiting the workforce early and living off of our pile of cash while they are still chained to their desks and married to consumerism. I'm proud of and grateful for this community... *and* articles like this one can be a good reminder that we are not immune to our own biases and stereotypes. Our privilege is not average (which is not to say Moreno people found y be where we are if they worked toward it). To me it's worth being grateful each day that we live in a time and a place where we were afforded an abundance of opportunity and inspired down an extremely rewarding path at a time in our lives when we couldn't seize those opportunities.

But sometimes don't you just want to scream at your consumerist friends who pine for huge houses and luxury auto brands and complain about their financial problems, "motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"  I really want to sometimes.  But I don't.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 11, 2017, 08:39:05 AM
"motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"

This needs to be dude's new .sig line, appended to the end of every single forum post he makes.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Bucksandreds on September 11, 2017, 09:09:58 AM
Well said, sol.

Capitalism doesn't care about who deserves what the most. Markets are supposed to find their own equilibrium, and that's that.

It's useful to be reminded how much we stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. Who here can build a refrigerator from scratch?

I would go door to door campaigning for Sol for president. He eloquently states what us center left folks think. He's a badass and I wish I knew him.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: DoubleDown on September 11, 2017, 09:45:20 AM
Did anyone notice that one young family profiled in the article earned $500k/year, yet spent $600k the previous year and marveled at how they spent so much and didn't know where all the money goes? Imagine earning half a million dollars a year and still not being able to live within your means.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 11, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Quote
As for being a "rich hater," I have no problems with the rich so long as they don't game things to the disadvantage of others. I believe that those that work the hardest and take risks to better themselves should be rewarded. However, wealth does not spring forth in a vacuum. Certain conditions help it grow, including infrastructure, a reliable judicial system, an educated populace, etc. I do have an issue with wealthy people who don't realize that. Especially those that were born on third base and think that they hit a triple.

This is really it right here. I  think a lot of people use the term "rich hater" without actually *thinking*.  I've worked for two start-ups now.  I understand, and have seen, the immense effort that the CEO and execs put into one of them that was successful.  I saw them sell thousands of shares of stock (on a regular schedule), worth millions.  Every year.  But I also know that those guys all got 4-5 credit cards each and 2nd mortgages on their homes to start the company.

I'm not talking about those guys.  You can't turn around without reading a story about a CEO who makes millions while driving a company into the ground, cutting jobs, cutting salaries and benefits.  I mean, come on.  You've got the Walmarts vs the Costcos, and everything in between.

Manipulating the system while you are in power is not just a 1% thing though.  I just had a convo with a friend whose brother is a retired sheriff.  That public system is awesome.  Your pension (which you can collect at age 50) is based on your highest year's income.  So all of the overtime goes to people who are close to retirement.  Thanks taxpayers!  Imagine a pension well over $100,000 a year (plus bennies) for...20-30 years.  Many times for longer than they actually worked.  (Not only that, but apparently my friend's brother changed his state of residence to a neighboring state to decrease taxes even MORE than they'd already managed.  In addition to that awesome pension, they inherited a family house with very low prop taxes, thanks to Prop 13.)

Sigh.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: tarheeldan on September 11, 2017, 11:20:51 AM
But sometimes don't you just want to scream at your consumerist friends who pine for huge houses and luxury auto brands and complain about their financial problems, "motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"  I really want to sometimes.  But I don't.

Thank you! This made me laugh pretty hard :-)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: uwp on September 11, 2017, 11:50:42 AM
Quote
“We have a pretty normal existence,” she told me. ... “That’s kind of a little spousal joke. You know, like: ‘Hey. Do you feel like this is the $600,000 lifestyle? Whooo!’ ”

Eat the rich.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 11, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
But sometimes don't you just want to scream at your consumerist friends who pine for huge houses and luxury auto brands and complain about their financial problems, "motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"  I really want to sometimes.  But I don't.
Who else read this in Samuel L. Jackson's voice?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SecretSquirrel on September 11, 2017, 12:21:28 PM
I'm not talking about those guys.  You can't turn around without reading a story about a CEO who makes millions while driving a company into the ground, cutting jobs, cutting salaries and benefits.  I mean, come on.  You've got the Walmarts vs the Costcos, and everything in between.

The problem is: what can we do about that behavior? Corporations are voluntarily hiring their CEOs, and setting their pay structure. The workers of said corporations are voluntarily working there. And, the customers are voluntarily buying the products/services provided by said corporations.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 11, 2017, 01:19:37 PM
While we're all on this topic, this is probably a good time to bring up the classic (and oft-discussed by MMM forums) Joshua Kennon post Stealth Wealth (https://www.joshuakennon.com/stealth-wealth-why-americas-rich-hide-their-money/). It has spawned pages and pages of related discussions here.

I would go door to door campaigning for Sol for president. He eloquently states what us center left folks think. He's a badass and I wish I knew him.

You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.

As for knowing me, I generally shy away from the meet ups.  I have a full time job and a family to raise and rental houses to look after and you folks to entertain online, and sometimes I even claim a little bit of time all for myself.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 11, 2017, 01:21:22 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: solon on September 11, 2017, 01:23:10 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.

I can't begin to imagine, but I'm REALLY curious.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Bucksandreds on September 11, 2017, 01:27:02 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.

The picture screams that he's a member of the way too large ears for your head club
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 11, 2017, 01:33:48 PM
I'm not talking about those guys.  You can't turn around without reading a story about a CEO who makes millions while driving a company into the ground, cutting jobs, cutting salaries and benefits.  I mean, come on.  You've got the Walmarts vs the Costcos, and everything in between.

The problem is: what can we do about that behavior? Corporations are voluntarily hiring their CEOs, and setting their pay structure. The workers of said corporations are voluntarily working there. And, the customers are voluntarily buying the products/services provided by said corporations.

And most of us here aspire to (or already do) live off of investments in said corporations. We count on increasing profits and capital appreciation for our long-term finances, which means companies need to keep costs down while increasing revenues.

So I find it strange to have an "eat the rich" attitude while at the same time promoting amassment of enough wealth that one can live on passive income. I mean, how wealthy is that, to not need to work to live? Many of us here are, or will become, multi millionaires...multi millionaires that quite often pay little to no taxes because we need so little income to live while also taking advantage of subsidies, such as the ACA (I'm in this group). I don't have a problem with this, per se, just find the inconsistency fascinating.

I can understand poking at the rich for profligate spending (like $500,000 income being insufficient), but I guess I didn't get the memo detailing the magic dividing line between wealthy and too wealthy.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 11, 2017, 01:40:12 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be vague.  I'm an atheist, and I haven't been shy about saying so on the forums. 

Part of the stigma against atheism is that so many people hide it that lots of people don't think they even know one.  They assume that everyone they interact with has bought the same fairy tale that they have, that it's totally normal for adults to pretend to believe in Santa Clause.  Well, I don't pretend. 

Throughout all of human history, every single mystery ever solved has turned out to be "not magic" and it baffles me that anyone would still cling to magic as a viable explanation for anything when we literally have robots on other planets, and the internet in our pockets, and gene editing technology in local hospitals.  There is no invisible man with a beard and a sword who watches over you.  Prayer has been scientifically proven not to work.  The universe was created by gravity, which exists for the same reason that 2+2=4.  Animals do not talk, water does not turn to wine, your consciousness will not be reincarnated as an ant if you are a bad person, and once you are dead you are returned to the same state you inhabited before you were born, i.e. non-existence.  This is not something to be afraid of, but celebrated.  All of it.  The universe is amazing and beautiful and every bit of it is non-magical.

Now imagine me giving that answer to a television camera at a live debate when my opponent questions my faith.  So yea, not running for office over here.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: solon on September 11, 2017, 01:44:24 PM
Debating whether or not one can run for office is not something ordinary people do. I say he's running. He's protesting too much.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KarefulKactus15 on September 11, 2017, 02:23:40 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be vague.  I'm an atheist, and I haven't been shy about saying so on the forums. 

Part of the stigma against atheism is that so many people hide it that lots of people don't think they even know one.  They assume that everyone they interact with has bought the same fairy tale that they have, that it's totally normal for adults to pretend to believe in Santa Clause.  Well, I don't pretend. 

Throughout all of human history, every single mystery ever solved has turned out to be "not magic" and it baffles me that anyone would still cling to magic as a viable explanation for anything when we literally have robots on other planets, and the internet in our pockets, and gene editing technology in local hospitals.  There is no invisible man with a beard and a sword who watches over you.  Prayer has been scientifically proven not to work.  The universe was created by gravity, which exists for the same reason that 2+2=4.  Animals do not talk, water does not turn to wine, your consciousness will not be reincarnated as an ant if you are a bad person, and once you are dead you are returned to the same state you inhabited before you were born, i.e. non-existence.  This is not something to be afraid of, but celebrated.  All of it.  The universe is amazing and beautiful and every bit of it is non-magical.

Now imagine me giving that answer to a television camera at a live debate when my opponent questions my faith.  So yea, not running for office over here.

Your not going to get the southern vote with that interview! Lol
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: uwp on September 11, 2017, 03:18:52 PM
And most of us here aspire to (or already do) live off of investments in said corporations. We count on increasing profits and capital appreciation for our long-term finances, which means companies need to keep costs down while increasing revenues.

So I find it strange to have an "eat the rich" attitude while at the same time promoting amassment of enough wealth that one can live on passive income. I mean, how wealthy is that, to not need to work to live? Many of us here are, or will become, multi millionaires...multi millionaires that quite often pay little to no taxes because we need so little income to live while also taking advantage of subsidies, such as the ACA (I'm in this group). I don't have a problem with this, per se, just find the inconsistency fascinating.

I can understand poking at the rich for profligate spending (like $500,000 income being insufficient), but I guess I didn't get the memo detailing the magic dividing line between wealthy and too wealthy.

It's not that just being rich is contemptible.  The dividing line is the attitude of "Haha. It's a little private joke we have: where did that half a million in spending go?"
While trying to claim you live a "normal" life as you make 10X the median income in your city.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: libertarian4321 on September 11, 2017, 03:59:51 PM
I know a farmer in my state who makes roughly twenty million dollars per year in profits. 

A farmer making $20 MILLION A YEAR in profit?

Wow, his farm must be about the size of Rhode Island, or he's growing and refining opium poppy.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: libertarian4321 on September 11, 2017, 04:24:11 PM
Debating whether or not one can run for office is not something ordinary people do. I say he's running. He's protesting too much.

Why can't ordinary people run for office?  It's certainly nothing special to run for local office.  I've done it.

And even running for Congress isn't that big of a deal.  There are many Congressional races every year where only one candidate runs, because Gerrymandering has rendered the "election" a farce.  Gerrymandering has rendered most American congressional districts one-party fiefdoms where the election is not even remotely competitive.  I can tell you which party will win the 2018 Congressional "race" in 35 of the 36 districts in Texas, with essentially 100% accuracy (even though the candidate have not yet been declared).

If you live in one of those districts (and most of us do), almost anyone can run as the token "opposition candidate" (with no chance in Hell of winning)- the major parties go begging for candidates in these districts to at least give the appearance of Democracy.  Or you can run as a third party candidate.  As long as you realize you have no hope of winning, it's easy to run for office.

I've run as a Libertarian in a district Gerrymandered about 80% Dem.  The Republicans haven't even fielded a candidate in the last 2 elections.   Anyone who wants to run as a Republican can do so in this district. 

A bit off topic, I guess.  Sorry, I couldn't resist my "evils of Gerrymandering" rant.


Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 11, 2017, 04:48:57 PM
I know a farmer in my state who makes roughly twenty million dollars per year in profits. 

A farmer making $20 MILLION A YEAR in profit?

Wow, his farm must be about the size of Rhode Island, or he's growing and refining opium poppy.
 

He's part a hops consortium.  Technically it's the consortium that banks so much, but it's not like there are a hundred guys in it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Clean Shaven on September 11, 2017, 05:09:11 PM
You only say that because you don't know my dirty secret.  I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.
I'm going for atheist or ginger.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be vague.  I'm an atheist, and I haven't been shy about saying so on the forums. 

I was going for "Lannister," as I was scrolling through the comments... 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SecretSquirrel on September 11, 2017, 05:20:24 PM
I'm not talking about those guys.  You can't turn around without reading a story about a CEO who makes millions while driving a company into the ground, cutting jobs, cutting salaries and benefits.  I mean, come on.  You've got the Walmarts vs the Costcos, and everything in between.

The problem is: what can we do about that behavior? Corporations are voluntarily hiring their CEOs, and setting their pay structure. The workers of said corporations are voluntarily working there. And, the customers are voluntarily buying the products/services provided by said corporations.

And most of us here aspire to (or already do) live off of investments in said corporations. We count on increasing profits and capital appreciation for our long-term finances, which means companies need to keep costs down while increasing revenues.

So I find it strange to have an "eat the rich" attitude while at the same time promoting amassment of enough wealth that one can live on passive income. I mean, how wealthy is that, to not need to work to live? Many of us here are, or will become, multi millionaires...multi millionaires that quite often pay little to no taxes because we need so little income to live while also taking advantage of subsidies, such as the ACA (I'm in this group). I don't have a problem with this, per se, just find the inconsistency fascinating.

I can understand poking at the rich for profligate spending (like $500,000 income being insufficient), but I guess I didn't get the memo detailing the magic dividing line between wealthy and too wealthy.

I call it: The 2% Problem. Wealthier than 98% of the population, but less wealthy than the 1%. They have a lot, but are still part of The 99%. This way they can complain with the 99% about how much that filthy rich CEO makes, while having enough money to be financially independent and living a life of leisure.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Gondolin on September 11, 2017, 08:37:50 PM
Quote
The 2% Problem

Yeah, it's uncomfortable being in the social twilight zone where you're too rich to be one of "the people" but not rich enough to fund your own charity or buy yourself a congressman.

But not as uncomfortable as, ya know, being poor.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Louis XIV on September 11, 2017, 11:00:10 PM
Did anyone notice that one young family profiled in the article earned $500k/year, yet spent $600k the previous year and marveled at how they spent so much and didn't know where all the money goes? Imagine earning half a million dollars a year and still not being able to live within your means.

I can definitely imagine it... Its a recipe of:

To be fair, I've met quite a few people (working on the tech side of finance) who fit this exact mould. A few burn out, presumably have a mid life crisis and disappear, but most still seem to end up doing fine. At some stage they settle down and cut back on the $500/$1,000+ bar tabs, $20,000 holidays, etc, the kids move out & even if they've got fairly terrible spending habits, as long as they've made their minimum pension contributions, bought some property at some stage (usually several, for the ego/wank factor), they end up doing fine. I know some burned out hard in the GFC and made it back in, but it seems like most finance types I know of either got back in and started making $$$$$ again or were able to tilt from finance to something else high paying and business-y that still allows them to live ridiculous lifestyles.

Its not a path I'd want to take, but its also important to consider that while insane by any reasonable person's standards, a lot of their spend is part and parcel for the jobs that pay that sort of $$$. Personally I'm pretty stingy, so I'd be looking for any possible way to cut it down (rent the stupid flashy apartment and invest in markets that have a better yield, get my tailored suits made somewhere much cheaper, keep the work related drinking and boozing expenses to the bare minimum....)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 12, 2017, 04:24:40 AM
Anyone who thinks their nanny or cleaner doesn't know how rich they are or how much they spent on the house or sofa is kidding themselves.  They are covering up the price tags for themselves, not their servants.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Cranky on September 12, 2017, 05:33:05 AM
I felt like it mostly illustrated that "rich" is a moving target - you feel "rich" when you have more than 95% of the people on your street, and poor if you have less than maybe 80%, but it's very much a relative number, not an absolute. And as we all know, there are any number of ways to spend money on stuff we don't actually need.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KBecks on September 12, 2017, 05:40:37 AM
I'm curious how many people here have read "Harrison Bergeron", by Kurt Vonnegut.  I read it in high school and find it unforgettable.  On fairness:

https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Gondolin on September 12, 2017, 07:34:45 AM
Harrison Bergeron? The early, lesser Vonnegut satire that would be completely forgotten except that every few years some well read conservative trots it out as a "dire warning" of where our society is heading because too many black kids got to go to college that year?

What relevance does it have to this conversation? Are you trying to imply that rich people are all rich because of natural inequality of talent and thus any abrogation of thier wealth or happiness is akin to Bergeronesque handicapping?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KBecks on September 12, 2017, 11:25:26 AM
Are you kidding?  Vonnegut is a master writer.  I also learned there is a movie version from the '90s, but I haven't seen it.

If the NYT piece is leading us to greater class envy and desire to make things "fair", then it's absolutely relevant.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: MgoSam on September 12, 2017, 12:11:30 PM
What I took from the article wasn't that these rich people are out of touch, but rather that they are stuck comparing themselves to their surroundings. They are spending $600k annually due to their high cost of living but also because they seem to want to keep up with their neighbors. As a result they can't allow themselves to feel comfortable apparently.

I've spoken to a few people that make a ton of money (think 7 figures) and they are shocked that I would consider retiring if I had less than $5M. One guy flat out told me that I would be "stupid" for doing so and shut up when I told him that my annual expenses are probably less than the property taxes on his brownstone. I think that was the moment he realized just how frugal one can live outside NYC without children in private school.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Kay-Ell on September 12, 2017, 12:57:39 PM
But sometimes don't you just want to scream at your consumerist friends who pine for huge houses and luxury auto brands and complain about their financial problems, "motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"  I really want to sometimes.  But I don't.

Haha, yes all of the time!  It absolutely drives me crazy that so many people who are financially miserable make themselves that way because they don't see the link between spending money on one thing, and not having the same money to spend on something else.  Did nobody else have to do those annoying work problems in elementary school that supposedly helped you develop basic logic?  "Susie has a dozen apples.  She eats 1 and trades 4 to Timmy for a chocolate cupcake.  How many apples does Susie have left?"

Part of the stigma against atheism is that so many people hide it that lots of people don't think they even know one. 

I'm agnostic and not shy about it!  Maybe we should start a write in campaign for Sol :-)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 12, 2017, 01:38:00 PM
What I took from the article wasn't that these rich people are out of touch, but rather that they are stuck comparing themselves to their surroundings.
Wait. Isn't that what "out of touch" means?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 12, 2017, 01:41:42 PM
Are you kidding?  Vonnegut is a master writer.  I also learned there is a movie version from the '90s, but I haven't seen it.

If the NYT piece is leading us to greater class envy and desire to make things "fair", then it's absolutely relevant.
For any given direction in which one might choose to move the status quo, one can find a satirist who has satirized an extremity of that direction. It's "relevant" but not relevant.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 12, 2017, 01:55:15 PM
"motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"

This needs to be dude's new .sig line, appended to the end of every single forum post he makes.

hahaha!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 12, 2017, 01:56:10 PM
But sometimes don't you just want to scream at your consumerist friends who pine for huge houses and luxury auto brands and complain about their financial problems, "motherfucker, I'm a goddamned millionaire, so listen to what the fuck I'm puttin' down!"  I really want to sometimes.  But I don't.
Who else read this in Samuel L. Jackson's voice?

LOL!!!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 12, 2017, 02:05:50 PM
While we're all on this topic, this is probably a good time to bring up the classic (and oft-discussed by MMM forums) Joshua Kennon post Stealth Wealth (https://www.joshuakennon.com/stealth-wealth-why-americas-rich-hide-their-money/). It has spawned pages and pages of related discussions here.

I would go door to door campaigning for Sol for president. He eloquently states what us center left folks think. He's a badass and I wish I knew him.

 I'm actually a member of one of the most reviled groups in modern America, and a regular recipient of derisive commentary and hostile behavior because of it.  I could never win an election.  Americans hate people like me too much.


By this you mean a federal government employee, correct?  Because I know the feeling.

Lots of people pissed off at folks like me -- even though they more or less had the same damn option as I did to decide between the public and private sector -- because we get pensions at retirement. "Not fair," they scream, "we pay for their retirement when we don't have them ourselves!"  Well fuck, you pay for GE/Ford/Cisco and a bunch of other people's retirements too, when you buy their shit and invest in their stock. I'll never understand the disconnect between paying for public and private services (yeah, yeah, I know, taxes are compulsory, yada yada yada). At any rate, a race to the bottom benefits nobody except our capitalist overlords (the 0.01%), so perhaps people ought to start thinking about starting a movement to restore pensions, not snatch everyone else's away.

There, I've gone and done it now. The anti-gov crowd (not to mention the pensions-are-for-losers-I-can-invest-the-money-better-in-my-401k crowd) is going to go crazy for another 3-4 pages of this thread. Have at it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 12, 2017, 02:07:07 PM
Oh, atheist, ha!  I still think gov employees are more reviled!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: trollwithamustache on September 12, 2017, 02:35:00 PM

The one obscenely wealthy gentlemen (somewhat famous if you follow tech entrepreneurs ) I sort of know didn't seem like a very happy person. As we chatted on and off over several years, it was clear most people he met or interacted with wanted to sell him something or in someway try to take advantage of him.

So yeah, things like hiding price tags make sense to me.



Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: DireWolf on September 12, 2017, 02:35:48 PM
One of the things I've come to realize in recent years as to why my DW and I don't "feel" that well off despite our income being in the top 5% is that we save a huge portion of that income. Our 7 figure net worth is something that will allow us to RE and live comfortably for the rest of our lives, but our current day-to-day spending is comparable to a lot of families that are middle/upper middle class. Many (most?) of those families are living outside their means - running up cc debt and not saving what they need to retire. I always had this mental image that someone in maybe the top 20% tier of incomes would have vacation homes and drive Porsches and belong to country clubs and send their kids to private schools, and all of those things seem extravagant to me based on our income. We have a nice, but still somewhat modest home for our area. We drive base model vehicles. Kid goes to public school. About the only thing we really splurge for are multiple vacations a year, and even those we try to keep costs down (some of these have an ulterior motive, trying to identify places we might want to live when we RE).
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 12, 2017, 02:44:05 PM
some jobs pay more now, but they also deserve it as a general rule based on the basic rules of supply and demand and fair compensation for increased responsibilities and the associated accountability...

Since when have people ever been paid for responsibility or accountability?  That's a crock of shit.

There is a municipal engineer who tests your drinking water every day.  He makes about $85k/year, and if he screws up then literally millions of people will die.  He has more real responsibility than virtually anyone else in the country, but he's not paid for it.

I work an office building where I sit at a computer and wiggle my fingers all day over a keyboard.  There are other people who wiggle their fingers in my same building for approximately 25% of what I make, and there are people who wiggle their fingers for twice what I make.  It's not like you can tell who works the hardest based on their paycheck, or who is the most dependable, or who has the most work stress or responsibility, or even who has the most specialized skill set.  Mostly, the size of a particular person's paycheck corresponds with the sizes of the paychecks of the other people they communicate with, and not with the actual work they do or the topic of their communication.

In pretty much any given large company, the regional manager gets paid more than the district manager because they have more responsibility, not because their job is harder. The district manager gets paid more than the store manager because they have more responsibility and accountability. The regional manager's boss similarly gets paid more because they have more responsibility. The exceptions to this are the stupid and the ignorant that take on more responsibility without demanding to be compensated appropriately. As job duties and responsibility increase, people generally get compensated more for that.

That municipal water chem tech taking samples each day (or one of many people doing so for larger municipalities) actually has little real responsibility. He's responsible to do a test (or in many cases, just gets the results of the water tests) and then do what he's told to do based on the results (nothing, tell someone, take a specific set of actions, etc). He isn't responsible for much at all really, despite the potential for negative consequences if he screws up and can't follow the relatively simple requirements of his job. If he screws up, AND some other stuff other people are responsible for screws up (the systems that make the water safe), AND the systems put into place to back them up fails (generally automated testing and alarms are put in place), THEN some people MAY have some problems for a period of time, most of which would be "inconvenient" rather than "significant in the grand scheme of things". For most such places, he screws up and there's no impact at all since it's unlikely all the other failures necessary for it to actually impact anything would happen at the same time. In fact, if he didn't test the water for a week the most likely result would be "an audit says he screwed up and maybe he loses his job".

If the CEO of GE (for example) screws up badly enough, the company fails (like say, Lehman Bros), then hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs, millions of investors lose their money, the economy of the US and the world are negatively impacted causing hardship to billions of people.

So, a global economic problem with hundreds of thousands of immediate potential job losses because a CEO's direction causes a company to fail vs "if some other stuff also goes wrong, then maybe a few thousand people are temporarily inconvenienced, call it a few hundred thousand if it's a large city AND IF the equipment isn't doing it's job properly AND all the other guys doing the same job screw up AND their bosses don't notice AND the water plant operators screw up and don't notice the systems not working properly".

Personally, I'd say the guy who can cause the global economic problems responsibility is a bit higher than the guy testing the water for the city.


Now, that's not to say that people ALWAYS get more pay for more responsibility. Change companies and the pay may be different (higher or lower) even if the responsibility is the same. Change regions and the pay will likely change as well (Higher COL areas tend to pay relatively lower salaries adjusted for cost of living for instance). Change countries and you can count on the pay changing. Then there are the people who don't know their own worth and accept more and more responsibility without ever negotiating/demanding more pay (employers love these idiots, willing to do more work and take on more responsibilities without having to get paid more is great for the bottom line, even though you know they're probably not bright enough to promote much farther).

It's also not to say that responsibility or accountability are the ONLY things that determine pay. The laws of supply and demand (fewer qualified individuals with lots of openings generally means more pay for instance) also hold true and the relative value of the work done matters (tons of artists, but few are selling painting for 5 or 6-figure sums because the market doesn't value most that highly).


For the record, however, I think objective data on pay should be included somewhere, so though it isn't relevant to the quoted post, I'll point this out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics regarding executive (including chief executive) pay:

Quote
The median annual wage for general and operations managers was $99,310 in May 2016.

The median annual wage for chief executives was $181,210 in May 2016.

Now, that "median" pay CEO making $181,210/yeah isn't making 300x what the lowest paid worker is getting working full time since none of the full-time workers in the US are earning $604/year.... despite how much some people think every CEO is making.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 12, 2017, 06:06:57 PM
Does that average annual wage count other forms of compensation such as RSUs or options or bonuses?

For all the reasons CEOs get paid more, how come when they drive a company into the ground they often receive 8 or 9 figure bonuses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 12, 2017, 06:43:24 PM
Quote
The median annual wage for chief executives was $181,210 in May 2016.

Now, that "median" pay CEO making $181,210/yeah isn't making 300x what the lowest paid worker is getting

This is so grossly dishonest as to be comical.  That number includes everyone who calls themselves a CEO, which means there is one for all 25 million businesses in America. 

I assure that the the CEO of GE, to use your example, is NOT making $181k/year.  That salary would be laughably low.  You probably already knew that, and made your ridiculous point anyway.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Gondolin on September 13, 2017, 06:56:29 AM
Quote
In pretty much any given large company, the regional manager gets paid more than the district manager because they have more responsibility, not because their job is harder. The district manager gets paid more than the store manager because they have more responsibility and accountability

So when the district manager gets caught snorting coke off his secretary's chest he's immediately held accountable and fired, right? No? He gets shuffled off to another district because his wife plays tennis with the VPs wife? Ok, then.

I think we can all agree that the "on paper" hierarchies of accountability are often pretty far from the experienced reality.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KBecks on September 13, 2017, 07:02:07 AM
OK, on people behaving badly at work -- first of all it sounds like you're making that shit up and passing it off as commonplace.  Second, people don't always get fired for things like affairs at work.  It depends, and I think it sometimes gets complicated with HR and legal issues.

What does this have to do with salary again?  Oh, all regional managers are evil? 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: StarBright on September 13, 2017, 07:14:44 AM
OK, on people behaving badly at work -- first of all it sounds like you're making that shit up and passing it off as commonplace.  Second, people don't always get fired for things like affairs at work.  It depends, and I think it sometimes gets complicated with HR and legal issues.

What does this have to do with salary again?  Oh, all regional managers are evil?

Going off on a tangent - but - maybe more commonplace than you think? Just last week I asked a coworker "So, is Bob on drugs?" Coworker replied "That's a dumb question." I said "Is Bob on different drugs than usual?" Coworker replied "That is a much better question." Bob is a sales manager.

Each company I have worked at has had a Bob and nothing they do seems to get them fired (drugs, harassment, crazy rages, etc). To tie it into the article - Bob is sort of like the folks in NY Times piece but in a Lower COL area; 200k+ income, family inheritance, kids in private schools, twice a year ski vacations. Bob is sort of a douche but I have great work stories.

-End Tangent :)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 07:18:35 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 13, 2017, 07:24:49 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 13, 2017, 07:46:40 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: trollwithamustache on September 13, 2017, 07:58:19 AM

So when the district manager gets caught snorting coke off his secretary's chest he's immediately held accountable and fired, right? No? He gets shuffled off to another district because his wife plays tennis with the VPs wife? Ok, then.

I think we can all agree that the "on paper" hierarchies of accountability are often pretty far from the experienced reality.
[/quote]

in any union facility you can replace "district manager" with any represented worker... and it doesn't matter if their wife plays tennis with the stewards wife or not! 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 08:07:09 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.

So if I want to hire someone to do work for me it's ok for the government to dictate the maximum that I can pay that person?  And by default you're ok with the government dictating how much my time is worth?

I just want to be clear on your position here since I'm obviously blinded by ignorance and not as enlightened as you are.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 08:25:31 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.

So if I want to hire someone to do work for me it's ok for the government to dictate the maximum that I can pay that person?  And by default you're ok with the government dictating how much my time is worth?

I just want to be clear on your position here since I'm obviously blinded by ignorance and not as enlightened as you are.

It depends what we want as a society.  There as those that believe we should live in a survival of the fittest economic environment, and to regulate that environment away would limit our ultimate economic prosperity.  People that can't make it in this survival of the fittest model do what happens in nature.  Most companies are good and by trying to maximize their profit they are ultimately benefiting everyone.  Without judgement, I feel like you probably fall into this category.

There are those that believe that unregulated capitalism results in the strong exploiting the weak, and growing wealth (and other) inequalities.  Furthermore, there are those that believe that if all that motivates a company is a profit motive, then that company will ultimately harm whatever lies in the way of it making its profit, be it people, the environment, etc.   As a result those people seek "regulation", one way or another, to smooth out the inequality and limit what companies can do.  Regulation can take the form of laws that ban bad practices.   I personally think we should change the corporate tax rate to something minimal like 5% and then start adding taxes back for things corporations do which do not help society.  With respect to wages it can be something like, pay your CEOs as much as you want, but if if you are a company that makes a few very wealthy and keeps everyone at minimum wage, society is going to tax you.   Put as much carbon into the air as you want, but if you do, more tax, since you are ultimately harming everyone. 

I personally believe there are too many examples, even ongoing right now, of companies prioritizing profit over how their actions affect everyone else, to think that unregulated capitalism really works to benefit everyone.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 13, 2017, 08:26:14 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

If someone were to answer "yes" would that satisfy your desire to discard this intellectually challenging problem by giving you a convenient excuse to ignore viewpoints you find uncomfortable?  Because it sure does seem like you're just fishing for an excuse to throw up your hands and cry out "damn liberals!" and go back to your safe space.  Here's a thought, maybe just think it through for yourself instead of looking for oversimplified reasons to avoid thinking it through for yourself.  Do the hard work.

Wealth inequality in American capitalism is a complicated problem.  It doesn't have any easy or obvious solutions, but it is absolutely a moral question that speaks directly to the kind of society we aspire to be.  As such, I think it deserves more careful attention than the flippant response you have offered.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Gondolin on September 13, 2017, 08:31:44 AM
Quote
OK, on people behaving badly at work...

Yeah, I made it up. It was just an (egregious) example I constructed to illustrate the point that quite often responsibility is uncorrelated with salary and accountability is a four letter word.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 13, 2017, 08:48:00 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.

So if I want to hire someone to do work for me it's ok for the government to dictate the maximum that I can pay that person?  And by default you're ok with the government dictating how much my time is worth?

I just want to be clear on your position here since I'm obviously blinded by ignorance and not as enlightened as you are.
Not an analogous situation: you are a private individual contracting another private individual to do a job for you.  The government doesn't get involved (except to take you to court if there is something illegal going on, such as you hiring a drugs mule).

The point I am making is that as a legal entity a company only exists because the government creates the conditions which enable it to exist - a company is a creature of the legal world not the natural world.  And as a legal creation it exists under the rules created for it by the government and the government has the right to say what it should pay its CEO.  If the company does not want to abide by those rules it can dissolve itself and the CEO can take all the resulting personal risks that they are shielded from by the legal structure of a company.

Clearer?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 08:51:53 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

If someone were to answer "yes" would that satisfy your desire to discard this intellectually challenging problem by giving you a convenient excuse to ignore viewpoints you find uncomfortable?  Because it sure does seem like you're just fishing for an excuse to throw up your hands and cry out "damn liberals!" and go back to your safe space.  Here's a thought, maybe just think it through for yourself instead of looking for oversimplified reasons to avoid thinking it through for yourself.  Do the hard work.

Wealth inequality in American capitalism is a complicated problem.  It doesn't have any easy or obvious solutions, but it is absolutely a moral question that speaks directly to the kind of society we aspire to be.  As such, I think it deserves more careful attention than the flippant response you have offered.

It is relevant in that several posts in this thread have referenced CEO salary inequality and what to do about it:

I'm not talking about those guys.  You can't turn around without reading a story about a CEO who makes millions while driving a company into the ground, cutting jobs, cutting salaries and benefits.  I mean, come on.  You've got the Walmarts vs the Costcos, and everything in between.

The problem is: what can we do about that behavior? Corporations are voluntarily hiring their CEOs, and setting their pay structure. The workers of said corporations are voluntarily working there. And, the customers are voluntarily buying the products/services provided by said corporations.


I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 09:03:06 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.

So if I want to hire someone to do work for me it's ok for the government to dictate the maximum that I can pay that person?  And by default you're ok with the government dictating how much my time is worth?

I just want to be clear on your position here since I'm obviously blinded by ignorance and not as enlightened as you are.
Not an analogous situation: you are a private individual contracting another private individual to do a job for you.  The government doesn't get involved (except to take you to court if there is something illegal going on, such as you hiring a drugs mule).

The point I am making is that as a legal entity a company only exists because the government creates the conditions which enable it to exist - a company is a creature of the legal world not the natural world.  And as a legal creation it exists under the rules created for it by the government and the government has the right to say what it should pay its CEO.  If the company does not want to abide by those rules it can dissolve itself and the CEO can take all the resulting personal risks that they are shielded from by the legal structure of a company.

Clearer?

I see it as completely analogous.  If my company (A legal entity known as a sole proprietorship), ie. me should be regulated by the government in the maximum I can pay someone?  Or are you saying that only certain legal entities (corporations) should be limited?

Should this apply to sports franchises and the movie industry?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 09:14:24 AM
I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
As mentioned previously, your example of an agreement between you and another party oversimplifies the CEO scenario. In the cases we're talking about owners (shareholders) are paying the CEO, however not all shareholders get a say in how much to pay him, the board of directors makes that decision. In theory they are representative of the shareholders and have the same interests but their incentive to benefit the company is distorted by their salary.

This is just an example - but if the CEO has a say in board members' salaries, they have incentive to be generous in hopes of reciprocation. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

In this scenario, is it reasonable that the government steps in to protect shareholders?

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 09:23:12 AM
I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
As mentioned previously, your example of an agreement between you and another party oversimplifies the CEO scenario. In the cases we're talking about owners (shareholders) are paying the CEO, however not all shareholders get a say in how much to pay him, the board of directors makes that decision. In theory they are representative of the shareholders and have the same interests but their incentive to benefit the company is distorted by their salary.

This is just an example - but if the CEO has a say in board members' salaries, they have incentive to be generous in hopes of reciprocation. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

In this scenario, is it reasonable that the government steps in to protect shareholders?

My opinion is no, the shareholder should look to his own protection.  If he doesn't like the company's policies then sell the stock and buy a company he finds agreeable.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 09:33:27 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: KBecks on September 13, 2017, 09:42:09 AM
Each company I have worked at has had a Bob

I know there are Bobs out there, but I'm sure your company also has plenty of people, most people, who are wonderful at their jobs.  In the big picture, the Bobs are outliers.

Plus, even if Bob is behaving badly, s/he might be good at the job, just an ass.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 09:44:37 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.

It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 13, 2017, 09:45:55 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
Well yes, of course.

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.

So if I want to hire someone to do work for me it's ok for the government to dictate the maximum that I can pay that person?  And by default you're ok with the government dictating how much my time is worth?

I just want to be clear on your position here since I'm obviously blinded by ignorance and not as enlightened as you are.
Not an analogous situation: you are a private individual contracting another private individual to do a job for you.  The government doesn't get involved (except to take you to court if there is something illegal going on, such as you hiring a drugs mule).

The point I am making is that as a legal entity a company only exists because the government creates the conditions which enable it to exist - a company is a creature of the legal world not the natural world.  And as a legal creation it exists under the rules created for it by the government and the government has the right to say what it should pay its CEO.  If the company does not want to abide by those rules it can dissolve itself and the CEO can take all the resulting personal risks that they are shielded from by the legal structure of a company.

Clearer?

I see it as completely analogous.  If my company (A legal entity known as a sole proprietorship), ie. me should be regulated by the government in the maximum I can pay someone?  Or are you saying that only certain legal entities (corporations) should be limited?

Should this apply to sports franchises and the movie industry?
The difference is that you are a natural person (a human being resident in the USA, I assume) and it is lawful for you to do anything unless the government passes a law to restrict what you do (eg do not murder).  A company is a legal person and only exists because the government has said it may exist under certain conditions.  If the government did not impose any conditions, the company would have no existence.  For instance, the government imposes conditions about the company having accounts and being audited, and about what is in those accounts, including CEO salaries, and that those accounts are made available to the shareholders.  If the government wants to impose a condition about the amount of the salary of the CEO because it thinks there is a societal benefit to doing that, there is no logical reason why it shouldn't.

Sports franchises and the movie industry are also based on the existence of the legal entity known as a company.  If you are referring to the salaries of sports stars and movie stars, then they are not running the companies as part of their executive structures but are either employees or are contracted by the companies, which is an entirely different status from that of CEO.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 09:50:51 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.

It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.

These statements contradict each other. Why would we limit top pay if its not that CEO's get paid too much?

Let me rephrase my question: How does the difference between the salary of the CEO and the lowest paid worker hurt anyone or encroach on anyone's freedom?

 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 09:53:35 AM
I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
As mentioned previously, your example of an agreement between you and another party oversimplifies the CEO scenario. In the cases we're talking about owners (shareholders) are paying the CEO, however not all shareholders get a say in how much to pay him, the board of directors makes that decision. In theory they are representative of the shareholders and have the same interests but their incentive to benefit the company is distorted by their salary.

This is just an example - but if the CEO has a say in board members' salaries, they have incentive to be generous in hopes of reciprocation. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

In this scenario, is it reasonable that the government steps in to protect shareholders?

My opinion is no, the shareholder should look to his own protection.  If he doesn't like the company's policies then sell the stock and buy a company he finds agreeable.

Board compensation is detailed in the corporation's bylaws and prospectus. The government should ensure this is transparent and fully disclosed, but it's up to investors to decide if they want to go along with it before investing. Same for how executives are compensated.

Also, I disagree with the premise that corporations only exist because governments allow them to exist. They exist because governments need corporations just as much as corporations need governments, it's a symbiotic relationship. In a society w/o taxes or liability laws (to be clear, this would be a terrible idea) corporations would be unnecessary, it's only because of our legal framework that we've had to come up with the idea of the corporation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, but at the same time modern government would not function without corporations.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 09:55:23 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 10:13:06 AM
I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
As mentioned previously, your example of an agreement between you and another party oversimplifies the CEO scenario. In the cases we're talking about owners (shareholders) are paying the CEO, however not all shareholders get a say in how much to pay him, the board of directors makes that decision. In theory they are representative of the shareholders and have the same interests but their incentive to benefit the company is distorted by their salary.

This is just an example - but if the CEO has a say in board members' salaries, they have incentive to be generous in hopes of reciprocation. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

In this scenario, is it reasonable that the government steps in to protect shareholders?
My opinion is no, the shareholder should look to his own protection.  If he doesn't like the company's policies then sell the stock and buy a company he finds agreeable.
Technically what I described in this example is already illegal. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders so the government could step in if someone knew this was happening.

Do you think this law should be changed?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 10:16:01 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 10:23:20 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.

It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.

These statements contradict each other. Why would we limit top pay if its not that CEO's get paid too much?

Let me rephrase my question: How does the difference between the salary of the CEO and the lowest paid worker hurt anyone or encroach on anyone's freedom?

You took two phrases of what I said, not even complete sentences, and claim I'm contradicting myself.  Why would you do that?  Do you really think I'm saying "CEOs don't get paid too much" and "limit top pay"?  Is that all I wrote?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 10:27:00 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

Im not even arguing for that.  I'm suggesting incentivize companies to pay the little worker more.  Really what I'm saying is we  move from the philosophy that says "it's a corporations duty to maximize profits for shareholders" to the philosophy that says "it's a corporation's duty to maximize benefits for society".   I suggested earlier by doing that thru the corporate tax codes.  If a company doesn't pollute, is carbon neutral, creates a good amount of wealth all around, pays women the same as men for the same work, is inclusive, etc, they shouldn't pay any tax at all.  The more a company doesn't do those things, the higher their taxes. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 10:27:51 AM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 10:33:31 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.

It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.

These statements contradict each other. Why would we limit top pay if its not that CEO's get paid too much?

Let me rephrase my question: How does the difference between the salary of the CEO and the lowest paid worker hurt anyone or encroach on anyone's freedom?

You took two phrases of what I said, not even complete sentences, and claim I'm contradicting myself.  Why would you do that?  Do you really think I'm saying "CEOs don't get paid too much" and "limit top pay"?  Is that all I wrote?

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I took "It's not that CEO's get paid to much" to mean that you don't care how much CEO's get paid. You care how little the workers get paid. My bad.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 10:38:57 AM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.

I fail to see how a rich person can have control over a poor persons life. A rich person can't make me buy their product or service, force me to work for them, stop me from pursuing my goals, etc.

Can you give me more details on what you mean?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 10:44:48 AM
I simply want to know what those people think should be done about it and by whom.  I don't see how my question is irrelevant to the conversation.

My opinion is that I own my time and can sell it to whoever I desire at whatever price both parties agree upon.  I don't think it's the government's business to regulate that, but I guess that's a very libertarian ideal that's impractical when wealth equality is the goal.
As mentioned previously, your example of an agreement between you and another party oversimplifies the CEO scenario. In the cases we're talking about owners (shareholders) are paying the CEO, however not all shareholders get a say in how much to pay him, the board of directors makes that decision. In theory they are representative of the shareholders and have the same interests but their incentive to benefit the company is distorted by their salary.

This is just an example - but if the CEO has a say in board members' salaries, they have incentive to be generous in hopes of reciprocation. I scratch your back you scratch mine.

In this scenario, is it reasonable that the government steps in to protect shareholders?
My opinion is no, the shareholder should look to his own protection.  If he doesn't like the company's policies then sell the stock and buy a company he finds agreeable.
Technically what I described in this example is already illegal. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders so the government could step in if someone knew this was happening.

Do you think this law should be changed?

Out of curiousity, how many times has that been prosecuted? 

As an investor, I have zero confidence that any CEO or board member has my best interests at heart.  I don't want them to worry about my interests, I want them to grow the company and revenues which by virtue will cause my stock prices to go up.  I could care less what the CEO or board members make and I'm not really sure why I should.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 13, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Also, I disagree with the premise that corporations only exist because governments allow them to exist. They exist because governments need corporations just as much as corporations need governments, it's a symbiotic relationship. In a society w/o taxes or liability laws (to be clear, this would be a terrible idea) corporations would be unnecessary, it's only because of our legal framework that we've had to come up with the idea of the corporation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, but at the same time modern government would not function without corporations.
It's not modern government that wouldn't function without corporations, it's the modern economy.  And the modern economy only exists because governments created the concept of the modern company and put in place the laws that allow it to operate.

Does nobody learn any economic history or constitutional law any more?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 10:48:44 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

Im not even arguing for that.  I'm suggesting incentivize companies to pay the little worker more.  Really what I'm saying is we  move from the philosophy that says "it's a corporations duty to maximize profits for shareholders" to the philosophy that says "it's a corporation's duty to maximize benefits for society".   I suggested earlier by doing that thru the corporate tax codes.  If a company doesn't pollute, is carbon neutral, creates a good amount of wealth all around, pays women the same as men for the same work, is inclusive, etc, they shouldn't pay any tax at all.  The more a company doesn't do those things, the higher their taxes.

Your criteria are very subjective and involving the government via the corporate tax structure would only complicate things. I think the better option would be for people to vote with their dollars by only buying products, and investing in, companies that meet their criteria. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: SharkStomper on September 13, 2017, 10:52:12 AM

The difference is that you are a natural person (a human being resident in the USA, I assume) and it is lawful for you to do anything unless the government passes a law to restrict what you do (eg do not murder).  A company is a legal person and only exists because the government has said it may exist under certain conditions.  If the government did not impose any conditions, the company would have no existence.  For instance, the government imposes conditions about the company having accounts and being audited, and about what is in those accounts, including CEO salaries, and that those accounts are made available to the shareholders.  If the government wants to impose a condition about the amount of the salary of the CEO because it thinks there is a societal benefit to doing that, there is no logical reason why it shouldn't.

Sports franchises and the movie industry are also based on the existence of the legal entity known as a company.  If you are referring to the salaries of sports stars and movie stars, then they are not running the companies as part of their executive structures but are either employees or are contracted by the companies, which is an entirely different status from that of CEO.

I guess my point about a sole proprietorship being a 'legal entity' was not made clearly enough for you.  Why should a sole proprietorship not be limited on what it can pay someone for their services, but a corporation should be?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: shenlong55 on September 13, 2017, 10:58:55 AM

The difference is that you are a natural person (a human being resident in the USA, I assume) and it is lawful for you to do anything unless the government passes a law to restrict what you do (eg do not murder).  A company is a legal person and only exists because the government has said it may exist under certain conditions.  If the government did not impose any conditions, the company would have no existence.  For instance, the government imposes conditions about the company having accounts and being audited, and about what is in those accounts, including CEO salaries, and that those accounts are made available to the shareholders.  If the government wants to impose a condition about the amount of the salary of the CEO because it thinks there is a societal benefit to doing that, there is no logical reason why it shouldn't.

Sports franchises and the movie industry are also based on the existence of the legal entity known as a company.  If you are referring to the salaries of sports stars and movie stars, then they are not running the companies as part of their executive structures but are either employees or are contracted by the companies, which is an entirely different status from that of CEO.

I guess my point about a sole proprietorship being a 'legal entity' was not made clearly enough for you.  Why should a sole proprietorship not be limited on what it can pay someone for their services, but a corporation should be?

"The sole proprietorship is the simplest business form under which one can operate a business. The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. It simply refers to a person who owns the business and is personally responsible for its debts. A sole proprietorship can operate under the name of its owner or it can do business under a fictitious name, such as Nancy's Nail Salon. The fictitious name is simply a trade name--it does not create a legal entity separate from the sole proprietor owner."

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/sole-proprietorship
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: AlanStache on September 13, 2017, 10:59:30 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.

It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.

These statements contradict each other. Why would we limit top pay if its not that CEO's get paid too much?

Let me rephrase my question: How does the difference between the salary of the CEO and the lowest paid worker hurt anyone or encroach on anyone's freedom?

You took two phrases of what I said, not even complete sentences, and claim I'm contradicting myself.  Why would you do that?  Do you really think I'm saying "CEOs don't get paid too much" and "limit top pay"?  Is that all I wrote?

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I took "It's not that CEO's get paid to much" to mean that you don't care how much CEO's get paid. You care how little the workers get paid. My bad.

But it gets even more complex; where above we are talking about CEO to worker pay but 'workers' are not randomly sampled from the population.  We could still get bad inequality effects even if CEO vs worker pay were of a modest ratio.  ie google may only hire highly skilled engineers/phds and pay them very well and this could leave out large groups of people - people not skilled at things google needs.  So the question may not be 100% CEO vs worker pay but rather a larger question wealth inequality. 

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 11:06:44 AM
Also, I disagree with the premise that corporations only exist because governments allow them to exist. They exist because governments need corporations just as much as corporations need governments, it's a symbiotic relationship. In a society w/o taxes or liability laws (to be clear, this would be a terrible idea) corporations would be unnecessary, it's only because of our legal framework that we've had to come up with the idea of the corporation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, but at the same time modern government would not function without corporations.
It's not modern government that wouldn't function without corporations, it's the modern economy.  And the modern economy only exists because governments created the concept of the modern company and put in place the laws that allow it to operate.

Does nobody learn any economic history or constitutional law any more?

The two are so intertwined neither would function without the other. Supposedly progressive California ranks 44th in income inequality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient) and it's *highly* dependent on corporations in the tech sector, along with the high incomes this industry creates. Without corporations California would be insolvent. It's magical thinking to assume that we could just do away with corporations, that we don't actually need them.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:12:59 AM
But it gets even more complex; where above we are talking about CEO to worker pay but 'workers' are not randomly sampled from the population.  We could still get bad inequality effects even if CEO vs worker pay were of a modest ratio.  ie google may only hire highly skilled engineers/phds and pay them very well and this could leave out large groups of people - people not skilled at things google needs.  So the question may not be 100% CEO vs worker pay but rather a larger question wealth inequality.

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think wealth inequality is bad?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.

I fail to see how a rich person can have control over a poor persons life. A rich person can't make me buy their product or service, force me to work for them, stop me from pursuing my goals, etc.

Can you give me more details on what you mean?

In wealthy California (can't speak for other areas) the affluent talk a great deal about how much they care about the plight of the poor, yet they use every tool at their disposal to exclude them from their neighborhoods: zoning, CEQA, lawsuits, political pressure, intentionally under developing infrastructure, and so on. These are the neighborhoods with good schools, good jobs, and good policing. Nothing gets the community up in arms like a proposal to build high density and/or affordable housing, and competing neighborhoods play hot potato with it until the proposal dies. It's the latest incarnation of redlining. So yeah, the wealthy do have control over some very important areas of a poor person's life.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:17:50 AM
Also, I disagree with the premise that corporations only exist because governments allow them to exist. They exist because governments need corporations just as much as corporations need governments, it's a symbiotic relationship. In a society w/o taxes or liability laws (to be clear, this would be a terrible idea) corporations would be unnecessary, it's only because of our legal framework that we've had to come up with the idea of the corporation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, but at the same time modern government would not function without corporations.
It's not modern government that wouldn't function without corporations, it's the modern economy.  And the modern economy only exists because governments created the concept of the modern company and put in place the laws that allow it to operate.

Does nobody learn any economic history or constitutional law any more?

The two are so intertwined neither would function without the other. Supposedly progressive California ranks 44th in income inequality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient) and it's *highly* dependent on corporations in the tech sector, along with the high incomes this industry creates. Without corporations California would be insolvent. It's magical thinking to assume that we could just do away with corporations, that we don't actually need them.

I agree with you they are intertwined, but a corporation only exists because the government says it does. If we just did away with corporations we would devolve into a state of anarchy and the government would become a dictatorship or something to maintain control.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: GuitarStv on September 13, 2017, 11:19:20 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

Im not even arguing for that.  I'm suggesting incentivize companies to pay the little worker more.  Really what I'm saying is we  move from the philosophy that says "it's a corporations duty to maximize profits for shareholders" to the philosophy that says "it's a corporation's duty to maximize benefits for society".   I suggested earlier by doing that thru the corporate tax codes.  If a company doesn't pollute, is carbon neutral, creates a good amount of wealth all around, pays women the same as men for the same work, is inclusive, etc, they shouldn't pay any tax at all.  The more a company doesn't do those things, the higher their taxes.

Your criteria are very subjective and involving the government via the corporate tax structure would only complicate things. I think the better option would be for people to vote with their dollars by only buying products, and investing in, companies that meet their criteria.

I agree with you, it would be ideal if this worked.  Sadly, it doesn't seem to in real life.

If you're barely scraping by and need to buy bread for your family, you're going to buy the cheapest bread.  Even if the leader of the company that makes that bread says 'Poor people are all assholes, we exploit them whenever possible.'  If you're middle class and need to buy bread for your family, you're probably going to buy the cheapest bread.  Why would you care about the exploitation of the poor?  If you're extremely wealthy your servants likely bake you fresh bread every morning, so you don't matter in this discussion.

You couple with the above phenomenon the fact that most companies are pretty good at hiding when they do bad things and that the average poor person doesn't have time or resources to do exhaustive research on the companies (and the larger mega-corporations that own them), and you start to realize that the free market is tends to be a total failure in this area.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 11:20:31 AM
Also, I disagree with the premise that corporations only exist because governments allow them to exist. They exist because governments need corporations just as much as corporations need governments, it's a symbiotic relationship. In a society w/o taxes or liability laws (to be clear, this would be a terrible idea) corporations would be unnecessary, it's only because of our legal framework that we've had to come up with the idea of the corporation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, but at the same time modern government would not function without corporations.
It's not modern government that wouldn't function without corporations, it's the modern economy.  And the modern economy only exists because governments created the concept of the modern company and put in place the laws that allow it to operate.

Does nobody learn any economic history or constitutional law any more?

The two are so intertwined neither would function without the other. Supposedly progressive California ranks 44th in income inequality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient) and it's *highly* dependent on corporations in the tech sector, along with the high incomes this industry creates. Without corporations California would be insolvent. It's magical thinking to assume that we could just do away with corporations, that we don't actually need them.

I agree with you they are intertwined, but a corporation only exists because the government says it does. If we just did away with corporations we would devolve into a state of anarchy and the government would become a dictatorship or something to maintain control.

Hence our modern liberal government, as we know it, would cease to exist. In theory we could live without any form of government, but living in a state of total anarchy isn't an option even worth considering.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:22:58 AM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.

I fail to see how a rich person can have control over a poor persons life. A rich person can't make me buy their product or service, force me to work for them, stop me from pursuing my goals, etc.

Can you give me more details on what you mean?

In wealthy California (can't speak for other areas) the affluent talk a great deal about how much they care about the plight of the poor, yet they use every tool at their disposal to exclude them from their neighborhoods: zoning, CEQA, lawsuits, political pressure, intentionally under developing infrastructure, and so on. These are the neighborhoods with good schools, good jobs, and good policing. Nothing gets the community up in arms like a proposal to build high density and/or affordable housing, and competing neighborhoods play hot potato with it until the proposal dies. It's the latest incarnation of redlining. So yeah, the wealthy do have control over some very important areas of a poor person's life.

I consider this a failure of government not a failure of wealthy people. We should remove the ability of the government to hand out these benefits to the wealth, not take or condemn their wealth.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 11:23:17 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.


And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

Im not even arguing for that.  I'm suggesting incentivize companies to pay the little worker more.  Really what I'm saying is we  move from the philosophy that says "it's a corporations duty to maximize profits for shareholders" to the philosophy that says "it's a corporation's duty to maximize benefits for society".   I suggested earlier by doing that thru the corporate tax codes.  If a company doesn't pollute, is carbon neutral, creates a good amount of wealth all around, pays women the same as men for the same work, is inclusive, etc, they shouldn't pay any tax at all.  The more a company doesn't do those things, the higher their taxes.

Your criteria are very subjective and involving the government via the corporate tax structure would only complicate things. I think the better option would be for people to vote with their dollars by only buying products, and investing in, companies that meet their criteria.

Ill agree that what I wrote is just an list of things I see as problematic in society.  If society could agree they want corporations to have obligations to society instead of just their shareholders, we could then figure out how to do that and on what criteria corporations would be monitored.  An interesting note that is using the tax code in this way changes how things work in that now we just outright prohibit things.  In this tax system, corporations can do anything they want, they just have to pay more and more the worse they do. 

Going the route of people voting with their dollars sounds good in theory but I think it is simply not possible in practice all the time.  People hate comcast, but in some places that's the only provider available.   Certain drugs are only made by certain companies, and sometimes there are no alternatives.  AFAIK people can't choose which company supplies their electricity.  Not to mention the fact that many people only care about the price of a product, and don't care what the company did to achieve that price.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 11:30:23 AM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.

I fail to see how a rich person can have control over a poor persons life. A rich person can't make me buy their product or service, force me to work for them, stop me from pursuing my goals, etc.

Can you give me more details on what you mean?

In wealthy California (can't speak for other areas) the affluent talk a great deal about how much they care about the plight of the poor, yet they use every tool at their disposal to exclude them from their neighborhoods: zoning, CEQA, lawsuits, political pressure, intentionally under developing infrastructure, and so on. These are the neighborhoods with good schools, good jobs, and good policing. Nothing gets the community up in arms like a proposal to build high density and/or affordable housing, and competing neighborhoods play hot potato with it until the proposal dies. It's the latest incarnation of redlining. So yeah, the wealthy do have control over some very important areas of a poor person's life.

I consider this a failure of government not a failure of wealthy people. We should remove the ability of the government to hand out these benefits to the wealth, not take or condemn their wealth.

I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:31:02 AM
This conversation has happened many times on this forum and no one has ever actually shown how the salary of a CEO hurts anyone or encroaches on anyone's freedom.
It's not that CEOs get paid too much, it's that the small worker gets paid too little.  Income inequality.   It's possible to address by either limiting top pay or paying the small worker more.
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

Im not even arguing for that.  I'm suggesting incentivize companies to pay the little worker more.  Really what I'm saying is we  move from the philosophy that says "it's a corporations duty to maximize profits for shareholders" to the philosophy that says "it's a corporation's duty to maximize benefits for society".   I suggested earlier by doing that thru the corporate tax codes.  If a company doesn't pollute, is carbon neutral, creates a good amount of wealth all around, pays women the same as men for the same work, is inclusive, etc, they shouldn't pay any tax at all.  The more a company doesn't do those things, the higher their taxes.

Your criteria are very subjective and involving the government via the corporate tax structure would only complicate things. I think the better option would be for people to vote with their dollars by only buying products, and investing in, companies that meet their criteria.

I agree with you, it would be ideal if this worked.  Sadly, it doesn't seem to in real life.

If you're barely scraping by and need to buy bread for your family, you're going to buy the cheapest bread.  Even if the leader of the company that makes that bread says 'Poor people are all assholes, we exploit them whenever possible.'  If you're middle class and need to buy bread for your family, you're probably going to buy the cheapest bread.  Why would you care about the exploitation of the poor?  If you're extremely wealthy your servants likely bake you fresh bread every morning, so you don't matter in this discussion.

You couple with the above phenomenon the fact that most companies are pretty good at hiding when they do bad things and that the average poor person doesn't have time or resources to do exhaustive research on the companies (and the larger mega-corporations that own them), and you start to realize that the free market is tends to be a total failure in this area.

See, I look at this totally different. Your assuming there are only a limited number of options for people when in reality the options are unlimited. Buy flour and make your own bread. Don't eat bread, eat oatmeal.

If people still buy the bread over all other options they are saying, "I care more about cheap bread than I do poor people."

Everyday there are independent sources shining lights on the wrong doings of various companies. With technology things have never been more transparent.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:33:21 AM
Hence our modern liberal government, as we know it, would cease to exist. In theory we could live without any form of government, but living in a state of total anarchy isn't an option even worth considering.
True. We can debate whether it would be bad or good but your statement is correct.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:44:00 AM
Ill agree that what I wrote is just an list of things I see as problematic in society.  If society could agree they want corporations to have obligations to society instead of just their shareholders, we could then figure out how to do that and on what criteria corporations would be monitored.  An interesting note that is using the tax code in this way changes how things work in that now we just outright prohibit things.  In this tax system, corporations can do anything they want, they just have to pay more and more the worse they do. 

Going the route of people voting with their dollars sounds good in theory but I think it is simply not possible in practice all the time.  People hate comcast, but in some places that's the only provider available.   Certain drugs are only made by certain companies, and sometimes there are no alternatives.  AFAIK people can't choose which company supplies their electricity.  Not to mention the fact that many people only care about the price of a product, and don't care what the company did to achieve that price.

A corporations obligation to society is to produce things people want. Apple's obligation is to produce me an iPhone. Period.

I agree. If we use the tax system the way you describe your not prohibiting anything. I would limit that type of taxation to things that produce externalities (ie. Pollution). I would not want to see a company based on something like employment matters. I wouldn't want a third party to be able to determine under what conditions I can be employed.

Like I said above, there are always more options. If you believe in something strong enough.

If people care more about cheap bread than the exploitation of the poor; why should you be able to force your views on them.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 11:49:35 AM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: obstinate on September 13, 2017, 11:59:03 AM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 12:14:50 PM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
If a child wants to work I don't see why they shouldn't be able too.

The 21st century is much different than the 19th. Also, why are you comparing one static time in history with another? The progress and technology innovations over those century's was astounding. The bottom 5% of Americans live better than the kings of of the 18th century, for example.

Happier? Debatable.

Healthier? I think your splitting hairs if your comparing the health of one industrialized nation to another. Overall global heath has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years due to free markets.

Safer? Same as above. Splitting hairs. Are you talking about murder rate, weather related deaths or health related deaths?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 12:18:11 PM
Ill agree that what I wrote is just an list of things I see as problematic in society.  If society could agree they want corporations to have obligations to society instead of just their shareholders, we could then figure out how to do that and on what criteria corporations would be monitored.  An interesting note that is using the tax code in this way changes how things work in that now we just outright prohibit things.  In this tax system, corporations can do anything they want, they just have to pay more and more the worse they do. 

Going the route of people voting with their dollars sounds good in theory but I think it is simply not possible in practice all the time.  People hate comcast, but in some places that's the only provider available.   Certain drugs are only made by certain companies, and sometimes there are no alternatives.  AFAIK people can't choose which company supplies their electricity.  Not to mention the fact that many people only care about the price of a product, and don't care what the company did to achieve that price.

A corporations obligation to society is to produce things people want. Apple's obligation is to produce me an iPhone. Period.

I agree. If we use the tax system the way you describe your not prohibiting anything. I would limit that type of taxation to things that produce externalities (ie. Pollution). I would not want to see a company based on something like employment matters. I wouldn't want a third party to be able to determine under what conditions I can be employed.

Like I said above, there are always more options. If you believe in something strong enough.

If people care more about cheap bread than the exploitation of the poor; why should you be able to force your views on them.

I'm not talking about forcing views on anyone.  I'm talking about building consensus about what we expect of corporations.  Is a corporations only obligation to maximize value for their shareholders?  I'm suggesting that as a society we paradigm shift to a corporation's obligation is to maximize benefit to society.  One way they do this is by making products and returning value to shareholders.  But I would submit that there are other just as important things they need to do to, like not polluting, paying their employees a fair wage, etc.  And in return for this, corporate taxes go down for those corporations that meet society's expectations.  And no corporation is forced to do anything.  If they want to do things society deems harmful, the pay for for that harm in the form of higher taxes. 

It's interesting you mention Apple.  Tim Cook seems pretty set on minimizing Apple's environmental footprint, not making products that have hazardous materials in them, etc.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 12:25:04 PM
I would add to this that I don't think most of us (or at least myself) are arguing for a "limit" on pay so much as rules and incentives that would encourage corporations to reduce pay. An outright limit would be too easy to work around.

And yes, there is very good reason to believe that income inequality is detrimental to society.

How?
That's a pretty big 3 letter question.

The most basic argument is that greater economic inequality gives the wealthy greater control over the lives of everyone else. This is inevitable but when the inequality becomes extreme the poor are essentially no longer free.

I fail to see how a rich person can have control over a poor persons life. A rich person can't make me buy their product or service, force me to work for them, stop me from pursuing my goals, etc.

Can you give me more details on what you mean?
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 12:36:01 PM
Ill agree that what I wrote is just an list of things I see as problematic in society.  If society could agree they want corporations to have obligations to society instead of just their shareholders, we could then figure out how to do that and on what criteria corporations would be monitored.  An interesting note that is using the tax code in this way changes how things work in that now we just outright prohibit things.  In this tax system, corporations can do anything they want, they just have to pay more and more the worse they do. 

Going the route of people voting with their dollars sounds good in theory but I think it is simply not possible in practice all the time.  People hate comcast, but in some places that's the only provider available.   Certain drugs are only made by certain companies, and sometimes there are no alternatives.  AFAIK people can't choose which company supplies their electricity.  Not to mention the fact that many people only care about the price of a product, and don't care what the company did to achieve that price.

A corporations obligation to society is to produce things people want. Apple's obligation is to produce me an iPhone. Period.

I agree. If we use the tax system the way you describe your not prohibiting anything. I would limit that type of taxation to things that produce externalities (ie. Pollution). I would not want to see a company based on something like employment matters. I wouldn't want a third party to be able to determine under what conditions I can be employed.

Like I said above, there are always more options. If you believe in something strong enough.

If people care more about cheap bread than the exploitation of the poor; why should you be able to force your views on them.

I'm not talking about forcing views on anyone.  I'm talking about building consensus about what we expect of corporations.  Is a corporations only obligation to maximize value for their shareholders?  I'm suggesting that as a society we paradigm shift to a corporation's obligation is to maximize benefit to society.  One way they do this is by making products and returning value to shareholders.  But I would submit that there are other just as important things they need to do to, like not polluting, paying their employees a fair wage, etc.  And in return for this, corporate taxes go down for those corporations that meet society's expectations.  And no corporation is forced to do anything.  If they want to do things society deems harmful, the pay for for that harm in the form of higher taxes. 

It's interesting you mention Apple.  Tim Cook seems pretty set on minimizing Apple's environmental footprint, not making products that have hazardous materials in them, etc.

I understand what your saying, but why do we need society to have a paradigm shift and why do we need government to enforce it through taxes? I buy Apple products and own Apple stock for the exact reasons you mentioned. Plus they make money.

If we can build a consensus about what we expect of corporations; why can't we build a consensus that people should buy Apple products over their competitors and keep the government out of it?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 13, 2017, 12:44:59 PM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
I don't see government as inherently good or bad, it's a tool that can be used in either direction. Specific things:
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 12:46:29 PM
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.

 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 13, 2017, 12:56:01 PM
Oh, atheist, ha!  I still think gov employees are more reviled!

It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 13, 2017, 12:59:10 PM
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 12:59:17 PM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
I don't see government as inherently good or bad, it's a tool that can be used in either direction. Specific things:
  • Remove barriers artificially limiting housing supply along Coastal California. The cost of housing is a major problem for the poor, and pricing them out of vibrant urban centers to poor rural areas with limited job options just makes it worse. The wealthy may have to live with poor people moving into their neighborhoods.
  • Increase density of urban areas and vastly increase public transit options. There's a interesting bit of history around why BART does not extend down the wealthy SF Peninsula - those folks will need to get over their aversion to "riff-raff" riding public transit to/through their neighborhoods.
  • Increase school funding. Yes, I know this takes money, but improving education is the best long term option for addressing poverty. The wealthy *and* middle class will have to accept higher property or other taxes to pay for this.
  • Increase school choice. I'm familiar with the arguments about how school choice may negatively impact some public schools, but if a school/district is failing to meet certain standards we need to give poor parents options. The wealthy may have to accept poor students crossing district lines.
  • Single payer. Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical compared to other countries, and our outcomes aren't better. Like housing, healthcare is a burden for the poor. The wealthy will need to give up special tax treatment of employer provided insurance.

I agree, government is not inherently good or bad but it is easily corruptible via money and special interest.

I find it interesting that all the things you would change are things that the government is controlling. 1. I agree, get rid of zoning laws. 2. Goes with number 1 but peopel should be allowed to choose the density they want to live in and what transit they want to utilize. No one should be forced into a certain density. 3. I don't see how this helps anything. We currently spend more per student than anywhere on the globe. This is throwing good money after bad. 4. I agree, school choice is a move in the right direction. 5. If your saying we need single payer because our health care cost is to expensive, I disagree. I would like to see the health care industry deregulated, reform tort law, deregulate health insurance, etc. before me move to single payer.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 01:00:35 PM
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 01:02:32 PM
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.

Edit: I don't want to contribute to further derailing this thread. Let's not start with fake news.

But seriously, even though we have the internet as a source of information are you being genuine when you argue that you can't influence what people think by spending money? That's what advertising is, no matter the medium.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 01:02:51 PM
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
If a child wants to work I don't see why they shouldn't be able too.

The 21st century is much different than the 19th. Also, why are you comparing one static time in history with another? The progress and technology innovations over those century's was astounding. The bottom 5% of Americans live better than the kings of of the 18th century, for example.

Happier? Debatable.

Healthier? I think your splitting hairs if your comparing the health of one industrialized nation to another. Overall global heath has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years due to free markets.

Safer? Same as above. Splitting hairs. Are you talking about murder rate, weather related deaths or health related deaths?
We have restrictions on child labor because it is easy to take advantage of them. It's more or less the same reason you can't have sex with a minor. How do you feel about that law?

Also, children can start working at 14 with additional restrictions on when and how much until they are 18. These laws came about for a reason, people were being abused. In an idealist view people choose where to work and how much but unfortunately someone who needs money or even someone who thinks they need a certain amount of money is at a disadvantage in negotiating their terms.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 01:10:18 PM
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.

I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 01:12:02 PM
I'm not saying advertising doesn't work. Individuals have the responsibility to find the truth.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 01:18:05 PM
That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.
I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth.
I don't necessarily mean legally. They wouldn't run a known false ad. Admittedly in some cases it may be difficult to determine a statement true or false.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 01:19:47 PM
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
If a child wants to work I don't see why they shouldn't be able too.

The 21st century is much different than the 19th. Also, why are you comparing one static time in history with another? The progress and technology innovations over those century's was astounding. The bottom 5% of Americans live better than the kings of of the 18th century, for example.

Happier? Debatable.

Healthier? I think your splitting hairs if your comparing the health of one industrialized nation to another. Overall global heath has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years due to free markets.

Safer? Same as above. Splitting hairs. Are you talking about murder rate, weather related deaths or health related deaths?
We have restrictions on child labor because it is easy to take advantage of them. It's more or less the same reason you can't have sex with a minor. How do you feel about that law?

Also, children can start working at 14 with additional restrictions on when and how much until they are 18. These laws came about for a reason, people were being abused. In an idealist view people choose where to work and how much but unfortunately someone who needs money or even someone who thinks they need a certain amount of money is at a disadvantage in negotiating their terms.

Ok, clearly those two things are not at all the same thing.

If someone needs or thinks they need a certain amount of money and the government tells them its illegal for them to work they simply went from a shitty job with low pay to no job and no pay. They are worse off.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Pooplips on September 13, 2017, 01:21:09 PM
That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.
I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth.
I don't necessarily mean legally. They wouldn't run a known false ad. Admittedly in some cases it may be difficult to determine a statement true or false.

So if the Russian Government runs true ads, is that wrong?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 13, 2017, 01:27:46 PM
I'm not saying advertising doesn't work. Individuals have the responsibility to find the truth.
If you truly believe it's ok to say whatever you want and that individuals are responsible for figuring out if it's true or not then we're on very different wavelengths.

With the amount of information available today, how can an individual possibly sort through it all and find the truth? If you have multiple sources of information available, how do you decide which one is true? Does everyone in the world go out and do their own investigative reporting? Do they just believe what feels right? Or whatever supports their previously held beliefs.

I feel I may be getting trolled at this point but if not I hope you really stop to think about what you're saying.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 13, 2017, 02:28:59 PM

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.
well yes, I agree with this statement. Companies were conceived of to limit risk. People can join together to diversify and to limit going bankrupt if someone were to sue.

However, limiting pay does not discourage the problems(environmental, social, etc) caused by corporations. Simply change the legal sturcture so that someone is, at least partially, personally responsible for its actions; the CEO, board, etc. Why is someone not locked up in jail, right now, what the BP gulf spill?

BOLDED SHOULD BE MOD EDIT
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 13, 2017, 04:09:17 PM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 04:58:24 PM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?

My wife has the same deal and I have not adequately modeled our plan for it.  How does it work if you stop early?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 13, 2017, 06:19:50 PM
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 13, 2017, 06:56:28 PM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 07:07:08 PM
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 13, 2017, 07:09:27 PM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Yeah police and fire seem to have a sweet deal since they can rack up OT in their final years and juice their pensions.  And they seem to be able to collect early, and so have second careers while collecting the pension. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 13, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 
I have nothing against providing gold-plated benefits to the military. It's keeping 1.5 million people on payroll full-time I have a problem with.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: AlanStache on September 13, 2017, 07:36:12 PM
I have a few times wished that those military recruiters on my HS campus had talked about the retirement plain more than whatever else they were going on about cuz I would have 20 years right now.... or have done some then GI bill and slid into GS...  but I would have been in during 9/11 so it would have been that much harder.

While we are on the subject a few years back a friend who is a medical doctor in the Navy was surprised to learn that I working for a private company could be fired via text message and given nothing other than back pay and 20 min to clean out my desk.  It was just not in her world view that this  could happen to anyone.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: farfromfire on September 14, 2017, 02:22:22 AM
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
Because merica is different/bigger/better/has more violent people/more mentally ill people/different mindset. No laws that are beneficial in other developed countries could possibly work here.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 14, 2017, 06:27:24 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: GuitarStv on September 14, 2017, 07:24:59 AM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.

Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 14, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: dude on September 14, 2017, 07:46:37 AM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Yep, at the state and muni levels, some of the pension schemes are insane.  At the federal level, no premium pay (i.e., OT, night diff, etc.) counts toward your High-3. It's based only upon your base salary (and locality adjustment). In addition, the FERS pension system is solvent out to the 2090's (that's as far out as they look); the old CSRS system still has unfunded liabilities, but those go away by like 2030, when all the CSRS folks die off.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 14, 2017, 08:04:26 AM

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.

Im going to have to disagree.  DW is a professional GS15 employee.   She is making approximately $155k in the DC area.  Plus the pension.  Plus TSP match.  Plus the best health care.  Plus a 40/hr a week job.  That pension is going to pay her 40-50k a year for life, possibly more,  guaranteed, by the time she retires, not to mention continued health insurance.  A pension like that is easily worth an extra 1-1.5million over her career, and having that much invested does not guarantee she doesn't run out of money.  So in reality she is making between 200-250k a year.  I keep telling her if she wants to go to the private sector she would need to get a minimum of 350k+, counting the extra hours she would have to work. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 14, 2017, 09:25:19 AM
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: starguru on September 14, 2017, 09:45:38 AM
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

I'm not up on the terminology but GS 15 is the highest non management grade.  There is an "SES" scale above the GS scale for extremely senior people.  We are hoping DW can get on that.  And then the pension would be even more nuts than it already is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 14, 2017, 10:01:45 AM

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.

Im going to have to disagree.  DW is a professional GS15 employee.   She is making approximately $155k in the DC area.  Plus the pension.  Plus TSP match.  Plus the best health care.  Plus a 40/hr a week job.  That pension is going to pay her 40-50k a year for life, possibly more,  guaranteed, by the time she retires, not to mention continued health insurance.  A pension like that is easily worth an extra 1-1.5million over her career, and having that much invested does not guarantee she doesn't run out of money.  So in reality she is making between 200-250k a year.  I keep telling her if she wants to go to the private sector she would need to get a minimum of 350k+, counting the extra hours she would have to work.
+1.  I'm familiar with the GS grades, the military pay grades from my former life.

I'd say that had I stayed in - either military or civilian in the DC area, my salary would be about equivalent to current market rate (although I'm not making current market rate, my spouse is.  That's a whole other story.)  But then I'd have to live in DC again.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 14, 2017, 10:15:26 AM
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

I'm not up on the terminology but GS 15 is the highest non management grade.  There is an "SES" scale above the GS scale for extremely senior people.  We are hoping DW can get on that.  And then the pension would be even more nuts than it already is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might have to look into some government work....there's a SSA building just down the street from my house that would be an awfully convenient bike ride.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 14, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.

Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.


I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: GuitarStv on September 14, 2017, 12:13:32 PM
Part of the purpose of a progressive tax system is to enact policies to make sure that the rich don't take an excessively large slice of the pie.  That's why it's progressive . . . because we as a society have decided that the highest earners probably don't need all of that money and the government should take some from him or her to redistribute to the poor.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: 47%MMM on September 14, 2017, 12:39:40 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 12:44:12 PM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.
The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.
Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.
I think they can be one in the same, it's just a matter of the degree of increases.

Regardless, the suggestion that this was the downfall of the Soviet Union is quite a stretch.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 12:45:28 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 14, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 14, 2017, 02:14:27 PM
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.
The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.
Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.
I think they can be one in the same, it's just a matter of the degree of increases.

Regardless, the suggestion that this was the downfall of the Soviet Union is quite a stretch.

Income taxation is not the same as maximum salary setting, though. We don't try to set salaries in the private market, we tax your market wage and your capital income.

There's no convincing reason that we should be setting maximum wages for any jobs. Well, I mean the government obviously has to set pay-bands for people they directly employ, but there's no convincing reason we should tell Apple that they can only pay their CEO $X/year. It's just a hunch of "I think those people are paid too much."

Should be handled through progressive taxation, though I disagree that we have any idea what the "correct" level of inequality is.

Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Optimiser on September 14, 2017, 02:19:47 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 02:25:54 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal
We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Wasn't suggesting you buy regular bread, only that bread isn't a necessity or that you can make homemade (and still pay a premium for flour with gluten replacers admittedly)

Sorry if you have to deal with people who roll their eyes when you say "gluten free" in real life. There is ignorance on both sides of the whole gluten thing, those that think they need to be gluten free when they don't and those who think everyone who buys gluten free is silly.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: 47%MMM on September 14, 2017, 02:26:10 PM
Quote
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

My wife & I thought celiac was an Oprah disease so when the doctor diagnosed her we laughed at the doctor and said we didn't believe it without some form of a positive scientific test. So we had our 4 y/o go through an endoscopy to test for it, and it was confirmed that she did indeed have celiac. Great parenting there...

To my other editor, I agree. We don't have to buy GF bread but at all but if we do, this is how much GF bread costs regardless of brand (if you can find other kinds). As an alternative, I even found a bread maker (free from neighbor) and tried 4 different recipes of homemade bread and my daughter will not eat any of it. Side note: homemade GF bread still costs $3+ a loaf.

I could just say "no bread for you" but it's already hard enough for her with other foods her sister can have.

On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 02:29:04 PM
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Optimiser on September 14, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
It's more an issue of texture than taste in my opinion.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 14, 2017, 02:42:33 PM
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
It's more an issue of texture than taste in my opinion.

Yep. Gluten is mostly what gives dough its elasticity, which means CO2 is trapped during fermentation causing the dough to rise. Gluten free bread lacks much of this elasticity so most of the CO2 escapes resulting in much less rise and very dense bread. Whole wheat bread has a similar problem, the bran and germ interrupt the dough (think popping a balloon) so the resulting bread is relatively more dense.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 02:44:46 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: GuitarStv on September 14, 2017, 02:52:51 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
Magic
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 14, 2017, 02:56:26 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)
I recently started avoiding gluten as an experiment - I don't think it agrees with me (I've tested the waters a bit lately...ugh).

I haven't made the jump to buying GF bread or learning to make my own.  I was hoping that the problem would go away.  Instead, been eating corn tortillas, rice, beans, potatoes.  I'd kill for a sandwich right now.

I might have to make that step, but man with 2 kids and a FT job, baking bread just isn't high on my list.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 02:57:47 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
They're fairly flat like a crepe but now that you mention it I might try adding some baking powder.

I must experiment.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 14, 2017, 02:58:02 PM
Quote
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

My wife & I thought celiac was an Oprah disease so when the doctor diagnosed her we laughed at the doctor and said we didn't believe it without some form of a positive scientific test. So we had our 4 y/o go through an endoscopy to test for it, and it was confirmed that she did indeed have celiac. Great parenting there...

To my other editor, I agree. We don't have to buy GF bread but at all but if we do, this is how much GF bread costs regardless of brand (if you can find other kinds). As an alternative, I even found a bread maker (free from neighbor) and tried 4 different recipes of homemade bread and my daughter will not eat any of it. Side note: homemade GF bread still costs $3+ a loaf.

I could just say "no bread for you" but it's already hard enough for her with other foods her sister can have.

On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Please share?
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: 47%MMM on September 14, 2017, 03:07:04 PM

Please share?
[/quote]

Pizza Crust Dough in the Bread Machine

Wet Ingredients

   1. 1 cup of water
   2. 2 tablespoons of butter
   3. 1 tablespoon maple syrup
   4. 1 + 1/2 teaspoon apple cider vinegar

Dry Ingredients

   1. 1 + 2/3 cups brown rice flour
   2. 1/4 cup corn starch
   3. 2 tablespoons potato starch
   4. 2 tablespoons corn meal (just plain corn meal, not corn bread mixes - watch for gluten free status)
   5. 1 + 1/2 teaspoons xantham gum
   6. 1 teaspoon salt
   7. 1 teaspoon each: garlic powder, onion powder, Italian seasoning (see note above about spice substitution)

Yeast

   1. 1 teaspoon yeast

Instructions

   1. Combine the dry ingredients in a medium sized mixing bowl. Mix with spoon, smushing any lumps.
   2. Put ingredients in bread machine as listed below
   3. Add wet ingredients to the bread machine.
   4. Add dry mixture on top, making sure to completely cover the wet.
   5. Add the yeast on top of the center of the dry ingredients.
   6. Let the machine do its magic. (My dough cycle takes an hour and 30 minutes)

Once the dough is finished

   1. If you're not going to use it immediately, refrigerate or freeze it until ready to use
   2. When ready to use preheat the oven to 400 degrees
   3. Sprinkle pan or mat with a bit of corn meal - optional
   4. Divide the dough in to however many pizzas you want to make.
   5. Spread the dough on to the pan. If it's sticking to your hands, dust your hands with a bit of corn meal. You can spread the dough as thin as you want. Ours was pretty thick.
   6. Bake the dough (with no toppings) for about 15 minutes.
   7. Take the dough out, and add toppings as desired.
   8. Return to oven and bake for 10 - 15 minutes or until desired done-ness.
   9. Eat.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: former player on September 14, 2017, 03:55:25 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
They're fairly flat like a crepe but now that you mention it I might try adding some baking powder.

I must experiment.
If you beat the egg whites into a froth it should make the pancakes lighter because of the trapped air - like a soufflé.  I might give that a go.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: FINate on September 14, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)
I recently started avoiding gluten as an experiment - I don't think it agrees with me (I've tested the waters a bit lately...ugh).

I haven't made the jump to buying GF bread or learning to make my own.  I was hoping that the problem would go away.  Instead, been eating corn tortillas, rice, beans, potatoes.  I'd kill for a sandwich right now.

I might have to make that step, but man with 2 kids and a FT job, baking bread just isn't high on my list.

Have you tried going sourdough only? I do a lot of baking and it's surprising how different sourdough is from commercial yeast. Same exact ingredients and ratios, but different yeast and totally different outcomes. Sourdough is much more complex, not just yeast but also bacteria, and it's much slower so fermentation takes much longer giving enzymes naturally occurring in the flour time to work, which includes breaking down complex sugars into simpler ones and also breaking down gluten (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/enzymes-the-little-molecules-that-bake-bread/). Whereas commercial yeast is a monoculture and very fast acting.

Anecdotal, but friends who have issues with gluten have reported that my homemade sourdough isn't problematic for them. If you don't want to bake your own, maybe look for an artisan bakery that makes authentic sourdough.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jeninco on September 14, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
It's more an issue of texture than taste in my opinion.

My Italian in-laws have told me that my niece with Celiac would get an allowance to help offset the additional cost of GF products (including pasta -- it's Italy!) if she were residing in Italy. Apparently it's prevalent enough in the population that it's a recognized thing, complete with government subsidy and fairly common gf bakeries.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: GuitarStv on September 14, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798)). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)
I recently started avoiding gluten as an experiment - I don't think it agrees with me (I've tested the waters a bit lately...ugh).

I haven't made the jump to buying GF bread or learning to make my own.  I was hoping that the problem would go away.  Instead, been eating corn tortillas, rice, beans, potatoes.  I'd kill for a sandwich right now.

I might have to make that step, but man with 2 kids and a FT job, baking bread just isn't high on my list.

Have you tried going sourdough only? I do a lot of baking and it's surprising how different sourdough is from commercial yeast. Same exact ingredients and ratios, but different yeast and totally different outcomes. Sourdough is much more complex, not just yeast but also bacteria, and it's much slower so fermentation takes much longer giving enzymes naturally occurring in the flour time to work, which includes breaking down complex sugars into simpler ones and also breaking down gluten (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/enzymes-the-little-molecules-that-bake-bread/). Whereas commercial yeast is a monoculture and very fast acting.

Anecdotal, but friends who have issues with gluten have reported that my homemade sourdough isn't problematic for them. If you don't want to bake your own, maybe look for an artisan bakery that makes authentic sourdough.

It's fairly well known that the slow rising yeast in sourdough radically reduces the amount of gluten in the bread without wrecking the taste like most gluten free bread-like bricks.  Most 'sourdough' sold in supermarkets isn't real sourdough due to the the expense (because of the time involved in waiting for the rise) and doesn't have these properties though.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Davnasty on September 14, 2017, 07:49:04 PM
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.
Hmm. I think I was off on that ratio. A little eggy.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: jlcnuke on September 15, 2017, 04:54:21 AM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Let me explain what's happening in the last paragraph for you:
She was discharged for medical reasons - this means she received either a medical separation or a medical retirement. This happens when a service-member develops medical condition(s) that prevent them from continuing to serve. Things like severe psychological problems (major PTSD for instance) or physical problems (which aren't always amputations or other "visible" conditions) that multiple doctors determine prevent them from continuing to serve in the military.

As a result, the Veterans Administration, tasked with taking care of veterans by law, will provide medical coverage for the veteran who has disabilities that are presumed to be due to or incurred during/because of their service (they were determined to be healthy when they joined and leave "broken"; so we take care of our vets, it's the moral thing to do for those who protect us and our way of life).

They will do this for veterans who served "1 or 2 tours" as well... just because a soldier has only been in for 6 months and are is on their first tour doesn't mean the US is going to abandon them if they get half their body blown up by an IED on their first day in theatre...

If they're broken enough, we'll cover all their future medical problems even if the problem didn't originate during their service. This is cheaper on the taxpayer than trying to determine for every single procedure/medication/etc whether or not it has anything to do with their service (a ton less admin that way, fewer doctor consults needed, etc etc).  Not to mention the fact that many disabilities caused/incurred during service prevent a vet from working or managing to get a job with decent benefits, so providing some medical benefits for them is viewed by many as the "right" thing to do (and the legal thing to do based on current laws).
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Fomerly known as something on September 15, 2017, 05:30:25 AM
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

I'm not up on the terminology but GS 15 is the highest non management grade.  There is an "SES" scale above the GS scale for extremely senior people.  We are hoping DW can get on that.  And then the pension would be even more nuts than it already is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most GS 14's and 15's are management.  In many positions so are GS 13's and 12's. 
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 15, 2017, 06:23:22 AM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Let me explain what's happening in the last paragraph for you:
She was discharged for medical reasons - this means she received either a medical separation or a medical retirement. This happens when a service-member develops medical condition(s) that prevent them from continuing to serve. Things like severe psychological problems (major PTSD for instance) or physical problems (which aren't always amputations or other "visible" conditions) that multiple doctors determine prevent them from continuing to serve in the military.

As a result, the Veterans Administration, tasked with taking care of veterans by law, will provide medical coverage for the veteran who has disabilities that are presumed to be due to or incurred during/because of their service (they were determined to be healthy when they joined and leave "broken"; so we take care of our vets, it's the moral thing to do for those who protect us and our way of life).

They will do this for veterans who served "1 or 2 tours" as well... just because a soldier has only been in for 6 months and are is on their first tour doesn't mean the US is going to abandon them if they get half their body blown up by an IED on their first day in theatre...

If they're broken enough, we'll cover all their future medical problems even if the problem didn't originate during their service. This is cheaper on the taxpayer than trying to determine for every single procedure/medication/etc whether or not it has anything to do with their service (a ton less admin that way, fewer doctor consults needed, etc etc).  Not to mention the fact that many disabilities caused/incurred during service prevent a vet from working or managing to get a job with decent benefits, so providing some medical benefits for them is viewed by many as the "right" thing to do (and the legal thing to do based on current laws).
Well that was well laid out. basically my understanding. not sure why anyone would be upset about that. I guess most people think of vets at the VA as 60+ vietnam vets with gray hair, not 20 yo with injuries.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: mm1970 on September 15, 2017, 01:07:03 PM
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.
You can hate me. I'm on the military gravy train, the VA gravy train, and the CalPers LEO/Public Safety pension at 50 gravy train. All 3 combined after 22 years of work gets me $1500/month, free medical at the VA and lifelong permanent disability at 30 and constant pain. Worth it ;-)! Of course if I had worked a lot longer I would have a larger pension (but only by a couple of hundred dollars as I wasn't a high earner) and gotten retiree medical benefits.

Seriously though government and/or military benefits are a great deal and add a lot of security to a job. However many states (Cali for example) have changed the way their pensions function for new hires so the gravy train will require you to work longer, retire at a much older age, and contribute more.


ETA: your friend is probably has a 100% disability rating by the VA and that's why her spouse (and any dependent children) can us CHAMPVA for health care.
https://www.va.gov/HEALTHBENEFITS/apply/family_members.asp

I don't hate you either.  I still have loads of friends in the military.  It's a hard life...even when it's not.  (As far as the Navy goes, it's not like most people are heading into Iraq or Afghanistan.  But I've got friends who are submariners and spend months away at a time.  Even on shore duty, they are often geo bachelors.  I can't imagine doing that or being the single-parent half.  I have one friend who is finally retiring after 26 years, most of it as a doctor.  And...he had to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.  My friend the FSO had many foreign Middle East unaccompanied tours.)

I assumed the disability rating had to be high to get full medical.  I do have one former coworker who went deaf in one ear while in the military and got quite a bit of VA coverage when he got out (after one tour), and we had desk jobs.  I just found the "anti government medical" attitude odd from someone who was personally benefiting from it.  I'm not questioning that she deserves the coverage - for sure I know that happens.

One of the old guys at my gym in the morning has a few different pensions from military and civilian life, etc., and many layers of government sponsored health care.  Even last year he was telling me to go back in (as a reservist) because if I could get my 20 before age...whatever...I could get benefits.  Dude, at this point, I'm 47 with a full time job and 2 kids (one is five).  No.

I'm in California and happy that they are making adjustments.  It's simply not sustainable.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: sol on September 15, 2017, 03:14:51 PM
I know we happily derail our narratives quite frequently around these parts, but this is kind of amazing.

This was a thread about wealth inequality, and yet somehow our discussion has drifted to federal pension systems and military healthcare benefits?  These are not the people the original article is about.  These folks do not hide the price of their furniture from their servants, or worry about their kids having fluency outside the bubble of Manhattan's elite private schools.

This is a classic trick used by the ideological right.  Take the populist concern about a growing problem with billionaires and twist it until it's about about hard working Americans instead. 

Worried about plutocracy?  Blame the unions! 
Worried about crony capitalism?  Blame combat vets! 
Worried about the national debt?  Cut taxes on the rich! 

In every case, their proposed solutions are exactly backwards from what the original problem demands.  Don't fall for it.  Stay focused on the actual problems at hand and don't get distracted by their spin doctoring.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Acorns on September 15, 2017, 03:51:27 PM

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Anybody who has deployed is entitled to 5 years medical care through the VA after they get out, regardless of disability rating, it's possible your friend falls in that category.

And yes, this is way of topic of the thread, but I want to point out that no pension, no benefits, no "perk" makes up for the YEARS many military folks spend away from their families - the holidays, births, birthdays, weddings, graduations, and regular old weekends they miss. And they don't get comp time. Not to mention the massive amount of stress endured by the families they leave behind. If military service was an easy track to a pension, more people would do it. Instead, the military is largely composed of young people from lower income backgrounds who don't have many other life options. I respect and admire their decision to serve (yes I am biased, veteran here).
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Nords on September 17, 2017, 09:29:34 AM
Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 
I have nothing against providing gold-plated benefits to the military. It's keeping 1.5 million people on payroll full-time I have a problem with.
Imagine what would happen in the world if military were only paid when fighting wars, or firefighters only got paid when they were fighting fires, or police officers only got paid when a crime was being investigated.  Those are the wrong incentives to maximize an income.

Servicemembers are paid to be a highly visible deterrent.  (Hopefully we're not just bluffing.)  Your tax dollars pay for lots of people and equipment that's around for decades and yet never fires a shot.  Was the money wasted?  Unfortunately there's no safe way to operationally test that hypothesis.

We all waste a lot of money on other insurance policies, too, but we'd rather waste the money than have to file a claim.  Or even worse, to have to self-insure...
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Undecided on September 17, 2017, 11:27:38 AM
Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 
I have nothing against providing gold-plated benefits to the military. It's keeping 1.5 million people on payroll full-time I have a problem with.
Imagine what would happen in the world if military were only paid when fighting wars, or firefighters only got paid when they were fighting fires, or police officers only got paid when a crime was being investigated.  Those are the wrong incentives to maximize an income.

Servicemembers are paid to be a highly visible deterrent.  (Hopefully we're not just bluffing.)  Your tax dollars pay for lots of people and equipment that's around for decades and yet never fires a shot.  Was the money wasted?  Unfortunately there's no safe way to operationally test that hypothesis.

It's a question of magnitude and efficiency. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that the U.S. shouldn't have a standing military, and don't think PdK at all suggested that. And many will reasonably believe that the deterrent effect isn't meaningfully effective for the increasingly significant non-state actor threats, etc. Nobody's trying that take your pension away, Nords.
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Nords on September 17, 2017, 02:06:30 PM
Nobody's trying that take your pension away, Nords.
Well-snarked, sir.

There's no self-interest here.  I reached FI without a pension and I regularly talk other servicemembers out of gutting it out for their own pension.

There's frequent misunderstanding (especially those who haven't served) about what constitutes "efficiency" and "effectiveness" in a military force.  I'd like to think that I have the experience, perspective, and objectivity to clarify that type of controversy.
 Efficiency is a function of training, and not even the operational commands (let alone the taxpayers) want to pay for it.  Effectiveness is a product of the efficiency and the magnitude.

You get the military (and the police, and the firefighters, and the doctors) that you're willing to pay for.  If you're not willing to pay for them then you might end up with the ones you deserve.

Just to clarify the magnitude, the correct number is "overwhelming".
Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Undecided on September 17, 2017, 02:52:07 PM
.
There's frequent misunderstanding (especially those who haven't served) about what constitutes "efficiency" and "effectiveness" in a military force.  I'd like to think that I have the experience, perspective, and objectivity to clarify that type of controversy.


And the humility.

Quote from: Nords
Efficiency is a function of training, and not even the operational commands (let alone the taxpayers) want to pay for it.  Effectiveness is a product of the efficiency and the magnitude.

Presumably, suitability also plays some role in the function you've described, and is a major factor in the difference between the internal question of whether any given force is maximally efficient and  effective in addressing the goals that have been assigned to it, and the broader external question of how to best address the ultimate goals.

Quote from: Nords
You get the military (and the police, and the firefighters, and the doctors) that you're willing to pay for.  If you're not willing to pay for them then you might end up with the ones you deserve.

At the national level, we get what a sufficiently powerful political ideaology can agree on at any given time.

Title: Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
Post by: Bucksandreds on September 17, 2017, 03:47:20 PM
I know we happily derail our narratives quite frequently around these parts, but this is kind of amazing.

This was a thread about wealth inequality, and yet somehow our discussion has drifted to federal pension systems and military healthcare benefits?  These are not the people the original article is about.  These folks do not hide the price of their furniture from their servants, or worry about their kids having fluency outside the bubble of Manhattan's elite private schools.

This is a classic trick used by the ideological right.  Take the populist concern about a growing problem with billionaires and twist it until it's about about hard working Americans instead. 

Worried about plutocracy?  Blame the unions! 
Worried about crony capitalism?  Blame combat vets! 
Worried about the national debt?  Cut taxes on the rich! 

In every case, their proposed solutions are exactly backwards from what the original problem demands.  Don't fall for it.  Stay focused on the actual problems at hand and don't get distracted by their spin doctoring.
Lol you started it with making us guess about your vileness (government job?). You also left out gluton free bread and how to make it.

I read the article and to be honest many of the same justifications, and same reasons for embarrassment, for spending were, to me, the same justifications many higher earners here use to...um...justify their upper middle class lifestyle.

You're only going to make enemies going after Sol. Easily the most insightful poster here. His talents are incredibly wasted since he's admittedly not going to run for office and change things.