The Rich Get Richer

[Shwa]

Yes. Opportunity is made it isn't happenstance.

But one would think that environment would have something to do with it - food, accomodations, transportation, etc. and that factors into happenstance. For instance, how about the opportunities afforded the factory worker in China or India compared to the distant Western CEO's of those companies. Didn't NIKE have to answer for all the opportunities they "made" in their Asian sweatshops? Or is your universal simply limted to North America?

Look at Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jackson, the myriad of sports figures in baseball, basketball and hockey making millions...Wayne Gretsky, artists, singers, actors, are they all sons of rich CEOs?

Why the use of the sports and entertainment industry "millions" as your exemplar? One would think that you would refer to the workers in sweatshops, underpaid subcontracting manufacturers, the service industry in Canada and so on. I get your ideology, but what you don't get is the actual question. You may try again if you like.

Are you thinking we should all have "equal" talents and abilities? Are you thinking of everyone getting equal pay - is that what you mean by equality of opportunity?

Access to the same tools and resources to 'make' that opportunity happen. Does a child of a sweatshop labourer have equal opportunity as the child of that company's CEO?

Granted, in America people don't mind if you are rich as much as they do in Canada - well... maybe Obama does. People like yourself seem to resent success or anyone who makes an opportunity for themselves.

Certainly when you say "People like yourself" you are not referring to me personally.

Don't look now but while you are whining opportunity is passing you by. Like you, not everyone wants to work that hard to achieve riches. It seems people despise you for it anyway....Right Shwa?

Of course, especially those that are caught up in the generational welfare phenomenon because they know nothing else. They tend to resent the most I think.

In addition, it is government that is impoverishing the middle class every higher tax increase or increase in the minimum wage marginalizes more people. If the minimum wage were $20/hr there would be quite a few people unemployed. They have to reach the $20 mark slowly through inflation so that the dollar is more or less equal to the same thing over time.

Of course the counter argument is that it is the middle class who is impoverishing the middle class by demanding more services from the government who has no choice to raise taxes to supply those services and remain in power. But let's not blame the middle class for anything, since that is like walking on eggshells.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Shwa

[bloodyminded]

But one would think that environment would have something to do with it - food, accomodations, transportation, etc. and that factors into happenstance. For instance, how about the opportunities afforded the factory worker in China or India compared to the distant Western CEO's of those companies. Didn't NIKE have to answer for all the opportunities they "made" in their Asian sweatshops? Or is your universal simply limted to North America?

Why the use of the sports and entertainment industry "millions" as your exemplar? One would think that you would refer to the workers in sweatshops, underpaid subcontracting manufacturers, the service industry in Canada and so on. I get your ideology, but what you don't get is the actual question. You may try again if you like.

Access to the same tools and resources to 'make' that opportunity happen. Does a child of a sweatshop labourer have equal opportunity as the child of that company's CEO?

Of course you're right. Under the theories (actually, hypotheses) being asserted here as if plain fact and God-given wisdom--and about as platitudinous as the "Chicken Soup For the Soul" franchise--a person living in Bangladesh should have the same "opportunity" as does the American child of a CEO.

It's as if we live in a vaccuum, and all successes, and by extension all failures, are utterly the result of individual acievement or non-achievement.

The fact is that poverty is virtually the Human Condition.

And so the derision and hatred of the poor by these top-down class warriors amounts to misanthropy.

Edited May 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

For instance, how about the opportunities afforded the factory worker in China or India compared to the distant Western CEO's of those companies.

Why trot out such extremes?

A canadian single mother with a drug dependancy on welfare has more opportunity that the average factory worker in India...

Of course the only fair solution is to reduce the opportunity afforded to Canadian single mothers with drug dependancies...

[Pliny]

But one would think that environment would have something to do with it - food, accomodations, transportation, etc. and that factors into happenstance. For instance, how about the opportunities afforded the factory worker in China or India compared to the distant Western CEO's of those companies. Didn't NIKE have to answer for all the opportunities they "made" in their Asian sweatshops? Or is your universal simply limted to North America?

Ahh.. a sweatshop... a great opportunity to move out of the garbage dump. You seem to believe that opportunity should be the same everywhere. In order for there to be food, accommodations and transportation they have to be produced.

Working in a factory in China or India is a horrible thing isn't it? Perhaps it could be looked at as a good opportunity for them. Yes it is an opportunity. Production in the factory produces more wealth which makes food, accommodations and transportation, etc. more available.

Should I compare the African bushman who doesn't have the opportunity to be a millionaire with North American opportunities to be a millionaire? Why would he even care about being a millionaire? No, he doesn't have the same opportunity but perhaps he would only like a cow. That might be a great opportuinity.

Why the use of the sports and entertainment industry "millions" as your exemplar? One would think that you would refer to the workers in sweatshops, underpaid subcontracting manufacturers, the service industry in Canada and so on. I get your ideology, but what you don't get is the actual question. You may try again if you like.

The sports and entertainment industries are simply opportunities. There are also business opportunities to become CEO's but you don't seem to like those opportunities. There are also opportunities to run small businesses and make a good living. You don't have to get rich if you don't want to.

Whatever society you live in you have a selection of opportunities that will improve your condition and that of society. There is plenty of opportunity to sit around and complain about CEO's but the returns are not great.

Access to the same tools and resources to 'make' that opportunity happen. Does a child of a sweatshop labourer have equal opportunity as the child of that company's CEO?

Always with the equal. We all have different lives and different opportunities. Does the child of a sweatshop labourer have the same objectives and abilities as the child of that company's CEO? He may have more ability he may have greater objectives. He may not. It is up to us as individuals to make the decisions in our lives that take us where we wish to go. I think you just believe everyone wants to be the CEO of a multinational corporation or at least get paid the same.

Certainly when you say "People like yourself" you are not referring to me personally.

Of course and all those with equal opportunity.

Of course, especially those that are caught up in the generational welfare phenomenon because they know nothing else. They tend to resent the most I think.

Getting welfare is not an encouragement to developing opportunity.

Of course the counter argument is that it is the middle class who is impoverishing the middle class by demanding more services from the government who has no choice to raise taxes to supply those services and remain in power. But let's not blame the middle class for anything, since that is like walking on eggshells.

The middle class doesn't tend to vote. They are rather indifferent but realize government is ever encroaching upon them. Getting 50% of the population to the voting polls is a feat in itself. Who do you think turns up? The Gay community, the marijuana advocate, the community activist, the labour unions, the corporate interests, some of them may be the middle class, but they all have one thing in common they want government to provide some sort of opportunity for them. Most of the middle class, in my opinion, just wants to be left alone.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

Ahh.. a sweatshop... a great opportunity to move out of the garbage dump. You seem to believe that opportunity should be the same everywhere. In order for there to be food, accommodations and transportation they have to be produced.

Working in a factory in China or India is a horrible thing isn't it? Perhaps it could be looked at as a good opportunity for them. Yes it is an opportunity. Production in the factory produces more wealth which makes food, accommodations and transportation, etc. more available.

Should I compare the African bushman who doesn't have the opportunity to be a millionaire with North American opportunities to be a millionaire? Why would he even care about being a millionaire? No, he doesn't have the same opportunity but perhaps he would only like a cow. That might be a great opportuinity.

Artful dodging and nothing more. And a little bit dishonest. Why bother with reality when you can lose yourself in semantics eh Pliny? Your bushman reference is nothing more than a brutal attempt at red herring. If you are incapable of rationally answering the question, then say so. At least that would be an honest answer.

The sports and entertainment industries are simply opportunities. There are also business opportunities to become CEO's but you don't seem to like those opportunities. There are also opportunities to run small businesses and make a good living. You don't have to get rich if you don't want to.

Your choice of examples has nothing to do with whether I "seem to like" them or not. You raised the examples not I. Besides, they have nothing to do with the question on hand. No one is talking about sports or entertainment industry, although if you would like to compare the relative availability of a standard of living of the owner of the Dallas Cowboys to one his ticket takers or garbage men, we can do so. That might be a little more apt.

Whatever society you live in you have a selection of opportunities that will improve your condition and that of society. There is plenty of opportunity to sit around and complain about CEO's but the returns are not great.

No one is sitting around and complaining except you. I merely asked a fairly straight forward question that you have miraculously changed into a stump. To each his own.

It is up to us as individuals to make the decisions in our lives that take us where we wish to go.

Of course education and nutrition don't factor into this individualist view do they?

The middle class doesn't tend to vote. They are rather indifferent but realize government is ever encroaching upon them. Getting 50% of the population to the voting polls is a feat in itself. Who do you think turns up? The Gay community, the marijuana advocate, the community activist, the labour unions, the corporate interests, some of them may be the middle class, but they all have one thing in common they want government to provide some sort of opportunity for them. Most of the middle class, in my opinion, just wants to be left alone.

This is an interesting statement. Can you back it up with some sort of factual data? From the numbers I have seen higher education and incomes are more of a determinant than apathy. But if you have some other sources you can refer us to, please do.

[Shwa]

Why trot out such extremes?

A canadian single mother with a drug dependancy on welfare has more opportunity that the average factory worker in India...

Of course the only fair solution is to reduce the opportunity afforded to Canadian single mothers with drug dependancies...

Not so extreme when you consider the subject of the thread. We can devolve into a have/have-not argument at any time, but why bother? In looking at the income disparity between the CEO and his/her workers is interesting in that this disparity has exploded over the past 50 or so years. We know that money talks and can open some doors that are normally close for the less-monied. I mean born-with-a-spoon-in-their-mouth wasn't just made up out of the blue.

The other side of this question is the prolofic use of workers in foreign manufacturing such as the Nike example, foreign owned Chinese plants and even GM creating assembly plants in Mexico. We always hear the phrase about 'cheap labour' but if you are making 47 million a year, well that ain't cheap!

[M.Dancer]

Not so extreme when you consider the subject of the thread. We can devolve into a have/have-not argument at any time, but why bother? In looking at the income disparity between the CEO and his/her workers is interesting in that this disparity has exploded over the past 50 or so years. We know that money talks and can open some doors that are normally close for the less-monied. I mean born-with-a-spoon-in-their-mouth wasn't just made up out of the blue.

The other side of this question is the prolofic use of workers in foreign manufacturing such as the Nike example, foreign owned Chinese plants and even GM creating assembly plants in Mexico. We always hear the phrase about 'cheap labour' but if you are making 47 million a year, well that ain't cheap!

I just find the whole picture to be unimportant. How much a north american company pays an overseas worker compared to an north american worker has no bearing on morality. Companies are not wealth distribution vehicles. If comparison is needed, how much does X pay the overseas worker cmpared to other employment opportunities that the worker has access to. As long as they pay competitive wages, they will have people lining up for jobs.

[Shwa]

I just find the whole picture to be unimportant. How much a north american company pays an overseas worker compared to an north american worker has no bearing on morality. Companies are not wealth distribution vehicles. If comparison is needed, how much does X pay the overseas worker cmpared to other employment opportunities that the worker has access to. As long as they pay competitive wages, they will have people lining up for jobs.

But is it ethical? We know about the disparity here in the West, but how often do we hear about that gap as applied to overseas companies? Of course "poverty remains relative" but moving a manufacturing plant from Canada/US to Mexico/China/India to save money, drive up profits and gain the CEO more millions more certainly has moral implications; to the consumer at least, especially in the form of the quality of goods and services.

Otherwise why "Buy Canadian" or "Buy American?" And when Ravi from Mumbai calls about your credit card bill, well just smile.

[bush_cheney2004]

Otherwise why "Buy Canadian" or "Buy American?" And when Ravi from Mumbai calls about your credit card bill, well just smile.

Or maybe it is Mary from PEI!

The most popular countries for outsourcing of U.S. call centers are India, Indonesia, Ireland,

Canada

, the Philippines, and South Africa, most with an ample supply of English-speaking, low-wage workers. American companies use them to cut costs.

http://wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1969128

[M.Dancer]

But is it ethical?

100%

Jesus even has a parable where one employee makes more for his boss than the other....slidiong pay scales is a fact of life, the % difference is irrelevant. Even Jack Layton makes 10x more than the person who delivers his pizza...

[Oleg Bach]

All things peak and pass - the rich are not getting richer but getting poorer. They just don't know it yet..they have passed the threshold of peak profit - more profit for profits sake will now have the effect of generating poverty - not just for the poor but for the rich also- Physics dictates as does natural good law..that enough is enough..time to actually do some good and creative work for the world. THOSE who make money by leveraging...with money actually at this point generate no wealth..telling the world that they have money and for the simple fact of having it - should have more and more and more is insane..time for the super rich to sober up..the party is over.

[Oleg Bach]

100%

Jesus even has a parable where one employee makes more for his boss than the other....slidiong pay scales is a fact of life, the % difference is irrelevant. Even Jack Layton makes 10x more than the person who delivers his pizza...

This parable is super corporate - Jesus might have been wrong.

[bloodyminded]

This parable is super corporate - Jesus might have been wrong.

Many who profess to love Jesus actually despise him; rather, they like the Jesus-with-the-sword, but hate all the rest...ie the majority of the tale.

As we see from the poster above, Jesus's sacred job is to justify the excesses which some people either enjoy or covet.

Edited May 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

Or maybe it is Mary from PEI!

The most popular countries for outsourcing of U.S. call centers are India, Indonesia, Ireland,

Canada

, the Philippines, and South Africa, most with an ample supply of English-speaking, low-wage workers. American companies use them to cut costs.

http://wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1969128

I'd gladly take Mary from PEI! (and help her supplement the potato farming). I recently had a frustrating experience with a Bell telephone "technician" from India complete with scripted answers in terribly broken English. When the call ended up at a Canadian call centre, the staffer there said that we can request to speak to someone in Canada at any time and they will flip you over to one of the call centres in Canada. The staffer said that they prefer people go this route since they are very aware of the frustration.

I prefer Mary from PEI or Maryanne from Arkansas.

I also recall at one time US call centres were being 'outsourced' to US prisons. Apparently they still are.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd gladly take Mary from PEI!

Of course you would....the outsourcing of "American" jobs to Canada is a benefit to Canada's economy.

I prefer Mary from PEI or Maryanne from Arkansas.

Mary from PEI is no different than Deepak from India to me. An outsourced American job is the same regardless of where it goes.

I also recall at one time US call centres were being 'outsourced' to US prisons. Apparently they still are.

Most US prisons are still in the USA.

[Michael Hardner]

Most US prisons are still in the USA.

It is still called 'outsourcing'. Sending to other countries is called 'offshoring' even if that shore is Lake Erie or the Bay of Fundy.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is still called 'outsourcing'. Sending to other countries is called 'offshoring' even if that shore is Lake Erie or the Bay of Fundy.

Actually, we would call Bay of Fundy or Montreal "nearshoring".

[Shwa]

Of course you would....the outsourcing of "American" jobs to Canada is a benefit to Canada's economy.

That is not what I was referring to. I prefer Mary or Maryanne because their command of the English language is helpful in my enquiries.

Mary from PEI is no different than Deepak from India to me. An outsourced American job is the same regardless of where it goes.

Ideological, but hardly practical when you are trying to troubleshoot a modem issue.

Most US prisons are still in the USA.

Yes, but be careful about giving out your credit card information.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, we would call Bay of Fundy or Montreal "nearshoring".

Ok, I haven't heard that one.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is not what I was referring to. I prefer Mary or Maryanne because their command of the English language is helpful in my enquiries.

Ideological, but hardly practical when you are trying to troubleshoot a modem issue.

Well, when it comes to India, at least, the "command of the English language" can be far superior to anything Mary or Maryanne can offer.

[Shwa]

Well, when it comes to India, at least, the "command of the English language" can be far superior to anything Mary or Maryanne can offer.

"can be" maybe, but in my experience - and listening to the experiences of others - it usually isn't. And when trying to communicate technical details with a person reading a script in a heavily accented attempt at proper English, well, not productive. Even with an accent and the use of regional colloquilisms, I can understand Mary or Maryanne much easier and they can understand me fine.

[Oleg Bach]

Many who profess to love Jesus actually despise him; rather, they like the Jesus-with-the-sword, but hate all the rest...ie the majority of the tale.

As we see from the poster above, Jesus's sacred job is to justify the excesses which some people either enjoy or covet.

Yah they don't like the Jesus that comes into the bank and whips the shit out of the tellers and kicks over the table..it was Christs first and last severe mistake- mess with the political brain of the state - but as soon as you go near the money you are taking your life in your hands.

Once Rome got wind of Jesus messing with the monetary system - he had to go - he was not killed for proclaiming he was the son of God - they killed him because he wanted to go into the banking business...which he did eventually by setting up a board of directors consisting of 12 guys and few hot secretary chicks..

Christ was the founder of social capitalism...the share holder concept...the storing of common wealth...."sell your property and put the money in a common purse..then any share hold could come and take as needed" - Problem was that the contract was breached...you could put your money in - but you can not with draw - the federal reserve is like that_ so is the Vatican..all have breached the contract.