About wealthy people

[GRACIEBIRD]

As I've grown up I've been exposed to a number of wealthy people. Most of them have been "self-made" meaning their wealth was amassed by their own action, not by their birth.

They are different than you and I. Do they work harder? No, not really. They work differently. Let me explain.

They LOVE building business and making money. In fact they live for it. I firmly believe that the vast majority of "self made" wealthy people could be dropped in a small town with $10 in their pocket and be a wealthy again in a few years. It's who they are, they have special skills to facilitate this. They resonate confidence and power. They are single minded. They wake in the morning before the average citizen to check the news and check their investments. They look at every facet of life as an opportunity to build wealth.

I, on the other hand will never be one of them. I prefer to goof around online or be in nature or with friends having fun. I prefer to enjoy life by letting the winds of life tussle my hair rather than trying to control the wind.

So what is the meaning of this rant? I have no problem with many wealthy people.
They are a rare and unique type of person who is vital for a nation. However I do have a problem with how some of them use their money or hoard it. Every dollar/euro taken out of circulation by setting in a 401k or a mutual fund or a Zurich bank vault has lost it's ability to drive the economic engine. I am a proponent of fair taxation. I believe that money should not be stagnant. Possibly a tax on unspent money or further taxes on investment income?

But finally, don't hate the wealthy for being different. But encourage them to keep their money circulating.

(oh and to clarify, I'm only talking about people who become wealthy by their efforts not by birth or Hollywood, etc.)

[reformist2]

1. Yes, they are confidence men (and women). Or as I like to call them, con men. (and women). ;)

[Myrina]

2. By all means, idolize people who can talk other people out of their money ...

[GRACIEBIRD]

4. not necessarily.

Look at Jeff Bezos of Amazon.

If he started a job tomorrow at WalMart as a greeter I bet he could be a District Manager of 100 stores in 2 years.

[Bonx]

11. Nah.

He would never be satisfied being just a district manager.

[hfojvt]

3. HOW they make it is NOT always decent

I am reminded of this quote from a book I am reading "The Barbarous Years" by Bernard Bailyn.

Writing about Thomas Morton, he says

"Unihibited, capable of high spirited mockery of precisely such solemn pieties as those of the Pilgrims (whom he would lampoon in his "New English Canaan" in 1637) he was also a ruthless profiteer eager to squeeze every penny from the people and land around him." 345-6

Sometimes they use their "power" that they radiate, and their "special skills" to exploit people.

[tenderfoot]

5. cool story.

eom

[Kingofalldems]

6. Regardless, they cannot become wealthy without help

from society.

I bet if I dropped Bezos on a deserted island with $10, he would not make a cent.

[SheilaT]

7. As you've pointed out

a lot of "self-made" people are essentially workaholics. They honestly think that all those who aren't workaholics are lazy people who deserve to be poor.

I do understand that at least some of them have some sort of idea that they then develop into a great money-making business. But almost always along the way there are dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands who are crucial to the enterprise who do not get to share in the wealth.

Right now the 30th anniversary of the MacIntosh computer is being celebrated. Steve Jobs may well have been a brilliant visionary, but he did not exactly work on the assembly line putting the machines together. Well, he and Wozniak built the very earliest machines, but once they actually went into real production, not any more. Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, while the earliest of their computers were made in the U.S., they have long since outsourced the manufacturing, largely to China.

[GRACIEBIRD]

12. of course

this brings up the topic of the corporation.

Is the corporation the problem? Public ownership of a company may be the problem. What would the millions of Apple shareholders (owners) think of building Apple products in the Bay area by building new factories and hiring local workforce?

I venture to opine that the shareholders would say NO. An iphone would probably be more expensive at the retail level and may not be profitable. Shareholders are greedy by definition. When the City owned investment fund manager purchases shares of Apple it is to generate profits to keep pensions paid, not to bring responsibility to the world.

[EC]

8. Only the wealthy believe we hate them BECAUSE they are wealthy.

We hate them for what they don't do with their wealth. They pay half the percentage in taxes that workers do, they get freebies merely because they are rich and they feel entitled.

[Boxerfan]

9. I kinda have to say you have a skewed view

Because I don't see these creative people getting ahead at all. The fact is unless you have a lot of money or influence you don't stand a chance on a even competitive basis. I have seen many creative & smart people have the ideas they worked so hard on stolen-or outsourced-that's how the real wealthy make money. Very few creative types amongst the bunch. But the sure know how to leach off a profit any way they can.


And I was born to a "wealthy" family....I can assure you-benevolence is not a key trait amongst the wealthy. Cruelty seems to be something acquired by great wealth & time. One is not affected by the trivial of actually having to make it. Or sell it-or whatever. they just siphon or steal.

My Dad set the standard when he disowned his 3 juvenile children-and then was killed in a Foxhunt in England. Under mysterious circumstance of course with my Stepmother playing the fiddle.

Eat the fucking Rich!

[GRACIEBIRD]

15. I don't see creativity as a big skill of the wealthy

Not creativity in the proper sense.

Take someone with passion or a skill.

If a penniless Steve Jobs clone walked into DELL in 2013, would he be screwing power supplies in computers in a year? I don't think so. He would be identified by bosses up the chain as being valuable and would be given greater responsibility.

[Xyzse]

10. No, I don't have a problem with wealthy people in general.

I have a problem with those who are unethical and don't consider the greater good.

I mean, I am all for enlightened self interest, but that's about it.

In regards to self-made, there are certain factors that help the creation of wealth, but it is by no means a guarantee of it.

I don't have any hate for them either as a group. However, when certain ones take advantage of the bail out, and the Feds issuing them currency, investing it in bonds and not circulating it to the general economy, I have a problem with that.

So, I also have a problem when they oppose being taxed a bit more. The thing is, even if they are self made, they utilize the infrastructure that allows them to succeed, and that is built by the society. They have to pay in to society, and that is what taxes are for.

[GRACIEBIRD]

16. As my uni Calculus Professor would write on tests:

Show the work!!

What you say is impossible. If I have a guaranteed $75,000USD per year I want to be a Nature photographer, not a Plumber. Who will fix broken sinks? IF harvesting strawberries and cutting hair both pay the same, who will choose work in a field? Who will invent new medicines if the wage is the same as working at WalMart?

[Taitertots]

14. If they all had to live in one town together, they would starve to death in months

We shouldn't hate the rich.
We should hate the economic system that impoverishes the masses and gives them unreasonable wealth/power.

Edit:
By "live in one town" I mean they would be the only people living there.

[reformist2]

18. +1. Since they are mostly con artists, they are actually less productive than the average citizen!

[Taitertots]

22. I wouldn't go as far as saying "mostly con artists", but they are benefitting from an economic....

System that ensures they receive a disproportionately large income.

[unblock]

17. imagine 10 people on a deserted island.

you and i and a couple others have a coconut or two. we're comfortable and getting by. 5 of the 10 have no coconuts at all and starving to death.

there is no conceivable backstory that justifies the 10th person having a billion coconuts. it's great that he keeps us entertained on the island; it's great that he works hard; hell, it's great if maybe he's already saved all our lives a dozen times already. that's an argument for him to have 5 coconuts or maybe even 10. but no way should he have a billion coconuts.


and therein lies the problem with our discourse about wealth. because it's not about the rich having more, virtually no one disagrees that they should have more than the rest of us. the *entire* question starts with *how much* more should they have, and then the detailed follow-up questions are how do we achieve this (tax policy, income caps, etc.).

[laundry_queen]

20. +1 nt

[GRACIEBIRD]

23. I understand what you say

the Exxon CEO makes 40 million dollars per year.

But WHO decides to pay him $40m?

Exxon is owned by MANY million of people. People own Exxon, not the CEO. These people form groups to influence the corporation to hire a CEO and at what compensation.

Why $40m? Maybe he won't accept $20m. Maybe they would have had to hire a different CEO who WOULD take $20m. My point is, a CEO makes silly money because a group of owners groups or representatives make that decision.

How do you stop that?

[unblock]

24. the first step is to acknowledge you have a problem.

we're still stuck in denial. the guy making $40mm will insist to his dying day that he earned every penny of it, and in fact added considerably more than $40mm of value to shareholders and customers or whomever (while of course ignoring the damage done without compensation to local residents and so on).

once we get some consensus that some people are in fact wealth hoarders and this is a problem for our society and our economy, only then can we talk about solutions. higher taxes on income, uniform taxes across all types of income (stop the breaks for "investment" income), uniform taxes on world-wide income to handle tax havens, or up-front caps on executive or annual compensation are all overt possibilities.

but the more lasting solution is to have society recognize the excess pay for what is it, and to frown upon it instead of glorifying it. that'll take more than a few generations, i fear.

[GRACIEBIRD]

26. absolutely

it's a systemic issue.

Here's what happens, the guy from Vanguard talks to the guy on Exxons board and says, "You weren't able to get Smith as CEO? We will lose stock value if you hire Thomas. If you can't get Smith, bring in Taylor. Taylor will bring confidence"

CEOs are hired by the owners.

Here's the problem with how Corporations are taxed. A Corporation can spend ALL its profit on compensation and new equipment and pay NO TAX.

So those billions of dollars in profit?

They went to people, that's where to TAX. Tax investment income at full rate.

[reformist2]

27. We the people can decide to impose a "correction" to the results of the free market.

It's our country, and we should be able to rewrite the rules when they don't seem fair.

[GRACIEBIRD]

29. but who gets to change the rules and when?

A good rule change today by our friend may be followed by a bad rule change tomorrow by our enemy.

[reformist2]

31. We do! If everyone were like you we would never have instituted an income tax.

[Populist_Prole]

19. What a wonderfully insightful post

My agreeing with 100 percent of its content is just coincidence. It's an intellectually honest, reasonable and even pragmatic view.

[hunter]

21. Honestly, I'd tax the poor miserable fuckers out of existence.

Bill Gates would live in a nice big house in town, next door to a neurosurgeon maybe. The guy who scrubbed toilets at Microsoft headquarters would own a nice condo a few blocks away.

They'd see each other outside of work shopping at the same grocery stores, they'd see each other at Open House nights in the public school their kids attend.

Everyone would be happier that way.

[HughBeaumont]

25. Er . . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

Forbes and the economic class it represents would like us to forget that wealth always depends on collective effort. Why? Because of what the "entirely self-made" myth implies: If I have amassed a fortune solely through my individual talent and hard work, then it is wrong for the government to take any of it away. By further implication, taxation is wrong, and progressive taxation is really wrong.

Oh, and . . . .

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wanting_it_bad_enough

"Wanting it bad enough" is a "strategy" for achieving just about any goal promoted by a multiplicity of public figures, from self-help writers to mainstream celebrities, who all have one thing in common: they have already achieved their goals. These people like to talk up their own hard work by saying that:

1.They got where they are simply or largely because they wanted it bad enough.
2.You too can achieve your dream, so long as you want it bad enough as well.

Of course, none of these people's success can be in any way attributed to factors outside their own direct personal control such as patronage, privilege, opportunity or simple dumb luck.

There is also the flip side, of "blaming the victim." If you do not have the success you want, it is your fault because you didn't really want it badly enough. It has nothing to do with a bad economy, or the flat out odds against something happening.

Seductive appeal

The idea of "wanting it bad enough" as a route to success is very attractive to large numbers of people, since anyone is able to want something, and everyone likes to believe that their own dreams are uniquely powerful and thus more likely to come true. Unfortunately, while there is an abundance of testimonials from successful people endorsing the power of "wanting it bad enough," the sample tends to be somewhat self-selecting: only people who have already tasted success have the platform to tell their success story. While Britney Spears has undoubtedly had a level of success that must have been due in part to wanting success, history does not record how many other little girls from the American South might have wanted to become famous pop singers just as badly as, or even worse than, Spears, yet somehow ended up with only multiple divorces, drug problems and bouts of pant-mislaying insanity to show for it.

[GRACIEBIRD]

28. gazelles and rabbits!!!

Huh?

I defined "self made" as meaning those who were NOT born into wealth. Of course modern society includes an infrastructure for economic gain. Who argues the point?

[laundry_queen]

30. I know the type you are talking about

yes, they are different. The ones I have met, in the vast majority of cases, would be rich anywhere they lived because they are good at getting people to do their bidding. They are spectacular sales people who take advantage of other people's niceties, honesty and morals. They are the kind, who when starting out, didn't see an issue with convincing an old widow on a fixed income that she needed to have $500 worth of yard work done, or that her hot water tank needs replacing when it doesn't, or they have no problems signing up a poor family to a 3-year contract to 'save' on energy bills (when it ends up being more when all the fees are said and done). They are charismatic and intimidating at the same time. They will manipulate anyone to make money and they see people as chess pieces in their little 'make money' game.

Even if they don't hoard their wealth and are only 'well off' I still have an issue with how they make their money - just like I have issues with doctors that like to play god, or cops that are there for the power trip.

Another point - most of the 'self made' people have had the good fortune to have their education paid for, or at least had a decent home with good food and went to decent schools...they have no idea what it is like for those who are really poor, and how much steeper that climb is when you move every year, are hungry often, and attend crappy schools. This lack of empathy is what triggers my rage - just because YOU were able to make it, doesn't mean someone exactly like you in different circumstances would've made it as well. I'm thinking of a particular rich tv business person who thinks they deserve their wealth because they worked hard, without mentioning the 2 degrees that were paid for or the thousands of dollars their parents invested in their first business. Because we ALL have parents who can write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars for a 'start up' business. The little things like that give rich people a shitload of leverage and they don't even recognize it as such.