Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What I like to tell my RW friends regarding their "working HARDER to EARN a better wage" chestnut - [View all]HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)131. Nor were ANY of them "Self-made millionaires". Not ONE. Google is YOUR friend.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075
What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.
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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
134 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What I like to tell my RW friends regarding their "working HARDER to EARN a better wage" chestnut - [View all]
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
OP
How sad is it that literally one of his FIRST actions in his FIRST year . . .
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
#71
What gets me is when they say giving lower classes more money will raise prices for the poor.
Spitfire of ATJ
Sep 2013
#11
You just described my in-laws. Enjoying their pensions while voting Republican.
SunSeeker
Sep 2013
#16
I even see this from some unionized coworkers who've since retired. "I got mine" selfish jerks
Populist_Prole
Sep 2013
#100
While health care and social issues are finally progressing (albeit glacially) . . .
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
#18
The poor are still poor with Obamacare. An insurance mandate does not pay the light bill.
Skeeter Barnes
Sep 2013
#47
The taxes are on profit, as you say, so the incentive is to put the money back into the company.
cui bono
Sep 2013
#119
I absolutely am not pivoting. You changed the conversation from workers to stockholders.
cui bono
Sep 2013
#121
The problem with "stockholders can just sell their shares if they're not happy about CEO pay"
wickerwoman
Sep 2013
#123
I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you, but I'd like to point something out:
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2013
#128
Easy. My parents weren't wealthy and I'm not that supremely determined to step on anyone for wealth.
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
#107
Nor were ANY of them "Self-made millionaires". Not ONE. Google is YOUR friend.
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
#131
I used to work in a factory with a woman who had been there for 23 years.
Skeeter Barnes
Sep 2013
#22
Exactly. Wages sank while the productivity of American workers has risen steadily.
Skeeter Barnes
Sep 2013
#45
No, she was aware she was making chump change and she didn't appreciate it.
Skeeter Barnes
Sep 2013
#46
k and r-- it saddens me that even some people who are not rwnj's can fall for the bs coming from
niyad
Sep 2013
#32
they seem to want to blame the little guys beneath their rung in society for being somehow slackers
CTyankee
Sep 2013
#66
Hang on, help is on the way! You'll get those new shoes, and have money to spare! lol
reformist2
Sep 2013
#92
they're pretending it's the 50s or 70s, where the economy was managed and unionized
MisterP
Sep 2013
#98
Oh, it's worked exactly as planned, and the useful idiots fall for it like they do Twinkies.
HughBeaumont
Sep 2013
#113
Excellent OP - U.S. Needs To Borrow Scandanavian Model To Improve Economic Equity
drgoodword
Sep 2013
#122