Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pikachū)
    This is the type of **** you see being shared on Facebook and it's utterly enraging. I remember once this was a discussion in my secondary school and the teacher was for paying soldiers more :facepalm: (surprise surprise it was an English 'teacher'

    It's a social sin to say, but most soldiers in the modern world are not good people, the only ''squadie'' I've ever known was a violent chav and racist who would struggle to hold down a normal job. Society places far too much value on soldiers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    Some CEO's have added literally billions of dollars worth of value to companies, they've been the difference between a business being liquidated and thousands of people in gainful employment. I would never be the sort of guy to mock working class people or the sort of guy who totally worships wealthy accomplished people, we're not our money, our jobs, our clothes or even our names but the only objective measure of value is what someone is willing to pay for whatever the good or service is.
    Some. And others like Ackermann destroyed the reputation of the company and still not only received ludicrous wages but also bonuses and severances. The new secretary of state will be paid an absolute obscene amount by Exxon for him to be independent of them...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    x
    And none of the CEOs would ever get anything done if there weren't people on low wages doing everything else.

    Cleaners and bin men "help" as you put it an absolute incredible number of people. Your entire premise and your logic is so wrong, it hurts.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by yudothis)
    And none of the CEOs would ever get anything done if there weren't people on low wages doing everything else.

    Cleaners and bin men "help" as you put it an absolute incredible number of people. Your entire premise and your logic is so wrong, it hurts.
    Yeah, you're completely wrong there.

    Hiring people happens after you succeed, not before. The CEOs wouldn't be able to hire low wage employees for menial jobs if they weren't already earning enough to pay them. The hiring generally isn't what makes an entrepreneur successful. Really hiring only affords you scale.

    Cleaners and bin men don't help an incredible number of people. A single cleaner or a single bin man is very limited in how much they can do. Collectively cleaners and bin men do a lot. But one indivdiual? Not much. For example, we have cleaners at my student flat. I don't know how many are in the team, at least 5 from what I've seen. Collectively 5 people are helping 700 students once a fortnight. That's not an incredible amount of people.

    I'll reiterate and simplify it since it didn't get through the first time. To get rich you either:

    Help lots of people in return for small payments
    Help a few people in return for high payments

    Among other things of course, such as being better than the competition, being unique, being the first of something, etc.

    Bin men and cleaners do not fit either. They are not helping lots of people, one bin man or cleaner might help at most a few hundred people. They are not providing high value because nobody will pay you £50,000 to clean. If it makes you feel better, replace "help" with "provide value to". Bin men do not provide £50,000 of value to each person and they do not provide £10 of value to millions. Hence why bin men are not rich. I really don't see why you would think bin men and cleaners help an incredible amount of people. Indivdiually they help an incredibly small amount of people.

    That said it's pretty common for people to not understand this rather simple concept. It's part of why most people aren't rich. When you ask someone how to get more money, they most commonly think that they need to do something linear, like work more or get a better job. They think of increasing their own value so that someone else pays them more. They let one other individual (their boss) determine their worth instead of getting thousands of other people (customers) to determine their worth. It's also not uncommon to disagree because it goes against what society wants.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't close the gap
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why cant more money be printed and the gov set price ranges on goods to prevent hyperinflation? why can't we just give poor people money and let them build from there on? All complaining about the richest, yet they worked hard for their money and because of them they changed society and made it easier as such. Why can't the government and banks fix it? they make the money don't they?

    The world rich have no obligation to give back, it's their money and they can spend it how they like. The average person doesn't give a **** about anyone else tbh, The media is rich and they report this, what are they giving money to poor people? are they setting up housing for them because of all the millions and billions they own etc? bunch of hypocrites. That's capitalism for you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    It's a social sin to say, but most soldiers in the modern world are not good people, the only ''squadie'' I've ever known was a violent chyav and racist who would struggle to hold down a normal job. Society places far too much value on soldiers.
    You complain about generalisations against the rich, and yet you make sweeping statements about the left-wing and about the majority of soldiers being bad people. Can't you see how hypocritical this is?

    I understand what you mean about the poor-rich wage gap and I agree with a lot of the points that you make, but I feel like you're weakening your arguments with some of the things that you say...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty pointless report, is it now wrong for someone to get rich off people buying/using their service?

    There will always be rich and poor. For someone to win, someone else has to lose.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    You complain about generalisations against the rich, and yet you make sweeping statements about the left-wing and about the majority of soldiers being bad people. Can't you see how hypocritical this is?

    I understand what you mean about the poor-rich wage gap and I agree with a lot of the points that you make, but I feel like you're weakening your arguments with some of the things that you say...
    I made no such generalisation about soldiers, I said that my personal experience of the one person I've known (who isn't old) who went into the forces is negative and that the positive generalisations we as British citizens are expected to just accept are probably not true. Note I did not say they are bad people, I said that they are not good people, the implication being that they are no better, but not necessarily worse than people in general.


    There is no need to be upset
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Kravence)
    For someone to win, someone else has to lose.
    It's even simpler than that. Bill Gates being rich does not result in third world countries being poor. They are totally independent of each other. For rich people to win and poor people to lose the rich would have to be stealing all the money from the poor people and not letting them have any of it. That's obviously not how it works. I can get super rich and not for a second think it results in someone else being poorer. If anything, the rich winning helps the poor. If Bill Gates wasn't rich then the charities and donations he made would not have happened. If anything the poor win just as much as the rich because they get more aid than they would otherwise get from someone like Oxfam.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's rather naive of the political right to claim that inequality and standard of living for the poor aren't related.

    They still believe in this libertarian fantasy pipe dream whereby as long as the rich get richer, the wealth will trickle down and lift everyone out of poverty.

    There are a certain amount of resources on this planet. When so few people have access to such a huge amount of it, clearly that prevents the unfolding of this libertarian, junior common room fantasy.
    nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****

    Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.


    Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.

    1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
    Pros: I will be a billionaire
    Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.

    2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
    Pros: ???
    Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****

    Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.


    Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.

    1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
    Pros: I will be a billionaire
    Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.

    2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
    Pros: ???
    Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
    I genuinely respect you a lot.
    Whilst I may disagree with your views, you're one of the first right leaning people to call BS on the nonsense 'trickle down theory'.

    If you don't care about wealth trickling down then fair enough, but I respect you for not pretending that it does.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I genuinely respect you a lot.
    Whilst I may disagree with your views, you're one of the first right leaning people to call BS on the nonsense 'trickle down theory'.

    If you don't care about wealth trickling down then fair enough, but I respect you for not pretending that it does.
    But that's my point. Trickle-down theory doesn't work, because it doesn't exist. People have been slamming "trickle-down economics" since FDR, but no economist has ever proposed appropriating wealth for the top in the hopes that they eventually end up giving it to the bottom. That's a caricature of the free market position, which is totally indifferent to the gap and just wants to see free mutual transactions between corporations and individuals on their own terms.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    It's even simpler than that. Bill Gates being rich does not result in third world countries being poor. They are totally independent of each other. For rich people to win and poor people to lose the rich would have to be stealing all the money from the poor people and not letting them have any of it. That's obviously not how it works. I can get super rich and not for a second think it results in someone else being poorer. If anything, the rich winning helps the poor. If Bill Gates wasn't rich then the charities and donations he made would not have happened. If anything the poor win just as much as the rich because they get more aid than they would otherwise get from someone like Oxfam.
    In a way It does make people poorer because the money circling around poor people generally goes up to rich people and stays there except for the scenario you mentioned in which they donate large amounts to the poor.

    I think the problem with this report is what people define as poor.

    The poor people benefiting are the ones who generally have nothing in poor countries while ones in developed countries aren't because are poor but only in comparison to working class etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    But that's my point. Trickle-down theory doesn't work, because it doesn't exist. People have been slamming "trickle-down economics" since FDR, but no economist has ever proposed appropriating wealth for the top in the hopes that they eventually end up giving it to the bottom. That's a caricature of the free market position, which is totally indifferent to the gap and just wants to see free mutual transactions between corporations and individuals on their own terms.
    There are elements of it for sure.
    George Bush granting a massive tax cut to the wealthiest in the belief that the wealth would trickle down. 70% of it or so left the economy.


    There are only a finite amount of resources on the planet so the notion that the gap and standards of living for the poorest are totally independent, is nonsense.
    • TSR Community Team
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Study Helper
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    Arrest them for what crime? Mark Zuckerberg for example made billions of dollars as a businessman and computer scientist and has since pledged to give almost all of his wealth to good causes when he dies, in addition to funding health care and research projects across the globe, what the left needs to learn is that the sum total of global wealth is not constant and that it's perfectly possible to get rich without hurting others and with a few exceptions, most rich people are rich precisely because they improved the world.
    Yeah true. I'm not saying it's a logical route, but it does amaze me the 3.4 billion are happy to let those few control all the wealth.

    I'm being incredibly flippant, I of course know the draws of money to motivate people to do amazing things. And of course, those rich people end up paying the wages one way or another of thousands of people.

    However, I do think there are limits to the level of wealth any one individual should have and the balance is tipping worryingly to this super elite. Also, to be quite barbarian about it, why are so many billions of people willing to just sit by as lemmings and do nothing about it? Convincing themselves that someone like Bill Gates is superior to them just because he won the lottery of luck?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There are elements of it for sure.
    George Bush granting a massive tax cut to the wealthiest in the belief that the wealth would trickle down. 70% of it or so left the economy.


    There are only a finite amount of resources on the planet so the notion that the gap and standards of living for the poorest are totally independent, is nonsense.
    It would be nonsense if we ran on something like the Gold Standard, but in the era of central banking money is just an illusion and it's worth whatever we say it is. That's the principal reason the gap doesn't bother me.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    tax the rich more and close the gap who tf needs all that money anyway
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****

    Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.


    Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.

    1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
    Pros: I will be a billionaire
    Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.

    2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
    Pros: ???
    Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
    3. Abolish shareholder capitalism
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Yeah, you're completely wrong there.

    Hiring people happens after you succeed, not before. The CEOs wouldn't be able to hire low wage employees for menial jobs if they weren't already earning enough to pay them. The hiring generally isn't what makes an entrepreneur successful. Really hiring only affords you scale.

    Cleaners and bin men don't help an incredible number of people. A single cleaner or a single bin man is very limited in how much they can do. Collectively cleaners and bin men do a lot. But one indivdiual? Not much. For example, we have cleaners at my student flat. I don't know how many are in the team, at least 5 from what I've seen. Collectively 5 people are helping 700 students once a fortnight. That's not an incredible amount of people.

    I'll reiterate and simplify it since it didn't get through the first time. To get rich you either:

    Help lots of people in return for small payments
    Help a few people in return for high payments

    Among other things of course, such as being better than the competition, being unique, being the first of something, etc.

    Bin men and cleaners do not fit either. They are not helping lots of people, one bin man or cleaner might help at most a few hundred people. They are not providing high value because nobody will pay you £50,000 to clean. If it makes you feel better, replace "help" with "provide value to". Bin men do not provide £50,000 of value to each person and they do not provide £10 of value to millions. Hence why bin men are not rich. I really don't see why you would think bin men and cleaners help an incredible amount of people. Indivdiually they help an incredibly small amount of people.

    That said it's pretty common for people to not understand this rather simple concept. It's part of why most people aren't rich. When you ask someone how to get more money, they most commonly think that they need to do something linear, like work more or get a better job. They think of increasing their own value so that someone else pays them more. They let one other individual (their boss) determine their worth instead of getting thousands of other people (customers) to determine their worth. It's also not uncommon to disagree because it goes against what society wants.
    The other thing that people ignore is that calling it the labour market uses market in the same way as you would talking of the cattle market: market forces still apply. The cleaner is low paid because we literally have tens of millions of people in the country with the requisite skills. It's the same reason relevant qualifications help you earn more, and a wealth of good experience: you're distinguishing yourself as better than other people on the same level, making you worth more as a higher quality employee; or you are showing you are capable of doing something others aren't, making you worth more due to a limited supply.

    It's also the reason that pushing everybody to uni is a bad idea given it's just making people economically inactive for 3+ years and in most cases is of minimal benefit because the basic bar has been raised to accommodate the increased supply.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.