The Right to Work for less money

[Koios]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

You're changing your tune a bit Polk. Regardless, where is your evidence for this theory? It doesn't even pass a basic logic test if you play it out. Said rich kid drops out of school. Then what? Someone decides to hire them for high paying position anyway, KNOWING they don't even have a degree. Or maybe daddy does them a favor and gets them a job in his business or some friends you might argue. Why would anyone with any business sense do that when they also know the person hasn't completed their education and has no experience in what they were hired for? Does it happen maybe, sure? But not enough to make the claims you make. Rich dad didnt' become succesful by a habit of letting emotion blind them into hiring people, family or not, that are wholly unqualified to do a job. You're just making yet another excuse.

More anecdotal evidence. My dad made low-mid 6 figures his working career. So did his three brothers. NONE OF THEM went to private schools in their elemetary years or college. How to get rich isn't something that is taught just in private schools. They really aren't taught in any schools, which is unfortuante. Rather they are principles handed down from generation to generation. The people that aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of upbringing are the people that insist everyone is doomed financially if they aren't protected by a union.

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

 

[kwc57]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

Not true. My niece married the son of a very successful doctor. He was a good time party boy who wanted to have all the same trappings that his dad had. Thought he deserved them. Expected someone to hand him a CEO job. But he dropped out of college. He would get a job and quit the job. He would start a business and end a business. He wanted the bling, but he didn't want to work for it. My niece ended up divorcing him because he wouldn't even take care of their baby daughter while she was at work earning a living to support him. To date, he is still a failure as everyone in his dad's "good ol boy" club has his number and knows he is a deadbeat. No one keeps him in cheese because he came from a higher stratification.

 

[Bern80]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

You're changing your tune a bit Polk. Regardless, where is your evidence for this theory? It doesn't even pass a basic logic test if you play it out. Said rich kid drops out of school. Then what? Someone decides to hire them for high paying position anyway, KNOWING they don't even have a degree. Or maybe daddy does them a favor and gets them a job in his business or some friends you might argue. Why would anyone with any business sense do that when they also know the person hasn't completed their education and has no experience in what they were hired for? Does it happen maybe, sure? But not enough to make the claims you make. Rich dad didnt' become succesful by a habit of letting emotion blind them into hiring people, family or not, that are wholly unqualified to do a job. You're just making yet another excuse.

More anecdotal evidence. My dad made low-mid 6 figures his working career. So did his three brothers. NONE OF THEM went to private schools in their elemetary years or college. How to get rich isn't something that is taught just in private schools. They really aren't taught in any schools, which is unfortuante. Rather they are principles handed down from generation to generation. The people that aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of upbringing are the people that insist everyone is doomed financially if they aren't protected by a union.

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

The key word in all of this is indeed 'opportunity'. And it is indeed true we don't all start on a level playing field. There are of course advantages that come with having extra disposable income. The problem with you libs is that when you say opportunity that isn't what you really mean. Being a child of the top 1% or getting into the top 1% is NOT an opportunity. It is an outcome. And that's really what you and most libs are after, an equalization of outcomes, not equal opportunity because that requires accountability on the part of the individual and we all know how big on personal accountability libs are. While equal opportunity is something that we ought to strive for. It is not the government's business to assure an outcome. The opprotunity is indeed there for anyone regardless of income level to reach whatever income level they so desire. Yes, it may be more difficult for some than for others based on socioeconomic factors, upbringing, and plain old god given talent. But the opportunities are still indeed there for anyone.

 

[kwc57]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

You're changing your tune a bit Polk. Regardless, where is your evidence for this theory? It doesn't even pass a basic logic test if you play it out. Said rich kid drops out of school. Then what? Someone decides to hire them for high paying position anyway, KNOWING they don't even have a degree. Or maybe daddy does them a favor and gets them a job in his business or some friends you might argue. Why would anyone with any business sense do that when they also know the person hasn't completed their education and has no experience in what they were hired for? Does it happen maybe, sure? But not enough to make the claims you make. Rich dad didnt' become succesful by a habit of letting emotion blind them into hiring people, family or not, that are wholly unqualified to do a job. You're just making yet another excuse.

More anecdotal evidence. My dad made low-mid 6 figures his working career. So did his three brothers. NONE OF THEM went to private schools in their elemetary years or college. How to get rich isn't something that is taught just in private schools. They really aren't taught in any schools, which is unfortuante. Rather they are principles handed down from generation to generation. The people that aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of upbringing are the people that insist everyone is doomed financially if they aren't protected by a union.

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. If you are going to declare FACT, you'd better be able to post your documentation to back it up......because personal anecdotes and conjured scenarios......yada, yada, yada.

 

[Koios]

You're changing your tune a bit Polk. Regardless, where is your evidence for this theory? It doesn't even pass a basic logic test if you play it out. Said rich kid drops out of school. Then what? Someone decides to hire them for high paying position anyway, KNOWING they don't even have a degree. Or maybe daddy does them a favor and gets them a job in his business or some friends you might argue. Why would anyone with any business sense do that when they also know the person hasn't completed their education and has no experience in what they were hired for? Does it happen maybe, sure? But not enough to make the claims you make. Rich dad didnt' become succesful by a habit of letting emotion blind them into hiring people, family or not, that are wholly unqualified to do a job. You're just making yet another excuse.

More anecdotal evidence. My dad made low-mid 6 figures his working career. So did his three brothers. NONE OF THEM went to private schools in their elemetary years or college. How to get rich isn't something that is taught just in private schools. They really aren't taught in any schools, which is unfortuante. Rather they are principles handed down from generation to generation. The people that aren't fortunate enough to have that kind of upbringing are the people that insist everyone is doomed financially if they aren't protected by a union.

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. If you are going to declare FACT, you'd better be able to post your documentation to back it up......because personal anecdotes and conjured scenarios......yada, yada, yada.

Read Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, which references all assertions with references to published data.

Then you won't be so full of overused cliches that your eyes show the void behind them.

 

[Koios]

Children of the top 1% have a better than 70% chance of themselves having top 1% income, which shows that equality of opportunity is a mere myth, in America, since if that were not the case, all our children would have a 1% chance of being in the top 1% of earners.

One of the mechanisms is higher education, where the children of the top 1% comprise about 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities. And increasingly, great paying companies right out of college, i.e. Google and many of the top consulting firms, say straight away: top tier colleges preferred.

Thus while we're yet to be a true caste society, we're about 70% of the way to being one. Fact.

Does that clear it up for you, personal anecdotes and conjured senarios notwithstanding?

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. If you are going to declare FACT, you'd better be able to post your documentation to back it up......because personal anecdotes and conjured scenarios......yada, yada, yada.

Read Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, which references all assertions with references to published data.

Then you won't be so full of overused cliches that your eyes show the void behind them.

And while back-checking, indeed I did incorrectly stated some things, due to poor memory:

The top 10%, and not 1%. My mistake. Thus,

The children of the top 10% have a +70% likelihood of being in the top 10% of earners, which in a society of equality of opportunity, would be only one-seventh that, a 10% likelihood. So children of the bottom 90%, have, comparatively, 1/7th as much opportunity as children of the top 10%, who comprise over 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities.

 

[kwc57]

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. If you are going to declare FACT, you'd better be able to post your documentation to back it up......because personal anecdotes and conjured scenarios......yada, yada, yada.

Read Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, which references all assertions with references to published data.

Then you won't be so full of overused cliches that your eyes show the void behind them.

And while back-checking, indeed I did incorrectly stated some things, due to poor memory:

The top 10%, and not 1%. My mistake. Thus,

The children of the top 10% have a +70% likelihood of being in the top 10% of earners, which in a society of equality of opportunity, would be only one-seventh that, a 10% likelihood. So children of the bottom 90%, have, comparatively, 1/7th as much opportunity as children of the top 10%, who comprise over 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities.

Rags To Riches Billionaires - Forbes.com

While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very, very few people are exceptional. Hell, professional athletes aren't exceptional anymore.

Tell that Ye Shiwen.

Ye Shiwen doesn't earn an income from swimming, so:
1. She's not relevant to a discussion about wages.
2. Technically speaking, she's still an amateur. Outside of a few major sports, even the highest levels of competition are amateur.

When I was going with the earlier point was this. Look at salaries in baseball. The average salary for the typical team increased on a pretty consistent basis over a long period. Since free agency started in the early 70s, salaries were up, up, up. Then in 2007, it stops. Average salaries are flat since then. Why? Because teams have realized they can just use cheaper replacements.

You do know that the Olympics no longer bars people who are paid from competing, don't you? The USOC actually pays medal winners enough that a few states, and the federal government, wrote a special tax loophole for them so they could keep their prize money. If we pay Michael Phelps, what on Earth makes you think China doesn't pay Ye Shiwen? In fact, I bet China paid their athletes long before we did, even if the rules said they couldn't.

1. Ye Shiwen is relevant to a discussion about exceptional pro athletes.
2. Technically speaking, there are no amateur athletes in the Olympics.

I am so glad you mentioned baseball, it is the one exception I know of to unions that still accept that an individual can be exceptional. Every other major sport has a salary cap that is specifically designed to prevent one individual player from getting paid because they are having a breakout year. The reason for this is rather simple, every single baseball player knows that they might be the next home run or batting champion. Baseball is the only sport where an individual can play for 20 years and still be at the top of his game, and everyone out there knows that it might happen to him.


Other sports are different, individual players have an incentive to negotiate a union contract designed front load their earnings in the knowledge that they can, at best, last 10 years before their body prevents them from playing, and that they already reached their peak as far as performance before they even start playing. They understand that the best chance they have at having great payday comes from sticking together and asking for a higher average salary, and they are willing to give the owners a salary cap in exchange even though it works against the Walter Paytons in the union.

 

[Gadawg73]

Very, very few people are exceptional. Hell, professional athletes aren't exceptional anymore.

Tell that Ye Shiwen.

Ye Shiwen doesn't earn an income from swimming, so:
1. She's not relevant to a discussion about wages.
2. Technically speaking, she's still an amateur. Outside of a few major sports, even the highest levels of competition are amateur.

When I was going with the earlier point was this. Look at salaries in baseball. The average salary for the typical team increased on a pretty consistent basis over a long period. Since free agency started in the early 70s, salaries were up, up, up. Then in 2007, it stops. Average salaries are flat since then. Why? Because teams have realized they can just use cheaper replacements.

Revenues are down in both TV $$ and attendance in most pro sports.
Could it be the owners invested hundreds of millions of their own $$$ it to make a profit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As much as people don't want to believe it, we live in a highly stratified society. Someone born into an upper-income family who drops out of school is more likely to remain upper-income than someone from the lower class with an post-bachelor's degree is to enter the top of the distribution.

Prove it.

 

[Luissa]

Tell that Ye Shiwen.

Ye Shiwen doesn't earn an income from swimming, so:
1. She's not relevant to a discussion about wages.
2. Technically speaking, she's still an amateur. Outside of a few major sports, even the highest levels of competition are amateur.

When I was going with the earlier point was this. Look at salaries in baseball. The average salary for the typical team increased on a pretty consistent basis over a long period. Since free agency started in the early 70s, salaries were up, up, up. Then in 2007, it stops. Average salaries are flat since then. Why? Because teams have realized they can just use cheaper replacements.

You do know that the Olympics no longer bars people who are paid from competing, don't you? The USOC actually pays medal winners enough that a few states, and the federal government, wrote a special tax loophole for them so they could keep their prize money. If we pay Michael Phelps, what on Earth makes you think China doesn't pay Ye Shiwen? In fact, I bet China paid their athletes long before we did, even if the rules said they couldn't.

1. Ye Shiwen is relevant to a discussion about exceptional pro athletes.
2. Technically speaking, there are no amateur athletes in the Olympics.

I am so glad you mentioned baseball, it is the one exception I know of to unions that still accept that an individual can be exceptional. Every other major sport has a salary cap that is specifically designed to prevent one individual player from getting paid because they are having a breakout year. The reason for this is rather simple, every single baseball player knows that they might be the next home run or batting champion. Baseball is the only sport where an individual can play for 20 years and still be at the top of his game, and everyone out there knows that it might happen to him.


Other sports are different, individual players have an incentive to negotiate a union contract designed front load their earnings in the knowledge that they can, at best, last 10 years before their body prevents them from playing, and that they already reached their peak as far as performance before they even start playing. They understand that the best chance they have at having great payday comes from sticking together and asking for a higher average salary, and they are willing to give the owners a salary cap in exchange even though it works against the Walter Paytons in the union.

Technically speaking there are amateur athletes in the Olympics. If they plan on having a college career in whatever sport they compete in they cannot take endorsement money. That is why you had high school and college age swimmers and gymnasts who didn't take endorsement money.
The Chinese swimmer probably is paid but there are many swimmers who are not paid so they can compete in college.

 

[Luissa]

One didn't take money so she could compete for her high school and she won multiple golds. That's crazy to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ye Shiwen doesn't earn an income from swimming, so:
1. She's not relevant to a discussion about wages.
2. Technically speaking, she's still an amateur. Outside of a few major sports, even the highest levels of competition are amateur.

When I was going with the earlier point was this. Look at salaries in baseball. The average salary for the typical team increased on a pretty consistent basis over a long period. Since free agency started in the early 70s, salaries were up, up, up. Then in 2007, it stops. Average salaries are flat since then. Why? Because teams have realized they can just use cheaper replacements.

You do know that the Olympics no longer bars people who are paid from competing, don't you? The USOC actually pays medal winners enough that a few states, and the federal government, wrote a special tax loophole for them so they could keep their prize money. If we pay Michael Phelps, what on Earth makes you think China doesn't pay Ye Shiwen? In fact, I bet China paid their athletes long before we did, even if the rules said they couldn't.

1. Ye Shiwen is relevant to a discussion about exceptional pro athletes.
2. Technically speaking, there are no amateur athletes in the Olympics.

I am so glad you mentioned baseball, it is the one exception I know of to unions that still accept that an individual can be exceptional. Every other major sport has a salary cap that is specifically designed to prevent one individual player from getting paid because they are having a breakout year. The reason for this is rather simple, every single baseball player knows that they might be the next home run or batting champion. Baseball is the only sport where an individual can play for 20 years and still be at the top of his game, and everyone out there knows that it might happen to him.


Other sports are different, individual players have an incentive to negotiate a union contract designed front load their earnings in the knowledge that they can, at best, last 10 years before their body prevents them from playing, and that they already reached their peak as far as performance before they even start playing. They understand that the best chance they have at having great payday comes from sticking together and asking for a higher average salary, and they are willing to give the owners a salary cap in exchange even though it works against the Walter Paytons in the union.

Technically speaking there are amateur athletes in the Olympics. If they plan on having a college career in whatever sport they compete in they cannot take endorsement money. That is why you had high school and college age swimmers and gymnasts who didn't take endorsement money.
The Chinese swimmer probably is paid but there are many swimmers who are not paid so they can compete in college.

Wrong, the NCAA allows people who go to the Olympics to get paid in the form of prize money.

Mark Kiszla: $150,000 Olympic bonus for Missy Franklin in NCAA red tape - The Denver Post

Technically, there are no amateurs at the Olympics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One didn't take money so she could compete for her high school and she won multiple golds. That's crazy to me.

Who? They can pay the award into a scholarship fund to get around any high school restrictions.

 

[Koios]

Read Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, which references all assertions with references to published data.

Then you won't be so full of overused cliches that your eyes show the void behind them.

And while back-checking, indeed I did incorrectly stated some things, due to poor memory:

The top 10%, and not 1%. My mistake. Thus,

The children of the top 10% have a +70% likelihood of being in the top 10% of earners, which in a society of equality of opportunity, would be only one-seventh that, a 10% likelihood. So children of the bottom 90%, have, comparatively, 1/7th as much opportunity as children of the top 10%, who comprise over 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities.

Rags To Riches Billionaires - Forbes.com

While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Anecdotes and cherry-picked examples prove little. Thus looking at aggregate data will help you learn something, today anyway.

Enjoy it.

 

[dblack]

I'm still interested in the answer to the question "Do we have the right to work for less money?" - because I think that is the central problem with the whole union issue. Do I have a right offer my services to an employer for less money than the union is demanding? Or must I avoid undercutting them?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And while back-checking, indeed I did incorrectly stated some things, due to poor memory:

The top 10%, and not 1%. My mistake. Thus,

The children of the top 10% have a +70% likelihood of being in the top 10% of earners, which in a society of equality of opportunity, would be only one-seventh that, a 10% likelihood. So children of the bottom 90%, have, comparatively, 1/7th as much opportunity as children of the top 10%, who comprise over 70% of the student population in Ivy League universities.

Rags To Riches Billionaires - Forbes.com

While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Anecdotes and cherry-picked examples prove little. Thus looking at aggregate data will help you learn something, today anyway.

Enjoy it.

How is pointing out the fact that more than half of the richest people in the world are self made cherry picking?

 

[MikeK]

I'm still interested in the answer to the question "Do we have the right to work for less money?" - because I think that is the central problem with the whole union issue. Do I have a right offer my services to an employer for less money than the union is demanding? Or must I avoid undercutting them?

The obvious kink in this plot is if you dislodge a union employee by working for less money, how long will it be before someone does the same to you? And so on. That was the situation in America before the union movement commenced.

In the same way as "Right-To-Work" laws were legislated, thus undermining the union movement, all of the existing labor laws that protect workers, every one of which was fostered by the union movement, will be similarly legislated away. Workers will be competing for jobs by accepting lower and lower wages. There will be no 40 hour week. You will work as many hours as your employer demands without overtime pay. There will be no paid vacations or sick leave.

And, again, that's the way it was before the unions changed the rules. "Right-To-Work" will soon change them again.

 

[kwc57]

Rags To Riches Billionaires - Forbes.com

While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Anecdotes and cherry-picked examples prove little. Thus looking at aggregate data will help you learn something, today anyway.

Enjoy it.

How is pointing out the fact that more than half of the richest people in the world are self made cherry picking?

Because it doesn't reflect his master's agenda. I notice he has yet to produce the documentation of HIS facts. I guess he thinks that Forbes made up the list of self made billionaires. What a dolt.

 

[Koios]

Rags To Riches Billionaires - Forbes.com

While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Anecdotes and cherry-picked examples prove little. Thus looking at aggregate data will help you learn something, today anyway.

Enjoy it.

How is pointing out the fact that more than half of the richest people in the world are self made cherry picking?

Because self-made doesn't necessarily mean rags to riches. Bill Gates grew up in Seattle's exclusive Brentwood gated community, son of a senior partner in Seattle's largest law firm.