The Right to Work for less money

[kwc57]

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.

Except........that isn't how it works. I live in a right to work state. I can assure you that there are no doctors, lawyers, nurses, policemen or oilfield workers making minimum wage or below because evil management can somehow "get away with it". Not even Wal-mart.....and yes, I know people who work there. The idea that an employer might think he can get away with paying 50 cents an hour and thatthere are people who will accept the job is laughable. To get and retain quality employees, employers know they have to pay them enough to get them to work for them. I see it everyday. You guys really have nothing to fear.

 

[Koios]

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.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

 

[Koios]

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.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

 

[kwc57]

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.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

So you've already determined your own fate as a failure since you believe you will never have the "opportunity" to make anything of yourself. It must suck to be you.

 

[kwc57]

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.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

You obviously didn't read the article I linked to. Tell me about Oprah's easy life.

 

[neomalthusian]

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.

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

 

[Koios]

No. I think self-made does not by default make them a child of the lower 90%. Mark Zuckerberg's father was a dentist and not only sent him to elite private schools but also hired a programmer to tutor him as a young man.

In fact, it merely supports -- and DOES NOT contradict -- the contention that children of the top 10% are seven times more likely to themselves be in the top 10%, than the children of the bottom 90%.

Equality of opportunity is fucking myth. Look out your fucking window and see what in the fuck is really going on. Put down the fucking rightie koolaid and use what little brain you have. Or don't. The amount of fuck I give = 0.

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

What if we didn't fatigue after 12.5 years of publicly funded K thru 12, which pays back shit, and made college free to all thus inclined? Not everyone. Just those with the drive to better themselves sans economic barriers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That explains why he bought every company that might actually challenge Microsoft, it doesn't explain that he didn't use any of his father's money to support Microsoft.

 

[MikeK]

I left the house at age 17, 3 weeks after I graduated high school. My first job was working outside for a surveying company making $3 a hour. I then sold shoes for Kinney Shoes as friend of mine I played ball with worked there. Within a few months I was assistant manager of a mall store working 70 hours a week, salary. Then I sold insurance, commission only, for a year. Then I went back to college and worked for a law firm. I went to get my graduate degree, worked at the law firm from 1-6 pm; 2 nights a week and 8 hours every Saturday I sold shoes at a men's store in the mall and I mowed yards and did other yard work in between for extra cash.
I was promoted to #1 investigator in that law firm in 1981. 1982 I left and started my own detective agency. Got my graduate degree in 1985 . The rest is history.
This is the normal path of all business owners and people that make a lot of $$$ in America.
We earned it. No one gave us anything. Wealth is earned. I am not obligated to give you or anyone else any of my wealth.
Go get it yourself.
Spread the word.

Please rest assured I neither need nor want any of your wealth and I'm quite sure the same circumstance applies to the vast majority of Americans -- many of whom are making their way quite nicely as a direct result of the union movement.

As for the wealth you seem covetously inclined to defend, do you think you could have done as well in another country? If you've managed to acquire an enviable amount of money by engaging in commerce, either selling shoes or providing investigative services, it was possible only because a substantial number of citizens had enough money to pay you. And the union movement is why that much money was circulating in the national economy. You could not have done as well back in the twenties or beyond when the average American was struggling to keep food on the table.

The only way you could have realized the same level of success back then was to serve the relatively few rich clients, for which the competition would have been overwhelming.

 

[kwc57]

And what does that mean for our country?

But first, where do you think Bill Gates met his pal Paul Allen? On a bread line? No. An elite high school for Seattle's richest families who could afford $20 grand a year for high school.

And that won't change. Of course the rich will do best by their children.

But back in the rest of America, where does that leave us compared to countries with less inequality of opportunity, like Norway, etc.? If our best and brightest come from a small percentage, how many Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs, and Steve Jobs are withering away in ghettos, never to rise out and do amazing shit for us?

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

What if we didn't fatigue after 12.5 years of publicly funded K thru 12, which pays back shit, and made college free to all thus inclined? Not everyone. Just those with the drive to better themselves sans economic barriers?

You think we don't already make it easy to get to college? My son was an honor student in high school who scored high on his college entrance exams. Because of how much we make.....not even in the Obama "wealthy" category.....the best my son could get in merit scholarships was $2k per year. His college costs about $17k per year. But here in Oklahoma, we have a program called Oklahoma's Promise. While in 8th grade, if a student's parents make under $50k per year, they can sign thei child up for the program. The student has a few courses they must complete thru 12th grade and maintain a 2.5 GPA in order to have the state pay their tuition to one of the state colleges or universities. That's right, my son who has a proven track record of academic success has to pay the majority of his college bill while the mediocre students get a free ride on my tax dime. And somehow they are the ones who have it tough and I'm not paying my fair share. Don't believe it, you can read all about it.

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | Students | Oklahoma's Promise

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | Students | Oklahoma's Promise | How It Works

There is your "equal" opportunity.

 

[Koios]

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

What if we didn't fatigue after 12.5 years of publicly funded K thru 12, which pays back shit, and made college free to all thus inclined? Not everyone. Just those with the drive to better themselves sans economic barriers?

You think we don't already make it easy to get to college? My son was an honor student in high school who scored high on his college entrance exams. Because of how much we make.....not even in the Obama "wealthy" category.....the best my son could get in merit scholarships was $2k per year. His college costs about $17k per year. But here in Oklahoma, we have a program called Oklahoma's Promise. While in 8th grade, if a student's parents make under $50k per year, they can sign thei child up for the program. The student has a few courses they must complete thru 12th grade and maintain a 2.5 GPA in order to have the state pay their tuition to one of the state colleges or universities. That's right, my son who has a proven track record of academic success has to pay the majority of his college bill while the mediocre students get a free ride on my tax dime. And somehow they are the ones who have it tough and I'm not paying my fair share. Don't believe it, you can read all about it.

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | Students | Oklahoma's Promise

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | Students | Oklahoma's Promise | How It Works

There is your "equal" opportunity.

Yes. For too many the artificial barrier (financial) is too great.

 

[neomalthusian]

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

What if we didn't fatigue after 12.5 years of publicly funded K thru 12, which pays back shit, and made college free to all thus inclined? Not everyone. Just those with the drive to better themselves sans economic barriers?

You're forgetting to support your previous comparison statement, or maybe you're just abandoning it.

How many thousands of Ivy League students have there been in the last 30 years? And how many billionaire inventors like Gates and Zuckerberg are there? Why aren't there many thousands more billionaire inventors? Oh, right, because holding up the world's richest human as an example of what would happen if we started throwing more public funded education at the masses is an idiotic argument.

There is inequality of opportunity, outcome, intelligence, height, penis size, et cetera ad infinitum. Inequality of whateverthehell does not necessitate federal government action. Enforce the law equally, and let the rest play itself out.

 

[Koios]

If we could infinitely expand private schools' capacity and put everyone through Harvard (where Gates and Zuckerberg went), you think there would be a greater percentage of Gates and Zuckerberg types? That's like saying if we let more teams into the NCAA tournament we'll have more national champions.

What if we didn't fatigue after 12.5 years of publicly funded K thru 12, which pays back shit, and made college free to all thus inclined? Not everyone. Just those with the drive to better themselves sans economic barriers?

You're forgetting to support your previous comparison statement, or maybe you're just abandoning it.

How many thousands of Ivy League students have there been in the last 30 years? And how many billionaire inventors like Gates and Zuckerberg are there? Why aren't there many thousands more billionaire inventors? Oh, right, because holding up the world's richest human as an example of what would happen if we started throwing more public funded education at the masses is an idiotic argument.

There is inequality of opportunity, outcome, intelligence, height, penis size, et cetera ad infinitum. Inequality of whateverthehell does not necessitate federal government action. Enforce the law equally, and let the rest play itself out.

Try to stay with me: making college accessible to all does not diminish the advantage of the children of the well off, it finds the gems among the rest of us, raising them and the society up.

In short: reduce inequality by raising the bottom up and not dragging the top down.

 

[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?

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.

Well, I hadn't thought of it as a plot. More of an observation of something rather obvious - that we all enjoy the right to work harder, faster or cheaper than the other guy in order to get work.

It seems that what you're expressing here is what many conservatives and libertarians fear is the core principle of the labor movement: the idea that workers shouldn't have to compete for jobs. But if workers should be protected from competition, why not businesses? And of course they are, some of them, depending on how well they lobby.

We're devolving away from the rule of law where universal rights and equal protection are guiding principles, to the arbitrary distribution of privilege handed out by corporatist regime. I don't think that's an improvement.

 

[neomalthusian]

You're forgetting to support your previous comparison statement, or maybe you're just abandoning it. How many thousands of Ivy League students have there been in the last 30 years? And how many billionaire inventors like Gates and Zuckerberg are there? Why aren't there many thousands more billionaire inventors? Oh, right, because holding up the world's richest human as an example of what would happen if we started throwing more public funded education at the masses is an idiotic argument. There is inequality of opportunity, outcome, intelligence, height, penis size, et cetera ad infinitum. Inequality of whateverthehell does not necessitate federal government action. Enforce the law equally, and let the rest play itself out.

Try to stay with me: making college accessible to all does not diminish the advantage of the children of the well off, it finds the gems among the rest of us, raising them and the society up.

In short: reduce inequality by raising the bottom up and not dragging the top down.

So throw tens of thousands of dollars of education each at a bunch of ill-prepared kids in hopes a few of them will become famous who otherwise wouldn't?

Our public ed system already can find the smart kids and give them opportunities for college. There are already scholarships and grants and student loans for kids who do have what it takes to succeed in college.

If you want to boost opportunity for smart kids with little opportunity, find the geniuses before they hit puberty and pluck them from their shitty environments and put them in competitive prep/boarding schools where they will stay until they turn 18. Subsidize THAT, if anything.

The root of the problem of low opportunity is NOT that we don't fund kids' college. It's that they couldn't even value it in the first place because they come of age in a culture of dysfunction. They're idiots because they grow up surrounded by idiots. Their social learning is provided by their idiot friends and idiot families. You want to save them, you have to go all out and completely remove them from that entire culture. But your idea to just write off the expense of education they're clearly not even motivated for would be the most wasteful idea possible.

 

[Koios]

You're forgetting to support your previous comparison statement, or maybe you're just abandoning it. How many thousands of Ivy League students have there been in the last 30 years? And how many billionaire inventors like Gates and Zuckerberg are there? Why aren't there many thousands more billionaire inventors? Oh, right, because holding up the world's richest human as an example of what would happen if we started throwing more public funded education at the masses is an idiotic argument. There is inequality of opportunity, outcome, intelligence, height, penis size, et cetera ad infinitum. Inequality of whateverthehell does not necessitate federal government action. Enforce the law equally, and let the rest play itself out.

Try to stay with me: making college accessible to all does not diminish the advantage of the children of the well off, it finds the gems among the rest of us, raising them and the society up.

In short: reduce inequality by raising the bottom up and not dragging the top down.

So throw tens of thousands of dollars of education each at a bunch of ill-prepared kids in hopes a few of them will become famous who otherwise wouldn't?

Our public ed system already can find the smart kids and give them opportunities for college. There are already scholarships and grants and student loans for kids who do have what it takes to succeed in college.

If you want to boost opportunity for smart kids with little opportunity, find the geniuses before they hit puberty and pluck them from their shitty environments and put them in competitive prep/boarding schools where they will stay until they turn 18. Subsidize THAT, if anything.

The root of the problem of low opportunity is NOT that we don't fund kids' college. It's that they couldn't even value it in the first place because they come of age in a culture of dysfunction. They're idiots because they grow up surrounded by idiots. Their social learning is provided by their idiot friends and idiot families. You want to save them, you have to go all out and completely remove them from that entire culture. But your idea to just write off the expense of education they're clearly not even motivated for would be the most wasteful idea possible.

Mygod yes. Only tens of thousands to create a citizen that in their lifetime will, on average, make over $1 million more and maybe pay back in taxes some$200 grand of that not to mention all the extra they will spend into the economy?

Fuck yeah; where can I buy stock in such a gravy train investment?

 

[neomalthusian]

So throw tens of thousands of dollars of education each at a bunch of ill-prepared kids in hopes a few of them will become famous who otherwise wouldn't?

Our public ed system already can find the smart kids and give them opportunities for college. There are already scholarships and grants and student loans for kids who do have what it takes to succeed in college.

If you want to boost opportunity for smart kids with little opportunity, find the geniuses before they hit puberty and pluck them from their shitty environments and put them in competitive prep/boarding schools where they will stay until they turn 18. Subsidize THAT, if anything.

The root of the problem of low opportunity is NOT that we don't fund kids' college. It's that they couldn't even value it in the first place because they come of age in a culture of dysfunction. They're idiots because they grow up surrounded by idiots. Their social learning is provided by their idiot friends and idiot families. You want to save them, you have to go all out and completely remove them from that entire culture. But your idea to just write off the expense of education they're clearly not even motivated for would be the most wasteful idea possible.

Mygod yes. Only tens of thousands to create a citizen that in their lifetime will, on average, make over $1 million more and maybe pay back in taxes some$200 grand of that not to mention all the extra they will spend into the economy?

Fuck yeah; where can I buy stock in such a gravy train investment?

Are you making fun of yourself or something? Obviously there is no such investment. But you seem to be insisting the public invest in such a thing because it's so worthwhile, yet then you make fun of yourself with this... I don't get it.

 

[Gadawg73]

I left the house at age 17, 3 weeks after I graduated high school. My first job was working outside for a surveying company making $3 a hour. I then sold shoes for Kinney Shoes as friend of mine I played ball with worked there. Within a few months I was assistant manager of a mall store working 70 hours a week, salary. Then I sold insurance, commission only, for a year. Then I went back to college and worked for a law firm. I went to get my graduate degree, worked at the law firm from 1-6 pm; 2 nights a week and 8 hours every Saturday I sold shoes at a men's store in the mall and I mowed yards and did other yard work in between for extra cash.
I was promoted to #1 investigator in that law firm in 1981. 1982 I left and started my own detective agency. Got my graduate degree in 1985 . The rest is history.
This is the normal path of all business owners and people that make a lot of $$$ in America.
We earned it. No one gave us anything. Wealth is earned. I am not obligated to give you or anyone else any of my wealth.
Go get it yourself.
Spread the word.

Please rest assured I neither need nor want any of your wealth and I'm quite sure the same circumstance applies to the vast majority of Americans -- many of whom are making their way quite nicely as a direct result of the union movement.

As for the wealth you seem covetously inclined to defend, do you think you could have done as well in another country? If you've managed to acquire an enviable amount of money by engaging in commerce, either selling shoes or providing investigative services, it was possible only because a substantial number of citizens had enough money to pay you. And the union movement is why that much money was circulating in the national economy. You could not have done as well back in the twenties or beyond when the average American was struggling to keep food on the table.

The only way you could have realized the same level of success back then was to serve the relatively few rich clients, for which the competition would have been overwhelming.

But you are an advocate of the thesis that wealth is not earned and I am obligated to give it to others.

 

[Koios]

So throw tens of thousands of dollars of education each at a bunch of ill-prepared kids in hopes a few of them will become famous who otherwise wouldn't?

Our public ed system already can find the smart kids and give them opportunities for college. There are already scholarships and grants and student loans for kids who do have what it takes to succeed in college.

If you want to boost opportunity for smart kids with little opportunity, find the geniuses before they hit puberty and pluck them from their shitty environments and put them in competitive prep/boarding schools where they will stay until they turn 18. Subsidize THAT, if anything.

The root of the problem of low opportunity is NOT that we don't fund kids' college. It's that they couldn't even value it in the first place because they come of age in a culture of dysfunction. They're idiots because they grow up surrounded by idiots. Their social learning is provided by their idiot friends and idiot families. You want to save them, you have to go all out and completely remove them from that entire culture. But your idea to just write off the expense of education they're clearly not even motivated for would be the most wasteful idea possible.

Mygod yes. Only tens of thousands to create a citizen that in their lifetime will, on average, make over $1 million more and maybe pay back in taxes some$200 grand of that not to mention all the extra they will spend into the economy?

Fuck yeah; where can I buy stock in such a gravy train investment?

Are you making fun of yourself or something? Obviously there is no such investment. But you seem to be insisting the public invest in such a thing because it's so worthwhile, yet then you make fun of yourself with this... I don't get it.

Yes there is, in a few countries. And the payback is staggering, both for the individual and the country's economy due to highly skilled workers.

 

[MikeK]

I left the house at age 17, 3 weeks after I graduated high school. My first job was working outside for a surveying company making $3 a hour. I then sold shoes for Kinney Shoes as friend of mine I played ball with worked there. Within a few months I was assistant manager of a mall store working 70 hours a week, salary. Then I sold insurance, commission only, for a year. Then I went back to college and worked for a law firm. I went to get my graduate degree, worked at the law firm from 1-6 pm; 2 nights a week and 8 hours every Saturday I sold shoes at a men's store in the mall and I mowed yards and did other yard work in between for extra cash.
I was promoted to #1 investigator in that law firm in 1981. 1982 I left and started my own detective agency. Got my graduate degree in 1985 . The rest is history.
This is the normal path of all business owners and people that make a lot of $$$ in America.
We earned it. No one gave us anything. Wealth is earned. I am not obligated to give you or anyone else any of my wealth.
Go get it yourself.
Spread the word.

Please rest assured I neither need nor want any of your wealth and I'm quite sure the same circumstance applies to the vast majority of Americans -- many of whom are making their way quite nicely as a direct result of the union movement.

As for the wealth you seem covetously inclined to defend, do you think you could have done as well in another country? If you've managed to acquire an enviable amount of money by engaging in commerce, either selling shoes or providing investigative services, it was possible only because a substantial number of citizens had enough money to pay you. And the union movement is why that much money was circulating in the national economy. You could not have done as well back in the twenties or beyond when the average American was struggling to keep food on the table.

The only way you could have realized the same level of success back then was to serve the relatively few rich clients, for which the competition would have been overwhelming.

But you are an advocate of the thesis that wealth is not earned and I am obligated to give it to others.

That is what you have worked out in your imagination. All you are obligated to do is pay taxes, which is where your objection lies. You very clearly manifest a paranoid delusion that government wishes to seize a part of your money hoard and turn it over to some undeserving "them."

While some percentage of the taxes we all pay will be applied to charitable purposes I'm curious to know what you believe those charitable purposes to be and which of them you most object to. So please be more specific about your objections and apprehensions about your wealth being taken from you for redistribution to others.