SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

I want your thoughts on this please.

Personally I think these people are way too overpaid. An average engineer working his but off and working overtime pulls off about 80k a year. While these idiots show up on tv for 2hours and make millions of dollars. I also think the appearance of these people on t.v is not good for children. Well most of them… The clothes the teenage girls wear in these shows is extremely horrible.

Doctors, engineers, lawyers, teacher, people with degrees should be the ones who get paid more. Education has to have a value and these imbeciles on tv are opposing this.

Yes. They do nothing that benefits the society. Paying them millions to play a sport, or to be an actor/actress is stupid. Put that money toward our country, toward our economy, and see how well we start taking off.

What do you think about CEOs making so much?

I feel the same way.

It's disgusting how much some people make. They don't need that much money.

It's actually not anyone really paying them.. if you think about it, it's us..

One movie.. how many viewers.. 11.50$ a ticket.. all around the world..

that's 11.50 x Viewers around the world = millions in their pockets..

Harry Potter book.. 25$ x Amount of readers x 7 books = J.K. Rowling being able to buy her own castle..

Plus the things most of those stars have to do to get up there.. mostly the women..
Who's that bitch that had to dress up in meat to get attention again? Oh yeah.. gaga..

Some are blatantly paid for nothing.. some kinda work.. I guess it depends. AND their only paid like that in america.. thus why all canadian stars all leave and go there.

someone once told me
"Making a Million dollars is easy, its just one dollar from a million people."

Makes it seem simple considering there are at least a trillion people on the internet

If you think they are overpaid, stop paying $100 for a ticket to an NFL game, or $12 a ticket for a movie. They are paid what they are paid because thats what the market price is for their "Talent" Right or wrong, its no ones fault but "your" own. Your being american society.

From: [Nathan]
If you think they are overpaid, stop paying $100 for a ticket to an NFL game, or $12 a ticket for a movie. They are paid what they are paid because thats what the market price is for their "Talent" Right or wrong, its no ones fault but "your" own. Your being american society.

as marshall would say… LAWYERED!

I don't pay for any of that. They're paid from contracts, which states that they will get paid no matter what. Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

From: Kyle Undefined
I don't pay for any of that. They're paid from contracts, which states that they will get paid no matter what. Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

But they wouldn't get contracts if people didn't spend money on those things.

Your thinking about yourself to much, this market isn't a microeconomic principle, its a macro one. It takes the aggregate market as a whole, and you might not be spending money on those things, but your neighbor sure is. Green Bay Packers for example, their stadium has been sold out since like the 60s, there are millions of people in this country that do spend hundreds and hundreds and maybe even thousands of dollars a year in the entertainment and sports industries. That is what fuels the athletes million dollar contracts. It's not going to change anytime soon because people are willing to pay it.

As I said before, right or wrong, thats how it is. It might not be right, but its not going to change.

There are two strains of thought here, one is that, as you have stated, they do so little and get paid so much. The other is that, they have worked very hard to do what they do, and they are the only people that can do what they do, so they can charge whatever you'll pay. CEO's included…

This topic has been discussed before, i stumbled upon this 3 months ago,

http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143663

really good read. i Actually read all the way through because 2 guys were argueing over the span of 4 months

From: [Nathan]
But they wouldn't get contracts if people didn't spend money on those things.

Your thinking about yourself to much, this market isn't a microeconomic principle, its a macro one. It takes the aggregate market as a whole, and you might not be spending money on those things, but your neighbor sure is. Green Bay Packers for example, their stadium has been sold out since like the 60s, there are millions of people in this country that do spend hundreds and hundreds and maybe even thousands of dollars a year in the entertainment and sports industries. That is what fuels the athletes million dollar contracts. It's not going to change anytime soon because people are willing to pay it.

As I said before, right or wrong, thats how it is. It might not be right, but its not going to change.

You didn't read my entire post ;) I said that I don't pay for those things. I didn't say I made up for everyone.

From: Kyle Undefined
Everyone could boycott every game, yet, the athletes will still get paid.

Your post doesn't take that into consideration.

It can change, but people have to push for it.

From: yakkyigooconroy
as marshall would say… LAWYERED!

awesome :) made me laugh

From: Kyle Undefined

It can change, but people have to push for it.

agreed, just adding that its our constitutional right to strike for change.

look at Occupy Wall Street

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyziG5bUuBE&feature=related


also here is a site that has a picture of how many people who actually protest and push for a change.

http://www.meetup.com/occupytogether/

It's almost as if the system is broken.. Of course I would never that because Fox news will call me a SOCIALIST!

People are worth what others are willing to pay them. But I did say YES to the poll because many athletes' salaries are indirectly subsidized these days.

When pro teams threaten to leave to another city unless they get a new stadium, and the taxpayers spend millions of dollars to keep them there, that's a public subsidy.

If a team needs a new stadium, they should reduce their other expenses, including player salaries if necessary.

The other problem is that the largest pro sports leagues are also an effective monopoly, since they don't allow new franchises to be added as driven by the free market. This artificially inflates the salaries of those who do make it into the leagues.

If sports teams were not publicly subsidized and if there wasn't an effective monopoly, I wouldn't have any problem with athletes being paid whatever they can get.

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

From: tarajunky

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

couldnt agree more:sasmokin:

edit: Yakman; I love the comic!

Well, the media in itself is to blame, not the doofus (or doofus').

I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No – Then they're not overpaid.
Yes – Then go do it and get paid.

From: Kyle Undefined
Well, the media in itself is to blame, not the doofus (or doofus').

agreed, but funny nonetheless

From: footballjds
I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No – Then they're not overpaid.
Yes – Then go do it and get paid.

Do athletes/celebrities really need Million+ $ contracts? No.

From: footballjds
I have one question.

Can you do what they can do?
Answer:
No – Then they're not overpaid.
Yes – Then go do it and get paid.

depends on the person, some athletes deserve lots of pay, some dont.
Some actors deserve to be famous. Some don't because they decided to just make an adult tape, ex: Paris H, Kim K

im sure that anyone can make an adult tape. :stirthepot:

From: Kyle Undefined
Do athletes/celebrities really need Million+ $ contracts? No.

i agree nobody NEEDS that much money.
That goes with a quote from Washington post

Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

From: tarajunky
Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

So true. And if you honestly believe it does need gov intervention, you desperately need to take a few economics class to learn more about the economy then you currently know.

From: [Nathan]
And if you honestly believe it does, you desperately need to take a few economics class to learn more about the economy then you currently know.

She obviously knows what she's saying -___-

Besides people only buy jordans because of the status associated with it.. Everyone wants to feel a little better than the next person in some way, shape, or form. My opinion.. I'd rather a woman in heals than jordans.. that's just ghetto.. Even if it costs more.

From: ggzz
She obviously knows what she's saying -___-

I was in agreement with tarajunky, I guess I didn't really make that clear in my post, will edit.

From: tarajunky
Nobody NEEDS to see an NBA game, or buy a jersey, or new Air Jordans, but they do. And that money goes somewhere, why not to the players? If Air Jordans or the status associated with owning them are worth $150 to you, what's the problem? I've never had someone kidnap me and force me to go see an NBA game, or buy a jersey.

The entire system is a luxury. The real question is whether people voluntarily paying for and providing this luxury are such a problem that it demands government intervention.

Since we're talking about NBA, I'll join in. I think they are overpaid. Even some guys on the benches playing 3 minutes a game get more money than I'l ever see. Plus they retire at 40 or something and live of the money that they've already made. But I still enjoy watching games and I also have a jersey which I think was worth buying. :)

I'd rather pay those guys than the CEO's and the government. They usually lie/do nothing or drive the companies to bankruptcy and steal everything for themselves.

I think they make too much, but to say that they don't need that much, that ruins the purpose of success. And with all the money celebrities make its not nearly as much as the federal government cheats you out by spending trillions of dollars a year on undeclared wars and welfare programs. Kyle you said that money should be put into the economy, but what about the federal government which takes the people money without question and spends it carelessly. That adds up much more than celebrities… If you believe that someone doesn't need a certain amount of money, then you don't believe in a free society.

From: mhawk
I think they make too much, but to say that they don't need that much, that ruins the purpose of success. And with all the money celebrities make its not nearly as much as the federal government cheats you out by spending trillions of dollars a year on undeclared wars and welfare programs. Kyle you said that money should be put into the economy, but what about the federal government which takes the people money without question and spends it carelessly. That adds up much more than celebrities… If you believe that someone doesn't need a certain amount of money, then you don't believe in a free society.

They don't need that much money, do they deserve a good income? Yeah, of course, but that's a little too much.

The Fed needs to go, it doesn't do us any good. When the Fed decided to bail out the banks, it created 7 trillion dollars out of thin air. That's stealing money out of my pocket because every time they create money, the dollar value drops.

Yes, into the economy, you can have a wealthy economy with no Fed. They don't actually need that much money, that's the issue. I do believe in a free society, but come on, does someone really need million+ $ contracts?

Depends if there movies/ actors suck then yes however if its a good film then i don't mind however i think football players are paid far to much money for kicking a ball around with skill

Off topic but w/e. It'd be nice to see more sports stars earning millions of $$$$ a year do more philanthropic projects.

Well rich people don't NEED all that money. And because they HAVE so much money, they should pay more in taxes.

Cue Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Congratulations to all those now realizing for the first time that they're actually Marxists.

From: Jhangir
I want your thoughts on this please.

Personally I think these people are way too overpaid. An average engineer working his but off and working overtime pulls off about 80k a year. While these idiots show up on tv for 2hours and make millions of dollars. I also think the appearance of these people on t.v is not good for children. Well most of them… The clothes the teenage girls wear in these shows is extremely horrible.

Doctors, engineers, lawyers, teacher, people with degrees should be the ones who get paid more. Education has to have a value and these imbeciles on tv are opposing this.

They are poor mate, piracy is ruining their lives [/sarcasm]

From: yakkyigooconroy
depends on the person, some athletes deserve lots of pay, some dont.
Some actors deserve to be famous. Some don't because they decided to just make an adult tape, ex: Paris H, Kim K

im sure that anyone can make an adult tape. :stirthepot:

this make no sense. If anyone could do something just as good, there's a reason they're not.

Regardless, everyone commenting(almost everyone…) are Marxists…
Why would you tax a rich guy 20% and a poor guy 7%
Stupid as fuck.

If anyone of you got paid that much you wouldn't complain, you might make morally good decisions on how to spend your money. You would not go to your boss and tell him to pay you less. Fucking absurd.

The rich guy can afford the higher taxes, that's the difference. Also, the wealthiest people in America didn't earn a penny, they stole it from the citizens.

From: yakkyigooconroy

From: tarajunky

Edit: by the way, I'm annoyed that recently any random doofus that wants to protest something is suddenly part of a "movement", and is given a much higher status by the media. No, they're not an "occupier", they're a random doofus with a unique axe to grind. Unremarkable in every way.

Until there's a coherent message, it's not a movement, and shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

couldnt agree more:sasmokin:

This old chestnut. Time for another cartoon I think.





Please list the CONCRETE demands of the following protestors and movements:

1. Civil Rights volunteers in the 1960s
2. The Tea Partiers
3. The Tunisian rebels
4. The Egyptian rebels in Tarhir Square
5. The revolts in East Germany in 1990
6. The revolt in Romania in 1990
7. The Libyan rebels
8. Al Qaeda
9. The Velvet Revolution in Prague
10. The Russian Revolution in 1917

NONE of these had a list of coherent demands.

And none of them were excoriated by the media for not having a list of coherent demands.

It's called "holding Occupy Wall Street to a higher standard than previous protests."
Good for you for being in lockstep with the corporate media.


All anyone has to do to understand what these people are demanding is take a look at the US economy and the economies of the Eurozone, where they'll find high unemployment (especially in the 16-24 age group), vast disparities in income distribution, huge numbers of home foreclosures (many resulting from robo actions by banks), and stagnant wages, which stems from fraudulent banking activities and huge bank bailouts using taxpayer dollars. Add to this the fact that few bankers have been charged with crimes and even fewer convicted of crimes.

And add to this the context of money in politics and the syndrome of bought and paid for politicians doing the bidding of their masters, as exemplified in the number of draconian Bills passed in the House that attack women's rights, funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and NASA, tax cuts for the one per cent, and continue the deregulation mantra of the right wing, e.g. Koch Brothers, all coupled with the sordid manner in which GWB gained the Presidency in 2001 and the huge expenditures for wars that went on during his tenure over two terms, which pushed the national debt to record setting heights.

That all adds up to a massive basis for protesting and points the way toward what demands might look like.

It's pretty damned hard to articulate specific demands when you're staring at a mountain of ills that run a gamut of broad based systemic shenanigans and injustices that are legion and would fill a dozen boxcars. Any such list would be a mile long. The issues are simply too many and too diffuse and too interrelated and complex to reduce to a simple list of demands, And that's why we don't see such a list.

Asking for such a list reveals a paucity of awareness about the horrific situation these protesters and many of their fellow citizens now face, a situation that's not being addressed by the powers that be in any effective manner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what these protesters are protesting and hence what their demands are or might be.

From: footballjds

If anyone of you got paid that much you wouldn't complain, you might make morally good decisions on how to spend your money. You would not go to your boss and tell him to pay you less. Fucking absurd.

This is an interesting argument, let's examine it for a second.
footballjds appears to be saying that if any of us had high salaries, we wouldn't fight for them to be lower. Therefore that justifies the undeserved high salaries in question.
The crux of the issue here seems to be self-interest. Everybody is only interested in themselves, including me and you and those rich celebrities. The fact that it's self-interest justifies it.
Of course, this comes straight out of the right-wing economics of Friedman, Hayek and Mises.

Let's apply it to something else.
Robbers, con-artists and thieves also act in their self interest, however nobody says they're good. In fact the very reason we say they're bad is because they enrich themselves at the expensive of society.
So why is it any different when bankers transfer their private debts onto the public books like they did in 2008? Why is it any different when big business dumps its pollution into our air and water? They also enrich themselves at the expense of society.

[ontopic]
I don't think they are overpaid at all, like tara said, if people are willing to buy their jersey's, then they earned that money.

Capitalism, good. Crony capitalism, bad. The government should not bail out private companies. However, the good news is that the TARP bank bailout has been fully paid back, and even made money for the taxpayers. Contrast this will the crony capitalism of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losing hundreds of billions, GM losing tens of billions, etc.

It appears that it's the left wingers around the world fighting to keep crony capitalism in place. Hungary has a right wing government that has imposed a flat tax rate for all taxpayers, slashed unsustainable welfare spending, and even voted to reassert more political control over their central bank (Ron Paul, anyone?).

The main-stream EU socialists have responded by declaring Hungary's actions as creating "crisis", and a threat to the EU (even though Hungary isn't even in the EU). They are trying to bribe Hungary with IMF funds to change directions and follow the leftists EU policies of endless bailouts and central bank supremacy.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000064318

Hungary's President has responded by saying that their country was the first of the eastern European soviet bloc countries to throw off the oppression of the USSR, and will be the first to stand up to the oppression of Brussels.

They have every rights to make whatever they make. 'Survival of the fittest'… everyone has there own special skills, actors are good at entertaining us, same thing with Athletes.

We all want $$$, well start acting or listen to Mom and go out and play Basketball :).

From: Yakman
This is an interesting argument, let's examine it for a second.
footballjds appears to be saying that if any of us had high salaries, we wouldn't fight for them to be lower. Therefore that justifies the undeserved high salaries in question.
The crux of the issue here seems to be self-interest. Everybody is only interested in themselves, including me and you and those rich celebrities. The fact that it's self-interest justifies it.
Of course, this comes straight out of the right-wing economics of Friedman, Hayek and Mises.

Let's apply it to something else.
Robbers, con-artists and thieves also act in their self interest, however nobody says they're good. In fact the very reason we say they're bad is because they enrich themselves at the expensive of society.
So why is it any different when bankers transfer their private debts onto the public books like they did in 2008? Why is it any different when big business dumps its pollution into our air and water? They also enrich themselves at the expense of society.

In bold above^^ you're assuming the salary is undeserved, you're not debating whether or not it is. Can't you be open minded?

Being paid a salary is very different then stealing someone else's salary. Not sure why you enjoy changing what someone said and then coming up with a shitty argument…
The OP said athletes and actors. Transferring private debts is vastly different then being paid a ton of money for something only a handful of people can do.
If no one liked watching football then the NFL stars wouldn't make so much money. They're getting PAID. Sorry I'm staying on topic and talking about actors and athletes, would you rather me talk about pollution?:garfield:

For example people playing sports like the NBA and NFL get paid like $10 million dollars a year for doing shit besides throwing a ball around which everyone does yet people that matter like teachers that are creating the next generation get shit. The world has its priorities all fucked up. :sasmokin:

From: ItsTHC
For example people playing sports like the NBA and NFL get paid like $10 million dollars a year for doing shit besides throwing a ball around which everyone does yet people that matter like teachers that are creating the next generation get shit. The world has its priorities all fucked up. :sasmokin:

This. Couldn't agree more.

i think is a legit way to make money, but the make sush a big legit quantity that is kind of unfair to the persons that have not those oportunities, ( or it can be only some kind of envy to the rich people) either way or not i think that it desequilibrates the wealth around the comunities, the countries and even the world. goverments should have laws restricting the quantity of money a person should have. i dont think its socialist or anything like that sistem, capitalism can be use but with a limit. no one need 2B of money to buy some diamond teeth while the persons mining those diamos dosent have 1k to eat.
you can have the necesesary an bit of luxury but no a extremly big nonsense luxury but still its legit.
(or some people have their armies of human bots to bring more money haha)

Public school teachers make much more than private school teachers. Yet private defense contractors (body guards in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc) make a ton more than government soldiers doing the same type of work.

The Davis-Bacon laws mandate that the high school dropout holding a flag at a federal construction site make ~$20 an hour, plus overtime and other perks, but a PhD with 20 years of education gets an NIH mandated federal salary of only ~$18 an hour as a post-doc with no overtime pay.

Getting the government involved doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get a more fair or reasonable outcome. The government has its own problems with underpaying some people and overpaying others. A government monopoly is more abusive than a private one, because paying for a government service is not optional.

Instead of fantasizing about how government can go out and try to fix all the problems in the private sector, they should be fixing their own problems first.

Also, THIS.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm

The bottom 5% of Americans make more income than 2/3 of the rest of the world, even after accounting for differences in cost of living.

While you guys complain about NBA stars making too much and not deserving it, people in Africa and China are looking at you saying the same thing.

well i didnt said that goverment should be involved in paying people i only said it shoul make a standard max salary sush as the minimal salary. i dont know other countries but minimal salary here in mexico is 7 us dolars per day and some people get much less in other countries while many people is getting so much money and is not goverment foult, but theere is a big imbalance between rich and poor, middle class is almost disapearing.
but imagine if a person can live with 7 dolars a day and mantain 2 sons and 1 wife (I know it depends on the cost of living) what a person can do with 1 or 2 b? really i dont think that huge quantity of money is needed only for a bit of persons, thats why I say it should be a max income law per person.
it would stop class inbalance ( their will be always poor and rich people but not a such diference beteewn them)
other thig is that goverment problems are our problems and our problems are goverment problems, goverment works for us oor its what i spect haha.
but its only my point of view, im not an expert and im only 17 years old what do you thing? it is too unrealistic?

From: Kyle Undefined
They don't need that much money, do they deserve a good income? Yeah, of course, but that's a little too much.

The Fed needs to go, it doesn't do us any good. When the Fed decided to bail out the banks, it created 7 trillion dollars out of thin air. That's stealing money out of my pocket because every time they create money, the dollar value drops.

Yes, into the economy, you can have a wealthy economy with no Fed. They don't actually need that much money, that's the issue. I do believe in a free society, but come on, does someone really need million+ $ contracts?

The thing is, who's to decide how much a person needs to live? To continue to live their incredibly luxurious lifestyles, technically they need that money.
Are you saying we need government intervention? Tarajunky has pointed out that government intervention doesn't always get it right.

However I definitely agree that the bailout was wrong and was both stealing from the tax payers, and, providing a very temporary solution to a more complicated problem. (good thread)

But why do they need incredibly luxurious lifestyles? You can live a VERY comfortable lifestyle with less than half of what they're making.

No, we don't need government intervention.

I think we should of let those fat cat banks crash and fail, but that's just me :p

From: Kyle Undefined
I think we should of let those fat cat banks crash and fail, but that's just me :p

I'm not disagreeing with you. But that^^ would mean a lot of citizens who had large amounts of money in the specific banks would get shafted…

Would you rather the Federal Government step in and controls everyone's yearly salary and earnings? Overpaid celebrities and athletes is a small price to pay for a society in which incentive drives people to accomplish. Besides, it's not all bad a lot of overpaid people have done great things for the world (Bill Gates) unlike people like (Steve Jobs)

so what do you guys think of investment bankers and their bonuses? particularly when they get bonuses when the company is making a loss, and when the majority of the company is owned by a country like RBS

EDIT:

I also agree with this:

From: tarajunky
[…]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm

The bottom 5% of Americans make more income than 2/3 of the rest of the world, even after accounting for differences in cost of living.

While you guys complain about NBA stars making too much and not deserving it, people in Africa and China are looking at you saying the same thing.

From: Kyle Undefined
But why do they need incredibly luxurious lifestyles? You can live a VERY comfortable lifestyle with less than half of what they're making.

No, we don't need government intervention.

I think we should of let those fat cat banks crash and fail, but that's just me :p

Without making this too personal. How much tax do you pay? How many people do you employ? How many people do you attract to a local area, tourism revenue.

You may argue that these people are over paid, but people such as lady gaga keep hundreds of people in a job/ create millions in tax from all her sales + employee tax ect. Can you put a price on that?

From: Kyle Undefined
But why do they need incredibly luxurious lifestyles? You can live a VERY comfortable lifestyle with less than half of what they're making.

No, we don't need government intervention.

I think we should of let those fat cat banks crash and fail, but that's just me :p

Again though, who sets the bar at what a comfortable lifestyle should be? If there were no government then there would be even a larger wealth gap IMO. Also I agree with what Wanted said.
EDIT: and what Jakeboy said.

There is a story about a North Korean doctor who thought he had a pretty good life.

Then because of his somewhat high status as a doctor he was allowed to go on a trip to China. He was amazed by the luxurious lifestyle enjoyed by Chinese peasants. But what finally broke him was when he saw a peasant family filling their dog's bowl with more rice than he could ever afford for a meal on a doctor's income in North Korea.

After being told his entire life that he had a comfortable lifestyle, he finally realized that he had been lied to.

I'd rather have a society that encourages and allows people to achieve and enjoy as much luxury as they can, instead of one that tells people when they already have enough.

From: tarajunky

I'd rather have a society that encourages and allows people to achieve and enjoy as much luxury as they can, instead of one that tells people when they already have enough.

I'm sure most people would agree with that here.
What they wouldn't agree with is a society that allows and encourages people to exploit other people in their effort to accumulate wealth.

I'm sure you're aware of the late 19th century, the age of the "Robber Barons," ruthless billionaires like J.D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan who were obsessed with building their empires at all costs. Morgan, for example, built his railroad empire on the backs and blood of severely underpaid immigrant labour (like Chinese coolies). Rockefeller's father once boasted: "I cheat my boys every chance I get, I want to make 'em sharp…" Meanwhile, widespread strikes and labour violence, like the Pullman Strike, which were crushed by the army.

Highly relevant to this debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Richard Wilkinson discusses how economic inequality harms societies in rich market democracies.

Well that depends, in constrast with the general population , they are. But in contrast to the mountains of cash they actually make for movie studios, they aren't.

From: tarajunky
There is a story about a North Korean doctor who thought he had a pretty good life.

Then because of his somewhat high status as a doctor he was allowed to go on a trip to China. He was amazed by the luxurious lifestyle enjoyed by Chinese peasants. But what finally broke him was when he saw a peasant family filling their dog's bowl with more rice than he could ever afford for a meal on a doctor's income in North Korea.

After being told his entire life that he had a comfortable lifestyle, he finally realized that he had been lied to.

I'd rather have a society that encourages and allows people to achieve and enjoy as much luxury as they can, instead of one that tells people when they already have enough.

+1

I completely agree with you.

From: Yakman
Highly relevant to this debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Richard Wilkinson discusses how economic inequality harms societies in rich market democracies.

Ill watch the video now

1. The graphs he shows about life expectancy and income don't prove that people deserve to be all paid the same, they simple state that the poorer die earlier, most likely due to diet ect.

2. The second graph, yes I see the point he has here, it's fair to say, BY THIS GRAPH, that the 'inequality' does house social problems. However, after a google search, I failed to find these statistics.

I turned the video off after five minutes because it doesn't answer what this thread is talking about.

I think the point here is, 'Do certain sectors of society deserve to be paid more than others?' If you'd look at marxism for example, its inevitable that due to 'human nature' evolution, what ever you'd like to call it, some human beings are contempt with earning less than others, that doesn't mean there is an 'inequality'.

An ending note, If the 99% really were the 99%, why aren't there 6,772,101,930 people marching the streets, fighting this 'inequality'.

Well if you didn't even finished watching the video I don't see why you should get a response. C'mon I watched all the right wing videos you people posted til the end.

The speaker tells you where the statistics come from. It's some UN or WHO thing iirc.

This is a pretty interesting article that I think is relevant to this conversation.

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Is this man truly a genius? Check out and this is true…it DID happen!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.



These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Yes and No

Celebrities yes, they do get overpaid. Athletes: some of them..some athletes can do things others can't do, i'm talking about persons like usain bolt, messi, lebron james, they're all top sporters, one of the best athletes in their sports. It's normal they get paid well for it..