This week, the hard hitting reporters from Gawker bring you:
“The CEO Who Built Himself America’s Largest House Just Threatened to Fire His Employees if Obama’s Elected” [actual headline]
http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected
This bad BAD man also has a LARGE house. What a monster.
[editor’s note: Sure, we could have simply stated that this man sent an email to his employees explaining that if the company’s taxes go up that it will reduce working capital which could result in job cuts but we’re all about the page views]
UPDATE:
Now that everyone has finished writing their hate male to this guy we have the actual email. Unfortunately, it’s long and nuanced so we have taken the liberty of highlighting the parts that should make you very VERY mad.
“Huge mansion. Huge fortune. Profitable company. What could David Siegal have to complain about? Well, the demonization of the 1% by Barack Obama, for one thing. This truly amazing email went out to all Westgate employees yesterday. Bolding is ours.”
Subject: Message from David Siegel Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: [David Siegel] To: [All employees] To All My Valued Employees, As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved. I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed. Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation? Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me. Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone. So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country. You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed, your boss, David Siegel
Subject: Message from David Siegel Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: [David Siegel] To: [All employees]
To All My Valued Employees,
As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?
Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.
Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.
You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.
Signed, your boss,
David Siegel
COMING UP NEXT on “THE BAD BAD CEO”
The BAD BAD CEO who went on a VACATION to a FOREIGN COUNTRY while raising insurance premiums on his employees.
Remember readers: Rich, Successful people are BAD people and we will continue to dig deep to show you just how terrible they are. How dare people start their own businesses and believe they have any rights to express their opinions. We will continue our hard-hitting reporting that we expect will damage those businesses through ill-informed boycotts by making sensational, irrelevant headlines.
If you take away one thing from this thread, that should be it.
Governments trying to get private corporations to do business a certain way is like herding cats. As an example (small scale anyways), there's a smelting company up here that used to dump tons of pollutants into the river. They didn't change their practices until they were threatened with lawsuits when scientists were able to link the pollutants with very high numbers of colitis, celiac and chron's disease cases in a very small town downstream. The smelters didn't care about environmental legislation or the health of local residents, they just cared about the fact it was more expensive to upgrade their plant than just to dump the waste (they have since upgraded their plant so that the smelter produces "95% less pollution").
Ok that is hilarious. How did I do that?
Did it take 100-200 years for the displacement of farmers thanks to the invention of tractors and the combine harvester to become beneficial to society?
How long until they are shut down because its cheaper to manufacture this in china?
The biggest problem with environmental regulation comes from the fact it is always done on a local scale and can ONLY work if done on a global scale.
A single nation can do global environmental regulation by imposing limitations on imports (extra tariffs and independent testing can be arranged). But that is very difficult thing to juggle and also has problems with derivative products (ex: more expensive steel from local OR foreign sources means more expensive cars, and buildings, and everything that uses those, etc)
Personally I am pro environmental regulation... as long as it is reasonable (the EPA today is not reasonable and is out to destroy business not protect the environment) and as long as it is not exporting pollution (aka, tariffs on products... and tariffs on derived products)
How about this.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-told-bosses-tell-employees-whom-vote-005424348.html
Ah, guys, I'm pretty sure Romney is telling everyone to vote for him.
Robots/Tractors are stealing all our jobs!
It's funny how this is so misunderstood and sensationalized in the media. Try and look at it this way, mechanization doesn't replace workers it increases their productivity. Imagine if you will a village with 10 farmers, and one of them invents shovels. This allows him to increase productivity and do the work that 2 farmers used to do. Soon everyone is using shovels to farm, and they produce twice the amount of food. However while everyone enjoys eating a little more their small village doesn't need that much food, thus some food goes unsold and prices drop. Now a few farmers choose new professions, say a farm tool repair man and a herbalist. Before there was not enough food in the village for the economy to support these jobs but now it can because each individual farmer that is left is making more and has more disposable income. Thus the village is much better off with shovels because now they not only have more food for cheaper but a dedicated tool repairman and herbalist.
Robotics works exactly the same. We are nowhere near the point where robots will completely replace workers. Instead we will replace labourers with robot repairmen, inspectors, engineers, and etc. Like shovels this will lead to a overall decrease in the total amount of workers in that one sector but a huge rise in productivity and the wage of the workers that remain, the new robot repairmen will make more then labourers. This will lead them to have more disposable income and create openings in the economy for new jobs it couldn't support before. Of course there is in the short run increased unemployment because former labourers have to be retrained to do new jobs but the economy will adjust. This is exactly what happened during the industrial revolution when tractors replaced farm hands. Hence why economists are always referring to a shift to a service based economy.
This is also one of the many reasons wealth distribution is so poisonous. By taking money from productive sectors of the economy and redistributing to unproductive ones it distorts the market and encourages inefficiency. The answer is not to subsidize labourers because this will result in more people becoming labourers in a economy that doesn't want or need them. Worse you are subsidizing them by taxing the efficient jobs in the economy that actually make enough to support themselves and fully contribute to the rest of society, and this decreases the amount of people who want these jobs. The idea that significant amounts of tax revenue come from the super rich is a pipe dream. Even Obama admits that his "fair" tax rates is nothing but symbolic, and not an actual attempt to balance the books. The same way that the middle class drives the economy they also contribute the most to taxes. By redistributing wealth we distort and slow the shift to the new economy, and reduced unemployment, while putting a huge drain on the government coffers and taxpayers.
^ pretty much everything DsRaider said.
Also, another result of this is that we can get more... low tech farming is primarily about the production of staple foods like potatoes and corn. I like having berries and hydroponic lettuce and baby carrots and all those other varied foods at reasonably low prices. Good for your health too.
And then there is the biofuel production which requires more efficiency improvements in farming...
There is a simple way to solve it, tax the rich more.Make sure no one can make millions of dollars and pay 10-15 % in taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?_r=0
Lower taxes for the wealthy has had no positive effect for the economy. It just consolidates power in the super-wealthy no matter how much Republicans want to hide that fact.
Accelerated automation will increase the need to redistribute wealth to insure the health and education of all in society. Are they hand-outs? Who cares, it will be necessary to make the most of our society. Capitilism is not an end of itself, it is one means to attempt to make our world as good as possible. When automation exceeds a critical level, and it is accelerating at both an exponential rate and more importantly quality, we will need to invest our societies wealth in to our people. Owning all the robots cannot be allowed to happen. It is not fair, at that point they most certainly did not build that, it is standing on the shoulders of everyone who contributed their labor and everyone who endured the social injustice to get society to that point.
We are fast approaching the point where capitalism will need to be reined far in (I am talking about the proliferation of automation here). Nobody needs car elevators when poor people don't have access to good schools and health care. If you drive a luxury car and begrudge someone food stamps, you need to find empathy for your fellow man. If you think everyone who receives aid will become worthless, you don't think poor people are of the same human spirit you possess. You are fooling yourself, you are not different from them, only your circumstances differ.
I won't go so far as to say folks like Brad aren't different. While you do need to enable folks to take risks (say what you will, the lack of a safety net will make folks risk-averse), you also do need to give an incentive for folks to take those risks. Not everyone takes the risks of new ideas for the sake of IRL-peen.
The problem we've seen in the US is that there's been his attitude that society is meant to benefit capitalism, when it's capitalism that's meant to benefit society. Capitalism needs to have some controls in place to keep markets efficient - uncontrolled capitalism destroys markets and societies.
There is different in the manner you are talking about, and it gets conflated with a whole other kind of different. The kind of different like where Siegal indulges his Galt fantasies to his employees in the above email. That kind of Ayn Rand inspired ego-nova of the self-perceived ubermensch suggests he sees himself as very different. Lots of people indulge that kind of self-worship. But every last one of them buiit there empires mostly on other's labors and other's ideas, the system just benefits them disproportionately to their productivity. It is something we live with, but let's keep it in perspective. Capitalism is a necessary evil, it is not a religion where CEOs are some kind of pantheon that the laborer should fear and worship.
I stopped reading at "timeshare company".
quick tip: If all you've ever produced is a "business model" you are not a "wealth creator".
There you have it. Neoliberal economy does not mean automatic democracy. In fact, neoliberal economies turn into fascist states, given enough time.
I see Ayn Rand thrown around as an insult when it's not really relevant.
Pointing out to employees that if the government confiscates more of your liquid capital you will have less to pay them should fall under the "Duh". And yet, it seems, lots of people fail to understand that.
The #1 difference between rich people and normal people is one produces and the other consumes. Most people take their money and consume it. They get money and they buy stuff. By contrast, "rich" people are generally people who take their money and make something with it. But because people don't understand how that strategy, given time, results in vast VAST wealth differences, they think that those people are somehow cheating or don't "deserve" what they have.
When I graduated college. I had nothing except some college loans. When I started to make money, I took every cent I had and put it back in my business. My friends, by contrast, bought cars and electronic gadgets and CDs and video games and so on. Rinse, repeat for 20 years and you end up with a massive difference. Today I'm worth between 8 and 9 figures.
Let me walk you guys through it because it's pretty straight forward:
Step #1: Go to this site: http://www.daveramsey.com/article/investing-calculator/lifeandmoney_investing/#/entry_form
Step #2: Start at 20 (like I did). Do something that generates say $50,000. Live on $25k, invest the other $25k in your company.
Step #3: Each year, for 20 years, put $25,000 back in your business and let's assume, on average, it makes a 25% profit (i.e. a decent successful start-up).
At 40 you have $17 MILLION.
The most important years are those early years. The jackasses on BF or QT3 who crap on me will occasionally put up a GIF of my house or my cars or whatever but what they ignore is that I didn't have of that for the first 15 or so years. I lived in an apartment and then a small house for a good chunk of that time because I was investing everything back in my business. Sure, I *could* have bought lots of cool stuff. But I didn't. I chose to reinvest rather than consume during those years.
We had something similar here in California, before Proposition 30 (a tax to fund schools) was passed, some colleges emailed out information saying that if it wasn't passed and the planned budget cuts went into affect, tuition would rise and teachers would have to be let go, or if it was passed then tuition could be lowered back to what it was last year. It's a straightforward heads up on what could happen, but some people got all up in arms about that being a violation of the education system's political neutrality.
"The jackasses on BF or QT3 who crap on me"
I really don't get why this happens. A lot of what you say I disagree with, but I can always see where you're coming from.
The poor don't produce? In that case why do they work?
Quite honestly, though I didn't start a business, I did the same thing you did in my 20's- I put every cent into saving/bringing down debt, and I didn't have much. (I'm not the sort who should run a business, I understand that, I don't have the mentality)
I don't think anyone's saying that you shouldn't be rewarded. You deserve what you have earned for your work. However, society needs its share also, to keep the country running, and to keep the system working. A system that doesn't divide its wealth enough well, you get Egypt.
You don't like it, but taxes and entitlements are a combination of investing in society (much like how you invested instead of spent- tax cuts are the CD's, gadgets, and games of government) and the grease needed to keep folks who aren't the high earners invested in society.
Folks compare the current era to the Gilded Age of the 1880's-1910's. There were two politicians who understood this perfectly: Otto Von Bismarck and Teddy Roosevelt. Both those countries made that bargain in order to stop communism, and both countries made the right decision.
The poor don't work, they get a government check every month.
The middle class are the ones who work.
Everyone gets it, some people just disagree with you. Mostly because they realize how wrong you are.
Funding free education is "investing" in "society". Funding scientific research is "investing" in "society". Financing top of the line manufacturing facilities to produce goods is "investing" in "society". Giving someone a check to not work is not investing in anything, its just burning money which was stolen from someone who actually produced something.
And as it turns out, the pinheads in government are very poor at choosing reliable investments (see Celindra funding and crappy overpriced schools)
Not sure exactly what new level of crap that has attained.
The poor are poor because when they work they aren't paid as well as that 'middle class' of yours.
One thing I have learnt in 40 years of working.....your poor clients are the ones who pay you. The rich ones are rich because they will avoid paying if at all possible.
We are specifically talking the USA. where anyone with a job is middle class. They have a roof over their head, a TV, own a car, eat well, etc...
This economic crisis already made it so many people willing and able to work can not find a job (putting them in the poor category)
The exception would be if they have excessive spending eating them up... for example if they are going to college. Many college students have a job but live in abject poverty because college expenses eat them up.
There are plenty of working poor around the world, devastated economies do that. Sadly enough, the USA economy will reach such a state relatively soon. Money loses its value, prices sky rocket, salaries are slashed as businesses make less money and there are fewer jobs with more people looking for one...
People get rich by being sent to prison for theft?
The folks working at Wal-Mart for near minimum wage and taking massive amounts of abuse from management- they're not middle class at all. No idea where some of you guys are getting the idea that any job is middle-class.
Nearly every service job out there is lower-class these days, and those are the jobs that are being created. This has been happening since the 90's, and is the "fault" of globalization, not any particular politician.
@Alstein
I'm not sure if understood my point. I wasn't talking about poor people. I was illustrating the difference between the rich and everyone else. Everyone else takes their earnings and consumes it. It's not a moral judgement. It's just a fact. Most people spend nearly everything they earn.
And thanks to a union that wouldn't back down even if it cost them their jobs and put a company out of business, we wont be spending it on Twinkies, Ho-Ho's or Ding-Dongs.
RIP Hostess.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2012/11/16/bakers-union-releases-statement-on.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&page=all
The other side of that story.
Why should a union give concessions, when they know that any concessions they make are just going to go straight into the pockets of executives and not help the company out one bit (and the CEO did give himself a 300% raise right before the company went bankrupt.
I don't think you can blame the union in this case one bit, and this is why you need heavy regulation of stock-issuing companies, the incentives for owners to raid the companies for short-term gain is very strong. Bain Capital was notorious for this as well (look what they did to Domino's among other companies)
There's a difference between stock-issuing companies and private companies. As an example, just look at Brad giving away FE for free to so many folks. A public company would never be farsighted enough to do this, but Brad could because he looks at the future in a way company that are beholden to short-term profit cannot.
True, but it's easier to save when your needs are met by a tinier portion of income. That said, consumption also is a bigger driver of economic growth than investment, because consumption turns the money through more hands before it ends up being invested (the money multiplier impact from economics)- this is one of the core values of my own personal economic beliefs- income inequality hurts consumption (and this is a big cause of why we almost had a great depression in 2008 and why the economy's been in such a huge mess- folks tried to keep up despite declining real incomes and in 2008 they just couldn't anymore).
I do have no sympathy for the folks who make significantly more than me and say they live paycheck-to-paycheck. I've had a few advantages, but those folks just lack common sense. I have two coworkers like that and it kinda makes me sick sometimes. Some folks do lack discipline. My background growing up is kinda similar to Brad's in terms of what I had, so I believe I know where he's coming from, and why I have sympathy for his beliefs even if I think they're bad for society as a whole. As hard as he's worked, he doesn't want to give it up to something he has no control over for the benefit of those he doesn't believe worked as hard (and in many cases, but not all, he's right that they didn't) Ultimately, for capitalism to benefit society, some of what is so loathesome to those who worked their way up themselves (and I couldn't do it the way Brad did it) is necessary for society to improve and function.
Thanks for presenting the other side of that coin, Alstein. Much like during the government bail-outs, it seems there are always those who grab any opportunity they can to line their pockets at the expense of others. There needs to be more accountability in corporate America.
Unfortunately, there will be no bail-out for Ho-Ho's and Ding-Dongs. (There just has to be a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going there)
Sure. And yet, Americans don't do they? Middle class people have plenty of disposable income. Yet they squander it in ways that, to me anyway, are shocking.
That said, consumption also is a bigger driver of economic growth than investment.
Sorry, but that's insane. You're hanging out with the Qt3 loons too much. That belief is empirically incorrect. For thousands of years, humans didn't have the option of investment. It was pure consumption. It was the birth of capitalism (which is where the *option* to invest on a mass scale came from) that has generated the amazing changes in living standards over the past 200 years.
because consumption turns the money through more hands before it ends up being invested
No it doesn't. You think that when you put money into a CD that it just sits there in a bank? There are lots and lots of transactions in investments. It's simply a different mechanism.
If more people invested rather than mindlessly consumed (less money for cheese burgers, more capital available to fund new things) we'd probably have our flying cars now.
(the money multiplier impact from economics)- this is one of the core values of my own personal economic beliefs- income inequality hurts consumption (and this is a big cause of why we almost had a great depression in 2008 and why the economy's been in such a huge mess- folks tried to keep up despite declining real incomes and in 2008 they just couldn't anymore).
There's no evidence to back up your beliefs though. Inequality doesn't really affect anything other than offend statisticians. It's not as if Americans are living in abject poverty.
My biggest beef is that humans always seem to be looking for someone to blame for their problems rather than taking responsibilities for their actions.
The higher ones income, the LESS excuse they have to complain about "rich people". I have known so many people who, in their 20s were making good money that they instantly spent on...well crap (dinners out, electronic toys, cars, etc.) that if they had simply put a fraction of that into an investment they'd be incredibly well off now.
Nearly every 20-something year old male or female I know could be considerably well off by the time they were 40 by simply taking the money they spend monthly on eating out and investing it. I quite occasionally give economic advice to younger people who want to know what I did. Some of them have let me look at their Quicken reports and what amazes me is how much money people piss away on eating and drinking out.
But people can't control themselves. They squander their earnings. And then, 20 years later, when they have so little to show for 20 years of labor they get mad at those who made different decisions.
And I'm not talking about "the poor". I'm talking about everyone else who had disposable income that they know, deep down, they shat out. That was their choice. I wish they'd quit throwing their bile at those of us who made different decisions.
We all make choices. And I don't begrudge the choices other people make until they start to hate me because I didn't make the choices they did.
I started with nothing. *Nothing*. I was the latch key kid who grew up in a 2 bedroom low-end apartment surrounded by welfare mothers and druggies. When I put myself through college (sorry, no pell grants, my mother had foolishly worked and had, by the time I was 18, had bought a house -- an asset).
When I started my little Stardock business, I didn't even qualify for a small business loan. I only had sweat equity. No rich uncles or angel investors. My "start up" capital came from working as a proof machine operator at a bank (a job that no longer exists thanks to OCR).
And I didn't get "lucky breaks" either (another source of annoyance). My first serious effort was for an OS/2 game that resulted in $0 for me because our publisher ripped me off and paid no royalties. When I finally was able to start making money self-publishing, the OS/2 market collapsed and I had to start over, with nothing but loans on my home, in the Windows market.
What saved me was delayed gratification. I had assets by the time the OS/2 market died that I could borrow on because I hadn't consumed it on cars, gadgets, eating out, etc.
In other words: I understood something that, deep down, I think most people understand: If I can put off buying "stuff" until later but instead treat my meager earnings as capital to invest, I can, with time, end up with a lot of money.
I traded living it up in my 20s for being able to REALLY live it up in my 40s and beyond. And now, we live in a society that villainizes people like me. And that's a sad testament to our society.
And that's why I empathize with the guy in this article. You make these choices. You go without and when you're successful, people who decided to live their lives as consumers feel they're entitled to the fruits of your labor without giving anything in return. They're in for a rude awakening I think over the next 4 years.
This very condensed version of your life story is very impressive (no sarcasm meant), and it should be made into a movie. If more people realized the truth instead of buying into the class warfare crap then the world would be a better place.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
