Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

Speaking from professional experience, most employers look to get just what they need from an employee without paying them a dime more than they have to. It's the rare example that actually seeks -- talking corporate culture here -- to get the most out of the people they have.

This isn't liberalism, if anything it's Econ 101.

Some corporate leaders are actually good stewards of their own ships. I wish more were...but we have a corporate culture today that doesn't often punish failure at the top. I guess it's a lot like Congress.

-spence

Exactly. I was busy answering Spences response to me while you were posting this, so I didn't see your good words here until I posted mine. You said it better.

Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, are worse. They exist on the backs of all of us, and are rewarded for constant failure, bickering, Constitution trashing, innovative ways to rack up economy crushing debt.

No credit for what happens while he is in office and most of the blame for stuff that started before he was elected :love:
I am happy to hear that you are ok with the sales, though, or I was gonna be very concerned.

He's taken enough credit for things others have done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist :hihi:

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete.

As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto :devil2:

-spence

There is work and there is work. Most business owners work more at their business than there employees. But we, somehow, don't look at their work as work.

Good looking risotto. You have a lucky wife and children.

Of course,companies are out to make $$, grow, make more money, hire more
people and grow some more. That's success and means more opportunties for
more employees and more hiring.No secret here.

I agree corporate culture has changed drasticaly in the tretment of their
employees over the last 15 years as the "60's" "Me Generation has taken
over management in a large number of companies.

Neither changes my "poor me" Lib comment.

Put my response in context of yours that I was responding to, you've got it backwards.

Fortunes are often made by the innovators, risk takers and the fortunate (i.e. also known as the lucky :hihi). It's usually not that they have an opportunity handed to them, they create it, but to fully realize it requires both capital and labor.

I don't think it has as much to do with the generational shift as it does the ever increasing trend towards "short-term'ism."

We have a market where billions are traded in seconds and everybody lives on a knifes edge. People watch the stock ticker like it's a ball game. Banks are running complex computer models to determine who's small business loan or mortgage is most at risk and should be yanked at the first opportunity.

I think a lot of this has to do with the shifting of our economy towards a more services based market where productivity is much harder to measure. Factories are easy, you've got assets and resources that when managed well produce X amount of product. With a services based economy there's a hierarchy of value that's being speculated on at many levels...it's so freaking complicated few are smart enough to understand it, and those who do typically are scared #^&#^&#^&#^&less.

-spence

Nobody, even Obama, is calling for the abolition of wealth. But doesn't that rich kid, even if he has a silver spoon in his mouth still have a far greater chance at success than the poor kid raised with a work ethic?

I think this question is relevant when thinking about what constitutes one's tribe. The implication here should be obvious.

Trope, nice, I haven't heard that word used in a while :cheers:

I often visualize pyramids when describing an organizational structure. You'd got to stand on the back of something or else the whole thing falls down...

How often are successful parents trying to capture wealth for their offspring also the result of wealthy parents to begin with?

Even my father commented about this over Christmas, how luck my son was to have access to computers and good education to give him a developmental edge. That on top of being smarter and better looking to begin with :devil2:

Certainly one element that makes America different from most countries is that there are fewer cultural barriers to moving up...and this is a super positive for sure. But it's also undeniable that the top few % hold most of the wealth...and couldn't keep it if it were not for the efforts of everyone else.

Just trying to keep things simple. My point is that without balance (oh god, here I go again) we could quickly reach an asymmetrical state that would be disasterous. Personally I think if you were to move too far towards a real free market system (regardless of federal or state regulatory allocation) the wealthy would eat up everything very rapidly. Certainly the inverse is also true...

The often cited statistic on executive pay as a % of worker pay is relevant here. Have CEO's become more important than those who actually product goods and services?

Thanks, I think it's important to take pleasure in the basics of living...like eating :gh:

-spence

Life is good. Let us freely strive to live it well.

What $ amount do you consider a fortune, or what amount does one need to be wealty in your opinion?

The oportunities I speak of are not monetary but what your ancestors sacraficed so that you could become successful. Genetics aside, how many left everything to come to this country to be free and start over? How many struggled to just eek out a living for their family? These were the things that were done to create opportuniiesnfor thier children.

If you haven't already done so, you will become interested in your "roots" when you
enter your 60's. Delving into your families history, you will find out what I am talking about. There are no self made men without someone who sacraficedfor them or who have been fortunate enough to have great mentors.
Having gratitude for them is a great blessing.

Anyway corporate "shortermism" :huh:, they have become that greedy that
there are no longer ten year corporate plans?

The context for my remark pertained more to those amassing enough wealth to be considered investors taking more significant risks that create economic growth. Certainly there's a sliding scale here.

Obviously one can be fortunate and very happy without financial wealth.

And they were certainly risk takers depending on how you look at it.

To the point above though. In the US today, we have children with a lineage of wealth, a lineage of migrants taking risks, a lineage of slaves etc...in some cases the sacrifice was deliberate and in some cases the sacrifice was forced.

I completely agree, but I think the point is that in many ways that sacrifice is shared among not just a family, but a community or even a country or a league of countries that share similar values. Here you can draw a line...

My father has documented our family genealogy to a pretty good detail. Funny enough one time his travels to dig up family records actually put him and his cousin Terry at the hotel across mine while I was on a business trip. I might have posted Terry's obit a few years ago...if I can find it I'll send it to you, you'd love it.

There certainly are more conservative companies that have 10 year plans. These (and longer) are more common in Asia. Many though are so reactive to quarterly performance it requires really good leadership to navigate. I work in a sales organization so my exposure is exacerbated by buying cycles. Also, a poor balance sheet will certainly impact your ability to execute a longer term plan.

That being said, so many companies aren't looking very far beyond the horizon...

-spence

Agree,they were risk takers for sure, not sitting around waiting for a
Govt. hand out.

Thanks for the Obit,Spence.
Holy Moses, when did the guy sleep. :huh:
He musta known the secret of the "power nap". LOL