Save the middle class! This is our chance.

[CA renter]

FLU,

I’m not talking about “mom and pop” investors, and don’t disagree with anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, all of my personal income is derived from investments (not what I’m referring to as “wealthy” and spouse earns money from labor).

I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.

Very different from mom and pop who’ve worked hard and saved up over their lifetimes.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.[/quote]

….So there are NO fund managers that ever earned an honest day’s labor in their life? All of them had a silver spoon, and all of them, because their sheer business is to use other people’s money to turn a buck, is not considered “honest work”?

Again, I’m not sure how one would draw a line between “mom and pop” versus a sneeky bastard fund manager that deserves to get taxed at 99%….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.[/quote]

….So there are NO fund managers that ever earned an honest day’s labor in their life? All of them had a silver spoon, and all of them, because their sheer business is to use other people’s money to turn a buck, is not considered “honest work”?

Again, I’m not sure how one would draw a line between “mom and pop” versus a sneeky bastard fund manager that deserves to get taxed at 99%….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.[/quote]

….So there are NO fund managers that ever earned an honest day’s labor in their life? All of them had a silver spoon, and all of them, because their sheer business is to use other people’s money to turn a buck, is not considered “honest work”?

Again, I’m not sure how one would draw a line between “mom and pop” versus a sneeky bastard fund manager that deserves to get taxed at 99%….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.[/quote]

….So there are NO fund managers that ever earned an honest day’s labor in their life? All of them had a silver spoon, and all of them, because their sheer business is to use other people’s money to turn a buck, is not considered “honest work”?

Again, I’m not sure how one would draw a line between “mom and pop” versus a sneeky bastard fund manager that deserves to get taxed at 99%….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about the fund managers and BIG-time, well-connected people who’ve never or rarely earned money via labor in their lives. These are the people who have direct access to politicians and can lobby on behalf of their own interests. I’m also referring to the amount of leverage these people use to move markets and funnel ever more money into their own accounts. People who use other peoples’ money to make money, yet take on none of the risks.[/quote]

….So there are NO fund managers that ever earned an honest day’s labor in their life? All of them had a silver spoon, and all of them, because their sheer business is to use other people’s money to turn a buck, is not considered “honest work”?

Again, I’m not sure how one would draw a line between “mom and pop” versus a sneeky bastard fund manager that deserves to get taxed at 99%….

[CA renter]

You’re right, the line is blurry and ill-defined.

While we certainly need some fund managers and people who work in the financial industry, the idea that they somehow deserve to “earn” multiples more than real working people is what I have a problem with.

They should be paid a reasonable salary that is consistent with their educational levels and risks they take with their own money.

I have a problem with the connection between the “dealmakers”/money handlers and lawmakers/policy makers. They desperately need to be separated and have a strong firewall between these two entities.

While we can live without wealth managers (even if very modestly), we cannot live without laborers. Our priorties are misdirected because those who **produce** do not have the same power as those who control wealth.

[CA renter]

You’re right, the line is blurry and ill-defined.

While we certainly need some fund managers and people who work in the financial industry, the idea that they somehow deserve to “earn” multiples more than real working people is what I have a problem with.

They should be paid a reasonable salary that is consistent with their educational levels and risks they take with their own money.

I have a problem with the connection between the “dealmakers”/money handlers and lawmakers/policy makers. They desperately need to be separated and have a strong firewall between these two entities.

While we can live without wealth managers (even if very modestly), we cannot live without laborers. Our priorties are misdirected because those who **produce** do not have the same power as those who control wealth.

[CA renter]

You’re right, the line is blurry and ill-defined.

While we certainly need some fund managers and people who work in the financial industry, the idea that they somehow deserve to “earn” multiples more than real working people is what I have a problem with.

They should be paid a reasonable salary that is consistent with their educational levels and risks they take with their own money.

I have a problem with the connection between the “dealmakers”/money handlers and lawmakers/policy makers. They desperately need to be separated and have a strong firewall between these two entities.

While we can live without wealth managers (even if very modestly), we cannot live without laborers. Our priorties are misdirected because those who **produce** do not have the same power as those who control wealth.

[CA renter]

You’re right, the line is blurry and ill-defined.

While we certainly need some fund managers and people who work in the financial industry, the idea that they somehow deserve to “earn” multiples more than real working people is what I have a problem with.

They should be paid a reasonable salary that is consistent with their educational levels and risks they take with their own money.

I have a problem with the connection between the “dealmakers”/money handlers and lawmakers/policy makers. They desperately need to be separated and have a strong firewall between these two entities.

While we can live without wealth managers (even if very modestly), we cannot live without laborers. Our priorties are misdirected because those who **produce** do not have the same power as those who control wealth.

[CA renter]

You’re right, the line is blurry and ill-defined.

While we certainly need some fund managers and people who work in the financial industry, the idea that they somehow deserve to “earn” multiples more than real working people is what I have a problem with.

They should be paid a reasonable salary that is consistent with their educational levels and risks they take with their own money.

I have a problem with the connection between the “dealmakers”/money handlers and lawmakers/policy makers. They desperately need to be separated and have a strong firewall between these two entities.

While we can live without wealth managers (even if very modestly), we cannot live without laborers. Our priorties are misdirected because those who **produce** do not have the same power as those who control wealth.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]

I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]

I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]

I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Is that true? It makes great rhetoric, but I don’t think history actually supports this arguement.
there are many revolutions that while arguing that their goal was improving the lot of the poor and middle class, did not accomplish this effect but instead made people overall much poorer. The Cultural Revolution in China comes to mind as an extreme example.[/quote]

I’m actually familiar with that part of story. Yes, the cultural revolution makes the country poorer (which happens to almost all revolution as it is a destructive force). But the lower/middle class’ status actually improves during the cultural revolution. The income gap is very small at that time and public service offering is at its peak. Any poor student can ride a train to Beijing to see Chairman Mao for free at that time, if they want…lunch/dinner provided.
The worker might get paid at only $10/month but the CEO are getting paid at $20/month. Besides, what’s the difference do money make? Everyone bought their essentials (food, clothes) with quota. It is not like when you have money you can buy imported wine.

[Author]

Posts