The Wealthy as Job Creators?

[Y2HH]

Absolutely true. However, the benefits of the transformation of Apple into a behemoth...didn't go to Steve Jobs. He drew a good salary with benefits yes, but he made probably 50 times more money at Pixar than he ever made at apple, give or take a factor of 2.

 

While true, it's not like Apple made him peanuts. He had 5.5 million shares of Apple before he died, worth billions. Of course, this pales in comparison to the 136 million shares of Disney he owned. But regardless, he made millions during his first stint at Apple giving him the money for Pixar and then made billions more during his second Apple stint.

[bmags]

How much longer will smart phones be used against poor people? These damn things are not $50,000 mercedes. They have become so tied in to the lives of a broader population that rich dudes write an article a day bragging about how they lived without cell phones for a month and discovered themselves.

 

Smart phones are probably the lowest end of extravagant things people own. If you asked me if I'd rather have a old ass nokia punch phone and keep my car or my smart phone and vice versa I'd seriously get rid of my car.

 

That said a lot of good stuff in this thread and this'll probably derail it.

[LittleHurt05]

Go to McDonalds and see how many workers have smartphones.

 

I would bet most of them under the age of 35 do.

[Y2HH]

How much longer will smart phones be used against poor people? These damn things are not $50,000 mercedes. They have become so tied in to the lives of a broader population that rich dudes write an article a day bragging about how they lived without cell phones for a month and discovered themselves.

 

Smart phones are probably the lowest end of extravagant things people own. If you asked me if I'd rather have a old ass nokia punch phone and keep my car or my smart phone and vice versa I'd seriously get rid of my car.

 

That said a lot of good stuff in this thread and this'll probably derail it.

 

Because most smartphone plans are upwards of 100$ per month and a vast majority of smartphone owners use them to text message, and that's all they use them for. So it's a waste of money, but I agree there are bigger gripes than that to be had. Smartphones have become somewhat of a status symbol so that's probably why they latch on to such an argument. Also, these plans usually end up costing over 2500$ all told, when a cellphone that can text can be had for a fraction of that cost over the same amount of time.

 

I don't know what it's like as an adult to have no money to that point, but I can say if I was that poor, I'd be looking for any way possible to save money, and that's simply an easy one to point at, along with cable tv. That'd be the first thing I cancel if I lost my job.

[Jake]

As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world.... The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted....

 

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

 

. . . This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people....

 

There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes: but in this way we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor-a reign of harmony-another ideal, differing, indeed from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow­citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.

 

. . .

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial result for the community-the man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer-doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.

Andrew Camegie, "Wealth," North American Review, 148, no. 391 (June 1889): 653, 657­62.

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.asp

 

Andrew Carnegie

 

[Balta1701]

Because most smartphone plans are upwards of 100$ per month

um, no?

[Y2HH]

um, no?

 

More people use AT&T and Verizon the the rest combined (by far), and both are quite expensive, upwards of 100$+ with the required and quite low capped data plan.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Nice spin.

 

Spin it back for me. Who are the middle class job creators? We are claiming that the wealthy create jjobs for people.

 

Someone here point out the wealthy person that created their job and when was it done.

[cabiness42]

Spin it back for me. Who are the middle class job creators? We are claiming that the wealthy create jjobs for people.

 

Someone here point out the wealthy person that created their job and when was it done.

 

536 wealthy people created my job. Of course they went and eliminated it for 17 days, but then they restored it.

Edited October 22, 2013 by HickoryHuskers

[southsider2k5]

Spin it back for me. Who are the middle class job creators? We are claiming that the wealthy create jjobs for people.

 

Someone here point out the wealthy person that created their job and when was it done.

 

How many poor people have you worked for? How many middle class people have you worked for?

[Y2HH]

Spin it back for me. Who are the middle class job creators? We are claiming that the wealthy create jjobs for people.

 

Someone here point out the wealthy person that created their job and when was it done.

 

The wealthy don't create ALL jobs, but they do create the vast majority of them.

 

That's not really the argument you're looking for, though.

 

The argument lies within the tax code, and the reasoning is that if we force the wealthy to pay less in tax, that they will use that money to create more businesses which will create more jobs. The reality, however, is that doesn't actually happen. We lower their tax, they save money, and simply pocket the profits.

 

The fact is, if a ANY person can create a business that will make them money, they will do it.

[Balta1701]

More people use AT&T and Verizon the the rest combined (by far), and both are quite expensive, upwards of 100$+ with the required and quite low capped data plan.

Personally I use AT&T, hate it, have a smartphone, and pay substantially less than that. Perhaps you're referring to family plans only?

 

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there are now a large number of providers who offer smartphone plans for 1/2 that amount, for dollar amounts comparable to the amount that a household would spend on telephone service anyway. So...you've clearly made the assumption that the poorest people who own smartphones will buy the same plans as the highest-income people who own smartphones, which is highly unlikely to be the case.

[Y2HH]

Personally I use AT&T, hate it, have a smartphone, and pay substantially less than that. Perhaps you're referring to family plans only?

 

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there are now a large number of providers who offer smartphone plans for 1/2 that amount, for dollar amounts comparable to the amount that a household would spend on telephone service anyway. So...you've clearly made the assumption that the poorest people who own smartphones will buy the same plans as the highest-income people who own smartphones, which is highly unlikely to be the case.

 

Not sure, I'm on Verizon with an iPhone5, I have a plan with unlimited minutes, text, and 1 gig of data, and it's 90+$ WITH a 19% discount.

[EvilMonkey]

Just so I am clear, Jenks, Alpha, and SS2k5 all believe McJobs and working at Walmart are the examples of job creation we should slash taxes to get.

 

Would Walmart or McDonalds try to get by with less staff if the owner's taxes were higher? What if it meant that the middle class would be paying less taxes and spending that money at McD and WalMart?

Tex, no where have I ever said that, and you know it. I have said repeatedly that nobody should be paying more than half their income in taxes. It's not the governments money, it belongs to whoever makes it. For myself, I have said I don't care if my taxes are lowered, just stop raising them. Kinda like the tea Party acronym, Taxed Enough Already. Make do with what you have. I have to.

 

And you do a disservice to the McJobs you disparage. Not everyone can start out making $15 an hour in some office. there are skills to be learned before you can become a productive member of society. How to show up on time, follow directions, handle customer interactions and so on. There is a reason they are supposed to be starter jobs. You go on or you go up. You don't stay in the same spot for 20 years. You can get promoted at McDonalds, or almost any fast food for that matter, if you want to. Express an interest in moving up and they will train you. Express no interest and you stay flipping burgers for the rest of your life. 30 hourly workers at one McD's also has 4-6 shift managers, at least 1 assistant manager and one general manager. Get a franchisee who owns more than one and he also employs office people to coordinate things, could be 2 or 3, could be 50 or more, depending on the amount of stores.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Personally I use AT&T, hate it, have a smartphone, and pay substantially less than that. Perhaps you're referring to family plans only?

 

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there are now a large number of providers who offer smartphone plans for 1/2 that amount, for dollar amounts comparable to the amount that a household would spend on telephone service anyway. So...you've clearly made the assumption that the poorest people who own smartphones will buy the same plans as the highest-income people who own smartphones, which is highly unlikely to be the case.

 

What's "substantially less"? If it's north of $50/month, that's still ridiculous for someone making under 20k a year with kids. It's a freaking luxury, and anyone who says it's not is completely out of touch with reality.

[Balta1701]

What's "substantially less"? If it's north of $50/month, that's still ridiculous for someone making under 20k a year with kids. It's a freaking luxury, and anyone who says it's not is completely out of touch with reality.

When a standard home telephone plan with internet access costs well over that much...both of which by all accounts are 100% mandatory in modern society at this point...I'd say that "completely out of touch with reality" is a really good summary of your point of view.

[Jenksismyhero]

When a standard home telephone plan with internet access costs well over that much...both of which by all accounts are 100% mandatory in modern society at this point...I'd say that "completely out of touch with reality" is a really good summary of your point of view.

 

60% of the world doesn't use the internet, at all. It is not "mandatory."

 

Edit: In the US, less than 30% of people have fixed broadband subscriptions at home, while 75% have cell phone plans. You don't get work done on a cell phone. You don't apply for jobs on a cell phone. You play f***ing Angry Birds on a cell phone.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...t_subscriptions

Edited October 22, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

What do folks think of Carnegie - basically, he felt (maybe I should say "he said") that the most immoral thing a rich person could do is hold onto money. His hope is that all such people would invest the money into their communities. In his case, he did a great deal of that and it is the only thing that has allowed history to have any kindness in judging him. He knew that he could never convince anyone to do this, so he advocated for a very, very steep estate tax: he didn't think you should pass much at all down to your children, just a little security and by no means a fortune.

[Texsox]

How many poor people have you worked for? How many middle class people have you worked for?

 

All have been middle class at best.

[Y2HH]

All have been middle class at best.

 

Dubious.

[Texsox]

Since I was in management and in a couple cases friends with them before they started the companies, I am positive they were middle class.

 

The two companies I worked for the longest were both started by middle class guys. Chuck and Art worked as sales reps in the same industry before striking out on their own. Their initial investment was being able to work a year without drawing a paycheck and a $125,000 line of credit against their homes.

 

Jim worked his way up in the company to President before buying the company. He was living in the same house outside Milwaukee he and his wife bought as newlyweds. Three bedroom with a detached garage. He drove a 10 year old pick up most days, his kids attended UW-M.

 

I was barely middle class when I started my companies. The Boy Scouts of America were started by an insurance agent from Chicago who happened to meet a Scout in London while on a trip.

 

I'm also thinking of friends that have their own companies, two in lawn maintenance who started with less than $10,000 in capital.

[Y2HH]

Since I was in management and in a couple cases friends with them before they started the companies, I am positive they were middle class.

 

The two companies I worked for the longest were both started by middle class guys. Chuck and Art worked as sales reps in the same industry before striking out on their own. Their initial investment was being able to work a year without drawing a paycheck and a $125,000 line of credit against their homes.

 

Jim worked his way up in the company to President before buying the company. He was living in the same house outside Milwaukee he and his wife bought as newlyweds. Three bedroom with a detached garage. He drove a 10 year old pick up most days, his kids attended UW-M.

 

I was barely middle class when I started my companies. The Boy Scouts of America were started by an insurance agent from Chicago who happened to meet a Scout in London while on a trip.

 

I'm also thinking of friends that have their own companies, two in lawn maintenance who started with less than $10,000 in capital.

 

I have friends like this, too, but they have like 1 employee...so I wouldn't call them prolific job creators.

[Texsox]

OK, how about Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. Where there founders rich or middle class?

[Jenksismyhero]

OK, how about Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. Where there founders rich or middle class?

 

The founders or their investors. I think you're ignoring the investor portion of the vast majority of businesses out there. You may start a business by taking out a personal loan on your house or something, but at some point if the business is really profitable you're going to find investment dollars from rich people to expand the business.

[Texsox]

Good point, I was forgetting that.