Excellent article from CNN

[Genghis]

Don't blame the 1% for America's wage gap. (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1)

Excerpts:



FORTUNE -- What if I told you that there was a group of hard-driving workaholics who tend to have advanced degrees and bring a level of talent and skill to their jobs that attracts premium pay in the global economy? Scholars have found that this group is more likely than much of the population to raise their children in two-parent homes.


Comment: There you have it. Those who work hard, save their money and stay faithful to their spouse make it to the top 1%. If you don't make it, it is probably your fault. Of course, there are genuine cases of misfortune like sickness and accidents to stop you from making it.

Remember, America is a golden land of opportunity. Mia Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLskRsrCJR0&feature=player_embedded), daughter of immigrants who came from Haiti with $10, made it. So can you.



It's entertaining to wail about fat cats and the greedy rich (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/07/billionaires-bloomberg-bad-day/). But if we're serious about addressing widening inequality, we should figure out what the 1% is doing right -- and apply some of those ideas to closing the gap.


Disclaimer: I am not one of the 1% but hope to be someday.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It is late where I live, so I'll be brief. Pull your head out your ass. You're most likely never going to make it to the 1%, so stop kissing their asses.

[roy]

the '1%' thing isn't our schtick, but ok. have fun trying to make it there, anyway. unless you're extremely well-connected, it's going to end in disappointment. now why don't you go anywhere poverty exists and tell the people there that, "if you work hard enough, you'll be filthy rich".

[Rusty Shackleford]

hilariously shit. i mean seriously.


so the 'rich' which basically means owners of capital arent making money off of the 'poor' which basically means non-owners? and the thought that the case is the opposite is a myth?

i mean, its right fucking there. in the first sentence. and apparently, if you own capital and employ other people and extract a profit, you arent making money off of the poor/working people!


sure there are those horatio algers out there, but so what. how does it effect the rest of society globally? what if everyone did everything "right"? its impossible for everyone to 'succeed' in a capitalist system.

[GPDP]

what if everyone did everything "right"? its impossible for everyone to 'succeed' in a capitalist system.

It's about when you point this out that they drop the faux-preaching about how anyone can make it and assume their true elitist mantra about how some people are too dumb or lazy to make it anyway.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

You view yourself as a temporarily poor man who will someday become a part of the bourgeoisie.

Sad thing is, sir, you will not be. Mia Love she was born in Brooklyn, and married a rich man.

Education is essential for advancing in life. She plans to remove it. How do the poor attend these schools? They'll need public funding, and she won't provide it. Leaving the poor to remain poor. Which you and her dumb-ass thinks will make people rich.

The problem with the system of free-enterprise is simple. It's not responsible as you claim. If it was the economy wouldn't have crashed several times.

We've seen trickle-down economics (Reaganomics) it failed. It tripled the national debt, industries collapsed because it risked too much and homelessness was soaring high.

EDIT :

Did the theory work? Hardly. Rather than putting their money into jobs, research or equipment, the country's biggest businesses went on the largest merger binge in history, buying up smaller companies in a trend that spelled less competition, less productivity, and more control of the economy in fewer hands. Multi-billion dollar corporate war chests were assembled to finance takeovers of large oil and coal companies, communications giants, and prestigious financial institutions.




After a stock market meltdown in 1987, Wall Street advised the US Treasury not to meddle in financial markets. This paved the way for consolidation around large merchant banks, institutional investors, stock brokerage firms, and large insurance companies. Complex speculative instruments - derivatives, options, futures, and hedge funds - were largely unregulated, becoming vulnerable to manipulation.




Then, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act - also known as the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act - removed remaining regulatory restraints on Wall Street's powerful banking institutions. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a New Deal reform put in place in response to corruption that had resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash, commercial banks, brokerage firms, institutional investors and insurance companies were permitted to invest in each others' enterprises and integrate their financial operations.




In short, the current financial crisis has been building for a long time. But the alarm bells didn't start ringing until June, 2007, when two hedge funds of the New York investment bank Bear Stearns lurched toward collapse because of their extensive investments in mortgage-backed securities. They were forced to dump assets as the trouble spread to major Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, which had loaned the firm money.




Over the summer, German banks with bad investments in the US real-estate market were caught up in the crisis. But the most obvious sign of trouble was the Federal Reserve's decision on August 9 to pump $24 billion into the US banking system through large purchases of securities, while the European Central Bank made a record cash injection of $130 billion into its markets to shake off credit fears. On the same day, Wall Street suffered its second-worst decline of the year as the Dow Jones dropped by nearly 400 points.

Making people rich doesn't trickle down and make average-Joe's rich, instead, it moves the capital into a more restricted club of individuals.

[dodger]

Don't blame the 1% for America's wage gap. (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1)

Excerpts:



Comment: There you have it. Those who work hard, save their money and stay faithful to their spouse make it to the top 1%. If you don't make it, it is probably your fault. Of course, there are genuine cases of misfortune like sickness and accidents to stop you from making it.

Remember, America is a golden land of opportunity. Mia Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLskRsrCJR0&feature=player_embedded), daughter of immigrants who came from Haiti with $10, made it. So can you.



Disclaimer: I am not one of the 1% but hope to be someday.

Is that Ghenghis KHAN or is to be soon Ghenghis KHAN'T ??

Look and learn folks.....keep us updated, dear Ghenghis..whatever your surname is......................:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup ::thumbup:

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't blame the 1% for America's wage gap. (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1)

Excerpts:



Comment: There you have it. Those who work hard, save their money and stay faithful to their spouse make it to the top 1%. If you don't make it, it is probably your fault. Of course, there are genuine cases of misfortune like sickness and accidents to stop you from making it.

Remember, America is a golden land of opportunity. Mia Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLskRsrCJR0&feature=player_embedded), daughter of immigrants who came from Haiti with $10, made it. So can you.



Disclaimer: I am not one of the 1% but hope to be someday.

1. Nobody cares about the 1%, hell that's like 250k or something... hardly the ruling class... not to mention its usually the 1% richest in money, rather than wealthiest people.
2. I wonder what happend to my dad and grandpa, who both worked hard, saved money, and stayed faithful... but ended up not much better off then when they started.
3. CNN makes for excellent science :thumbup1:
4. Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computers. Steve Jobs created the idea of Apple Computers, found governments that suppress labor's power to bargain, and had other people built it. Nobody "makes it" themselves, and it would be absurd to think so. (If the whole world collapses leaving only you, how long do you think it will be before most of that mansion, and all the other wealth besides, stops being used alltogether? "Wealth" is, by definition, a social concern, not an individual one.)
5. Those damned little orphan kids; it's all their fault they're poor and on drugs. :thumbup1:

[Railyon]

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt9lheOYQW1qbhjo5o1_500.jpg

FYI no one here is "blaming the 1% for the wage gap", that's utterly hilarious.

If anything we'd blame them for the existence of wage labor in the first place, but not "the 1%" so the argument flies out the window right there. I thought your time here may have taught you that we don't give a shit about income but instead focus on your relationship to the means of production when looking at capitalist social relations... Guess I was wrong.

Have fun trying to become a 1%er, why not join the Hells Angels?

[dodger]

Don't let the boy leave without the price of a subway ticket home........


We LOVE you dear!!

[Genghis]

the '1%' thing isn't our schtick, but ok. have fun trying to make it there, anyway. unless you're extremely well-connected, it's going to end in disappointment. now why don't you go anywhere poverty exists and tell the people there that, "if you work hard enough, you'll be filthy rich".

Steve Jobs started out poor and became rich.

[Genghis]

You view yourself as a temporarily poor man who will someday become a part of the bourgeoisie.

Sad thing is, sir, you will not be. .

Well, time will tell. Its still the morning of my life.



Mia Love she was born in Brooklyn, and married a rich man.


Is that right? Well , how did he get rich?



Education is essential for advancing in life. She plans to remove it. How do the poor attend these schools? They'll need public funding, and she won't provide it. Leaving the poor to remain poor. Which you and her dumb-ass thinks will make people rich.


I don't think she is advocating that.



The problem with the system of free-enterprise is simple. It's not responsible as you claim. If it was the economy wouldn't have crashed several times.


Booms and busts are part and parcel of capitalism. It is healthy. During busts, all the inefficient companies get wiped out. Its part of nature like a forest fire. Forest fires are needed to clear the dead wood



We've seen trickle-down economics (Reaganomics) it failed. It tripled the national debt, industries collapsed because it risked too much and homelessness was soaring high.


No. The national debt was due to redistributive policies. Politicians spend other people's money to buy votes.

EDIT : [B]



Making people rich doesn't trickle down and make average-Joe's rich, instead, it moves the capital into a more restricted club of individuals


Some rich will go broke. Some poor will grow rich. Its not a closed circle.

[Positivist]

Oh CNN said it? Alright guys let's pack up and go home

[Misanthrope]

Don't blame the 1% for America's wage gap. (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1)

Excerpts:



Comment: There you have it. Those who work hard, save their money and stay faithful to their spouse make it to the top 1%. If you don't make it, it is probably your fault. Of course, there are genuine cases of misfortune like sickness and accidents to stop you from making it.

Remember, America is a golden land of opportunity. Mia Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLskRsrCJR0&feature=player_embedded), daughter of immigrants who came from Haiti with $10, made it. So can you.



Disclaimer: I am not one of the 1% but hope to be someday.

Social mobility is extremely low. Those that "rise" into the 1 percent have really been there their whole lives. The article is fallacious is that aspect. We aren't trying to "make it". We are trying to instill a system where there is no burden of trying to "make it" because it's already been made.

My father works hard, is loyal to his spouse and saves his money; why is he not rich? Maybe because his Dad was born in the depression and a soldier then school teacher. It's probably because he was lazy though. You're completely right in your assumption that 99 percent of society is lazy and is being kept afloat by a super race of 1 percenters.
America is not the golden land of opportunity. How delusional do you have to be to think that?



Steve Jobs started out poor and became rich.

so...? Don't bother us with your rags to riches story and mass media bullshit. If you want to have a discussion on capitalism then actually form an argument instead of just calling people lazy and spouting rags to riches stories.

[Genghis]

hilariously shit. i mean seriously.


so the 'rich' which basically means owners of capital arent making money off of the 'poor' which basically means non-owners? and the thought that the case is the opposite is a myth?

i mean, its right fucking there. in the first sentence. and apparently, if you own capital and employ other people and extract a profit, you arent making money off of the poor/working people!



No, they are not making money off the working people. Its a fair exchange. Both are willing buyers/willing sellers. The employee "sells" his services to the employer at a mutually agreed price. There is no exploitation.

The employer/owner is risking his capital. There is no assurance of making money. His reward is the residual of his revenue after paying all his bills. Thus the profits is his reward for risking his money. This is the point that Marx missed.

[Misanthrope]

No, they are not making money off the working people. Its a fair exchange. Both are willing buyers/willing sellers. The employee "sells" his services to the employer at a mutually agreed price. There is no exploitation.

The employer/owner is risking his capital. There is no assurance of making money. His reward is the residual of his revenue after paying all his bills. Thus the profits is his reward for risking his money. This is the point that Marx missed.

The material conditions which the worker is in as a result of the privatization and consolidation of control of the M.o.P. coerces the worker to sell his/her labor at an exploitative wage. The capitalist expropriates the excess value produced by the worker aka exploitation.

There are many work related injuries and deaths annually/internationally. Who is really taking the risk? :rolleyes:

The capitalist uses the expropriated surplus value of the worker's labor to buy more machines to further exploit the worker. The capitalist unjustifiably owns that value which he exploited. Marx addressed this. You must have never read Marx.

[Per Levy]

No, they are not making money off the working people.

yeah they do, if they dont have working people who build products the capitalists can sell then they wont make money, they need workers in order to make money. its pretty simple, or do you think that products just fall out of the sky and can be sold that way?


Its a fair exchange.

sure thing, work for a etremly low pay or be hungry, or starve, or dont be able to pay bills, or face homlessness(not to mention with so many working poor jobs many of the workers still have to face the above mentioend issues)


Both are willing buyers/willing sellers. The employee "sells" his services to the employer at a mutually agreed price. There is no exploitation.

the worker has not other option then to sell his working power and his time.


The employer/owner is risking his capital. There is no assurance of making money. His reward is the residual of his revenue after paying all his bills. Thus the profits is his reward for risking his money. This is the point that Marx missed.

the capitalist is ofton enough protected by the state in many ways, and even if a company goes bankrupt then the workers will get screwed the owner and managers of the company will be fine off.

[Positivist]

No, they are not making money off the working people. Its a fair exchange. Both are willing buyers/willing sellers. The employee "sells" his services to the employer at a mutually agreed price. There is no exploitation.

The employer/owner is risking his capital. There is no assurance of making money. His reward is the residual of his revenue after paying all his bills. Thus the profits is his reward for risking his money. This is the point that Marx missed.

Wage labor is only as voluntary as breathing. You don't have to either but if you don't, you die.

[Per Levy]

Well, time will tell. Its still the morning of my life.

will you tell us what you do then? or what your plan is of getting rich? lets jsut say to 99,99%(and thats pretty optimistic) you will not be rich at any day of your life.


Is that right? Well , how did he get rich?

who cares, you said she was poor and go rich as an positive example, someone points out that she got rich because of marring a rich dude and now you ask how he became rich? if you care though find it out yourself.


Booms and busts are part and parcel of capitalism. It is healthy. During busts, all the inefficient companies get wiped out. Its part of nature like a forest fire. Forest fires are needed to clear the dead wood

do you have to work to make a living? just asking, because if a bust accures and you loose your job will that be healthy to you?


No. The national debt was due to redistributive policies. Politicians spend other people's money to buy votes.

bs, the politcians serve the bourgeoisie and they make laws that serve the bourgeoisie.


Some rich will go broke. Some poor will grow rich. Its not a closed circle.

that is hardly how it works, the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer is how this society works.

[Drosophila]

"Excellent Article from CNN" - you're not fooling anyone with that title.

[Zealot]

The whole point of the system is to make it so that there will always be a "99%". There will never be a time when each and every human being is part of the "1%" because the 1% rely on an army of 99 percenters to maintain their position. Do you really believe that "hard-work" will launch you into that position? Sure, sometimes. But travel the developing/underdeveloped world where your clothes were most probably made and tell them they just need to work harder to be rich. They are being so over-worked these days that Apple have put giant gates around their factories to stop workers committing suicide.

Good luck on becoming part of the bourgeoisie. Just know that we won't spare you or your kind any mercy when the revolution comes.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No, they are not making money off the working people. Its a fair exchange. Both are willing buyers/willing sellers. The employee "sells" his services to the employer at a mutually agreed price. There is no exploitation.

The employer/owner is risking his capital. There is no assurance of making money. His reward is the residual of his revenue after paying all his bills. Thus the profits is his reward for risking his money. This is the point that Marx missed.



oh boo hoo the guy is risking his capital, and im risking my health working in a giant refrigerator for over 10 hours. so in the abstract, i put up something to 'risk' and i can be rewarded for risking something? is the whole mantra of the free market a more elaborate mega millions ad campaign?


and if its a fair exchange then what is profit? is that not making money off of labor and exchange? is it obviously not slanted towards one side?

[#FF0000]

itt dummy doesn't realize that working class wages have been declining while productivity and profits have been skyrocketing and so 'wurk hrd' doesn't really mean much of anything

[#FF0000]

"if everyone works hard then suddenly there will be no more need for people who pump gas and clean toilets you will all be rich yes this is what i really think hey wait why are you laughing at me?"

[DinodudeEpic]

I don't know where to start.

Is it the fact that we're referring to CEO's and bankers when we're referring to top 1%?

Is it the fact that wages DO NOT match the increasing productivity of workers in most industries?

Is it that wage labor is theft regardless of the income of the '1%'?

Just unbelievably stupid. Especially considering that this is CNN and not Fox News.

[Prometeo liberado]

Pretty sure that this has been said elsewhere, if hard work and sacrifice were the keys to success in a capitalist society then Africa would be a workers paradise. Dolt!
1%ers are motorcycle gangs, lemmy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Steve Jobs started out poor and became rich.

Steve jobs started out "upper middle class" if you want to put it into bogus liberal class types.


itt dummy doesn't realize that working class wages have been declining while productivity and profits have been skyrocketing and so 'wurk hrd' doesn't really mean much of anything

This 1000 times over


To be fair tho; it's really not all that hard to "get into the 1%" seeing as how its the equivalent of a school principles salary, owning a small business, or cashing out your retirement for skilled labor. It's not easy, and you probably have to be "smart" according to capitalist standards at least. But it's not that hard, really.
That's why "the 1%" is such a bogus metric. It's usefull, sure, for the occupy movement to challenge the rule of the ruling class. But attacking the 1% does nothing to challenge the rule of capital.

[l'Enfermé]

I don't care about anything this person says, not because of his silly politics, but because he thinks that anything written by CNN can possibly be "excellent".

[AmericanCommie421]

CNN? Sorry, I don't trust the liberal media.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Steve Jobs started out poor and became rich.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Steve Job's parents were rich. He didn't need to work, and spent countless hours idle, pondering upon programming.

You, on the other hand, sir, do not have such luxury, nor idle time. You have to work your entrepreneurial dreams around a busy schedule. Good luck becoming Steve Job's rich without the same circumstances as he.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Well, time will tell. Its still the morning of my life.



Is that right? Well , how did he get rich?



I don't think she is advocating that.



Booms and busts are part and parcel of capitalism. It is healthy. During busts, all the inefficient companies get wiped out. Its part of nature like a forest fire. Forest fires are needed to clear the dead wood



No. The national debt was due to redistributive policies. Politicians spend other people's money to buy votes.

EDIT : [B]



Some rich will go broke. Some poor will grow rich. Its not a closed circle.


Provide me with a plan on how you plan to become bourgeoisie.

Mia Loves husband was born with inheritance, unlike the most of us.

Mia Love said she wanted to, and I quote : End the Department of Education

All inefficient companies don't go out. The banks, hedge-funds, etc., were, and always will, be bailed out, by their exclusive monopoly status. Almost all insurance, banking, and financial institutions wagered too much. That is horrible business ethic, by what you've asserted, they'd no longer be around. Well, they still are. In fact, almost all would have collapsed without government intervention.

EDIT : I must also add to my statement. If Capitalist institutions during the recent global crisis had no intervention, Capitalism would have ran its course and would have ended. All major companies and industries would have fell by the way-side by an inability to generate more capital. This recent example in history shows it's not self correcting, because of greed, and desire for more.

[Genghis]

The whole point of the system is to make it so that there will always be a "99%". There will never be a time when each and every human being is part of the "1%" because the 1% rely on an army of 99 percenters to maintain their position. Do you really believe that "hard-work" will launch you into that position? Sure, sometimes. But travel the developing/underdeveloped world where your clothes were most probably made and tell them they just need to work harder to be rich. They are being so over-worked these days that Apple have put giant gates around their factories to stop workers committing suicide.

Good luck on becoming part of the bourgeoisie. Just know that we won't spare you or your kind any mercy when the revolution comes.

You are right that it is mathematically impossible for everyone in a country to be in the top 1% of income unless there is equality of income.

However, we all have a chance and it takes hard work. Save your money and invest wisely. Having a stable marriage also helps.

Even if you don't make it into the top 1% in America (I don't know where you are from), it is easy to be at least middle class. According to research (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/1027_opportunity_society/ 1027_opportunity_society_presentation.pdf), all you need is to do three things:

1)a high school education
2)hold on to your job
3)a stable marriage

Considering that the average income in the US is US$60,000, this puts you in the top 1% on the planet.

Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%. (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm)

Excerpt:



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world's rich people.
It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That's for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)


So capitalism works.



Just know that we won't spare you or your kind any mercy when the revolution comes.


Why are you leftists so violent? I don't wish ill of you. If someone does well in life, you should admire him. It takes brains, hard work, discipline to do well.

[Genghis]

Provide me with a plan on how you plan to become bourgeoisie.

Work, save as much as I can and invest in stocks as well as I can. I may or may not make it into the top 1% in America. But being middle class in America would make me in the top 1% in the world. See the link in my previous post.




Mia Loves husband was born with inheritance, unlike the most of us.


If that is so, then her hubby's parents must have worked very hard for their money.



Mia Love said she wanted to, and I quote : End the Department of Education


You misunderstand. Ending the Dept of Education does not mean closing down all the schools. Schools are run at the state level.



All inefficient companies don't go out. The banks, hedge-funds, etc., were, and always will, be bailed out, by their exclusive monopoly status. Almost all insurance, banking, and financial institutions wagered too much. That is horrible business ethic, by what you've asserted, they'd no longer be around. Well, they still are. In fact, almost all would have collapsed without government intervention.


I think its a bad idea to bail out companies. My view is that capitalism would have thrived better if they let them go bust. Booms and busts are part of capitalism. By bailing out the bad companies, you actually hurt capitalism.



EDIT : I must also add to my statement. If Capitalist institutions during the recent global crisis had no intervention, Capitalism would have ran its course and would have ended. All major companies and industries would have fell by the way-side by an inability to generate more capital. This recent example in history shows it's not self correcting, because of greed, and desire for more.


No. New companies will always emerge. Companies are like animals. They are born, grow up and then they die. Not letting them die is like putting someone on life support. Let nature takes its course. By bailing them out, you are preventing young strong companies from emerging.

[Genghis]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Steve Job's parents were rich. He didn't need to work, and spent countless hours idle, pondering upon programming.

You, on the other hand, sir, do not have such luxury, nor idle time. You have to work your entrepreneurial dreams around a busy schedule. Good luck becoming Steve Job's rich without the same circumstances as he.

Nope. They were not rich. His dad was a machinist and his mom was an accountant. See his biography. (http://www.biography.com/people/steve-jobs-9354805)

[Brosip Tito]

So...statistically Genghis, how many make it to the 1% in their lifetime?

Is it 1:1 000 000 or what is it, do tell me...

Brb, impaling myself with a spoon.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i stopped reading at the title - of the thread, not the article

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, a machinist; meaning skilled labor. To put it in today's $$ terms it's anywhere from $80k-$120k/year, and an accountant, again skilled "labor" and in about the same pay scale. So we're talking a combined income, in Silicon Valley (when it was new and fresh too) of $160-$240k for a family of 3 (?). This is hardly "poor" as you suggested. It's barely even middle class. Based on all the people I know personally, if I knew Jobs' parents, they would have been the second richest people I know.

[Genghis]

So...statistically Genghis, how many make it to the 1% in their lifetime?

Is it 1:1 000 000 or what is it, do tell me...

Brb, impaling myself with a spoon.

I don't know how to calculate that with precision.

It also depends on 1% of what. If its 1% of the people in the world, then I have a good chance. According to the link I gave you above, half of the people in the world that are in the in the top 1% are Americans. So all I have to do is the achieve middle class.

To do that all I have to do is to complete High School, be able to hold on to a job (check) and have a stable marriage (working on that). I have a college degree. So my chances are good.

To get into the top 1% in America would require more work and some luck.
According to NYT, you need an income of $383,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html) per year to be in the top 1%. That is going to be tough.

So my plan is this:

1)do a good job and hope for promotions.
2)save as much as I can. No expensive vacations or fancy cars. No drugs, drink, cigarettes. Not essential for good health. No designer clothes, bags etc. Shop only when there is a sale.
3)invest the savings wisely. Real estate is cheap now. There is the stock market. Be a long term investor of stocks. Study them before you buy. In time the portfolio should grow and I will get passive income. With a bit of luck, I might get there.

[#FF0000]

genghis, are there people who work hard and do everything right, yet don't make it?

[Ostrinski]

I can't wait until your "golden land of oppurtunity" burns to the damn ground

[Veovis]

Even if you don't make it into the top 1% in America (I don't know where you are from), it is easy to be at least middle class. According to research (http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/events/2009/1027_opportunity_society/%201027_opportunity_society_presentation.pdf), all you need is to do three things:

1)a high school education

Check. Thank god I don't have a learning disability.


2)hold on to your job

I had health problems that got me fired.


3)a stable marriage

I'm gay.


So capitalism works.

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're lucky to be born into the right circumstances.


Why are you leftists so violent? I don't wish ill of you. If someone does well in life, you should admire him. It takes brains, hard work, discipline to do well.

No, it doesn't. It takes rich parents or some other lucky break. Besides, why don't people who aren't naturally gifted deserve to do well?

[Strannik]

My opinion - the bourgeoise just loves half-truths. Yes, you can get rich if you work hard, save everything and "invest wisely". That's how capitalism differs from feudalism; it has class mobility. But the key part here is to invest wisely. Without it, you can work 'til death and still remain poor.

Its not work alone that rises one into bourgeois class. Its becoming proprietor and collecting part of the others work for your own use until all your livelihood is derived from the work of others. Only justification - because I possess means of production. In short - exploitation.

Its not just "hard work" that makes one rich in bourgeois society. Its working hard at becoming an exploiter. But it seems to me that a slave who works hard on a field and a slave catcher who works hard to get the slaves onto that field are not morally equivalent. Despite the fact that both work hard.

I have always found strange that even many on the Left seem to think that class mobility somehow makes the capitalism ok. I personally think that the very existence of classes is something we should end.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Don't blame the 1% for America's wage gap. (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1)

Excerpts:



Comment: There you have it. Those who work hard, save their money and stay faithful to their spouse make it to the top 1%. If you don't make it, it is probably your fault. Of course, there are genuine cases of misfortune like sickness and accidents to stop you from making it.

Remember, America is a golden land of opportunity. Mia Love (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLskRsrCJR0&feature=player_embedded), daughter of immigrants who came from Haiti with $10, made it. So can you.



Disclaimer: I am not one of the 1% but hope to be someday.

They are reacting just as they can: Pushing further and further and making the fact that their propaganda outlets are in fact just that, Owned by CAPITAL the 1%, tear at the everyday reality of working people. A few months ago the main idea was that it's the unemployed's fault for their fate, until there was a popular movement to say what the fuck is up 1% vs 99%. The further this situation drags on and gets worse (which it will: Capitalism is a constant fall down in the rate of profit adn investment into the production process), the more aggressive working people will be pushed to remove the ruling class and their propagandist lackeys.

[Per Levy]

Why are you leftists so violent? I don't wish ill of you.

um yeah you do, you support capitalism, ergo you support a system of opression and exploitation. a system in wich many of us have to risk our health for a low pay in order to survive.


If someone does well in life, you should admire him. It takes brains, hard work, discipline to do well.

or it takes luck, like being born into a rich family and just get the wealth onces the parents are out of the way. also why would you admire someone who screws over workers to get richer?


So capitalism works.

for the bourgeoisie it does yes.

[Genghis]

um yeah you do, you support capitalism, ergo you support a system of opression and exploitation. a system in wich many of us have to risk our health for a low pay in order to survive.

Nothing exploitative about the system at all. I am working in a company. So I qualify to be called a member of the proletariat. I don't feel exploited. If I can get a better paying job elsewhere I fire my boss and go work there. If they can find a cheaper worker, they fire me. There is all there is to it. I work on a willing buyer willing seller basis. Its purely voluntary.





or it takes luck, like being born into a rich family and just get the wealth onces the parents are out of the way. also why would you admire someone who screws over workers to get richer?


Yes, luck can play a role. Being born rich is no guarantee that you will remain rich. If you don't know how to handle your business or money that you inherit, it will go very fast. It is a very competitive world and fools lose their money quick. Similarly the wise will make money quick too.

My plan is to work to earn money. Then save and invest in the stock market and real estate (my house). How will I harm anyone?

[Genghis]

My opinion - the bourgeoise just loves half-truths. Yes, you can get rich if you work hard, save everything and "invest wisely". That's how capitalism differs from feudalism; it has class mobility. But the key part here is to invest wisely. Without it, you can work 'til death and still remain poor.

Its not work alone that rises one into bourgeois class. Its becoming proprietor and collecting part of the others work for your own use until all your livelihood is derived from the work of others. Only justification - because I possess means of production. In short - exploitation.

Its not just "hard work" that makes one rich in bourgeois society. Its working hard at becoming an exploiter. But it seems to me that a slave who works hard on a field and a slave catcher who works hard to get the slaves onto that field are not morally equivalent. Despite the fact that both work hard.

I have always found strange that even many on the Left seem to think that class mobility somehow makes the capitalism ok. I personally think that the very existence of classes is something we should end.

My plan is to work, save and invest in the stock market after buying a home. By being employed, which is what I am now, I am a member of the proletariat. By buying stocks I am one of the owners of businesses. So I am also a capitalist or bourgeoisie. So I am both along with more than half of Americans.

Things have changed since Marx's day. There is no sharp class distinction. Today, thanks to the stock market, most of us are both proleteriat and bourgeoisie. I don't see anything exploitative.

When I work for someone, it is on a voluntary basis. The owner deserves to be rewarded for the risk he takes with his capital. When I buy a stock, I hope the company makes a profit so that I can get a dividend.

[Revolution starts with U]

By buying stocks you are making a profit from them, which means you are disregarding the use value of an item, and the labor involved in making it, for its exchange value. You can only do this within a system of private ownership, which through its totality coerces the non-propertied into a position of submission.

Whether or not the dominated personally rise out of this position of submission does this say anything to the justification for such a position. Serfs could almost always buy their way to free men. Does it justify the position of serf?

[eric922]

Whoever uses phrases like "America is the golden land of opportunity" loses all credibility. America's infrastructure is crumbling, its healthcare system is the laughing stock of the industrialized world in terms of accessibility, its income inequality is as bad as some third-world countries. Its political institutions are corrupt to their very core, so corrupt that most Americans don't take their vaunted "democracy" seriously. "Golden land?" Hell, at this point I'd settle for "iron land."

[Genghis]

By buying stocks you are making a profit from them, which means you are disregarding the use value of an item, and the labor involved in making it, for its exchange value. You can only do this within a system of private ownership, which through its totality coerces the non-propertied into a position of submission.

Whether or not the dominated personally rise out of this position of submission does this say anything to the justification for such a position. Serfs could almost always buy their way to free men. Does it justify the position of serf?

All this is wrong thinking or false consciousness in your terminology. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. If you have money you can either spend it or invest it. If you invest it in, say, a factory making bicycles you are taking a risk with your money. You could have spent it on women wine and song instead. Its your choice.

There is no guarantee that you can make a profit making bicycles. You buy equipment and hire employees whom you manage. Managing them is hard work too. So owners are workers too. Your employees get paid whether you make a profit or not. You make a profit only if you sell enough bicycles to cover your costs.

You deserve the profits, if any.

This false consciousness that the employer/owner is exploiting the "workers" was started by intellectuals who wanted to use the "useful idiots" as cannon fodder to launch a revolution so that they can control the assets of production.

That was the message of Orwell's "Animal Farm". That was what happened time and again whenever Socialism was tried. Look at Castro. He is living in great luxury off the sweat of the proleteriat . Look at the recently departed Dear Leader Kim Jong Il in N Korea. Drinking cognac while his people went hungry. These guys are the top 1%. Don't become an "useful idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)".

[Genghis]

Whoever uses phrases like "America is the golden land of opportunity" loses all credibility. America's infrastructure is crumbling, its healthcare system is the laughing stock of the industrialized world in terms of accessibility, its income inequality is as bad as some third-world countries. Its political institutions are corrupt to their very core, so corrupt that most Americans don't take their vaunted "democracy" seriously. "Golden land?" Hell, at this point I'd settle for "iron land."

Yes, it is a golden land. You probably missed the link (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm)I gave earlier.

Excerpts:



Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%




In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.


So it does not take much to be better off than the majority of people in the world if you live in America. Why do you think so many people want to get in? Its largely due to capitalism which unfortunately the American Left has eroded since Obama got elected.

[#FF0000]

Its largely due to capitalism which unfortunately the American Left has eroded since Obama got elected.

1) Obama's not a 'socialist' in any sense, though. He campaigned as a centrist reformer, and that's pretty much what he's been.
2) Can you explain how exactly Obama has 'eroded democracy' in the past four years?
3) How is capitalism the draw to America when the entire planet is, in fact, capitalist?

[l'Enfermé]

1) Obama's not a 'socialist' in any sense, though. He campaigned as a centrist reformer, and that's pretty much what he's been.
2) Can you explain how exactly Obama has 'eroded democracy' in the past four years?
3) How is capitalism the draw to America when the entire planet is, in fact, capitalist?
He campaigned as a center-left reformer, though he's actually ruled as a President a bit to the right of his Republican predecessors, like the Bushs and Reagan. I don't even think it would be proper to call him center-right, he's just a right-winger pretending to be center-left because the Democratic Party's electorate still is mainly center-left.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Yes, it is a golden land. You probably missed the link (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm)I gave earlier.


So it does not take much to be better off than the majority of people in the world if you live in America. Why do you think so many people want to get in? Its largely due to capitalism which unfortunately the American Left has eroded since Obama got elected.

I was about to start packing my bags and ditch this crisis ridden island I inhabit, but then I saw that the left have just eroded everything that made America so golden, just like they are doing where I live...:crying:

[Revolution starts with U]

All this is wrong thinking or false consciousness in your terminology. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. If you have money you can either spend it or invest it. If you invest it in, say, a factory making bicycles you are taking a risk with your money. You could have spent it on women wine and song instead. Its your choice.

If you can make those bicycles yourself? What do you mean by factory?
I never said there was anything wrong with that. I said it's only possible within a system of private property, which forces people into a dominant/servant relationship. Do you deny this charge? How much say over "your shit" do I have?


There is no guarantee that you can make a profit making bicycles. You buy equipment and hire employees whom you manage.
Yup.

Managing them is hard work too. So owners are workers too.
Working isn't? Is management that hard?

Your employees get paid whether you make a profit or not. You make a profit only if you sell enough bicycles to cover your costs.

Yes. You make a profit, because you own the rights to productive things; they make a wage because they don't own productive things. You own productive things because the courts allow you too, because it helps the ruling class maintain it's ability to make profit off the labor of others, which ultimately gives them a privileged position similar to your own.
You bought this with money, a representation of the worth of commodities. Commodities are produced to be exchanged for a profit. Profit is the outcome of a legal decision called private property which gives you title to productive things and creates a dominant/servant relationship. We know how capitalism works.
Now imagine what happens when working people when they are forced to sell their labor time as they watch their productivity get sucked up by someone else.


You deserve the profits, if any

If you really believed that you would let workers decide.

This false consciousness that the employer/owner is exploiting the "workers" was started by intellectuals who wanted to use the "useful idiots" as cannon fodder to launch a revolution so that they can control the assets of production.

I'm not sure you have the credibility to make that claim about history.

That was the message of Orwell's "Animal Farm". That was what happened time and again whenever Socialism was tried. Look at Castro. He is living in great luxury off the sweat of the proleteriat .
Is he? I'm not going to deny that the various Lenist or Leninish republics have failed to implement socialism. It's apparent that they didn't, nor really could have. Nor am I going to deny that Castro lives a good life.
What I want to know is what you actually know about Cuba.

Look at the recently departed Dear Leader Kim Jong Il in N Korea.
:lol:

Drinking cognac while his people went hungry. These guys are the top 1%. Don't become an "useful idiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)".
I'm almost sure there are companies that make more money than Kim Jong Il.
But guess what homey, if you're talking about the Kims, or any of the others you like to bandy about, you're talking about something wholly different, even in its development phases, than anything I would have supported in the first place. They probably have a name for that...