Why are so many focused on material things...

[Left Seater]

My wife and I recently handed out bonuses to all of our employees, including those that are less than full time. Each employee got 50% of the number on their W-2 or their 1099.

To celebrate the decent year we took everyone to a nice lunch yesterday and then gave them the afternoon off. Many of the people were talking about what they did with their bonus money. The three other pilots and dispatcher didn't do anything fancy with theirs. One was considering spending about 10% of his on a vacation with his family.

But the two young ladies who both live with a roommate or at home spent lavishly. The one who lives with her grandmother, bought new outfits, shoes, and a car. I know the bonus didn't cover the whole cost of the new Challenger and this young lady already speaks openly about how she has no money. WTF? The other young lady told everyone at lunch how she bought new clothes, a new TV and new furniture. She also complains that she doesn't like having a roommate and wants to move into her own place.

I also saw this same sort of behavior when I was helping at the Houston Housing Authority a few years ago. People have no issue living in public housing or Section 8, yet have huge flat screen TVs, new cars, huge stereos, new clothes and shoes etc.

No wonder the gap in wealth is growing, buying things doesn't add to wealth at all.

[Mikey]

My wife and I recently handed out bonuses to all of our employees, including those that are less than full time. Each employee got 50% of the number on their W-2 or their 1099.

To celebrate the decent year we took everyone to a nice lunch yesterday and then gave them the afternoon off. Many of the people were talking about what they did with their bonus money. The three other pilots and dispatcher didn't do anything fancy with theirs. One was considering spending about 10% of his on a vacation with his family.

But the two young ladies who both live with a roommate or at home spent lavishly. The one who lives with her grandmother, bought new outfits, shoes, and a car. I know the bonus didn't cover the whole cost of the new Challenger and this young lady already speaks openly about how she has no money. WTF? The other young lady told everyone at lunch how she bought new clothes, a new TV and new furniture. She also complains that she doesn't like having a roommate and wants to move into her own place.

I also saw this same sort of behavior when I was helping at the Houston Housing Authority a few years ago. People have no issue living in public housing or Section 8, yet have huge flat screen TVs, new cars, huge stereos, new clothes and shoes etc.

No wonder the gap in wealth is growing, buying things doesn't add to wealth at all.

While I mostly agree with what you're saying, it's a lot easier for people who already have a lot of stuff (not saying you do...) to say it.

Buying stuff does keep the economy going, though. That's one reason why the growing income disparity, with all that money not being spent on anything, doesn't exactly help grow the economy.

This whole "job creators" bullshit just makes me laugh. Rich people don't create jobs. People spending money creates jobs.

[Left Seater]

Point taken. But I am sure these two ladies have nicer TVs than my wife and I do. Hell, the TV in our bedroom is still of the old tube style.

The difference is we might spend 10% of our income on such items while these two are spending 75%. Neither is putting any money in the 401K which the company will match to 10%.

At the same time my wife and I have only our mortgage debt, while these two have car, CC, and owe friends and family money.

[Left Seater]

This whole "job creators" bullshit just makes me laugh. Rich people don't create jobs. People spending money creates jobs.

Ok, I agree with your second sentence. Let's say business owners instead of rich.

Our company is a perfect example. We could really use another two employees. However, we are unsure of what the economy will do. It is smarter for us to wait and see what happens with ObamaCare, EPA regulations on drilling, and corporate taxes before we move move forward on one or both hires. I have no interest in growing the business if it means taking on debt to do so.

[mvscal]

This whole "job creators" bullshit just makes me laugh. Rich people don't create jobs. People spending money creates jobs.

You're trolling now, right?

[Derron]

Our company is a perfect example. We could really use another two employees. However, we are unsure of what the economy will do. It is smarter for us to wait and see what happens with ObamaCare, EPA regulations on drilling, and corporate taxes before we move move forward on one or both hires. I have no interest in growing the business if it means taking on debt to do so.

Smartest thing you could ever do. Cash is king in the business world today. Debt sucks and in this market is sure to get you in trouble. This is why our economy will not grow much until there is some evidence of stabilization or rationale in government spending ( ), and some kind of markets signals that will make Lefty and a few million other people comfortable about scratching some checks and investing in their business's again. In some ways it is good, because it will force business's to operate on cash flow and profits, and you get a lot more attentive to the bottom line when not using OPM.

These past behaviors of business's can be the death knoll if not paid attention to. I am currently working with about 6 different companies on cost analysis, operational efficiencies, and debt reduction strategy's. And looks like I will sign up 2 more in the next 3 weeks as well.

My observations:

Conversation with my niece last week. SAHM 31, with 2 kids, husband is a tech for medical equipment manufacturer. I asked her was up with her generation. She said we are a throw away generation. We want it know, we are going to have it now, and we will spend the money to have it now. Debt is fine as long as we have 2 newer cars, the biggest fucking big screen they can fit in their crib, I pads, I phone and all that. They have a mortgage, but are upside down since they bought at the height of the market in 07. We have plenty of time to save for retirement. They view there parents and aunt and uncle as old fuddy's who don't have a clue, and are cheap, and won't spend money. Their parents have a net worth in excess of 1.7 million dollars after a lot of years of hard work.

My wife manages a used building material / furniture store for a non profit. We get to the store this morning and the trailer court next door is seal coating their drive way. They apparently feel it is ok to park in the store lot while the trailer court is being paved. There was one Escalade, 2 Navigators, 1 Lexus, a couple of decent f 150's, and then some pieces of shit in our lot. Most of these people live in single wides. I was putting tow notices on the rigs and told the manager of the shit hole to get these rigs the fuck out of there. Most of these were Messicians of course, but if they can make a payment, they will drive it.

My other nieces husband 31, is a VP of marketing for an internet company. He is a arrogant, duplicious, abusive prick. He makes over $ 150k a year, and has managed to screw his in laws on real estate deals, the turn over at his company is over 150% per year, he has no problem using people, out sourced work off shore and fired 3 workers and told them that it just the way it rolls. But he goes to church every Sunday and then just fucks people all week long. Had to have the 750K house, the 2 luxury automobiles, home theater systems, all the best.

I know very few younger people now in the 25 to 45 range who do not have 2 car payments, and have their previous cars balance on the current loan as well. They have to have vacations to far away places, and will take unpaid time off to go on them.

Society will always have those people that spend like that, and always will have to deal with them. The ability to resist societal pressures to spend beyond your means, and to resist the urge to make payments on anything but a home is not found in many people these days.

[Mikey]

This whole "job creators" bullshit just makes me laugh. Rich people don't create jobs. People spending money creates jobs.

You're trolling now, right?

Not at all. No company is going to hire unless there's a market for their product, no matter what it is. If people aren't spending money, there's no market. If people don't have money they don't spend it. The more money is concentrated, the less there is for most people to spend. The country has gone down this path before and it always works the same way.

[Mikey]

Neither is putting any money in the 401K which the company will match to 10%.

That's just out and out dumb. But, there does seem to be an epidemic of shortsightedness these days.

[Rooster]

Left Seater, just curious, how did the pilots react to your generosity? As a pilot myself I would expect that if you gave them $1,000, they'd bitch about how you didn't give them $2,000. Or if you gave them a half day off, why you didn't give them the whole day off and a free lunch the day after. Were they grateful or did they nod and grumble amongst themselves later?

[Bucmonkey]

Are Lefty and Indy, the same individual?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Are Lefty and Indy, the same individual?

This should answer your question:

But I am sure these two ladies have nicer TVs than my wife and I do. Hell, the TV in our bedroom is still of the old tube style.

[Derron]

My wife and I recently handed out bonuses to all of our employees, including those that are less than full time. Each employee got 50% of the number on their W-2 or their 1099.

First off rack you for your generosity to your employees. That makes you the exception to the rule in any case. Most business owners may drop some kind of small percentage on the employees, but what you gave them was far in excess of what they would expect or even be considered for at any other place. I hope this inspires loyalty and a work ethic beyond normal job expectations. I would imagine that in order to have that level of profit sharing, you must be doing a whole shit ton of things right.

I am curious what motivated you to do this, what is your rationale behind it and is this a once in a 10 year thing,..and are you setting the baseline too high ? I ask because from a management standpoint, money motivates as well as being a good place to work. If you want to post here,great or PM me, I would just be interested in knowing. Just short and sweet, no need to waste a lot of time on message board hacks.

I developed with another partner a performance based bonus system for trade construction work about 10 years ago and it is still in place at over 20 companies. We made changes to it over the years, and it worked out that the top performers usually could make up to 20% of their salary in performance based bonus's. I am working on putting it in place at another company right now, and they are pretty excited to see it from an employee standpoint, and from the company owners since it is tied to 100% quality control, and customer retention.

Them young things know they have to pay taxes on that shit right ?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Left Seater,

I challenge you to post just a single thread that doesn't say, "Look at me! I'm so great!" I don't think you can do it.

[R-Jack]

Left Seater,

I challenge you to post just a single thread that doesn't say, "Look at me! I'm so great!" I don't think you can do it.

I don't really see a problem with Lefty doing that. We all do it to a large extent.

Even my most embarrassing self depreciating moments came while I was doing something pretty fucking awesome.

[Van]

my most embarrassing self depreciating moments

What, are you an '07 Ford Focus?

[mvscal]

Not at all. No company is going to hire unless there's a market for their product, no matter what it is. If people aren't spending money, there's no market. If people don't have money they don't spend it. The more money is concentrated, the less there is for most people to spend. The country has gone down this path before and it always works the same way.

There isn't going to be anything for Mr. & Mrs. Hooplehead to buy if some entrepreneur doesn't first put his cash and his ass on the line to bring a product to market.

You then advance a fallacy common among morons, illiterates and the ignorant. Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no finite pile of wealth to be divied up among the citizenry at the expense of others. Wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Unlike the government, the rich CEO isn't taking any money out of your pocket unless you choose to purchase his product or service.

[indyfrisco]

I would be glad to donate a TV to Lefty. Sounds like he needs it. As long as I can write it off.....

[indyfrisco]

Are Lefty and Indy, the same individual?

Nope, but a lot alike. Although he baits me time and time again here which I think is an attempt to get my ass to post something. In my top secret gig, I can't post here much.

[Dr_Phibes]

I ask because from a management standpoint, money motivates as well as being a good place to work.

Only if rudimentary mechanical skills are involved. Once cognitive skills become involved, monetary reward leads to decreased performance.

Observe pliz;

[Mikey]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no finite pile of wealth to be divied up among the citizenry at the expense of others. Wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Exactly my point. While some people are busy creating wealth a large number of the wealthy do nothing but work to increase their percentage of the wealth that exists. It makes a lot more sense to make the pile bigger than just to grab more of what's there.

America's prosperity requires a level playing field


To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality

Despite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.

Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality — the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.

Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking — activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.

Some examples: Corporate executives in the U.S. take advantage of deficiencies in our corporate governance laws to seize an increasing share of corporate revenue, enriching themselves at the expense of other stakeholders. Pharmaceutical companies successfully lobbied to prohibit the federal government — the largest buyer of drugs — from bargaining over drug prices, resulting in taxpayers overpaying by an estimated half a trillion dollars in about a decade. Mineral companies get resources at below competitive prices. Oil companies and other corporations get "gifts" in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in corporate welfare, through special benefits hidden in the tax code. Some of this rent-seeking is very subtle — our bankruptcy laws give derivatives (such as those risky products that led to the $150-billion AIG bailout) priority but say that student debt can't be discharged, even in bankruptcy.

Rent-seeking distorts the economy and makes it less efficient. When, for instance, speculation gains get taxed at a lower rate than true innovation, resources that could support productivity-enhancing activities get diverted to gambling in the stock market and other financial markets. So too, much of the income in the financial sector, including that derived from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices, derives not from making our economy more efficient but from rent-seeking.

If we curbed these abuses by the financial sector, more resources (especially the scarce talent of some of our brightest young people) might be devoted to making a stronger economy rather than to exploiting the financially unsophisticated. And the banks might actually go back to the boring business of lending rather than high-risk and often opaque speculation.

Curbing rent-seeking is not that complicated (aside from the politics). It would take better financial regulations, fairer and better-designed bankruptcy laws, stronger and better-enforced antitrust laws, corporate governance laws that limit the power of CEOs to effectively set their own pay, and, in all of these areas, more transparency. Because so much of the income at the top is from rent-seeking, more progressive taxation (and in particular, taxation of capital gains) is necessary to discourage it. And if the additional revenue is used by the government for high-return public investments, there are double benefits.

Countries with high inequality tend to underinvest in their collective well-being, spending too little on such things as education, technology and infrastructure. The wealthy don't need public schools and parks. That's another reason economies with high inequality grow more slowly. Indeed, the United States has grown much more slowly since the 1980s, while inequality has been growing more rapidly than it did in the decades after World War II, when the country grew together.

Public investments are of particular importance today; they increase demand in the short run and productivity in the medium to long term. Increasing public investment would help make up for continued weakness in the private sector. Investments in training for new jobs could facilitate the economy's structural transformation, helping it move from sectors with declining employment (like manufacturing) to more dynamic sectors. Strengthening education would help restore the American dream and help make the country once again a land of opportunity where the talents of our young people are fully utilized.

The right says that we can achieve greater equality only by belt-tightening. But that vision would result in a slowdown of the economy from which all would suffer. Because so much of America's inequality arises from rent-seeking and other activities that distort the economy, curtailing inequality would actually strengthen the economy. Investing public money in the collective good rather than allowing it to be captured by rent-seekers would enhance growth at the same time it reduced inequality.
By giving priority to the austerity/deficit cutting agenda, we'll fail to achieve any of our goals. But by putting the equality agenda first, we can achieve all of them: We can have both more equality and more growth. And if we get better growth, our deficit will be reduced — it was weak growth that caused the deficit, not the other way around. We can achieve the kind of shared prosperity that was the hallmark of the country in the decades after World War II.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, chaired President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and was chief economist of the World Bank. His latest book is "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future."

[PSUFAN]

I would be glad to donate a TV to Lefty. Sounds like he needs it. As long as I can write it off.....

Need to clear a walking space through your house, eh?

[Dan Vogel]

A lot of young people focus on material things because they haven't had to handle a crisis in their life. A sickness or serious financial problem. Those things will ground you down to face more important things. Like love of your family and fellow humans and the earth we share. Stop and smell the roses. You only go down this road once. Hugs are free.



I have a miserable life and wish I were dead!

[Goober McTuber]

A lot of young people focus on material things because they haven't had to handle a crisis in their life. A sickness or serious financial problem. Those things will ground you down to face more important things. Like love of your family and fellow humans and the earth we share. Stop and smell the roses. You only go down this road once. Hugs are free.

I know that mvscal loves your family, and gives them free hugs. Ever wonder why their pants are around their ankles while mvscal is hugging them?

[mvscal]

Hugs are free.

So are smashed faces.

[Goober McTuber]

Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no finite pile of wealth to be divied up among the citizenry at the expense of others. Wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis.

Exactly my point. While some people are busy creating wealth a large number of the wealthy do nothing but work to increase their percentage of the wealth that exists. It makes a lot more sense to make the pile bigger than just to grab more of what's there.

America's prosperity requires a level playing field


To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality

Despite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.

Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality — the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.

Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking — activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.

Some examples: Corporate executives in the U.S. take advantage of deficiencies in our corporate governance laws to seize an increasing share of corporate revenue, enriching themselves at the expense of other stakeholders. Pharmaceutical companies successfully lobbied to prohibit the federal government — the largest buyer of drugs — from bargaining over drug prices, resulting in taxpayers overpaying by an estimated half a trillion dollars in about a decade. Mineral companies get resources at below competitive prices. Oil companies and other corporations get "gifts" in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in corporate welfare, through special benefits hidden in the tax code. Some of this rent-seeking is very subtle — our bankruptcy laws give derivatives (such as those risky products that led to the $150-billion AIG bailout) priority but say that student debt can't be discharged, even in bankruptcy.

Rent-seeking distorts the economy and makes it less efficient. When, for instance, speculation gains get taxed at a lower rate than true innovation, resources that could support productivity-enhancing activities get diverted to gambling in the stock market and other financial markets. So too, much of the income in the financial sector, including that derived from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices, derives not from making our economy more efficient but from rent-seeking.

If we curbed these abuses by the financial sector, more resources (especially the scarce talent of some of our brightest young people) might be devoted to making a stronger economy rather than to exploiting the financially unsophisticated. And the banks might actually go back to the boring business of lending rather than high-risk and often opaque speculation.

Curbing rent-seeking is not that complicated (aside from the politics). It would take better financial regulations, fairer and better-designed bankruptcy laws, stronger and better-enforced antitrust laws, corporate governance laws that limit the power of CEOs to effectively set their own pay, and, in all of these areas, more transparency. Because so much of the income at the top is from rent-seeking, more progressive taxation (and in particular, taxation of capital gains) is necessary to discourage it. And if the additional revenue is used by the government for high-return public investments, there are double benefits.

Countries with high inequality tend to underinvest in their collective well-being, spending too little on such things as education, technology and infrastructure. The wealthy don't need public schools and parks. That's another reason economies with high inequality grow more slowly. Indeed, the United States has grown much more slowly since the 1980s, while inequality has been growing more rapidly than it did in the decades after World War II, when the country grew together.

Public investments are of particular importance today; they increase demand in the short run and productivity in the medium to long term. Increasing public investment would help make up for continued weakness in the private sector. Investments in training for new jobs could facilitate the economy's structural transformation, helping it move from sectors with declining employment (like manufacturing) to more dynamic sectors. Strengthening education would help restore the American dream and help make the country once again a land of opportunity where the talents of our young people are fully utilized.

The right says that we can achieve greater equality only by belt-tightening. But that vision would result in a slowdown of the economy from which all would suffer. Because so much of America's inequality arises from rent-seeking and other activities that distort the economy, curtailing inequality would actually strengthen the economy. Investing public money in the collective good rather than allowing it to be captured by rent-seekers would enhance growth at the same time it reduced inequality.
By giving priority to the austerity/deficit cutting agenda, we'll fail to achieve any of our goals. But by putting the equality agenda first, we can achieve all of them: We can have both more equality and more growth. And if we get better growth, our deficit will be reduced — it was weak growth that caused the deficit, not the other way around. We can achieve the kind of shared prosperity that was the hallmark of the country in the decades after World War II.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, chaired President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and was chief economist of the World Bank. His latest book is "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future."

I surprised that none of the right wingnuts here have taken the time to refute Mr. Stiglitz’s theories.

[Sirfindafold]

I surprised that none of the right wingnuts here have taken the time to refute Mr. Stiglitz’s theories.

nobody cares.

[Goober McTuber]

I surprised that none of the right wingnuts here have taken the time to refute Mr. Stiglitz’s theories.

It's all way over my mis-shapen head.

FTFY.

[Left Seater]

Rooster,

The guys working for us are generally a pretty happy group. Granted most have been with Eastern or TWA so they are just happy to be flying and not at the bottom of a seniority list behind people half their age. Plus it is hard to beat shorts and Hawaiian shirts when no one is flying in back.


Derron,

This bonus was because we hit all the benchmarks in a contract with a big company. We discussed this contract with our employees and stated our desire to complete this with the employees in house rather than hire more. The employees were on board and as such we shared the bonus with the employees. Granted we aren't a huge company and this wouldn't work everywhere. We also try to follow the example of the company that my dad used to fly for, take care of your employees and they will take care of you.


Mgoblue,

I just use my experiences, good, bad or ugly. You have seen me in some of those PETs right?

[Dan Vogel]

So are smashed faces.

What a tough man. Do you think you're going to try that? Send me a message then and I'll tell you where to meet me. And my two friends with badges.

I have a miserable life and wish I were dead!