More Job Losses

[damus]

If they are working OT, and still not getting ahead -- they should look for a new job that'll pay them -- if they have to move to get ahead -- MOVE!! You don't have to be poor!

Some people aren't smart enough, some aren't educated enough. Some have no ambition.

A lot of people who end up in those situations end up getting tied down to something draining in their life. Could be bad boyfriend/girlfriend, drugs or alcohol, even having kids or taking care of their elderly parents. Some people hang around friends who don't help their mindset, including gangs but also including lazy, closed minded, or stupid people. It takes good parents or mentors to really get people out of poverty and into a mindset that they can actually make it on their own.

There was a story in the Economist a little while back about relative poverty. A family in West Virginia who had, by American standards, nothing was compared to a wealthy guy from a poor African country. The Americans had more stuff than the African, but the African was happier. It's called relative poverty and most people get it in their psyche that they are living in squalor even when they're rich. It's a bad mental state of mind to wind up in, but it's a pretty natural human state of mind.

[JimSawhill]

what about welfare? it's designed to help people get out of the rut they're in.

At the begining it was -- now it is a way for the LAZY to get $$$.

do you think your money should go to paying for a war that was not necessary?

Sounds like the blog from the DU that I try to read. Ask the IRAQIs if they are better off. 99.9% will say yes.

do you think your money should support public schools?

To pay for Teacher's salery? Nope -- GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS is not the ANSWER. Private EDUCATION is the best. School choice!

do you think your money should pay the salary of your elected officials? In a word -- NO!

i don't want to pay the salary for many of these people. i don't want to pay for a war. i do want all the money i pay in taxes to go to social programs and education. Then give the GOVERNMENT MORE of your MONEY -- if you want them to have more!! They is no law saying you CAN'T give more $$$, but don't tell me that I have to!!

i don't agree with military spending in excess like we're doing now. I do, because we are WINNING!! And so are the IRAQIs!!

i don't agree with spending money on wiretapping programs. (They don't wiretap me! It is because I don't get calls from Terrorists! If you get calls from OBL, you should be worried. If OBL, called me -- I'll tell the FBI!)

i don't agree with creating mandated education programs without proper funding. (Jeez, me too, like lets get rid of the EDUCATION DEPARTMENT!)

[damus]

damus:

Sam Walton was self made. He opened his store in 1963. Until he died he drove his old Ford pick up from 1965.

Jim

Jim:

When Sam Walton died he left his vast fortune to his family. These people are now among the richest people in the world. They are modern day Rockefellers.

damus

[JimSawhill]

Not buying this one bit. Those are high profile millionaires. Do you have any idea how many millionairs live in the US? It's an unfathomable number, and I would suspect that close to half inherited a great deal of it. And also, you can pretty much gaurantee that any non white millionaire is completely self made and probably lifted themselves from poverty to boot.

I did my senior thesis on Intergenerational Wealth Transfer in 2003. I have researched this.

Interesting Article I found doing a google search. Don't know how accurate is is, but it seems credible enough.

The self-made myth

Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says

By Thomas Kostigen, CBS.MarketWatch.com

Last Update: 8:55 PM ET Jun 28, 2004

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (CBS.MW) -- Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in this country say there is no such thing as the "self-made man."

With more * millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says.

But society's role in wealth creation is significant, therefore society has an obligation to maintain a level playing field for opportunities to create wealth, contends the report, "I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success."

The idea that if government would get out of the way, then every entrepreneur would automatically succeed is wrong, the report says.

The report is published by Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, a nonprofit group that researches and raises awareness on issues related to wealth and power. It has signed more than 2,200 multimillionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the inheritance tax; the "I Didn't Do It Alone" report was gleaned from small sample of those petitioners.

"Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man," the report says. But the myth of "self-made" wealth "is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."

Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, "We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us."

*(notice the use of more as if the number was at one time miniscule, HT)

Self Made Myth

Tycoon:

Wrong. Of course you do have that right but I would still want GOVERNMENT out of my pocket.

Jim

[HartfordTycoon]

Some people aren't smart enough, some aren't educated enough. Some have no ambition.

A lot of people who end up in those situations end up getting tied down to something draining in their life. Could be bad boyfriend/girlfriend, drugs or alcohol, even having kids or taking care of their elderly parents. Some people hang around friends who don't help their mindset, including gangs but also including lazy, closed minded, or stupid people. It takes good parents or mentors to really get people out of poverty and into a mindset that they can actually make it on their own.

There was a story in the Economist a little while back about relative poverty. A family in West Virginia who had, by American standards, nothing was compared to a wealthy guy from a poor African country. The Americans had more stuff than the African, but the African was happier. It's called relative poverty and most people get it in their psyche that they are living in squalor even when they're rich. It's a bad mental state of mind to wind up in, but it's a pretty natural human state of mind.

Now this is right on. Very well stated. And it's the super wealthy people in America who make the regular Americans feel like they need all that sh!t. They're the capitalist pushing the sh!t you don't need allowing you to purchase it with credit you can't afford. America as whole has a problem. So now most people end up owing money they never had for things they never needed. That's the American way and we need to wake up.

[JimSawhill]

I don't think it dubunks anything considering we don't know whether the people profiled where a majority of either party. There are plenty of rich liberal democrats. All of whom pretty much champion social justice more than republicans.

I am still researching to see what percentage of millionaires, and more specifically multi millionaires and billionaires (since being a millionaire really isn't saying all that much today), inherited most of the wealth. I'm pretty sure it's a high percentage and like the article alludes to is way lower today than say 20 and 30 years ago.

Tycoon:

The thing is -- There are the RICH in both party. Until a few years ago, I did agree with a few local Democrats -- I voted twice for Ella Grasso and William O' Niel, Joe Lieberman - twice (I couldn't stand Weicker and Johnson who was running against him in 2000, I didn't know ANYTHING about him.) and I voted for John Larson. Unfortunatly, the National Democratic party is getting unhinged -- since 2000, and I don't think conservative democrats will be in the party much longer. Zell miller said that if he were younger he would change parties.

Tycoon, I think you do have an open mind. You think thngs through -- I bet if we sat down for a beer (Black Eye Susan I do miss.), we could have a great discussion. Hartford needs help -- and I believe Connecticut needs some tax reforms. Who knows -- you might become the 'WAL MART' of Cell Phone Stores.

I think we both have ideas for Hartford and Connecticut -- but we are going at it in different ways.

Jim

[damus]

Now this is right on. Very well stated. And it's the super wealthy people in America who make the regular Americans feel like they need all that sh!t. They're the capitalist pushing the sh!t you don't need allowing you to purchase it with credit you can't afford. America as whole has a problem.

Well people wanting sh!t drove our economy and way of life to where it is today. The car was not needed, it was a "horseless carriage", a luxury. Who needs a television, microwave, or even a bed for every person. My grandparent's generation (WW2) grew up sharing beds with brothers AND sisters. My grandmother's family didn't have a bath tub. They either spongebathed or went to the YMCA to shower.

I don't know what to make of the credit thing, though. Debt is the #1 reason people don't get wealthy, even when they're high wage earners. The people who live below their means instead of trying to look richer than they are usually are the ones who are happier and wealthier. I have too many credit cards (I think 5 or 6, I don't really know) from college and all of them have been paid off, but I don't want to cancel them all at once for fear of ruining my... credit score. Screwing up with credit can really mess you up for a long stretch.

[JimSawhill]

Liberals have their agenda and their pet programs, neo-cons have their agenda and their pet programs. They have one thing in common; they are spending this nation into the poor house.

jcrc:

True! The 'Bridge to Nowhere' is a Great example. Pork projects is not what the voters sent them to do -- they want the government to use OUR MONEY WISELY -- not on PORK!!

Jim

[JimSawhill]

let's stop all government spending. let people pay for everything. that leaves a majority of the nation at a severe disadvantage.

we need to fix the problems that put these people at such a disadvantage in the first place. the government needs to help many of them find jobs because no one will hire them.

meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. we need a modern day robin hood.

runaway jim:

The GOVERNMENT needs to help these people? Why? Does the goverment create jobs? Not unless you're in a SOCIALIST COUNTRY. The government can't help people -- if the people won't work! Excuse me, runaway jim, lets say you owned a business. Person A and Person B was looking at the same job -- Sales. Person A, has a degree in marketing, is 30 years old and would travel if need be. Person B was a high school graduate, is 24 and won't travel. Who would you pick?

The Rich gets Richer because of HARD WORK -- and AMERICAN PRIDE!!

BTW, Robin Hood robbed the King (the GOVERNMENT) -- not the RICH!

Jim

[JimSawhill]

^^ Of course no one should be penalized. Just like my parents shouldn't be penalized for being successful. Your family, just like mine and most of ours here, also havn't been hording America's wealth for centuries at the expense of everyone else. Honestly, I don't know you guys all that well, but I don't know if anyone of us are even subject to the estate tax or anything even relevant to what we are asking from the richest in society. The fact is the middle class give a much higher proportion of their wealth to the government than does the rich. That's not fair either. Really there is no way to be fair, and many republicans would like to strip an already bare bones government assistance policy down even more. That's what I don't understand. I can understand some poeple being against the creation of a new large public healthcare program. I don't understand why the rich and powerful should be able to horde all of the resources. So I am looking to strike a balance, that in my opinion is not there.

Tycoon:

What you are saying is wonderful. I believe that assistance should be part -- but not for lazy people. If you live in a depressed part of the USA (lets say Area A has 10% unemployment, but Area B has 2%, why would you stay in Area A if you are looking for a job?). Jobs are out there -- you might have to move. (I did for my job -- since boat sales representative jobs (manufacturer to dealer sales) aren't plentiful in the northeast.

I do miss the northeast, but I do fly into BDL a few times a year. I miss the autumn and the mountains. unfortunatly, I had to move, because the best jobs for me is here -- wish it was in CT.

Jim

[JimSawhill]

So we're OK as long as we stay in our homes where you can't see us and don't have marches demanding our rights and celebrating our culture?

Now, are you saying that you want to be associated with the nuts? Be my guest, but you won't help the GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

I'll remember to steer clear of your face. Thank You

Why would Vermont have to change it's marriage law? If it's OK for heterosexual marriages to include a person as young as 16, why is it not OK for homosexual marraiges to?

So are you suggesting marrying a 16 year old if you are 25? That won't help HETROSEXUALS see the GAY RIGHTS issue.

[JimSawhill]

No, pharmacies should not have the right to not sell medicines they have a social issue with. Equating access to medicine with access to porn is totally ridiculous. Pharmacies are licensed and drugs have to be approved by the FDA, if a drug is approved by the FDA, pharmacies have an obligation to provide them. Rather than me not liking it and having to open a pharmacy, the pharmacists who don't like it should choose another profession.

Sorry, pharmacists do have the right NOT to sell drugs they have conflicts with! If an Arab opened a meat market, should he be made to sell PORK?

PS: Borders and Barnes & Noble DO sell GAY MAGAZINES.

Yes, but not in the open -- it is behind the counter!!

Do you have a source for this 96% figure?

Yes...

[JimSawhill]

first of all and i should make this clear again. i did not once talk about RU-486. that's the abortion pill. the drug i am talking about is the emergency contraceptive, aka the morning after pill. the abortion pill actually aborts a pregnancy. emergency contraceptive prevent conception from happening. conception, contrary to the opinion of many conservatives and pro-lifers, is not the point where the sperm fertilizes the egg, but rather when the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus. emergency contraceptive prevents this from happening. RU-486 is something much different and much more controversial.

doctors have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to decide if they should prescribe a drug to someone based on their PERSONAL beliefs. they take an oath and must adhere to a code of ethics. personal beliefs, if they contradict this code of ethics, should not be followed. doctors have no right to deny a woman a prescription for emergency contraceptive. doctors do have a right to not prescribe something they feel would not help or would, in fact, harm the patient. if they know for certain that the drug will not harm the person and could only benefit them, they must prescribe it. that's generally the case with emergency contraceptive (again, NOT RU-486).

as for your idea on corporate chain pharmacies, the biggest in the area, CVS (i'm sure you've heard of them) has a policy of allowing their pharmacists do deny customers their prescribed medication based on the pharmacist's personal beliefs. this happened in RI. this isn't a matter of religious only pharmacy and non-religious pharmacy (where i think you're going with the black/white thing). this is a matter of pharmacists following their own code of ethics. their job is to fill prescriptions which their customers were given by a licensed medical doctor. pharmacists are licensed by the state, which, last time i checked (although this is being attacked by our current administration) has a separation of church and state. those moral beliefs about contraception are religious beliefs. they do not belong in our government. if a pharmacy allows personal beliefs to prevent a pharmacist from filling a prescription, that policy should be posted in big letters on teh front of the building. i can guarantee that the pharmacy will go out of business.

i am against abortion as a form of contraception. but if the life of the mother is at risk, it's necessary. yes, i am male, so i don't really have much say in this matter. but if you're responsible enough to have sex, then you need to be responsible enough to handle the consequences. abortion is a cop out in those situations. if you don't want the baby or can't afford it, put it up for adoption.

runawayJim:

I knew we would AGREE sometime!! we did on Abortion. Who knows, we might agree on other things.

Jim

[JimSawhill]

Tycoon:

Interesting...

No, it's not zero sum. But the way I see it, if person A has said amount of money person B can certainly work hard to get to that point. I guess my point is when persons A,B, & C have 80% of the available funds

What is the AVAILABLE FUNDS? If A,B and C works at X Company Store A, does that means that D thru Z will not be getting the same amout - called wages -- from X Company Store B thu K?

and do everything they can do to hold onto it then the persons D through Z are fighting for 20% of what's left. Sorry, why shouldn't D through Z get the same wages as A, B, and C?

Does this not lead to conflict. Especially when you have excessive protections in place for A,B, & C and not nearly the same protections for D through Z. No because lets say Persons Q, R S & T can't get a raise -- they can bowwow money from Bank A and open Y Company. If the Suceed, good -- if not, they'll try again

Really what's encouraged is for persons D through Z to borrow money from A,B,C and work for the rest of your life to pay them back. Are A B and C bankers?

I am not an economist or expert. These are the, not even formally made up, opinions of HartfordTycoon. Thank you.

Tycoon, you're welcome.

I don't neccesarily agree with that. What's your definition of poor? I know some people who I think it would be impossible, without pure dumb luck, to get to a level of wealth acceptable for myself. Granted I am not or even want to be close to poor. What advice do you have for people who have already made their mistakes and paid for them? The ex cons with felony convictions. Depends on the crime, Tycoon, if it was drugs -- the person should be given a chance in society. If it was a violent crime (Rape or Murder) No!

How do they go about getting a good job and not being poor? I believe that black owned business people (George Scott, Tony March for instance) should start a mentoring program for young entreprenuers. I believe the States (yes, all states) should start an inner city loan bank for them. I believe that if you get them thinking about businesses you might see the black middle class fix up Albany. Who knows, maybe Big Y would come in an open up a supermarket and Target open a store in the North End - for instance.

Also, we need to teach the kids about entreprenuerism. Have business people visit the school and tell them about the American Dream.

I am not being sarcastic. I really don't know what to tell people. Maybe you guys do.

Tycoon, Maybe my ideas would work. I'm not sure, but I hope it would!

[JimSawhill]

Jim:

When Sam Walton died he left his vast fortune to his family. These people are now among the richest people in the world. They are modern day Rockefellers.

damus

Yes, they were and some are doing Llama farming! Unfortunatly, none are involved with Wal*Mart, and I think Sam's is rolling over in his grave, because it wasn't the store Sam started.

Jim

[jcrc]

No, it's not zero sum. But the way I see it, if person A has said amount of money person B can certainly work hard to get to that point. I guess my point is when persons A, B, & C have 80% of the available funds and do everything they can do to hold onto it then the persons D through Z are fighting for 20% of what's left. Does this not lead to conflict. Especially when you have excessive protections in place for A,B, & C and not nearly the same protections for D through Z. Really what's encouraged is for persons D through Z to borrow money from A,B,C and work for the rest of your life to pay them back.

If you really want to share some of the wealth of A, B, and C, buy stocks in company owned/started by A, B, & C.

[Cotuit]

Sorry, pharmacists do have the right NOT to sell drugs they have conflicts with! If an Arab opened a meat market, should he be made to sell PORK?

Why can you not understand the difference between access to medicine and access to random things that your life does not depend on. If a butcher doesn't have pork, it won't affect my health. Your analogies don't hold water.

Can a Christian Scientist become a Pharmacist and decide not to prescribe any medication whatsoever because modern medicine is against their religion?

Yes, but not in the open -- it is behind the counter!!

Sorry, no, Borders and Barnes & Noble do not keep GAY MAGAZINES behind the counter.

[HartfordTycoon]

If you really want to share some of the wealth of A, B, and C, buy stocks in company owned/started by A, B, & C.

Very good point!! People do need to learn about all forms of wealth building.

Just be careful that A, B, & C don't own Enron or Worldcom.

[jcrc]

Very good point!! People do need to learn about all forms of wealth building.

Just be careful that A, B, & C don't own Enron or Worldcom.

Investing is not hard you need knowledge, diversification and an investment philosophy that you stick with. If for every Enron I have I also have a Starbucks, I'll be a rich man.

[KRC]

KRC:

yes, the airline industry is another industry that needs to make it on its own! A friend just closed his boat business, the government didn't bail him out. If you open a business, be it railroad, boat building, farming, airline, freight delivery or cell phone -- DON'T ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO BAIL YOU OUT!!!

JS

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I agree with you on a general basis. However, wouldn't you agree that transportation is such an important piece of the puzzle for our economy that it can't and shouldn't be left up to the free market to decide? Mobility is what makes the country, well, move. That was the philosophy behind the completion of the interstate system. Why isn't the auto industry paying for highway repair? In my view transportation, healtcare, education and social safety net floors (i.e. Social Security, welfare, child care services, etc) should be competely run by the government (by the people for the people). Of course they need strong oversight. I won't deny the fact that many a government program begins to run amok. However, those are the things that help everyone play on the save level playing field. Outside of those things...let the free market decide.

[JimSawhill]

Why can you not understand the difference between access to medicine and access to random things that your life does not depend on. If a butcher doesn't have pork, it won't affect my health. Your analogies don't hold water.

I still believe the Pharmacist has the right Not to sell the pill. A pill to ABORT a life is not for HEALTH!!! It is because you want to have SEX! If you don't WANT to have kids -- do one of three things:

1) Sterilize yourself

2) CONDOMS

or

3) Put the child up for ADOPTION!

Can a Christian Scientist become a Pharmacist and decide not to prescribe any medication whatsoever because modern medicine is against their religion?

Sorry, no, Borders and Barnes & Noble do not keep GAY MAGAZINES behind the counter.

Here it is behind the counter.

[JimSawhill]

Very good point!! People do need to learn about all forms of wealth building.

Just be careful that A, B, & C don't own Enron or Worldcom.

Tycoon:

True. But, remember, 99% of the CEOs aren't crooks. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco had crooks running them. People needs to know about building wealth - and people should know how to read the business section - or the Wall Street Journal.

JimS

[JimSawhill]

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I agree with you on a general basis. However, wouldn't you agree that transportation is such an important piece of the puzzle for our economy that it can't and shouldn't be left up to the free market to decide? Mobility is what makes the country, well, move. That was the philosophy behind the completion of the interstate system. Why isn't the auto industry paying for highway repair? In my view transportation, healtcare, education and social safety net floors (i.e. Social Security, welfare, child care services, etc) should be competely run by the government (by the people for the people). Of course they need strong oversight. I won't deny the fact that many a government program begins to run amok. However, those are the things that help everyone play on the save level playing field. Outside of those things...let the free market decide.

KRC:

Agree. but we need politicans that won't build a 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'. We need to build commuter rails around the country. We need to give tax insentives for Americans to use the public transit.

JimS