From: assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site)
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:54:31 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug14.200124.14621@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.140921.6448@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>|> You assume these are the only two choices.  How about: the rich get
>>|> rich at a slower rate while everyone else gets rich at a faster rate? 
>>
>>That's impossible.
>
>A single ostensibly contrary anecdote doesn't constitute proof of
>impossibility.  Proof?
>
>>Just look at Walmart as a text book example.  The head of this company
>>became the richest person in the US (world?).  His cashiers, while
>>not getting rich nearly as quickly as he, became the richest cashiers
>>in the world.  (If you doubt that, just read the book.)
>>And the chain turned the whole retailing business upside down with
>>better prices and better service with consumers being the greatest
>>beneficiary.
>
>>
>>Now, give me one good example how this could have worked out better?
>>Would you start a company from the ground up with your own money
>>and time with the intention of making your employees, who are risking
>>neither time nor money, wealthier faster than yourself?  If so, wake up.
>
>Perhaps it is you who needs to 'wake up'?  How could it have worked
>out 'better'?  It could have worked out 'better' if Sam Walton had
>made a few billion less and that had been spread out over, say, a few
>hundred of his upper managers.  They would then have had funds to
>start other businesses, etc.  Over-concentration of wealth hardly
>constitutes something that's good for the economy.
>
>As for what I would do, If I had $1 billion, why would I NOT be
>willing to risk $100 million of it for a rate of return that was
>slower than that being gained by people further down that risked much
>less?  I'd still be getting more (quantity wise) than everybody, since
>I started with more.  Of course, given the option I would RATHER keep
>it ALL myself, but given the choice of seeing the people lower down
>get rich faster and me get rich slower or seeing nobody get any
>richer, I think I'd take the former.  I think most other people would,
>too.  Yes, indeed, it does apper that you are the one who needs to
>'wake up'.
>
>>
>>Now look at it another way, say the late Sam was worth $6 billion.
>
>Then he wasn't the richest man in the country.  Bill Gates is worth
>over $8 billion.
>
>>If you redistributed his wealth to every person in the country,
>>we'd each get roughly $24.  Which is better for the economy,
>>having a retailing company that is more competitive and probably
>>saving consumers billions a year, employing thousands of tax
>>payers, making thousands of other tax paying investors rich as
>>shit, and paying taxes itself, or a one-time $24 each?
>
>Once again, you only offer the two choices.  What is it with the black
>and white only logic, anyway?  How about if you redistributred his
>wealth to 1,000 people and gave them each $6 million.  Now, which way
>is the economy better off?  Or suppose you took $3 billion and used
>that to educate 100,000 engineers and scientists.  Now which way is
>the economy better off?
>
>>So much for redistributing the wealth.
>
>Yep.  Seems to work pretty good if you do it with your eyes open as to
>where it is going and what effects it is having.
>
>
>-- 
>To add some opinions to the statements above, I want to know why so
>many of those posting believe that the wealthy owe the rest of us
>anything.  They worked to earn what they have, and why should they have
>to share any of it at all if they don't want to.  I think it's completely
>unfair to think that because someone has more they MUST give those who
>have less (or those who don't want to work as hard) what they have
>earned.  I make less than $20,000 per year but I do not expect handouts
>from anyone else regardless of their wealth, and I think it is exceedingly
>shallow that so many people in this country think they are deserving of
>another's earnings.  I work for what I have, and I may never be a millionaire
>and I may always have to struggle to pay for health care, etc., but if I
>ever get to the point where I feel that someone else needs to be responsible
>for the quality of MY life, then I will have lost all pride and self-worth
>as an individual.

>Kris
--
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt