From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:01:24 GMT

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.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc