Thoughts about wage disparity

[JC316]

Wow, JC. You sound like the guy that sits around and talks yourself out of doing anything that has a modicum of risk. My brother and I started a lawn business in high school and we ran it all the way through college. 70 or so lawns a week starting with a family mower and put the proceeds eventually into top of the line commercial equipment, trailer, and truck. We made damn good money, so much so that when my brother graduated with a masters in accounting, he kept mowing, built up to three crews, and over 150 lawns/wk, plus landscaping, fence, irrigation. He stopped doing the manual labor and just took care of problems and met with customers and potential customers. When he didn't have to do that, he'd sit at home and play Tiger Woods golf with a phone next to him if the guys mowing had any problems.

He had PLENTY of cash to last the fall/winter and he'd also do leaves and Christmas lights for a little off-season extra cash. Anyway, where there is a will, there's a way.

Btw, he's flying an F-16 now for the Air National guard and sold his lawn business many years ago to a retiring Lockheed Martin guy who wanted a retirement business. My brother got $75k for it. Know how he listed the business for sale? On EBay. Haha, seriously.

Anyway, get off your ass and quit convincing yourself why you can't do something.

You clearly don't know me, or read anything that I post. I own a tote the note car lot, so I know a lot about work, risk, and small businesses. Your case makes sense to me, it's an actual business model, not a single push mower and a lot of time.

Like I said, I get what he is saying, but it's not quite as simple and lucrative when you first start out.

[quikag]

You clearly don't know me, or read anything that I post. I own a tote the note car lot, so I know a lot about work, risk, and small businesses. Your case makes sense to me, it's an actual business model, not a single push mower and a lot of time.

Like I said, I get what he is saying, but it's not quite as simple and lucrative when you first start out.

Okay, you made it sound like when someone starts with a crappy family mower, that they can't adapt and put money into better equipment, grow the business, etc. It's not a static deal which obviously you understand based on this most recent post.

No, didn't know you ran a tote the note car lot. I'm sure you've had to adapt, learn, and grow in that business!

My whole point was everyone starts somewhere. People that REALLY want to get ahead in life will put in extra hours, work harder than those around them, and don't let themselves get stuck in dead end jobs. Obviously, personal situations can make it very difficult to get out of a rut (having kids early, etc.), but I still believe in the American dream. It's sad that a lot of people don't nowadays and they allow themselves to get bogged down, maybe start relying on govt. aid, losing any desire to work hard, etc.

Then those same people voted Dems into office so the handouts keep coming and then they start taking potshots at the guys in the corner office. How dare they make a lot of money! What people don't understand is what it took for most of those guys to get into those positions which is a lot of hard work, a lot of studying, a lot of late nights, a lot of stress managing companies that employ thousands of people, etc.

[jayjohnson600]

So, instead of advancing a skill set, people should be handed a living wage. What amount would that be?

That's not my opinion. My point is that "will and way" is nowhere near what it used to do, and I've been there a few times myself. Most that say that phrase have as well, but these days there is a new normal.

People who can use that "will and way" phrase have likely not been hit hard by the current new normal.
A resonable economic environment no longer exists here, where that can reasonably thrive. This is what my other post is about concerning what I observe(and others observe) in the B&M's employees.

As far as a living wage, I don't know, but consider a reference point where a low wage(or no wage) does not garner ridiculous subsidies long term from our tax dollars. Have you seen the figures of total subsidies and their equivalent employment income for a single mother? If you know this figure then you can see why people will game the system and settle into their cold comfort on our tax dollars.
So, either move the living wage or move the line on subsidy handouts, or both but don't give handouts, give hand-ups when they are needed and as they are needed, not to live on long term.

As a real alternative, push the gov't to provide resonable economic conditions where "will and way" people have a reasonable path available to them instead of the exact opposite which is what the gov't is currently doing. Then the livable wage issue will disappear. This will swell the numbers of "will and way" people, and then maybe I will be able to count the "will and way" folks in the majority when I walk into a B&M, rather than the rarity.

[Broncojohnny]

When other people are lazy and just give up, then I see that as more opportunity. Hustle and work hard day in and day out, work smart too, and good things can happen.

Then again, maybe my brother and I just got lucky. Getting up at 5am in the summer to mow and driving home from college on the weekends during the growing season and then going back to school to study for Monday morning didn't have anything to do with it.

You always hear this bullshit about luck from people who are risk averse. Fact is, you make your own luck. Luck is defined as a situation where opportunity meets preparation.

[Broncojohnny]

As a real alternative, push the gov't to provide resonable economic conditions where "will and way" people have a reasonable path available to them instead of the exact opposite which is what the gov't is currently doing. Then the livable wage issue will disappear. This will swell the numbers of "will and way" people, and then maybe I will be able to count the "will and way" folks in the majority when I walk into a B&M, rather than the rarity.

This comes through competent political leadership. Here lately that means they shouldn't be a Democrat. It is going to take some time before you see a Republican win again and it might even take another financial crisis too.

You see it in this thread, instead of "What can I do to get ahead?" it is "What can I do to bring the other guy down?". We now equate success with villainy in this country and that is a loser's attitude.

[YALE]

This comes through competent political leadership. Here lately that means they shouldn't be a Democrat. It is going to take some time before you see a Republican win again and it might even take another financial crisis too.

You see it in this thread, instead of "What can I do to get ahead?" it is "What can I do to bring the other guy down?". We now equate success with villainy in this country and that is a loser's attitude.

I think Democrats have really fucked themselves for 2014 at least, with the ridiculous bill that is the ACA coming into effect this year, and triggering new levels of penalties and taxes in the coming few years. If a Republican was going to become president soon, 2016 will be a great opportunity. I was reading an economic analysis of what's rolling out when, and it was crazy. We are extra fucked, dude.

[Sean88gt]

I think Democrats have really fucked themselves for 2014 at least, with the ridiculous bill that is the ACA coming into effect this year, and triggering new levels of penalties and taxes in the coming few years. If a Republican was going to become president soon, 2016 will be a great opportunity. I was reading an economic analysis of what's rolling out when, and it was crazy. We are extra fucked, dude.

'Murica!

[line-em-up]

This is what I like most about this site. That is the frank conversation about the proper attitude to be successful. Thank you guys for refreshing my motivation to get out and hustle to make myself better.

[Roscoe]

I think Democrats have really fucked themselves for 2014 at least, with the ridiculous bill that is the ACA coming into effect this year, and triggering new levels of penalties and taxes in the coming few years. If a Republican was going to become president soon, 2016 will be a great opportunity. I was reading an economic analysis of what's rolling out when, and it was crazy. We are extra fucked, dude.

Yeah, what this guy said...

[quikag]

This comes through competent political leadership. Here lately that means they shouldn't be a Democrat. It is going to take some time before you see a Republican win again and it might even take another financial crisis too.

You see it in this thread, instead of "What can I do to get ahead?" it is "What can I do to bring the other guy down?". We now equate success with villainy in this country and that is a loser's attitude.

Amen!!

[talisman]

You see it in this thread, instead of "What can I do to get ahead?" it is "What can I do to bring the other guy down?". We now equate success with villainy in this country and that is a loser's attitude.

"Victor Sr.: You know what wakes me up in the middle of the night covered in a cold sweat? Knowing that you aren't any worse than anyone else in your whole screwed up generation. In the old days, you know how you got to the top? Huh? By being better than the guy ahead of you. How do you people get to the top? By being so fucking incompetent, that the guy ahead of you can't do his job, so he falls on his ass and congratulations, you are now on top. And now the top is down here, it used to be up here... and you don't even know the fucking difference."

[bird_dog0347]

Subject: Two Americas

Monday, December 9, 2013, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

Two Americas

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.

The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.

It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law,
support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t.

That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.

It’s about a political party that preaches envy, hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it from him and give it to you. Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it but betraying them.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of poverty, dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger

instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock with multiple baby daddys and
life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and a two parent family and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different
outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as,

“The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down.

Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and
those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

[SlowLX]

Dallas News

A divided Dallas City Council approved on Wednesday a $400,000 annual salary for new city manager A.C. Gonzalez. The sum dwarfs the $305,000 annual salary of Gonzalez’s predecessor, Mary Suhm. And the windfall represented a massive increase over the $250,000 that Gonzalez was earning as interim city manager. The council approved the salary as they voted to formally appoint Gonzalez as city manager. Several council members expressed opposition to the salary, though only Council Members Rick Callahan and Adam Medrano voted against. Other key stipulations of the contract include: 1) Gonzalez will serve an indefinite term, as prescribed by the city’s charter. 2) It will require a two-thirds vote of the 15-member council to fire Gonzalez. 3) If fired, Gonzalez will receive $200,000 — a half year of severance pay. Supporters of the salary said that many CEOs in North Texas earn much more than $400,000. And they said the pay reflects that Gonzalez is now officially at the helm of a large, complicated organization. Council Member Carolyn Davis said that if Dallas wants to be a “world-class city,” it needs to pay Gonzalez accordingly. Council Member Sheffie Kadane said that Gonzalez’s salary won’t compare to what the city manager will help bring to the city. And Council Member Dwaine Caraway said that Gonzalez still might be underpaid. “You get what you pay for,” he said. “We can either play ball or we can sit on the sidelines. We’re looking for a championship.” But several council members said they were uncomfortable with the salary, even as they described their support of Gonzalez as city manager. Council Member Vonciel Jones Hill said, “The salary should have been set at no higher than $350,000 and that may be on the high side.” Callahan said, “I feel like the starting point is a bit high.” Council Member Sandy Greyson said, “$400,000 is too much. It’s too big a jump.” Medrano said he opposed the salary — and the provisions about severance pay and the need for a two-thirds majority to remove Gonzalez. He said, “This is the opposite of paying for performance.” Mayor Mike Rawlings asked Gonzalez after the vote if he had any comments. “Just on to the next level,” Gonzalez said. Rawlings responded, “Let’s do it.” Original post: The Dallas City Council will vote Wednesday morning to formally appoint A.C. Gonzalez as city manager. The vote would seem to be a formality, barring some unforeseen snag with contract negotiations. The council last month voted unanimously to name Gonzalez as city manager, though council members have expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm about the selection. The news from Wednesday’s meeting will most likely be the new salary the council approves for Gonzalez. When the 62-year-old took over as interim city manager in July, council members bumped his annual salary up to $250,000. Gonzalez’s predecessor, Mary Suhm, earned $305,000 annually when she retired last year. The Dallas City Manager Search Committee met for presumably the last time on Monday to start finalizing the details of Gonzalez’s contract. Mayor Mike Rawlings declined to discuss specifics after the meeting, saying he wanted to first meet with the full council. But he said Suhm’s contract was being used as a template for an agreement with Gonzalez. Gonzalez is a 15-year City Hall veteran. And the choice of him – over two other finalists, who were both outside candidates – reflected a six-decade tradition in Dallas of elevating someone with City Hall experience to the top post. But Gonzalez has vowed to fulfill many council members’ demands for significant change – a call that included the desire to shake up City Hall’s upper management. He’s also marked the budget process, EMS, hiring and other areas as topics he wants to tackle.

[Roscoe]

Subject: Two Americas

Monday, December 9, 2013, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

Two Americas

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.

The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.

It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law,
support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t.

That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.

It’s about a political party that preaches envy, hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it from him and give it to you. Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it but betraying them.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of poverty, dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger

instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock with multiple baby daddys and
life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and a two parent family and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different
outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as,

“The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down.

Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and
those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Truth......

[46Tbird]

Truth......

Well, except that it infers that only Democrats are bringing the country down. I know plenty of "bleeding red" Republicans that have shitty education and no shame using WIC cards. The Republicans push for entitlement programs only slightly less hard than Democrats.