Extremely Rich People

[syracusa]

Originally posted by rcne,
You seem to be caught up on the dynasty concerning Paris Hilton.

Studies have shown that wealth of that type seldom spans generations.

If it makes you feel better, that air head will burn through it and without handlers to stop the hemorrhaging be left with a small trust fund. After the corporation is acquired by another corporation.

I only hope she doesn't breed.

rcne,

I used this particular airhead as an example to make a point - because she is currently the most visible. There are tons of them like her - not necessarily at her level of wealth but enough to not have to work a day in their lives and just rely on stock and parasite around, while using others less fortunate to get things done for them.

If you don't like the name Paris, replace it with Jennifer (Gates), Barbara or Jenna (Bush), Ivanka(Trump), the Heinz boys or other persons with "no name" but enough "productive" money in their stocks for them to not have a single worry their entire lives.

The Hiltons' wealth may not span 20 generations but it will span long enough for my intelligent yet struggling kids to witness these jokes living large while they cannot sleep at night because of tomorrow's worries.

It is a completely false belief that it is the intelligent people of this world who make tons of money and live well.
Maybe a few smart ones get to do that via shrewedness and a speculative, exploitive, agressive, "business" personality (not something that I personally admire) - when they find a little exploitable niche.

But there are millions more highly intelligent, clarvoyant people who simply do not have this type of "shark" personality and as a result, they do not get to build piles of stocks while monopolizing a market.
And THIS in itself does not make them stupid, incompetent and least of all, "deserving of their fate".

Since when are the "super succesful entrepreneur" and his progenies the only humans deserving of everything (respect included)?
I thought an employee was also doing quite a bit of favor to this stinking society, wasn't he?
Imagine one without employees, only with entrepreneurs !!!
See what kind of "magic entreprise" the entreprenuer would work on then!!! Will he get everything done himself?
Last time I checked the situation of an entrepreneur doing everything HIMSELF, he wasn't doing that great after all and he was in the freakin' Stone Age!!!!

At best, most "cute babies" made today will get to toil at a job "created" through the stocks owned by these nasty creatures and at worst, they will get to be pitted against all those other desperate people competing for the few jobs available. Or the few "entrepreneurial" opportunities available.

And don't tell me about "the incredible discovery that my kid MAY make tomorrow and how he's gonna get rich on it". I just cannot count on such propagandistic exagerations when I plan the life of a future human being, and deal with the reality that we have at hand.

If the world (to be read these useless wealthy creatures) do not think they owe me a living, I do not think I owe them cheap or free labor either.

A child of mine will only come into this world when there will be a guarantee they they will not need to borrow from the rich for their survival (ever heard of the word "mortgage") and will NOT have a desperate need for "a job-ANY job!!!" - but they will REALLY get to choose what kind of occupation they want to busy themselves with in this life.

After all, it's a dog-eat-dog world isn't it?

Let's stop making eatible little puppies for the eternally hungry big dogs!

[castille]

What you have failed to even understand is that your life hardly matters. You are poor, so what? It is your children who matter. Most Americans hate their children - they waste their money gambling and hiring prostitutes, while ignoring their children's future.

This is why Americans experience so much chaos and disorder. Some Americans work hard and make it - most don't. Which is why in America, 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. And why so many American companies collapse after a few generations.

People like Paris Hilton are examples of degenerate American values. She could be working hard to make the Hilton Family 10 times richer, but instead she is having sex with prostitutes and doing other stupid things. Whoever built the Hilton family fortune will be turning in their graves.


Take a look at some of the old European and Asian families - the von Siemens family, the Wong family, the d'Avergnes. These families built up vast fortunes, and every generation worked harder than their ancestors. There was no Paris Hiltons - every generation carried the family name with pride.


Meanwhile, in America, 1st generation makes the money, 2nd generation spends the money, 3rd generation wonders where the money went.

[rcne]

syracusa,

I see your point, but take exception to it. I took a job - any job many times.

I had a goal to work my way out. I didn't expect anyone to say - my what a smart cute little boy - lets ask him what he wants to be, and how much money he wants to make.

I didn't sit around saying life's not fair. Who ever told you it was - or even that it should be.

Not every employer is so dark hearted, some actually look to hire and build a team of 'good people' to help grow their companies.

My first business failed, I paid my employees more than I paid myself - yet it still failed. I struggled for years trying to get it over the hump - but the hump kept moving.

Since the hump keep moving - so did I. It took a decade and many failures before I found stability.

If anything - I want my kid (I only have one) to know that life isn't how many times you get knocked down - but how many times you get back up.

And that her not going to college isn't an option - and yes she will work her way through college -builds character.

I want her to know that she is responsible and can control her future.

Mainly I won't foster the idea of hopelessness. How can you expect your children (if you have any) to succeed if you are always stressing the negative?

[syracusa]

Originally posted by rcne,


Mainly I won't foster the idea of hopelessness. How can you expect your children (if you have any) to succeed if you are always stressing the negative?

Once I have one, I won't - because there will be no need to.

I do get both what you and castille said (in your last posts). The fundamental difference between our approaches is that you think that life SHOULD BE and SHOULD STAY very hard for most people, while I dislike profoundly this type of "written in stone" approach - because it only gives the undeserving bigger and bigger passes in this life;
and I am extremely touchy about bringing children into this type of status quo.

And relatively speaking, I am not even doing all that bad compared to the trully God-forsaken.

But I do wish people stopped giving free lunches to the rich in the form of "human resources". After all, who the heck invented this nasty term HUMAN RESOURCES.... It's quite telling when you think about it.
As if humans were raw materials such as wood or petroleum.

When I see a struggling family with 3+ children I get boiling bubbles on my brain - this is how mad I get. Do I feel sorry for them that they struggle? No. Absolutely not. Do I feel sorry for the kids and the adults they will become? Yes - very much so. Until these adults start breeding like mad themselves - then I stop feeling sorry for them once again! :-)

But rcne, when all is said and done, all my respect for having only one kid. Good luck to her!

[rcne]

syracusa

wow, we almost agree on something.

In my family we have some baby factories - 4 kids by 25.

I don't feel bad for the parents (they are the idiots), but I do feel bad for the kids - knowing how the parents are.

But - what can you do - you can't take the kids - and you can't make the parents think.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by rcne,
syracusa

wow, we almost agree on something.

In my family we have some baby factories - 4 kids by 25.

I don't feel bad for the parents (they are the idiots), but I do feel bad for the kids - knowing how the parents are.

But - what can you do - you can't take the kids - and you can't make the parents think.

Yeees...looks like we do. :-)
But 4 kids by 25...hmmm...I think I would have a problem with that even if dad were the "Alpha-Provider", Bill Gates himself.

There is no family in today's day and age that can really justify having more than 2 children, at the very maximum. Many should not have ANY...but you are right, you get into another mess once you go so far. Cannot force people NOT TO, but you can expose them to the truth.
Why not more than maximum 2 ?

1. The struggling families (to be read those without stocks to work for them) CANNOT because they automatically condemn their kids to a very low quality of life - even those who will manage to get a job.

2. The rich families CANNOT either because their offsprings are humangous consumption machines and literally, they are a rape on the environment. But considering the rich DON'T CARE and they do whatever they want to do simply because they CAN, that's another story.

The reason why I (barely&#33 agree with "2 at the maximum" is because once you have one child, one of the greatest gifts you can give that kid is improved odds of not being alone in this "dog-eat-dog" world as an adult. There's no guarantee, of course. Not all brothers and sisters grow up to be close, but those who do get to experience this - it is priceless. Not even the closest and greatest of friends will ever be able to match that sibling bond.

As much as I dislike the fact that my parents did not have anything to help me with, materially speaking (boy, could I have used some down payment on that mortgage&#33 - I value having my sister like nothing else.
There's three of us though...but then again, my parents had twins the second time. They wanted to stop at two.

We ended up three and ...because I had the bad luck to appear in my parents' eyes as "the most capable to stand on her own two feet" - I ended up with no parental help whatsoever. Yey.
The little that they had, financially speaking, went to the twins.
No parental welfare for me! :-)
Needless to say I do not plan to screw my kids that royally, to throw my hands up in the air and say: "Ooops; nothing left for you; oh, come on, you're smart, you can do it on your own!".

But this was in my family where my parents apply the philosophy
"I give it to the kid that needs it most".

Then my butt got even less lucky :-) when I realized that in my husband's family (also three siblings) the philosophy is utterly different:

"Parents split what they have in 3 perfectly equal parts, regardless of the level of need of each child".
How endearing.

Well...my sister-in-law just bought a little yacht recently, but when it comes to husband's mom having 600$ to give away to kids, the 600$ are being split in 3 little charming parts.
The lady with the yacht gets 200$ and us, a family making huge efforts just to pay the family health insurance - also gets 200$.

That was just for fun.
But nahhhh, you guys, I won't see the conservative philosophy "light" any time soon. :-)

Best to all of you!

[Inquisitor]

I have nothing against rich people providing they didn't resort to crime to make their fortune. They have every right to pass their fortune to their children should they choose to. What really motivated me to respond is idea voiced by syracusa. If I understand correctly, syracusa advocates not having children in order for rich not to exploit them.

Clearly the logic is paranoid.
1. Why do you automatically assume that your children will become exploited? They may well become capitalists.
2. Taking your logic one step further, why not just commit suicide, so the rich won't exploit you?

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Inquisitor,
I have nothing against rich people providing they didn't resort to crime to make their fortune. They have every right to pass their fortune to their children should they choose to. What really motivated me to respond is idea voiced by syracusa. If I understand correctly, syracusa advocates not having children in order for rich not to exploit them.

Clearly the logic is paranoid.
1. Why do you automatically assume that your children will become exploited? They may well become capitalists.
2. Taking your logic one step further, why not just commit suicide, so the rich won't exploit you?

Forgive me for being harsh, but if my logic is "paranoid", your is a bit retarded.

1. I automatically assume that they will NOT become capitalists because:

a) the statistical odds of them becoming "rich capitalists" instead of regular folks with a regular job are very small.
It is your prerogative to choose to believe in "Just do it / Nike commercials" rather than pure mathematics/science - when planning the future of your children.

b) Furthermore, I do not believe that a child of mine would become a rich capitalist because I would not instill that kind of "shark" values in them to begin with.I do not watch Apprentice by the way, it kind of makes me sick.
I am simply not crazy about "capitalist" values. Problems?

2. Should I even dignify this with an answer?
a) Yes
b) No

I elect b).

[castille]

Why do people assume every single capitalist, business owner, manager, and anyone in any position of limited, percieved power is out to get them?

Is it just paranoid American thinking? Because in many countries (EXCLUDING America) people actually look up to managers and CEOs as their leaders. One of my uncles was killed in an accident, and the manager of his sector paid his family weekly living allowance until his widow was able to find work.

Of course, in America, they have things like Jerry Springer, so I'm no longer surprised.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by castille,
Why do people assume every single capitalist, business owner, manager, and anyone in any position of limited, percieved power is out to get them?

Is it just paranoid American thinking? Because in many countries (EXCLUDING America) people actually look up to managers and CEOs as their leaders. One of my uncles was killed in an accident, and the manager of his sector paid his family weekly living allowance until his widow was able to find work.

Of course, in America, they have things like Jerry Springer, so I'm no longer surprised.

Because in America, CEO's etc really ARE socialized into doing this - being "out to get people" (as you put it) and get EXTREMELY rich off of their hard work without caring what happens to their employees.
(Please see the other thread where that dumbhead is saying that he "does not care if so and so struggling person starves to death; even if somebody like him manages to becomes a CEO, do you really imagine any employee looking up to him as a "great leader"?)

In other countries (like Western Europe) - those CEO are much less likely to do that.

Have you ever compared how much more European CEO-s are paid compared to their average worker and then compare how much more American CEO-s are paid compared to their average worker?

The difference is huge - and please do not tell me that the American CEO-s simply work harder, longer, are smarter, or have that much brighter ideas than the European CEO-s.

And even if they did - they would still not be able to justify the difference.

The difference is that the American big fish are instictively greedy individualistic creeps. European "big fish" still have a sense of community and they do realize that whatever the heck they are accomplishing, they are accomplishing TOGETHER with their workers, not on their own!!

THIS us why.

[castille]

Because in America, CEO's etc really ARE socialized into doing this - being "out to get people" (as you put it) and get EXTREMELY rich off of their hard work without caring what happens to their employees.

How are they socialized? Do you have any material from business courses that can verify this?

By the way please remember that CEOs are technically, and in many cases realistically workers. Jack Welch, for example, does not own General Electric, he works for them.

In other countries (like Western Europe) - those CEO are much less likely to do that.

Why does everyone assume Europeans are kind, loving, generous people? Did you know that the CEO of Germany's Siemens used Jewish slave labour during the 1940s to run his company? Or that French armaments companies supported genocide in Rwanda?
Europeans are just as evil, if not moreso, than Americans.

Have you ever compared how much more European CEO-s are paid compared to their average worker and then compare how much more American CEO-s are paid compared to their average worker?

I see people like the European Siemens family buying a dozen new Mercedes for their newborn daughter, while paying a worker in China $10 a month.

The difference is huge

Can you prove it? Show me a statistical analysis of all the CEOs of Europe, compared with the US.


I'm not trying to say American CEOs are nice, in fact I find their lack of committment to patriotic nationalistic and family values appalling. However I find European CEOs are just as worse, plus a bit more boring to boot.

Leaders of industry should always intergrate profit with patriotism and family committments.

[Lava]

Originally posted by castille,
Why do people assume every single capitalist, business owner, manager, and anyone in any position of limited, percieved power is out to get them?

1. Some are pretty antisocial. We see it now and then, and suspect all. Most of some industries are simply sociopathic money syphons. Profit comes at the expense of customers day in day out here (UK)

2. Blame. Blame is widespread here, most Britons have a victim mentality.

Lava