|
0 members (),
288
guests, and
13
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
The rich don't have mortgages. That's my point.
Wealth is measured traditionally by net worth NOT by income. My point is that you can pay off mortgages if you feel like it by not spending money on other things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
The poor don't have mortgages either. Just noting.
Just as well, since incomes below 20K probably don't really allow for "choosing" much of anything to start with.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Executives are paid to make informed decisions about what products to produce and sell, how to market them, where to open offices, whom to hire and how to set pay, how to fund operations, and countless other things. Successful executives tend to be smart because intelligence helps them make good decisions. Increasing profits is what they are paid by their shareholders (including many retirees, pension funds, and college endowments who need returns) to do. Bad management can be bad for workers as well. If executives make bad decisions about product lines, their companies are forced to shrink, and workers are laid off. Business is about serving people. Why would management care about the company shrinking, or laying off employees? There are countless examples of CEOs getting big bonuses precisely BECAUSE they shrunk the company and laid off workers. Many other times, it happened due to bad decisions the previous CEO made, but the chickens came to roost only after his stock options had already matured. CEOs are making more money now than at any time in history, and the quality of their work is exhibited in the economic conditions of the last 6 years. The open question is how much the deteriorating quality of the modern CEO is due to deteriorating mental ability, and how much to deteriorating moral values.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Executives are paid to make informed decisions about what products to produce and sell, how to market them, where to open offices, whom to hire and how to set pay, how to fund operations, and countless other things. Successful executives tend to be smart because intelligence helps them make good decisions. Increasing profits is what they are paid by their shareholders (including many retirees, pension funds, and college endowments who need returns) to do. Bad management can be bad for workers as well. If executives make bad decisions about product lines, their companies are forced to shrink, and workers are laid off. Business is about serving people. Why would management care about the company shrinking, or laying off employees? There are countless examples of CEOs getting big bonuses precisely BECAUSE they shrunk the company and laid off workers. Many other times, it happened due to bad decisions the previous CEO made, but the chickens came to roost only after his stock options had already matured. CEOs are making more money now than at any time in history, and the quality of their work is exhibited in the economic conditions of the last 6 years. The open question is how much the deteriorating quality of the modern CEO is due to deteriorating mental ability, and how much to deteriorating moral values. Their employers like what they've been doing. Seriously. It's just that the public doesn't figure into this anymore-- nor do employees. It's about the shareholders and the market now. Analysts are not apparently very troubled by-- oh, how to put this-- reality as the rest of us know it. 
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I don't see how the previous example has much to say either way-- since most college students are not financially independent from their extended families, it is generally unfair to group them with families with the same income levels. It's also profoundly inflammatory, and personally I'm not much into having my chain yanked with the "agree or you're not patriotic enough" line. Not biting. Instead, now that my allergy meds have kicked in, I'm going to take care of my yard for a bit. Since I have made choices that mean that I don't have "people" for this sort of thing.  Of course, on the bright side, I also do not have (or need) a gym membership, since pulling weeds is pretty good exercise.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Their employers like what they've been doing. Seriously. It's just that the public doesn't figure into this anymore-- nor do employees. It's about the shareholders and the market now. Analysts are not apparently very troubled by-- oh, how to put this-- reality as the rest of us know it. Well, a CEO reports directly to the Board. The Chairman of the Board these days is, usually, the CEO. So yeah, the employer LOVES what the employee is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 |
HK, I deleted the post you objected to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 26 |
JonLaw,
Someone with a substantial income and a propensity for saving may accrue wealth over time, but they are unlikely to become rich. (statistically)
If you don't have a net worth of almost a million dollars (minus liabilities), you aren't even in the top 10% of Americans, and after a comfortable retirement, there will be little left to secure your children's future. This is why most Upper Middle Class parents (even those who breach the 10% mark) are trying to ensure their children's future through academic achievement.
Now, I would guess that even those parents with enough true wealth to pass on their social class to their children still insist on good schools and such because, of course, wealth can be lost and one wants a little insurance for their children, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
JonLaw,
Someone with a substantial income and a propensity for saving may accrue wealth over time, but they are unlikely to become rich. (statistically) I wasn't talking about rich. I was talking about mortgages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 26 |
Exactly. The rich don't need them.
|
|
|
|
|
