11–20 of 139 posts
"Nearly half of baby boomers born between 1948 and 1954 and now between the ages of 56 and 62 are at risk of not having enough money in retirement to pay for basic expenditures, EBRI reports." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07...
I would like to live in Equal-land, I could live there, slouch around, work the absolute minimum and avoid work, and enjoy exactly the same benefits as those working the hardest to maintain that utopia.
I'm not saying that Equalland is desirable. I'm just saying that I think you're overestimating the effect money has on how productive people are.
I would like to live in Equal-land, I could live there, slouch around, work the absolute minimum and avoid work, and enjoy exactly the same benefits as those working the hardest to maintain that utopia.
No you don't. Money is a terrible motivator. If the only thing that is keeping you from working hard is the prospect of making more money, might I suggest that you've chosen the wrong career? I'm not saying that Equalland is desirable. I'm just saying that I think you're overestimating the effect money has on how productive people are.
I would like to live in Equal-land, I could live there, slouch around, work the absolute minimum and avoid work, and enjoy exactly the same benefits as those working the hardest to maintain that utopia.
No you don't. Money is a terrible motivator. If the only thing that is keeping you from working hard is the prospect of making more money, might I suggest that you've chosen the wrong career? I'm not saying that Equalland is desirable. I'm just saying that I think you're overestimating the effect money has on how productive people are.
If you introduce random variation into the performance of the stock market, then the ownership of the top 20% would increase even more!
So, when you hear that the top 20% have X% of the wealth, keep in mind that the bar isn't 20%. A better bar is the 64% from Equalland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you don't. Money is a terrible motivator. If the only thing that is keeping you from working hard is the prospect of making more money, might I suggest that you've chosen the wrong career? I'm not saying that Equalland is desirable. I'm just saying that I think you're overestimating the effect money has on how productive people are.
Can I hire you? Money doesn't motivate you right? Minimum wage, no benefits and 80hr weeks are required.
What if the job was laying in a park, testing out the effectiveness of new marijuana strains?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you don't. Money is a terrible motivator. If the only thing that is keeping you from working hard is the prospect of making more money, might I suggest that you've chosen the wrong career? I'm not saying that Equalland is desirable. I'm just saying that I think you're overestimating the effect money has on how productive people are.
Money is a terrible motivator? lol. What's this nonsense? Give me your name and address, I'll write you a check for $1500 free and clear to take back what you just said.
Money's a great motivator until you're near your threshold earnings, and then other things start slipping in, like, for instance, the ability to make a point. Then, of course, is the discussion about why anyone wants money...and the fact that there's more direct ways to affect the value in someone's life. Hate to sound the sociopath, but money doesn't stack up against a family.
According to Wikipedia, 87% of the wealth belongs to the wealthiest 20%. However over 80% of that wealth belongs to the top half of that group. The figures I am looking at do not break it down farther, but my understanding is that this same relative relationship holds for the top 5%, 2%, 1%, and so on. Everyone agrees that some wealth disparity is a good and necessary part of a healthy economy. But there is a lot mor…
Of course. And if you read to the bottom of my post, you'll see that I agree that there's too much inequality in the world.
The point of this post isn't to argue that the existing level of wealth inequality is appropriate -- rather, it's to point out that the appropriate level of wealth inequality is surprisingly high.