The theory of the Leisure Class

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Hey, hey, hey, wait a second. You already finished with the loan?!?!?
In eight years?!?!?! You luck b, I hate you, haha... man, we pay
2.4 times the minimum, and we will be over in total 18 years! Damn.
To be sincere, I think your lady needs to compromise. She is no
evil or anything but it's her instinct (as I suggested last post), BUT
if all ours lives we're climbing the ladder there will be no time to
stop and smell the flowers. When you remember you'll have a
beautiful villa in Cancun, but also a couple of nurses helping you
with the oxygen tank.

Well, maybe that's just my opinion, and not from an expert. I am also
in the process of convincing the lady to slow down and spend some
bucks in ourselves.

I hope you succeed.

Originally posted by Redmike
That only makes sense if everyone works for the same hourly rate.

You seriously think that the richest people in society are the ones who work the longest hours?

As much as you'd like for everyone to be equal and each take according to his needs, Redmike, income is definetly driven by desire. For example, many corporate CEOs put in close to 80-hour work weeks and are compensated to the tune of millions of dollars annually. Conversely, I'm in the top 25 percent of earners in America, I work a straight 40-hour work week, and my compensation doesn't even approach that of a corporate CEO. Obviously, a part-time worker or a someone who is not economically active will earn even less.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You might want to reconsider and postpone your retirement:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14338

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
As much as you'd like for everyone to be equal and each take according to his needs, Redmike, income is definetly driven by desire. For example, many corporate CEOs put in close to 80-hour work weeks and are compensated to the tune of millions of dollars annually. Conversely, I'm in the top 25 percent of earners in America, I work a straight 40-h ...[text shortened]... bviously, a part-time worker or a someone who is not economically active will earn even less.

income is definetly driven by desire.

That and inheritance.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Buy some of that cheap land out in the middle of nowhere and keep your current house.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The beauty of America is that you decide. Good luck on your early retirement.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]income is definetly driven by desire.

That and inheritance.[/b]

Some people do well by inheritance. I don't expect the children of the Baby Boomers to inherit much because many Boomers will have spent most of their wealth by the time they reach the Great Beyond. Conversely, when you look at the Forbes list of the world's 100 richest people, they're mostly self-made. The other interesting point about the list is that it is in constant flux, indicating that wealth is not static.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
As much as you'd like for everyone to be equal and each take according to his needs, Redmike, income is definetly driven by desire. For example, many corporate CEOs put in close to 80-hour work weeks and are compensated to the tune of millions of dollars annually. Conversely, I'm in the top 25 percent of earners in America, I work a straight 40-h ...[text shortened]... bviously, a part-time worker or a someone who is not economically active will earn even less.

Are you seriously saying that earnings are only related to hours worked?

You don't think there are low-paid workers putting in 80-hour weeks and still being in the bottom 25%?

This is your original post "I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours."

Originally posted by Redmike
Are you seriously saying that earnings are only related to hours worked?

You don't think there are low-paid workers putting in 80-hour weeks and still being in the bottom 25%?

This is your original post "I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours."

In your example, you're making the same mistake that liberals, Democrats and socialists always make: You think your hypothetical low-paid workers will always be stuck earning the same amount no matter how many hours they puts in. I see it differently and will give you an example: Take a group of newly-minted lawyers. The law firm might require them to work a 65-hour work week the first two years. Some decide the schedule is too hectic and decide they'd rather be a journalist or a teacher. They end up working a lot less hours for less pay. A couple of our workers get pregnant and take maternity leave. Before they come back, they decide they only want to work part time since they have a new born to look after -- a 15-hour a week schedule suits them fine. Some of our new lawyers plug away at 65 hours a week, but no more. They earn a handsome salary. Yet, one of our new lawyers works 80 hours a week. His peers notice him, then his superiors notice him. One day he makes partner and receives the requisite salary, which is quite a bit more than associate. So yes, I do believe that working longer hours influences pay.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
In your example, you're making the same mistake that liberals, Democrats and socialists always make: You think your hypothetical low-paid workers will always be stuck earning the same amount no matter how many hours they puts in. I see it differently and will give you an example: Take a group of newly-minted lawyers. The law firm might require t ...[text shortened]... uite a bit more than associate. So yes, I do believe that working longer hours influences pay.

You're completely missing the point.

Of course, hours worked influences pay within the same job.

That's not the same as "I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours."

There are many people who work long hours and are poor (of course, they might be less poor than someone in the same job who does half the hours).

Equally, there are many who are rich who work less hours.

Your point stands up for comparisons within the same job, but not across the labour market as a whole.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
In your example, you're making the same mistake that liberals, Democrats and socialists always make: You think your hypothetical low-paid workers will always be stuck earning the same amount no matter how many hours they puts in. I see it differently and will give you an example: Take a group of newly-minted lawyers. The law firm might require t ...[text shortened]... uite a bit more than associate. So yes, I do believe that working longer hours influences pay.

newly minted lawyers are hardly starting out in low paid employment. They have the benfit of a good education, and many options.

I know many people who work long unsociable hours to make ends meet, and yet are hardly rewarded financially for their efforts. They make enough, but not compared to many office bods and middle managers who cite 'increased responibility' (which usually equates to I blame/sack someone lower down the chain) for their higher wages. To suggest that people are poorer for lack of effort at work is unfair and misleading.e.g chefs, cleaners, nurses

the example you give of the lawyers could happen, as could this: one works 80 hours is noticed and annually rewarded, but has no time for a social life, whilst another works less hours, gets friendly with the partners at after work drinks, and is given partnership because the others feel he would be better to work alongside, and all number of other scenarios.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So can everybody do that?