How long would the rich remain rich without the poor?

[occupied]

A more realistic question would be what would happen if the stranglehold the rich have on the economy and politics were somehow broken? If the country were run for the general benefit of all rather than just the aristocracy? This is the question that has always kept the ruling elite awake at night, wondering when at last the serfs will storm the castle. It will be very soon for them if things do not change for the better and instead continue down the same corpse littered path so many societies ruled by an untouchable elite have traveled before.

Yes, but the problem with your logic is seated in the idea that we have an “aristocracy” in the US, when what we really have is a “meritocracy”. How do people get rich? They make something from nothing. Sometimes they get rich by spending years in medical or law school, or by thinking of a new idea or invention, or by taking a new approach to running things that already exist to reduce the cost of production, and yes, sometimes through simple dumb luck. But even those who have profited from luck had to put themselves into a position to be lucky, having a business in place which profited from some lucky change in circumstances. No one is handed wealth in this country except perhaps by their wealthy parents, who earned it by doing one of the things listed, and as often as not those that inherit don’t manage to hang on to it; surely you’ve heard the phrase “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. Sometimes it doesn’t take that long; sports figures who earn huge amounts of money are often penniless within a couple of years after their stardom fades. The “passive” investors that you seem to regard as the idle rich can and often do lose their wealth, if they aren’t smart about what they do. They are rewarded for choosing the most efficiently run companies in which to invest, and penalized for choosing those less efficient; this is good for the economy as a whole, driving down prices and creating more wealth. The poor and middle class have the same chance to work their way up if they are willing to do what it takes; the class you are born into is not a life sentence unless you refuse to participate, and instead decide that your lot in life is the result of the existence of the "evil rich".

You misunderstand my point, I was making the case that yawning intractable income inequality has been the death of more than one society, every one of them thought that they could just build walls, hire soldiers and stomp on the rabble hard if they developed the courage to complain too loudly. Loss of freedom is inevitable if opportunities continue to be scarce while a tiny minority live like Roman emperors. These are the real rulers of our country, the ones who are stubbornly called "job creators" by some even though they seem to really suck at it, how little you expect of them to still defend them from criticism in the midst of a disaster their greed precipitated. When did it become so horrible to defend the poor working man? When did it become such a sin to criticize the "job creators" for their failure to actually create jobs?

 

[Avatar4321]

gee.....do it himself?.....

What a radical idea. Or he might hire someone else.

Not sure why creating a job is a bad idea to the OP.

not sure why he thinks so many rich people are helpless.....

Because clearly only lazy people are rich

 

[Harry Dresden]

What a radical idea. Or he might hire someone else.

Not sure why creating a job is a bad idea to the OP.

not sure why he thinks so many rich people are helpless.....

Because clearly only lazy people are rich

then this guy OoooPoop doesnt seem to know what he is talking about.....OR once again a certain "type" of people are thrown under a tent because of one or a few who fit this guys description of them....

 

[Old Rocks]

Imagine a rich guy.

He owns a mansion on a huge plot.

Everyday he wakes up, goes to work, works 15 hours, comes home, eats, goes to sleep. He works very hard. Makes a ton of money.


One day all the poor and lower middle class disappear.

All of a sudden our rich man has to
...clean his own house
...cut his own grass
...cook his own food
...change his own oil
...replace his own alternator
...repair his own broken window
...shovel his own snow
...iron his own clothes
...wash his own laundry


In short - do a lot of the things that ordinary people have to do on their own - except he has to do it much more because he's got a much bigger house - leaving less
time for him to do the job that makes him wealthy. In fact - with a home 5-10 X bigger than most Americans, its doubtful he'll have any time left over for work at all.

So what happens? Does his sacrifice time at work? Does his downsize his mansion to a more manageable living area? Or does he just let everything go to shit?

Any ideas?

Put the best of the brilliant entrompenuirs on a island by themselves, and they will be reduced to a hand to mouth life. Fighting the elements just for food and shelter. A life no better than that lived by our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago. We are all dependent on the infrastructure built up in the thousands of years since we lived in caves. None of us are islands unto our selves. Without the society around us, we are reduced to living as animals.

The claim of a self made man, is the claim of someone that is totally selfish, and has no conscience. Even the best and leading thinkers of our time have credited those that came before, as Einstein stated, "If I saw further, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants". And the wealthy are supported by all that do the neccessary work that supports this wonderful life we enjoy in this nation.

 

[MeBelle]

Imagine a rich guy.

He owns a mansion on a huge plot.

Everyday he wakes up, goes to work, works 15 hours, comes home, eats, goes to sleep. He works very hard. Makes a ton of money.


One day all the poor and lower middle class disappear.
All of a sudden our rich man has to
...clean his own house
...cut his own grass
...cook his own food
...change his own oil
...replace his own alternator
...repair his own broken window
...shovel his own snow
...iron his own clothes
...wash his own laundry


In short - do a lot of the things that ordinary people have to do on their own - except he has to do it much more because he's got a much bigger house - leaving less
time for him to do the job that makes him wealthy. In fact - with a home 5-10 X bigger than most Americans, its doubtful he'll have any time left over for work at all.

So what happens? Does his sacrifice time at work? Does his downsize his mansion to a more manageable living area? Or does he just let everything go to shit?

Any ideas?

One: IF all the poor and MD disappeared, that would mean everyone is RICH!

 

[BillyV]

A more realistic question would be what would happen if the stranglehold the rich have on the economy and politics were somehow broken? If the country were run for the general benefit of all rather than just the aristocracy? This is the question that has always kept the ruling elite awake at night, wondering when at last the serfs will storm the castle. It will be very soon for them if things do not change for the better and instead continue down the same corpse littered path so many societies ruled by an untouchable elite have traveled before.

Yes, but the problem with your logic is seated in the idea that we have an “aristocracy” in the US, when what we really have is a “meritocracy”. How do people get rich? They make something from nothing. Sometimes they get rich by spending years in medical or law school, or by thinking of a new idea or invention, or by taking a new approach to running things that already exist to reduce the cost of production, and yes, sometimes through simple dumb luck. But even those who have profited from luck had to put themselves into a position to be lucky, having a business in place which profited from some lucky change in circumstances. No one is handed wealth in this country except perhaps by their wealthy parents, who earned it by doing one of the things listed, and as often as not those that inherit don’t manage to hang on to it; surely you’ve heard the phrase “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. Sometimes it doesn’t take that long; sports figures who earn huge amounts of money are often penniless within a couple of years after their stardom fades. The “passive” investors that you seem to regard as the idle rich can and often do lose their wealth, if they aren’t smart about what they do. They are rewarded for choosing the most efficiently run companies in which to invest, and penalized for choosing those less efficient; this is good for the economy as a whole, driving down prices and creating more wealth. The poor and middle class have the same chance to work their way up if they are willing to do what it takes; the class you are born into is not a life sentence unless you refuse to participate, and instead decide that your lot in life is the result of the existence of the "evil rich".

You misunderstand my point, I was making the case that yawning intractable income inequality has been the death of more than one society, every one of them thought that they could just build walls, hire soldiers and stomp on the rabble hard if they developed the courage to complain too loudly. Loss of freedom is inevitable if opportunities continue to be scarce while a tiny minority live like Roman emperors. These are the real rulers of our country, the ones who are stubbornly called "job creators" by some even though they seem to really suck at it, how little you expect of them to still defend them from criticism in the midst of a disaster their greed precipitated. When did it become so horrible to defend the poor working man? When did it become such a sin to criticize the "job creators" for their failure to actually create jobs?

No, I think I understood your point perfectly. Your point is that the oppressed “serfs” will revolt against their “overlords”, the aristocracy. History shows that this can, indeed, be the case. What you fail to understand is that there are no serfs in this country, no aristocracy, no true “class” system. Everyone has the opportunity to make of themselves whatever they choose; some simply choose less, or are only capable of less. How else do you explain first generation immigrants becoming rich? I don’t find it horrible to defend the poor working man, but you don’t give him credit for his ability to improve himself in this country. The “job creator” meme is overused; yes, those with more wealth do hire those with less, but not because they are magnanimous, but because they need someone to provide needed services. They hire with the expectation of profit, nothing more, and it isn’t their “job” to create jobs. They will create exactly as many jobs as are needed for that purpose, no more and no less. And let’s not forget that most “job creators” are not rich, but simple hard working middle class people who have taken a risk on a new restaurant, construction or other business and hire a few of your “poor working men,” often with no more wealth than those they hire. No, I don’t defend the rich; they don’t need my defense, although I don’t see why we should stand in their way with over-burdensome regulations (note I didn’t say “no regulations”). I simply defend those that are producers that make something of their opportunities over those that would rather complain that the system isn’t fair, that somehow they didn’t get what they were owed. No one is owed; you make your own future. Those who choose to be grasshoppers, fiddling all summer while expecting to be supported on the work of the ants, are the problem.

 

[P@triot]

Imagine a rich guy.

He owns a mansion on a huge plot.

Everyday he wakes up, goes to work, works 15 hours, comes home, eats, goes to sleep. He works very hard. Makes a ton of money.


One day all the poor and lower middle class disappear.

All of a sudden our rich man has to
...clean his own house
...cut his own grass
...cook his own food
...change his own oil
...replace his own alternator
...repair his own broken window
...shovel his own snow
...iron his own clothes
...wash his own laundry


In short - do a lot of the things that ordinary people have to do on their own - except he has to do it much more because he's got a much bigger house - leaving less
time for him to do the job that makes him wealthy. In fact - with a home 5-10 X bigger than most Americans, its doubtful he'll have any time left over for work at all.

So what happens? Does his sacrifice time at work? Does his downsize his mansion to a more manageable living area? Or does he just let everything go to shit?

Any ideas?

Yes, but without parasites like you, the rich man has three times as much wealth (half doesn't get taken in taxes to support you parasites, and another large chunk is saved by doing his own yard word).

By the way, I love how you parasites act like you're doing the wealthy a favor and that they owe you.

One last thing, by your own REALLY DUMB "logic", what do parasites like you do without the wealthy? They pay the taxes that provide your food stamps. They pay the taxes that provide your subsidized housing. It's wealthy physicians who provide the healthcare for ALL of us.

You really need to see a mental health professional. Your jealousy of those who are more successful is just disturbing.

You didn't answer the question. You did hurl insults and make groundless accusations.

Its exactly what I expected from you.

I did answer the question. The wealthy man THRIVES. I made that very clear. Because he doesn't have his wealth confiscated and redistributed to the parasite class.

 

[P@triot]

A more realistic question would be what would happen if the stranglehold the rich have on the economy and politics were somehow broken? If the country were run for the general benefit of all rather than just the aristocracy? This is the question that has always kept the ruling elite awake at night, wondering when at last the serfs will storm the castle. It will be very soon for them if things do not change for the better and instead continue down the same corpse littered path so many societies ruled by an untouchable elite have traveled before.

Yes, but the problem with your logic is seated in the idea that we have an “aristocracy” in the US, when what we really have is a “meritocracy”. How do people get rich? They make something from nothing. Sometimes they get rich by spending years in medical or law school, or by thinking of a new idea or invention, or by taking a new approach to running things that already exist to reduce the cost of production, and yes, sometimes through simple dumb luck. But even those who have profited from luck had to put themselves into a position to be lucky, having a business in place which profited from some lucky change in circumstances. No one is handed wealth in this country except perhaps by their wealthy parents, who earned it by doing one of the things listed, and as often as not those that inherit don’t manage to hang on to it; surely you’ve heard the phrase “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. Sometimes it doesn’t take that long; sports figures who earn huge amounts of money are often penniless within a couple of years after their stardom fades. The “passive” investors that you seem to regard as the idle rich can and often do lose their wealth, if they aren’t smart about what they do. They are rewarded for choosing the most efficiently run companies in which to invest, and penalized for choosing those less efficient; this is good for the economy as a whole, driving down prices and creating more wealth. The poor and middle class have the same chance to work their way up if they are willing to do what it takes; the class you are born into is not a life sentence unless you refuse to participate, and instead decide that your lot in life is the result of the existence of the "evil rich".

You misunderstand my point, I was making the case that yawning intractable income inequality has been the death of more than one society, every one of them thought that they could just build walls, hire soldiers and stomp on the rabble hard if they developed the courage to complain too loudly. Loss of freedom is inevitable if opportunities continue to be scarce while a tiny minority live like Roman emperors. These are the real rulers of our country, the ones who are stubbornly called "job creators" by some even though they seem to really suck at it, how little you expect of them to still defend them from criticism in the midst of a disaster their greed precipitated. When did it become so horrible to defend the poor working man? When did it become such a sin to criticize the "job creators" for their failure to actually create jobs?

There is no such thing as "income inequality". That's a made up concept by liberals to justify their will to take money from others. What there is, however, is an EFFORT INEQUALITY. There is also a TALENT INEQUALITY. And liberals, who aren't willing to make an effort, can't accept that their effort and talent is the true inequality. The wealth is just the result of that truth...

 

[kaz]

No, I think I understood your point perfectly. Your point is that the oppressed “serfs” will revolt against their “overlords”, the aristocracy. History shows that this can, indeed, be the case. What you fail to understand is that there are no serfs in this country

Exactly, our "serfs" have automobiles, TV's and roofs over their heads. Comparing that to 1910s Russia or 30s China is ridiculous. And so is their mood. They aren't going to revolt unless we organize them, pay them to do it and micromanage them through the process. Pretty much like they do their jobs.

no aristocracy, no true “class” system

This I disagree with, the Democratic party is creating exactly that. Their overlords are immune from their own laws and even accountability. If you're a Democrat, you can cheat on your taxes, deduct $50 for used underwear, keep piles of cash in your freezer, sexually harass women in the oval office, or get blow jobs from interns and you can perjurer, witness tamper, obstruct justice or even abuse the power of your office to cover it up.

 

[Katzndogz]

If all the poor disappeared the rich would get together in a cooperative and figure out what to do and how to do it. After all, the rich are already used to long hours and effort. The rich would do what the rich did to get rich. Organize.

If the rich disappeared, that's different, the poor would quickly descend into barbarism. Without the wealthy to provide for them they would prey upon one another. Rather than do something to better their circumstances, they would steal from one another.

 

[blastoff]

Imagine a rich guy.

He owns a mansion on a huge plot.

Everyday he wakes up, goes to work, works 15 hours, comes home, eats, goes to sleep. He works very hard. Makes a ton of money.


One day all the poor and lower middle class disappear.

All of a sudden our rich man has to
...clean his own house
...cut his own grass
...cook his own food
...change his own oil
...replace his own alternator
...repair his own broken window
...shovel his own snow
...iron his own clothes
...wash his own laundry


In short - do a lot of the things that ordinary people have to do on their own - except he has to do it much more because he's got a much bigger house - leaving less
time for him to do the job that makes him wealthy.

So what happens? Does his sacrifice time at work? Does his downsize his mansion to a more manageable living area? Or does he just let everything go to shit?

Any ideas?

How long would the poor last if the middle class and the rich where not paying for there rent,food,cars,cell phones and internet?

Compared to the rich man?

Who do you think would last longer - a plantation owner whose slaves disappeared - or slaves whose plantation owner disappeared? Why is it you think a rich guy has to own the land before it gets tilled? Is there something about the owner being wealthy that makes the land more fertile?

I recall a few years ago one of the African countries took away very productive farms from whites who, in some cases, had own them for a few generations, and turned them over to blacks to own and operate. And the crop outputs went to hell in a hand basket shortly thereafter.

 

[Katzndogz]

How long would the poor last if the middle class and the rich where not paying for there rent,food,cars,cell phones and internet?

Compared to the rich man?

Who do you think would last longer - a plantation owner whose slaves disappeared - or slaves whose plantation owner disappeared? Why is it you think a rich guy has to own the land before it gets tilled? Is there something about the owner being wealthy that makes the land more fertile?

I recall a few years ago one of the African countries took away very productive farms from whites who, in some cases, had own them for a few generations, and turned them over to blacks to own and operate. And the crop outputs went to hell in a hand basket shortly thereafter.

That was Zimbabwe. The land was seized and under the law, repatriated to the "rightful owners". The blacks burned the crops growing in the fields, they slaughtered the livestock and left the bodies to rot. They slaughtered those blacks who helped the white farmers and worked for them. Then they starved and asked the UN to provide food aid. The poor having had the wealth of the nation distributed to them, impoverished themselves and went to whatever rich person they could find for help to survive.

 

[The Professor]

Come on Earlier he suggested they Build their Own Sun Rooms, and Install their Own Metal Roofs, Both of which Require Licenses, and Insurance, and Complying with Regulations, and Codes that the Average Person knows nothing about. I don't Care how Rich or Poor you are, the Average person does not have the Know How, and Ability to do these things for themselves, and Comply with all the Rules.

Please. With the poor and the middle class gone, there would be no regulations. The rich could do whatever they wanted. Dont need to be to code. Of course, self interest would keep them from building something dangerous.

I doubt that there would be a single "rich" person in the country who couldn't adjust to living without a sun room.

This silly notion that only the poor can take care of themselves while the rich cannot is undeserving of serious consideration.

Wait...I may be wrong. Perhaps the rich man's wife will go bonkers when she has to do her own cooking. After all, she's probably never cooked before in her entire life and no rich woman actually enjoys cooking. Of course, the rich man will need therapy to cope with the idea of helping his wife clean the house. His poor housekeeper could clean the entire house in a few hours once a month, but the rich guy would have to work at it 24-7.

When the rich man's grass needs trimming, I can see the fear in his eyes as he approaches the lawn mower, wondering how to use it. I mean cutting grass is such a difficult task that only the learned muscle-hardened poor can perform it.

Yes, only the poor have the talent, strength and the ability to perform the basic essentials in life, and it is impossible for the rich to adapt to a world where certain luxuries are no longer available. All rich men started off with great wealth and thus do not know a thing about hard work and sacrifice.

Rich people are lazy, stupid and incompetent and only the poor can survive on their own.

Now I get it. It was all so simple.

 

[Katzndogz]

Come on Earlier he suggested they Build their Own Sun Rooms, and Install their Own Metal Roofs, Both of which Require Licenses, and Insurance, and Complying with Regulations, and Codes that the Average Person knows nothing about. I don't Care how Rich or Poor you are, the Average person does not have the Know How, and Ability to do these things for themselves, and Comply with all the Rules.

Please. With the poor and the middle class gone, there would be no regulations. The rich could do whatever they wanted. Dont need to be to code. Of course, self interest would keep them from building something dangerous.

I doubt that there would be a single "rich" person in the country who couldn't adjust to living without a sun room.

This silly notion that only the poor can take care of themselves while the rich cannot is undeserving of serious consideration.

Wait...I may be wrong. Perhaps the rich man's wife will go bonkers when she has to do her own cooking. After all, she's probably never cooked before in her entire life and no rich woman actually enjoys cooking. Of course, the rich man will need therapy to cope with the idea of helping his wife clean the house. His poor housekeeper could clean the entire house in a few hours once a month, but the rich guy would have to work at it 24-7.

When the rich man's grass needs trimming, I can see the fear in his eyes as he approaches the lawn mower, wondering how to use it. I mean cutting grass is such a difficult task that only the learned muscle-hardened poor can perform it.

Yes, only the poor have the talent, strength and the ability to perform the basic essentials in life, and it is impossible for the rich to adapt to a world where certain luxuries are no longer available. All rich men started off with great wealth and thus do not know a thing about hard work and sacrifice.

Rich people are lazy, stupid and incompetent and only the poor can survive on their own.

Now I get it. It was all so simple.

You bring up an excellent point, albeit backhanded, the poor cannot survive without the rich. Take for instance the owner of a string of successful plumbing stores, he's rich. One day all of the poor employees disappear. He goes out and fixes plumbing. But if the owner should disappear, the poor employees cannot survive on their own. Their entire livelihoods are gone. They are now very poor, looking for some other rich employer to pay them.