The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:41 am

People use this statement all the time, as if one necessarily goes with the other. It doesn't.

Rich people getting richer does not mean that poor people get poorer. A CEO getting a milti-million dollar bonus for, well, overseeing someone else's hard work does not come out of employees' salaries. I've never gotten a note "You will notice a $50 deduction from this month's paycheck. Congratulations to Mr. Marin for a record sales quarter."

I've been in the conversations again and again where people deride high salaries and say the poor are getting poorer. They claim welfare numbers are swelling and people are homeless, there are uninsured and pregnant mothers dying on the streets. When I point out that the poorest in our country (or any developed nation) are rich in relation to the worldwide population, I generally get no response. Then the same person starts the same whinge in a different thread.

I challenge anyone to prove how increasing the net worth of one individual necessarily decreases the net worth of another.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:50 am

The rich man can afford to pay $50 for a pair of boots that will last them 10 years.

The poor man buys $10 boots that last a season, because he only has $10 to spare.

At the end of 10 years, the poor man will have spent twice as much as the rich man on boots, and he will still have wet feet.

Thanks Mr Pratchet:-4

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:17 am

Accountable;906804 wrote: People use this statement all the time, as if one necessarily goes with the other. It doesn't.

Rich people getting richer does not mean that poor people get poorer. A CEO getting a milti-million dollar bonus for, well, overseeing someone else's hard work does not come out of employees' salaries. I've never gotten a note "You will notice a $50 deduction from this month's paycheck. Congratulations to Mr. Marin for a record sales quarter."

I've been in the conversations again and again where people deride high salaries and say the poor are getting poorer. They claim welfare numbers are swelling and people are homeless, there are uninsured and pregnant mothers dying on the streets. When I point out that the poorest in our country (or any developed nation) are rich in relation to the worldwide population, I generally get no response. Then the same person starts the same whinge in a different thread.

I challenge anyone to prove how increasing the net worth of one individual necessarily decreases the net worth of another.

You are quite right, the cost of a high executive salary comes from the shareholders and not the workers. Actually, the exact opposite is true in terms of taking from the lower paid. High paid successful executives and other wealthy people typically create jobs and opportunities. Small business people who are in many cases the silent millionares in the US also create jobs.

The average person goes to work, does his job and comes home and while at work is vital to the success of any organization.

But the typical wealthy executive and entrepenaur works 70 or more hours a week (for over 40 years I was in the office from 6:00 AM to 6:00PM and worked regularly on Saturday and Sunday from home or where ever I happended to be. I have never had a vacation where I didn't work part of the time). At the top level of an organization the CEO will typically be out at night attending one kind of event or the other 3-4 nights a week. The idea that high paid people just sit in a big office and yell you do this and you do that is absurd. It doesn't work that way.

Sure there are some geedy people out there who get overpaid and do not create results, but that is the fault of the Board of Directors and shareholders and sooner or later it all catches up to them.

The simple truth is that really successful people create their own wealth and in the process many create new industries, new jobs and wealth for others. Where would we be without Bill Gates, and the people who took the risk and started WAl+Mart, Home Depot, Star Bucks, and hundreds of other ventures? How many jobs would disappear if these people never did what they did and the fact many became billionaires is a small price for society to pay. And then when it is all over, much of that weatlh comes back to society in the form of charity, libraries, musums, parks, etc.

The reason is the wealth gap has grown is because the average person has not been able to adapt quickly enough to a changing world economy, too many still are undereducated and many are simply not motivated.

Having said that, it does not alter the fact that a growing wealth gap is a bad thing and we need to find a way to close it, but that is not by simply taxing more and creating more welfare style programs.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:39 am

and the people who took the risk and started WAl+Mart,

It's important to realize that SprawlMart creates a lot of crappy part time jobs with crap wages and no overtime. A 20 hour a week job does not buy food. Most people out my way work two jobs because everyone's gone to part time hiring. I just wanted to point out that SprawlMart is not necessarily anything to revere.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:51 am

And Starbucks fired how many yesterday?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:53 am

Accountable;906804 wrote:

I challenge anyone to prove how increasing the net worth of one individual necessarily decreases the net worth of another.

It's not that simple...

It's not just that "increasing the net worth of one individual doesn't decreases the net worth of another." it's the owners who own all of the shares yet doesn't divide the profits they sustain equally amongst the workers to whom all have done equal the amount of work...In this case those who benefit from the majority of the profits they are considered "richer" than the others which equates to the concept of "rich" and "poor" in general...

All the income sustained by the state is divided between it's people...When as I've described above happens there is a group to whom does not benefit from the money in which they're entitled to because of laws that limit the entire society from equal share to the business they equally contribute...

The income by the state is limited as well which means there is no endless amount of money to be made...One persons business somewhere will nullify one persons business elsewhere within that state...And the inequality in shared revenue is the primary result of one being "rich" and one being "poor"...

Food, clothing, and shelter are the only necessities in life that are essential in survival and to say that the people making most of the money from the equal amount of work being done deserve it is nonsense...

This is lack of equality which ultimately is the "rich" guarding their money from the "poor" by form of capitalist law...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:04 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;906825 wrote: You are quite right, the cost of a high executive salary comes from the shareholders and not the workers. Actually, the exact opposite is true in terms of taking from the lower paid. High paid successful executives and other wealthy people typically create jobs and opportunities. Small business people who are in many cases the silent millionares in the US also create jobs.

Those shareholders create jobs that pay sh*t...

They own all of the licenses while employing the "poor" who do all of their work for them...They are payed poorly because of rising health care prices and real estate that is laughable to your average person who knows how to build houses associated with the greed of your typical "CEO"...

They create more jobs from which is at the expense of others who've bottomed out...

If there were an infinite amount of money to be made would be one thing but there isn't...Each countries' market has their own set of worth and the people within have to comply with the jobs that enable the trade that's essential in living...You don't just go out and sell a product and call it a business...You have to sell a product that is worth something to others, and those products symbolize the limit the country or planet has on it's own worth...

Money is not a currency made up by man to generate revenue it's a currency made up by man to associate the worth of trade by claimed land which more likely than not has been killed over...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:20 am

Chezzie;906807 wrote: The rich man can afford to pay $50 for a pair of boots that will last them 10 years.

The poor man buys $10 boots that last a season, because he only has $10 to spare.

At the end of 10 years, the poor man will have spent twice as much as the rich man on boots, and he will still have wet feet.

Thanks Mr Pratchet:-4
While both scenarios are valid, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The rich man doesn't make the poor man poorer. And, while the rich man does save $50, the poor man drops to zero again and again, but never below. He doesn't become poorer.

Who's Mr Pratchet?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:22 am

RedGlitter;906846 wrote: It's important to realize that SprawlMart creates a lot of crappy part time jobs with crap wages and no overtime. A 20 hour a week job does not buy food. Most people out my way work two jobs because everyone's gone to part time hiring. I just wanted to point out that SprawlMart is not necessarily anything to revere.
It certainly is. People with no resume and no job history get hired at places like Wal-Mart, then use that job as a stepping stone to another job at better pay. Such jobs are absolutely necessary to our economy. They help people improve their lives.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:25 am

Accountable;906910 wrote: It certainly is. People with no resume and no job history get hired at places like Wal-Mart, then use that job as a stepping stone to another job at better pay. Such jobs are absolutely necessary to our economy. They help people improve their lives.

I respectfully disagree. As I see it, they keep people in the gutter with little chance of bettering themselves. It is not impossible but sorely difficult to work two jobs, raise a kid which most people have at least one, and attend college to get a better job. I do understand where you're leading Acc, I just don't think people need be punished for being blue collar.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:29 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;906825 wrote: You are quite right, the cost of a high executive salary comes from the shareholders and not the workers. Actually, the exact opposite is true in terms of taking from the lower paid. High paid successful executives and other wealthy people typically create jobs and opportunities. Small business people who are in many cases the silent millionares in the US also create jobs.

The average person goes to work, does his job and comes home and while at work is vital to the success of any organization.

But the typical wealthy executive and entrepenaur works 70 or more hours a week (for over 40 years I was in the office from 6:00 AM to 6:00PM and worked regularly on Saturday and Sunday from home or where ever I happended to be. I have never had a vacation where I didn't work part of the time). At the top level of an organization the CEO will typically be out at night attending one kind of event or the other 3-4 nights a week. The idea that high paid people just sit in a big office and yell you do this and you do that is absurd. It doesn't work that way.

Sure there are some geedy people out there who get overpaid and do not create results, but that is the fault of the Board of Directors and shareholders and sooner or later it all catches up to them.

The simple truth is that really successful people create their own wealth and in the process many create new industries, new jobs and wealth for others. Where would we be without Bill Gates, and the people who took the risk and started WAl+Mart, Home Depot, Star Bucks, and hundreds of other ventures? How many jobs would disappear if these people never did what they did and the fact many became billionaires is a small price for society to pay. And then when it is all over, much of that weatlh comes back to society in the form of charity, libraries, musums, parks, etc.Exactly. Well said.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY wrote: The reason is the wealth gap has grown is because the average person has not been able to adapt quickly enough to a changing world economy, too many still are undereducated and many are simply not motivated.

Having said that, it does not alter the fact that a growing wealth gap is a bad thing and we need to find a way to close it, but that is not by simply taxing more and creating more welfare style programs.

People are adaptable, and the average person can overcome virtually any challenge placed in his way. The education system hasn't adapted to the changing economy. IMO that's because some rich are trying to stall progress and paying gov't legislators to help. Progress is not old money's friend.

Why is a growing wealth gap a bad thing?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:32 am

Another example of corporate owners neglecting their workers...Only this one seems to prefer art as opposed to the health and prosperity of the community...Or should I say communities?...(Rhetorical)...

It isn't that, when Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton purchased Asher B. Durand's 1849 painting Kindred Spirits last year, she got the state of Arkansas to pass legislation specifically to save her taxes -- in this case, about $3 million on a purchase price of $35 million. It isn't that the world's second richest woman and ninth richest person (according to a Forbes magazine 2005 estimate) scooped the painting out from under the National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which had banded together to try to keep it in a public collection when the New York Public Library decided to sell it off. It isn't that Walton will eventually stick this talisman of New England cultural life and a lot of other old American paintings in the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, the Walton family museum she's building in Bentonville, Arkansas, the site of Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters -- after all people in the middle of the country should get to see some good art too.

It might not even be, as Wal-MartWatch.com points out, that the price of the painting equals what the state of Arkansas spends every two years providing for Wal-Mart's 3,971 employees on public assistance; or that the average Wal-Mart cashier makes $7.92 an hour and, since Wal Mart likes to keep people on less than full-time schedules, works only 29 hours a week for an annual income of $11,948--so a Wal-Mart cashier would have to work a little under 3,000 years to earn the price of the painting without taking any salary out for food, housing, or other expenses (and a few hundred more years to pay the taxes, if the state legislature didn't exempt our semi-immortal worker).

The trouble lies in what the painting means and what Alice Walton and her $18 billion mean. Art patronage has always been a kind of money-laundering, a pretty public face for fortunes made in uglier ways. The superb Rockefeller folk art collections in several American museums don't include paintings of the 1914 Ludlow Massacre of miners in Colorado, carried out by Rockefeller goons, and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles doesn't say a thing about oil. But something about Wal-Mart and Kindred Spirits is more peculiar than all the robber barons and their chapels, galleries, and collections ever were, perhaps because, more than most works of art, Durand's painting is a touchstone for a set of American ideals that Wal-Mart has been savaging. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/32655/

I'm just curious as to whom feels her collection is more important than health benefits and higher wages given to the workers that do surely more than 50% of the work while Wal-Mart owners sit and take in all of the profits simply because of their name...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:36 am

RedGlitter;906912 wrote: I respectfully disagree. As I see it, they keep people in the gutter with little chance of bettering themselves. It is not impossible but sorely difficult to work two jobs, raise a kid which most people have at least one, and attend college to get a better job. I do understand where you're leading Acc, I just don't think people need be punished for being blue collar.
Welfare keeps people in the gutter, discouraging them from trying to better themselves. Get a job, any job, and do it well; you will be rewarded with a pay raise or promotion, if not by your present employer then by his competition. People get on welfare and calculate that looking to better themselves would mean a step back before they can move forward, and so they stay put. The example to that kid you refer to is that it's better to kick back and cash the check than to work hard and excel. Further, school becomes a waste because education is only for rich folk and crap jobs like Wal-mart are for fools.

You want to disparage something for keeping people down, don't look to job creators like Wal-mart, look to government handouts.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:39 am

K.Snyder;906915 wrote: Another example of corporate owners neglecting their workers...Only this one seems to prefer art as opposed to the health and prosperity of the community...Or should I say communities?...(Rhetorical)...

It isn't that, when Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton purchased Asher B. Durand's 1849 painting Kindred Spirits last year, she got the state of Arkansas to pass legislation specifically to save her taxes -- in this case, about $3 million on a purchase price of $35 million. It isn't that the world's second richest woman and ninth richest person (according to a Forbes magazine 2005 estimate) scooped the painting out from under the National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which had banded together to try to keep it in a public collection when the New York Public Library decided to sell it off. It isn't that Walton will eventually stick this talisman of New England cultural life and a lot of other old American paintings in the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, the Walton family museum she's building in Bentonville, Arkansas, the site of Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters -- after all people in the middle of the country should get to see some good art too.

It might not even be, as Wal-MartWatch.com points out, that the price of the painting equals what the state of Arkansas spends every two years providing for Wal-Mart's 3,971 employees on public assistance; or that the average Wal-Mart cashier makes $7.92 an hour and, since Wal Mart likes to keep people on less than full-time schedules, works only 29 hours a week for an annual income of $11,948--so a Wal-Mart cashier would have to work a little under 3,000 years to earn the price of the painting without taking any salary out for food, housing, or other expenses (and a few hundred more years to pay the taxes, if the state legislature didn't exempt our semi-immortal worker).

The trouble lies in what the painting means and what Alice Walton and her $18 billion mean. Art patronage has always been a kind of money-laundering, a pretty public face for fortunes made in uglier ways. The superb Rockefeller folk art collections in several American museums don't include paintings of the 1914 Ludlow Massacre of miners in Colorado, carried out by Rockefeller goons, and the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles doesn't say a thing about oil. But something about Wal-Mart and Kindred Spirits is more peculiar than all the robber barons and their chapels, galleries, and collections ever were, perhaps because, more than most works of art, Durand's painting is a touchstone for a set of American ideals that Wal-Mart has been savaging. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/32655/

I'm just curious as to whom feels her collection is more important than health benefits and higher wages given to the workers that do surely more than 50% of the work while Wal-Mart owners sit and take in all of the profits simply because of their name...
Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice chose not to get involved in the operations of the family business. For a time she was a broker for E.F. Hutton.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:42 am

I'm not sure where welfare came in, at least I didn't mention it, but I purely think that having reverence for "job creators" such as WM is partially why we are declining...they are being rewarded for what? People work to pay their bills and they have a right to expect fair money and fair treatment for fair work. WM provides none of that. It is not a hand out, but it is surely not a hand up either. WM kids its communities into thinking it "cares" about them by providing X crap jobs a year while pushing people down just a little bit more. I disagreed with you in the past on the idea that only college graduates work hard enough to deserve decent pay and I disagree again.

Is the surgeon any more valuable than the high school dropout mechanic who fixes the hospital's ambulances?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:42 am

Accountable;906913 wrote:

People are adaptable, and the average person can overcome virtually any challenge placed in his way. The education system hasn't adapted to the changing economy. IMO that's because some rich are trying to stall progress and paying gov't legislators to help. Progress is not old money's friend.

Why is a growing wealth gap a bad thing?

I would have to agree that people have their own destiny in their hands...But this hardly justifies the "gap" you speak of...

Life in America is much better than say life in Samalia, or Tanzania...But it could be alot better in my opinion if "Share" were actually that...Shared equally...Most owners of business have worked hard for the companies they've made...I congratulate them I really do...But that has nothing to do with the fact that the people below them and everywhere do not have that chance...I'm mostly talking about other countries but there are certain local governments within the United States that can be compared...Places that see these corporations as I've said before neglect their workers only further preventing them from creating a more comfortable life...This is because of the laws that I've referred to in post 7...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:48 am

Accountable;906922 wrote: Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice chose not to get involved in the operations of the family business. For a time she was a broker for E.F. Hutton.

It's a sign of the money that's floating around that is a result of worker neglect...

Jobs are not plentiful everywhere and people cannot make endless amounts of money...There's a limit to the amount of work that can be done because of the lack of willingness to share the profits from which those employers pocket...

Billions of dollars...A significant amount of that being spent on art...Workers dieing in the street...

And sweet pea Alice Walton didn't earn her money...

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:00 am

Accountable;906804 wrote: I challenge anyone to prove how increasing the net worth of one individual necessarily decreases the net worth of another.

If resources are finite (like land) that means if person A has X%, that means person B has 100 - X%. In these cases the two are interdependent.

While the production of things have increased, the basic resources have remained constant or are actually diminishing.

However, wealth can be defined in different ways ... simply having a dollar amount attached to one's accounts is fairly meaningless. Material wealth should be defined in terms of consumption of resources. Someone that lives as a miser and never spends money, is for all intents and purposes materially poor.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:15 am

Accountable;906907 wrote: While both scenarios are valid, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The rich man doesn't make the poor man poorer. And, while the rich man does save $50, the poor man drops to zero again and again, but never below. He doesn't become poorer.

Who's Mr Pratchet?

Mr Terry Pratchet no less:-6

Sam Vines is a character in his Discworld series of books. He is a fictional policeman Vimes' Boots

Early in his career, while he is still a nearly-impoverished Watchman, Vimes reflects that he can only afford ten-dollar boots with thin soles which don't keep out the damp and wear out in a season or two. A pair of good boots, which cost fifty dollars, would last for years and years - which means that over the long run, the man with cheap boots has spent much more money and still has wet feet.

This thought leads to the general realization that one of the reasons rich people remain rich is because they don't actually have to spend as much money as poor people; in many situations, they buy high-quality items (such as clothing, housing, and other necessities) which are made to last. In the long run, they actually use much less of their disposable income. He describes this as The Samuel Vimes 'Boots' Theory Of Socio-Economic Injustice.

This phrase has led to the use of the phrase "Vimes' Boots," or the description of a set of circumstances as a "Vimes' Boots situation." The phrase has widespread applicability. For instance, people who eat healthy food and get good regular medical care are generally healthier than people who do not. Although in the short run it costs more to provide medical checkups, wellness programs, and so forth, in the long run, those rich enough to afford them will not only spend less overall on medical care, they will have a higher quality of life. Thus those who cannot afford regular health care are said to be in a Vimes' Boots situation.

The irony of the situation, coupled with the character's own distaste for the wealthy and general cynicism, make the phrase a particularly effective and vivid evocation of the concept for those familiar with the Discworld novels, hence its becoming part of the vernacular in that subculture.

To economists and urban sociologists this phenomenon is known as the "ghetto tax

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:51 am

[quote=RedGlitter;906925]I'm not sure where welfare came in, at least I didn't mention it, [I did; it's the other alternative to working at places like WM] but I purely think that having reverence for "job creators" such as WM is partially why we are declining...they are being rewarded for what? People work to pay their bills and they have a right to expect fair money and fair treatment for fair work. [Agreed] WM provides none of that. [Disagree] It is not a hand out, but it is surely not a hand up either. WM kids its communities into thinking it "cares" about them by providing X crap jobs a year while pushing people down just a little bit more. [Can you clarify that? Pushing people down how?] I disagreed with you in the past on the idea that only college graduates work hard enough to deserve decent pay and I disagree again. [I don't remember what you're talking about.]

Is the surgeon any more valuable than the high school dropout mechanic who fixes the hospital's ambulances?[To whom? Are you suggesting the hospital should pay both the same?]

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:55 am

K.Snyder;906926 wrote: I would have to agree that people have their own destiny in their hands...But this hardly justifies the "gap" you speak of...

Life in America is much better than say life in Samalia, or Tanzania...But it could be alot better in my opinion if "Share" were actually that...Shared equally...Most owners of business have worked hard for the companies they've made...I congratulate them I really do...But that has nothing to do with the fact that the people below them and everywhere do not have that chance....Why do you think they don't have that chance? Many entrepeneurs start with nothing.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:04 am

Accountable;906986 wrote: Why do you think they don't have that chance? Many entrepeneurs start with nothing.

Many entrepreneurs start with nothing...Not all entrepreneurs start with nothing who has the equal opportunity within their local governments(Including individual state governances in America -- New York city comes to mind)to better themselves and is even harder when employers don't give them the proper pay they deserve...

I would have to say a very large proportion of America is as how you describe as having their own destiny in their hands but it's not like that throughout the world...Including within certain cities of America...

There is no endless amount of money...It's an illusion...Because of plentiful resources...The entrepreneurs near those resources benefit only to keep a large amount of the profits while paying their workers sh*t and they yell at the guy next to the geyser to get a job...

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:10 am

Accountable;906984 wrote: [quote=RedGlitter;906925]I'm not sure where welfare came in, at least I didn't mention it, [I did; it's the other alternative to working at places like WM] but I purely think that having reverence for "job creators" such as WM is partially why we are declining...they are being rewarded for what? People work to pay their bills and they have a right to expect fair money and fair treatment for fair work. [Agreed] WM provides none of that. [Disagree] It is not a hand out, but it is surely not a hand up either. WM kids its communities into thinking it "cares" about them by providing X crap jobs a year while pushing people down just a little bit more. [Can you clarify that? Pushing people down how?] I disagreed with you in the past on the idea that only college graduates work hard enough to deserve decent pay and I disagree again. [I don't remember what you're talking about.]

Is the surgeon any more valuable than the high school dropout mechanic who fixes the hospital's ambulances?[To whom? Are you suggesting the hospital should pay both the same?]

By pushing people down, I mean deliberately refusing to hire full time just because WM wants to save money.There's nothing wrong with being cost conscious but at the expense of your average worker, when you are a billion dollar conglomerate seems a bit indecent to me. We're not talking about Mom and Pop's Ice Cream Parlor, which struggles to pay its employees, but rather a corporation that can afford to do better and pay better.

I wish I could recall the actual topic but at some point in the past, in one of these types of convos, we were discussing whether or not the fast food guy should make the same as the college graduate. I believe you said no, that fast food was what you deserved if you didn't attend college. Correct me if I'm wrong on that please. Which brings me to your last question- no I am not suggesting a burger flipper make *as much* money as the guy with the degree, but I am saying that he should be paid a living wage and not looked upon as lesser because he couldn't or didn't get further formal education.

My comment about the surgeon vs. the mechanic is more emotional than practical.I have always wondered why (as an example) we give so much credit to the guy who cuts us open for surgery than we do the guy who is in the background making the parts for the doctor's equipment. In short (finally huh?) what I'm trying to get at is that if not for the little guy working for penny ante money there would be no big guys to work "for."

And I'm not arguing with you, Acc. Just disagreeing. You should know I have a great deal of respect for you.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:39 am

Well said RG. :yh_clap:yh_clap

[QUOTE]My comment about the surgeon vs. the mechanic is more emotional than practical.I have always wondered why (as an example) we give so much credit to the guy who cuts us open for surgery than we do the guy who is in the background making the parts for the doctor's equipment. In short (finally huh?) what I'm trying to get at is that if not for the little guy working for penny ante money there would be no big guys to work "for."[/QUOTE]

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:54 am

Chezzie;906807 wrote: The rich man can afford to pay $50 for a pair of boots that will last them 10 years.

The poor man buys $10 boots that last a season, because he only has $10 to spare.

At the end of 10 years, the poor man will have spent twice as much as the rich man on boots, and he will still have wet feet.

Thanks Mr Pratchet:-4

The smart Poor Man will buy Flip Flops for a buck and save $9.00 and not worry about wet feet. He will invest the $9.00 each season and at the end of 10 years have $150 which he will use to open a Hot Dog Stand, selling hot dogs with trimmings for $1.50 each. After one or two seasons he starts two more Hot Dog Stands and then franchises his business to others for $3,000 per business location. After a few years, the formerly poor man can now afford to buy $50 boots, but still prefers the Flip Flops.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:31 am

Lon;907037 wrote: The smart Poor Man will buy Flip Flops for a buck and save $9.00 and not worry about wet feet. He will invest the $9.00 each season and at the end of 10 years have $150 which he will use to open a Hot Dog Stand, selling hot dogs with trimmings for $1.50 each. After one or two seasons he starts two more Hot Dog Stands and then franchises his business to others for $3,000 per business location. After a few years, the formerly poor man can now afford to buy $50 boots, but still prefers the Flip Flops.

Flip flops?...

What about the -$15 each season it costs him to pay for adequate hospital bills because his feet have deteriorated from the flip flops having proved insufficient for work attire?...

Now mister hot dog hopeful is $50 in debt and not only that he has Achilles Tendinitis and mounting medical bills...

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:20 am

K.Snyder;907061 wrote: Flip flops?...

What about the -$15 each season it costs him to pay for adequate hospital bills because his feet have deteriorated from the flip flops having proved insufficient for work attire?...

Now mister hot dog hopeful is $50 in debt and not only that he has Achilles Tendinitis and mounting medical bills...

Ah, but this Hot Dog entrepeneur was lucky. He went uninsured and fortunately had no illnesses until he was age 47. Then he developed pancreatic cancer and died within six months. He left behind him a string of 375 Hot Dog Stands, employing 842 people who all joined the street vendors Union and thus had health insurance through their union. He left a 9.7 million dollar estate bequeathing half of that amount to Harvard University and adding to their already huge multi billion dollar endowment that now allows very poor students to matriculate. He considered leaving the rest to his favorite Forum (FG), but decided instead to leave it to John Mansfield and his research project.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:26 am

Lon;907087 wrote: Ah, but this Hot Dog entrepeneur was lucky. He went uninsured and fortunately had no illnesses until he was age 47. Then he developed pancreatic cancer and died within six months. He left behind him a string of 375 Hot Dog Stands, employing 842 people who all joined the street vendors Union and thus had health insurance through their union. He left a 9.7 million dollar estate bequeathing half of that amount to Harvard University and adding to their already huge multi billion dollar endowment that now allows very poor students to matriculate. He considered leaving the rest to his favorite Forum (FG), but decided instead to leave it to John Mansfield and his research project.

Very generous person...

Must have been one hell of a salesman...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:26 pm

K.Snyder;906929 wrote: It's a sign of the money that's floating around that is a result of worker neglect... So if I see someone in a limousine I can bet that there's a worker somewhere starving as a direct result?

K.Snyder wrote: Jobs are not plentiful everywhere and people cannot make endless amounts of money...There's a limit to the amount of work that can be done because of the lack of willingness to share the profits from which those employers pocket... Not true, proven time and again by imaginative and industrious people the world over.

K.Snyder wrote: Billions of dollars...A significant amount of that being spent on art...Workers dieing in the street...

And sweet pea Alice Walton didn't earn her money...Ah. So you're in favor of what's called the death tax then, where one's inheritence is taxed, and at a significantly higher rate than income. Would I be right in surmising that?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:45 pm

Accountable;907143 wrote:

Ah. So you're in favor of what's called the death tax then, where one's inheritence is taxed, and at a significantly higher rate than income. Would I be right in surmising that?

No...Well sort of but not in that context...I'm for equal share of proprietorship, which would ultimately entail equal taxes at the same time rendering no one poor...

But I'm off for now...I'll give you my opinion tomorrow in greater detail...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:46 pm

Chezzie;906950 wrote: Mr Terry Pratchet no less:-6

Sam Vines is a character in his Discworld series of books. He is a fictional policeman Vimes' Boots

Early in his career, while he is still a nearly-impoverished Watchman, Vimes reflects that he can only afford ten-dollar boots with thin soles which don't keep out the damp and wear out in a season or two. A pair of good boots, which cost fifty dollars, would last for years and years - which means that over the long run, the man with cheap boots has spent much more money and still has wet feet.

This thought leads to the general realization that one of the reasons rich people remain rich is because they don't actually have to spend as much money as poor people; in many situations, they buy high-quality items (such as clothing, housing, and other necessities) which are made to last. In the long run, they actually use much less of their disposable income. He describes this as The Samuel Vimes 'Boots' Theory Of Socio-Economic Injustice.

This phrase has led to the use of the phrase "Vimes' Boots," or the description of a set of circumstances as a "Vimes' Boots situation." The phrase has widespread applicability. For instance, people who eat healthy food and get good regular medical care are generally healthier than people who do not. Although in the short run it costs more to provide medical checkups, wellness programs, and so forth, in the long run, those rich enough to afford them will not only spend less overall on medical care, they will have a higher quality of life. Thus those who cannot afford regular health care are said to be in a Vimes' Boots situation.

The irony of the situation, coupled with the character's own distaste for the wealthy and general cynicism, make the phrase a particularly effective and vivid evocation of the concept for those familiar with the Discworld novels, hence its becoming part of the vernacular in that subculture.

To economists and urban sociologists this phenomenon is known as the "ghetto tax
Ah. Thanks. I'd never heard of it. :-6 Learned something new!

It makes sense on the surface. The only problem is that it assumes the rich started rich. Every fortune started at zero sometime in the past and not every rich person is from old money. So every genetic line started only able to afford the $10 boots. The difference comes in the intervening months before those boots wear out, in which the man decides to save up for, say, some $12 boots that last slightly longer. He makes certain sacrifices, possibly works some longer hours or skips a meal so that he can save up for the quality boots. He repeats the process each year, getting better and better boots, until he can afford the $50 boots. This gives him time to save for other things at his whim ... or he can loaf around a few years showing off his high quality boots.

The point is that every average man can buy the $50 boots if he's willing to do what's required, so if the poor are getting poorer (which I dispute) then it is really by their own choice.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:53 pm

K.Snyder;906996 wrote: Many entrepreneurs start with nothing...Not all entrepreneurs start with nothing who has the equal opportunity within their local governments(Including individual state governances in America -- New York city comes to mind)to better themselves and is even harder when employers don't give them the proper pay they deserve... No one is assigned an employer. God Bless America! Anyone that thinks they are saddled with a dead-end job is selling themselves short.

K.Snyder wrote: I would have to say a very large proportion of America is as how you describe as having their own destiny in their hands but it's not like that throughout the world...Including within certain cities of America...All of America is as I describe. Name one city where it is illegal for citzens to take their own destiny in their hands.

K.Snyder wrote: There is no endless amount of money...It's an illusion...Because of plentiful resources...The entrepreneurs near those resources benefit only to keep a large amount of the profits while paying their workers sh*t and they yell at the guy next to the geyser to get a job...To read your posts, one would think tat the only successful entrepreneurs are those who abuse their employees.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:03 pm

RedGlitter;907002 wrote: [quote=Accountable;906984]

By pushing people down, I mean deliberately refusing to hire full time just because WM wants to save money.There's nothing wrong with being cost conscious but at the expense of your average worker, when you are a billion dollar conglomerate seems a bit indecent to me. We're not talking about Mom and Pop's Ice Cream Parlor, which struggles to pay its employees, but rather a corporation that can afford to do better and pay better.I agree their practices suck, but they don't hide their policies. Unless I'm mistaken, McDonald's practices are similar. Why doesn't anyone berate them??

RedGlitter wrote: I wish I could recall the actual topic but at some point in the past, in one of these types of convos, we were discussing whether or not the fast food guy should make the same as the college graduate. I believe you said no, that fast food was what you deserved if you didn't attend college. Correct me if I'm wrong on that please. Which brings me to your last question- no I am not suggesting a burger flipper make *as much* money as the guy with the degree, but I am saying that he should be paid a living wage and not looked upon as lesser because he couldn't or didn't get further formal education. I don't understand making a rectal estimation, calling it a "living wage" and dictating that every job must make at least that much, regardless of the benefit to the company. The result of such a law only reduces entry-level opportunities.

Are you aware that some of the very best sprinboard job that get people into the highest paying jobs don't pay any salary at all? What was that Will Smith movie based on a true story?

RedGlitter wrote: My comment about the surgeon vs. the mechanic is more emotional than practical.I have always wondered why (as an example) we give so much credit to the guy who cuts us open for surgery than we do the guy who is in the background making the parts for the doctor's equipment. In short (finally huh?) what I'm trying to get at is that if not for the little guy working for penny ante money there would be no big guys to work "for."

And I'm not arguing with you, Acc. Just disagreeing. You should know I have a great deal of respect for you.I know, dear. The feeling's mutual. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:04 pm

Lon;907037 wrote: The smart Poor Man will buy Flip Flops for a buck and save $9.00 and not worry about wet feet. He will invest the $9.00 each season and at the end of 10 years have $150 which he will use to open a Hot Dog Stand, selling hot dogs with trimmings for $1.50 each. After one or two seasons he starts two more Hot Dog Stands and then franchises his business to others for $3,000 per business location. After a few years, the formerly poor man can now afford to buy $50 boots, but still prefers the Flip Flops.
Thank you. Very well put.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:06 pm

K.Snyder;907160 wrote: No...Well sort of but not in that context...I'm for equal share of proprietorship, which would ultimately entail equal taxes at the same time rendering no one poor...

But I'm off for now...I'll give you my opinion tomorrow in greater detail...
I can't wait. :-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:20 pm

Accountable;907161 wrote:

It makes sense on the surface. The only problem is that it assumes the rich started rich. Every fortune started at zero sometime in the past and not every rich person is from old money.

Would you not agree that there are significantly more peoples born into wealth as opposed to the wealthy to whom are not?...

Far more people are born into inheritances than those that become successful in sustaining what society deems a comfortable life style let alone a wealthy one...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:38 pm

Accountable;907166 wrote: No one is assigned an employer. God Bless America! Anyone that thinks they are saddled with a dead-end job is selling themselves short. Key word "America"...I agree with you in this respect...But America is less than 300 years old(Sort of but to compare resource consumption then with now is laughable)...We Americans are extremely lucky...This is where we need to have a much more broader sense of awareness...As I've said before...Try telling this to your average Tanzanian, or Somalian...And yes, the riches America has and does not provide equal share with those riches are reducing the chances of peoples elsewhere to be able to get a piece of those riches ultimately leading to healthier lifestyles...The world has a limit to it's resource production because demand for better lives is higher than the supply of sufficient paying jobs...

Accountable;907166 wrote:

All of America is as I describe. Name one city where it is illegal for citizens to take their own destiny in their hands.I agree with you here to a certain extent...But empathize for a minute...A person in New York City who is desperate for work has to move somewhere else within the United States to get a better job...And that's not to say where he moves is somewhere who isn't racist, prejudice, or discriminatory in anyway...That's significantly hard for someone to accomplish...

But in a sense as I've said before I agree with you as far as America is concerned...Probably won't be saying that for long...Locally GM here makes up about 65% of Daytons employment and they're about to belly up...They're bellying up why?...Because Honda, Toyota, and Mitsubishi are taking them out of business...As I've said before...One business starting somewhere is one business ending in it's place...

Accountable;907166 wrote:

To read your posts, one would think tat the only successful entrepreneurs are those who abuse their employees.

Do you agree that a significant amount of employers pays their employers less than the work at hand is worth?...Keep in mind lets have a much broader view of the world and not limited to the extremely untaped new country we live in today hours after July 4th ironically enough...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:59 pm

Why is it that Indonesia is one of the most resource rich countries in the world yet it's people are one of the most perverse?...

Watch this short video clip...http://english.ntdtv.com/?c=156&a=3888

Sulfer miners in Indonesia I believe make around $6 and at most $10 a day on average and have to endure walking down this...

The enormous natural crater formed lake, where the sulfur is mined, is 220 yards deep and filled with steaming acid water, some 2,500 yards above sea level. daily, not to mention a quick sulfer dioxide break...They used to allow horses to walk up and down the treturous terrain but because the horses more often than not fell and injured itself if not died they felt using humans would be more cost efficient...

$6 a day is a good living in Indonesia but they trade this off for 20 years off of their life so that their "children can grow up and have a better opportunity"...

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:31 am

Lon;907037 wrote: The smart Poor Man will buy Flip Flops for a buck and save $9.00 and not worry about wet feet. He will invest the $9.00 each season and at the end of 10 years have $150 which he will use to open a Hot Dog Stand, selling hot dogs with trimmings for $1.50 each. After one or two seasons he starts two more Hot Dog Stands and then franchises his business to others for $3,000 per business location. After a few years, the formerly poor man can now afford to buy $50 boots, but still prefers the Flip Flops.

Love it...:wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:03 am

Immersion foot, or trench foot, is a medical condition caused by prolonged exposure of the feet to damp, unsanitary and cold conditions above freezing point.

Causes

Immersion foot occurs when feet are cold and damp while wearing constricting footwear. Unlike frostbite, immersion foot does not require freezing temperatures and can occur in temperatures up to 60° Fahrenheit (about 16° Celsius). The condition can occur with as little as twelve hours' exposure.

Presentation

Affected feet become numb and then turn red or blue. As the condition worsens, they may swell. Advanced immersion foot often involves blisters and open sores, which lead to fungal infections; this is sometimes called jungle rot.

Prognosis

If left untreated, immersion foot usually results in gangrene, which can require amputation. If immersion foot is treated properly, complete recovery is normal, though it is marked by severe short-term pain when feeling is returning. Like other cold injuries, immersion foot leaves sufferers more susceptible to it in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_foot

A little hard to go about business with a hot dog stand with gangrene...Which in many cases can even incur amputation...

I don't see any medical bills being low enough for anyone to be able to create an "9.7 million dollar estate" off of selling fn hot dogs...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:31 am

K.Snyder;907609 wrote: Would you not agree that there are significantly more peoples born into wealth as opposed to the wealthy to whom are not?...

Far more people are born into inheritances than those that become successful in sustaining what society deems a comfortable life style let alone a wealthy one...
You got it backward, K.

"Most of today's rich have earned -- not inherited -- their status. Among the top 1 percent, report Saez and Piketty, more than four-fifths of their income comes from salaries and self-employment." SOURCE

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:42 am

Accountable;907800 wrote: You got it backward, K.

"Most of today's rich have earned -- not inherited -- their status. Among the top 1 percent, report Saez and Piketty, more than four-fifths of their income comes from salaries and self-employment." SOURCE

Accountable is correct, the vast majority of wealthy people earn their money and most of them are small business people who create wealth through a lot of hard work.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:44 am

K.Snyder;907616 wrote: Key word "America"...I agree with you in this respect...But America is less than 300 years old(Sort of but to compare resource consumption then with now is laughable)...We Americans are extremely lucky...This is where we need to have a much more broader sense of awareness...As I've said before...Try telling this to your average Tanzanian, or Somalian...And yes, the riches America has and does not provide equal share with those riches are reducing the chances of peoples elsewhere to be able to get a piece of those riches ultimately leading to healthier lifestyles...The world has a limit to it's resource production because demand for better lives is higher than the supply of sufficient paying jobs... When you measure things in another country - another culture - you have to use their yardstick. If you only compare against our standard of living, even our UK buddies suffer intolerably.

http://www.success-and-culture.net/arti ... come.shtml

K.Snyder wrote: I agree with you here to a certain extent...But empathize for a minute...A person in New York City who is desperate for work has to move somewhere else within the United States to get a better job...And that's not to say where he moves is somewhere who isn't racist, prejudice, or discriminatory in anyway...That's significantly hard for someone to accomplish...

But in a sense as I've said before I agree with you as far as America is concerned...Probably won't be saying that for long...Locally GM here makes up about 65% of Daytons employment and they're about to belly up...They're bellying up why?...Because Honda, Toyota, and Mitsubishi are taking them out of business...As I've said before...One business starting somewhere is one business ending in it's place...

Granted, sometimes it's extremely difficult. Many people can't accept leaving home to make a living, but staying is a choice as well.

K.Snyder wrote:

Do you agree that a significant amount of employers pays their employers less than the work at hand is worth?... I only agree that the "worth" of a product or service is too nebulous an idea to nail down when talking globally.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:45 am

K.Snyder;907741 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_foot

A little hard to go about business with a hot dog stand with gangrene...Which in many cases can even incur amputation...

I don't see any medical bills being low enough for anyone to be able to create an "9.7 million dollar estate" off of selling fn hot dogs...

Well, I have a realtive who had a hot dog stand for many years (thsi is going back more than 20 years) and even in those days he took in $100,000 a year so with prudent savings (and apparently not reporting it all for tax purposes, it is possible.

I once asked the guy selling popcorn on the Mall in Washington, DC how much he could make selling bags of popcorn out of a truck, "oh, it's over $100,000 a year was his answer.

It is amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:50 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;907819 wrote: Well, I have a realtive who had a hot dog stand for many years (thsi is going back more than 20 years) and even in those days he took in $100,000 a year so with prudent savings (and apparently not reporting it all for tax purposes, it is possible.

I once asked the guy selling popcorn on the Mall in Washington, DC how much he could make selling bags of popcorn out of a truck, "oh, it's over $100,000 a year was his answer.

It is amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it.

I don't doubt that...

But not with trench foot!!!...:wah:

And try telling this to the people in Samalia...The demand for hot dogs there are without a doubt more if not equal to anywhere in the world yet they don't have hot dog stands because they don't even have the flip flops to get started...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:59 am

K.Snyder;907624 wrote: Why is it that Indonesia is one of the most resource rich countries in the world yet it's people are one of the most perverse?...

Watch this short video clip...http://english.ntdtv.com/?c=156&a=3888

Sulfer miners in Indonesia I believe make around $6 and at most $10 a day on average and have to endure walking down this...

daily, not to mention a quick sulfer dioxide break...They used to allow horses to walk up and down the treturous terrain but because the horses more often than not fell and injured itself if not died they felt using humans would be more cost efficient...

$6 a day is a good living in Indonesia but they trade this off for 20 years off of their life so that their "children can grow up and have a better opportunity"...
I couldn't see the vid, but I get the gist. I'm sure we can make horror stories about mining here in America as well, but again, you're measuring what they make with our yardstick. Mining is back-breaking work, but (from your link) "They pay us cash and it is higher than any farming job here. A farmer can get $1.60 a day but here we can get $6.40 a day, depending on our strength.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:01 am

K.Snyder;907821 wrote: I don't doubt that...

But not with trench foot!!!...:wah:

And try telling this to the people in Samalia...The demand for hot dogs there are without a doubt more if not equal to anywhere in the world yet they don't have hot dog stands because they don't even have the flip flops to get started...
Stop limiting yourself and stop limiting the poor. Nothing can stop human ingenuity except human pessimism.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:02 am

BTW, K, I'm still interested in your post #30.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:04 am

Accountable;907800 wrote: You got it backward, K.

"Most of today's rich have earned -- not inherited -- their status. Among the top 1 percent, report Saez and Piketty, more than four-fifths of their income comes from salaries and self-employment." SOURCE

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;907815 wrote: Accountable is correct, the vast majority of wealthy people earn their money and most of them are small business people who create wealth through a lot of hard work.

Accountable;907817 wrote: When you measure things in another country - another culture - you have to use their yardstick. If you only compare against our standard of living, even our UK buddies suffer intolerably.

http://www.success-and-culture.net/arti ... come.shtml Yeah but what you guys are not taking into account are other countries...America has vast amounts of starting points...We've only been mining it really for the past 100 years(Speaking in terms of significant effect)...It's like a ant hill a cousin from another colony discovers with vast amounts of sugar laying everywhere...The colony he came from is tapped...The prices there for grains of bread are higher than the worth it takes to earn it because of this...In other colonies the larger ants are bullying others from their equal share after all of the works done that has been completed equally...America is thriving (Is/was yet still has plenty of income) which makes it easier for people to start out like you've said...People in Somalia can't move to another country...Next door is practically the same problem...Surely you don't expect them to be granted work permits because the person down the street from the people who are hiring needs that job...And they're going to give it to him because he looks like them...While the Somalian can't buy a plane ticket anyway...

Accountable;907817 wrote:

Granted, sometimes it's extremely difficult. Many people can't accept leaving home to make a living, but staying is a choice as well. It's not a choice for Somalians it's a sentence...

Accountable;907817 wrote:

I only agree that the "worth" of a product or service is too nebulous an idea to nail down when talking globally.

Well it has to be...It has to be in association with the consumers willingness to pay for it compared incrementally to his needs...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:41 am

I was wrong!!

I heard an explanation last night that makes sense. I hadn't considered all the variables, namely inflation. As inflation goes up, most rich people are in a position to adjust their income to match or even exceed it. They can do it through demanding salary increases raising prices, cutting staff, or other options depending on their position in the company.

The poor, on the other hand have no such option. They are on a fixed income or are so low on the corporate totem pole that they have little influence over pay increases. As inflation increases, the value of the dollar goes down. Buying power decreases. Since the poor's income is basically static, they effectively become poorer.

So yes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but it is not cause & effect. It is because the value of the dollar decreases.

I picture it as a race in which as the terrain changes and gets rougher, one group is allowed to get better equipment (larger engines, 4-wheel drive, for example) while the other group is forced to stay in the same stock car no matter what.