Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Do you think the gap between the haves and have-nots is widening in most countries (if not all) around the world? If yes, what do you think the consequences will be for societies?

35 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Yes the gap (gini coefficient) is widening, and is a direct result of government intervention in the economy (e.g. money printing and the consequent benefit to politically connected folk). Crony capitalism at work.

Long term trends show there was a similar gap just before the great depression, before everything collapses and reset.

That will happen this time as well.

Of course, last time the "reset" involved a world war, and significant loss of life (over 200 million killed) and significant loss of wealth.

This time will likely be worse.

History DOES repeat itself.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

'There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.' - Warren Buffet.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes and revolution

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes.

The armed forces and the police increasingly paid to act as guardians of the status quo, protecting the rich. More gated communities, more slums.

Japan, where society was relatively fair until relatively recently might be an exception, with people looking to return to former, happier times.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Absolutely getting wider!! There clearly needs to be a spread of wealth from poor to rich, BUT the rich is SO HEAVY with wealth its way beyond insane, clearly unsustainable, BAD for worldwide economies!!

The stupid rich are KILLING the golden goose. Since the 80s all we hear(& still to this day) is that big biz is waiting for "better" economic times to give people lower down raises etc, MEANWHILE the rich have been pilfering record profits since the 80s.

Its time to call BS! The rich have got to start smartening up & fast or there will be HELL to pay & it will be hellish, even for the rich when the you know what hits the fan!!

Be smarter you rich, you aint earning it, you've been pilfering it for decades, has to stop, the charade has gone on far too long now, time to wise up or else!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

'There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.' - Warren Buffet.

So the. What is your solution, kill all of the rich? Who then will provide jobs? I've never seen a poor person offer anyone a job. It's not as simplistic as you think and it's not that the rich are evil and the poor and downtrodden are always the unfortunate. Instead of throwing in emotions and Yes, there is a growing gap, but it's a lot more complicated then what you think. I think in many developed 1st world nations there is a lot of political bickering between parties as to how best bring the people from the bottom up. One is big Governement, more taxes, the other less government, cut taxes, you also have a segment of the population that doesn't want to work and give their best efforts. This is a world wide problem and these bone-headed politicians need to come together to make real solutions rather than worrying about their party or their constituents.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Sure it is, that's what both the data and our own eyes tell us. And it's only going to get worse as governments continuously erode worker protections and social programs "for the economy".

What's going to happen? More poverty, more misery - same reasons those social programs were built to alleviate in the first place. A rising tide raises all boats as they say, but it's only true if everyone in the water can float.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Soylent Green summed it pretty well.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes, increasing. No surprise.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bass4funk says, "I've never seen a poor person offer anyone a job." I would like to point out that many poor people support business. If there were no poor people, what would happen to companies like Walmart? Perhaps, trickle up economics would be better than trickle down.

Anyway who are the wealthy? People working in banks, security companies and the like, which were in effect printing there own money with derivatives and so on. When they overstretched themselves, they were given huge hand-outs, and now they are creaming it.

There are some companies and countries that have realised that making the poor less poor is good for everyone. Compare Scandinavia, which tries to be fair to everyone and minimise poverty with the U.S. where many are so poor that they will risk there lives to steal a few dollars from a convenience store because they have no other way to feed their family.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

yes, but who are the rich? is it people who make more than $100,000? $200,000? and is taxing them more the way to solve the problem? for me its more of a problem of the form of democratic government we have. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Anyway who are the wealthy? People working in banks, security companies and the like, which were in effect printing there own money with derivatives and so on. When they overstretched themselves, they were given huge hand-outs, and now they are creaming it.

These wealthy bankers and traders you mention make up a scant fraction of wealthy people, much less than the 1% we have heard about in recent years. Most wealthy people are the people who own a dry cleaners, a McDonald's, or a car repair garage. People who have spent many years of working hard and spending carefully. These people make up the majority of the rich people in places like America, and they are also the largest employers. Most were not born rich, the great majority come from the working class, or even lower. These people don't live in New York or London, they usually live in the suburbs, or even in your neighborhood. They are people like my uncle, who dropped out of high school when he got his girlfriend pregnant with twins, and then spent the next 25 years working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week to put his kids through university.

Having come from a family of "have nots", I know what financial inequality feels like. But I also know it's causes. My parents were "have nots" because they never tried to do better. Despite having good minds and healthy bodies, they never really tried to make their lives better by improving their education, or by managing their money responsibly. Had they been given more money (which happened upon occasion), they simply would have squandered it (which they did).

During my life I have met people at the top and the bottom of the economic ladder. Their positions on this ladder were not often determined by inheriting money from their parents, inheriting nothing from their parents, or luck. Their position was determined mainly by the amount of personal effort they put into their lives.

The president of my former company was a self-made man who came from humble beginnings. At the age of 30 he was a homeless alcoholic who lived in the back of a truck. He worked as a roughneck at carnivals to make a little money. He was about as much of a "have not" as one can be in America. But he quit drinking, saved his small salary, and used it to start a small business, which eventually became something quite big.

He told me that there is no such thing as "haves" and "have-nots." He said there were only "do's" and "do nots." He often chided me for not trying to do better, for spending my pay on toys, and not paying attention to my future. He told me that if I didn't get my act together, I would be in for a rough life, and he was right.

During my university days, I worked in Central America and Africa for the UN, and I was astounded by the poverty there. But looking closely, it was easy to see why the people were so poor; they simply didn't do anything. They would only do as much as it took to get a meal for the day, or to get a scrap of clothing for themselves, or their kids. But very little more than that. None cared at all about what would come the next day or the next week. They lived for the day, and that was it. The weather in these places was warm and sunny, yet there was no well-organized farming. There was beautiful natural scenery, but it was mostly buried in trash and refuse. There were natural resources all around, but they were ignored, or used only so far as they could earn enough to get through the day. These people were helpless, because they simply couldn't be bothered to help themselves.

No one has to be a "have not", no one has to be "financially unequal", you are only as unequal as you allow yourself to be. Anyone can have anything they want if they go to the trouble of working for it. Those who don't want to bother deserve they get (or don't get).

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Hard to not say "sho ga nai" about some of it. I am a smart person, and have a little money due to my business. When things went south in 2008, I was smart enough to say, gee, it's a great time to buy stocks rather than sell them like everyone else. The combination of being a little smart (okagesama de) and having some resources meant I could increase those resources. Now for people with 10,000 times my smarts and money, this will only be magnified.

So what to do? 90% tax on smart people with resources? I'm already moving my retirement date up due to the upcoming 55% tax rate in Japan, which is making me want to re-think various aspects of my life. Raise taxes to 75% like France and see what happens.

Actually if we could get people to agree to a 0.25% surcharge on standing fortunes, the same way that we charge property every year, it would really help. I wonder what they'll say.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well in the 19th and early 20th century USA most of the ultra rich individuals donated most of their possessions to the public after they past away. Redistribution of wealth is essencial to health of the economy since it creates money flow creating more value as it flows around. Money held but a small group may stagnate and/or develop bubble economy when used to fuel money game wanting fast return.

At the end it's all about how the money is spent, when used to invest in long term projects and or developing social infrastructure it benefits the economy as a whole but when used for short term gain it becomes a burden to the have nots.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I can only really go off of what the media has been saying and that's a definite yes. However, from first hand account, my girlfriend recently graduated from college and has bounced around a few different jobs and despite being able to work, it seems like she is getting poorer and poorer. She has student debt to pay back and yearly income taxes seem to be taking their toll. While I do think her current state is temporary as she gains more working experience and hopefully better pay, it makes you think about others who don't have as many options and are as fortunate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But looking closely, it was easy to see why the people were so poor; they simply didn't do anything. They would only do as much as it took to get a meal for the day, or to get a scrap of clothing for themselves, or their kids. But very little more than that.

Wow, this is amazingly tone deaf. I suggest you read some on the root causes of extreme poverty in the developing world. It has absolutely nothing to do with "wanting to work hard" and everything to do with having no opportunity and no reliable institutions to help people get ahead. It's really hard to get ahead in life when 90% of your energy goes towards trying to put food on the table for your family, and there are no schools to attend, or jobs to be had.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sangetsu03, that is an interesting post with some good points. I would like to point out that if your parents squandered any extra money they had, they were good for the economy and the government of Japan has been asking the people to spend more and save less.

I would like to ask you about the people you met in South America. Were they happy with their life? Were they happier than say your hard-working uncle?

People who are often classified as have-nots often have a much better life than people who would be called haves.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Let me preface this by saying the following: Yes the gap is widening, but for a multitude of reasons. There is no black and white.

You do realize what will happen if income equality occurs? Some people will still come out rich through better management of their wealth, while others will spend it on other things that are short-term perks but long-term detriments. There will always be a wealth gap REGARDLESS of whether everyone makes the same.

@gaijintraveller

You clearly do not know what you're talking about - printing money with derivatives? Do you even know what a derivative is, let alone any financial instrument? You probably don't realize this, but only a small portion of people who work in banks/securities firms are "wealthy" - the rest are just like any white collar worker.

Finally, the problem with a countries like Scandinavia is that there is relatively no growth - because the tax rate is so high, welfare and social benefits are good, but no one who wants to make money will ever live there. Sure, everyone has a better standard of living, but you lose the will to achieve more, as well as the growth and advancement that civilization needs.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

PandabelleMay. 20, 2014 - 04:52PM JST I suggest you read some on the root causes of extreme poverty in the developing world. It has absolutely nothing to do with "wanting to work hard" and everything to do with having no opportunity and no reliable institutions to help people get ahead.

The countries with population explosion has led to an increase in the numbers in extreme poverty and lower standard of living. Many countries that lowered their birth rates have reduced poverty and have increase their productivity. The continued rapid population growth in the poorest countries presents a serious challenge of poverty reduction. The developed world should provide more assistance to the undeveloped countries what they ought to be doing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ryuusei

Finally, the problem with a countries like Scandinavia is that there is relatively no growth - because the tax rate is so high, welfare and social benefits are good, but no one who wants to make money will ever live there. Sure, everyone has a better standard of living

You should have stopped right there. Everyone has a better standard of living. People in the Scandinavian countries are usually ranked among the happiest on the planet, their societies among the freest, and the standard of living the highest.

I don't know why you say "no one who wants to make money will ever live there" - everyone makes money there. That's the entire point. Everyone has a good standard of living. I cannot see how this can be criticized. This is exactly what happens with a smaller gap between the haves and the have nots.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Sure, everyone has a better standard of living, but you lose the will to achieve more, as well as the growth and advancement that civilization needs.'

Amazing that a country like Sweden with a population of around 10 million people has a disproportionate number of world-class companies and makes great contributions to technology, science and medicine. They achieve quite a lot actually.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Pandabelle

Everyone having a good standard of living doesn't equate to better growth: the people who strive for success and overachieve won't be rewarded as highly as those who are just carried by social welfare. All in all, this reduces peoples' desire to achieve, stunting growth. Most of the companies that desire innovation and growth are all based on high wealth gap countries.

@Jimizo

You're confusing relative w/ absolute. Most of the major and innovative companies are based in the major hubs, not Sweden. The only reason you'd go there was for tax purposes, which is already becoming eroded due to places like Singapore and the more established HK. If there's one major company in a country w/ one person, that's the wrong way to look at things because you can say, like you said, that there is a disproportionate number of world-class companies.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Everyone having a good standard of living doesn't equate to better growth:

So maybe "better growth" according to your definition of it is not the standard we should be aiming for. Duh!

All in all, this reduces peoples' desire to achieve, stunting growth.

In my experience, the people who have a genuine desire to achieve do so for intrinsic reasons, not because someone hung a carrot out in front of their noses. I regret to hear you (obviously) never experienced that.

What is your solution, kill all of the rich?

The rich have been killing off ordinary people with relative impunity all along. People who own mines (as in Turkey) and ferry companies (as in South Korea) are among the rich. And so what is the solution? Simple: If you own a mine, you are required to be present in it -- at a place of the workers' choosing -- at least two days of every month. Period. If the owner wants to cut corners w/regards to safety, let him put himself at risk along with workers. (I could almost guarantee that far fewer corners would be cut.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits

You're very naive if you think that achievement is not motivated by monetary gain. Most of the greatest achievements in this world were achieved for monetary or economic reasons, because those are the greatest motivators for anyone. You can tout all you want how you volunteered in the Amazon, but I guarantee you that the people who created profitable hospitals, enterprises, etc. created more social benefits than you'll ever make by helping out a few people volunteering. It's a tough truth, but long-term gains outweigh short-term benefits, which a lot of people don't realize.

Standard of living improves with growth, there's no doubt to that. Welfare, social security, pensions all stunt that by providing benefits taken from everyone.

Your solution is flawed - the owner would simply reinforce that area for that certain day or two, and then resume operations. That's an inefficient way of operating. You do realize that mine safety is a huge concern, and that any fatalities or injuries greatly tarnish the image as well as the price of the company?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your solution is flawed - the owner would simply reinforce that area for that certain day or two, and then resume operations. That's an inefficient way of operating.

The owner has no idea what area the workers will assign him to spend his day, and the days are chosen at random. It would be economically foolish for a rich owner to spend money on an adequate ventilation system and then pay to remove or reverse the installation. Ditto, for first-rate equipment and supports.

You do realize that mine safety is a huge concern, and that any fatalities or injuries greatly tarnish the image as well as the price of the company?

And that's where you are wrong. The rich make decisions based on what they perceive is the cost of a human life. If they can turn a profit on a decision that will cause a thousand people to lose their lives, so be it. It's all dollars and cents to the vast majority of them.

You're very naive if you think that achievement is not motivated by monetary gain. Most of the greatest achievements in this world were achieved for monetary or economic reasons, because those are the greatest motivators for anyone.

And you misunderstand completely. I don't claim that many aren't motivated by money. That is part of how the rich corrupt everything they touch. But it is extremely ignorant and pathetic to believe that what motivated someone like Thomas Edison to invent was his love of money. Or what motivated Jonas Salk to find a cure for polio. etc., etc. Man's greatest achievements were achieved by thinkers, inventors and artists who often required no more than a tenured, secure position. They were motivated by the mission of the work itself -- FAR more than economic rewards.

When economic security is so far out of balance for societies, they will almost certainly become ripe for serious upheaval. As they should. Wealth is not created by capital, but by Labor.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ryuusei

Everyone having a good standard of living doesn't equate to better growth: the people who strive for success and overachieve won't be rewarded as highly as those who are just carried by social welfare.

Then "high growth" is not a desirable goal, is it? would you rather have an equitable society where everyone has a reasonable standard of living and everyone still has a real opportunity to innovate and succeed, or just some arbitrary "high growth" standard where so many people live in poverty?

Give me the former, ANY day. I'd much rather live in a just society that values all its members rather than simply trying to maximize arbitrary economic indicators. The point of society is precisely improving the quality of life of the people in that society in the first place, that's why we humans organize into societies.

And I don't agree with your premise in the first place. Norway is a small country but a world leader and innovator in oil and gas. Sweden has less than 10 million citizens but is the home of major corporations like Ikea and Volvo, not to mention many, many software companies like Mojang. All of these countries have a far smaller wealth gap than the US or UK, yet there's plenty of industry and innovation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@yabits

Reinforce means temporary setups, not permanent installations - regardless, your solution is still flawed since it's basically a revenge plot - some areas of a mine, whether it be exploratory or drilling areas, are inherently dangerous. There's a reason why some people choose to work there, and they're compensated by better policies and other perks (less work hours, unionization, etc)

You're thinking of innovators in the past, and that's a small number -it's an exception to the rule. Most of the greatest achievements were discovered through generous funding, trial and error, and empirical data. You need to be able to profit to achieve true innovation - this is because if an achievement is economically sound, it'll be implemented on a global scale. Inventing something is not difficult - it's refining it and implementing on a grand scale that is truly rewarding for society.

I don't disagree that some wealthy people corrupt - but you have to realize that the majority of advancements were made possible because of the wealthy.

Also, I don't think you understand how a mine operates or how the industry works. Most mines are actually incredibly safe, and much of the safety issues and fatalities are due to human error (e.g. drilling in the wrong area, cave-ins due to insufficient knowledge of structure, etc.) Many of the mining companies tout their safety standards, and they have to be since they have to please both the unions and government/public. When you're trying to make a profit in a mine, there will inevitably be a few fatalities - that's already communicated in the job contract.

As for the rich turning a profit no matter what, yes this occurs - but you're making sweeping generalizations about an entire group, where most of them have given generously to charity and have driven most of the advancements you see today.

@Pandabelle No, high growth is definitely desirable. Case in point - China - the wealth gap is widening, however the standard of living is increasing because of the rapid GDP growth, industrialization, etc. There will be growing pains and detriments to the environment and other areas, but overall the quality of life has improved drastically since the early 90s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will be growing pains and detriments to the environment and other areas, but overall the quality of life has improved drastically since the early 90s.

The standard of living has increased for some. And only some. Meanwhile the peasants in the countryside are left behind as their countrymen in the cities are increasingly wealthy.

It's impossible to see that in any way other than completely unjust.

High growth is desirable only if it's high growth for everyone - else it's just economic terrorism. As the gap grows the impoverished have even less opportunity to bring themselves from poverty as prices have increased but their wages have not. How can anyone support that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Pandabelle

You obviously haven't seen the economic climate in China in the 90s. Stagnation, low growth, horrible living standards. Now, there is massive migration to the cities, better standard of living for all, and better advancements and opportunities for everyone. Sure, in any developing country, there will be people who capitalize on the situation, and people have - but this has created lower-cost alternatives for everyone, whereas before only the rich could afford them.

Your statement about the peasants and city-folk is classic ignorance, as well as the standard of living comparison. What is happening right now, as we speak, is that the average wage is increasing, standard of living is improving, and there is a migration away from rural to urban. Furthermore, China is also converting to alternative energy sources, when before they were on coal and other environmentally damaging sources.

I won't even touch upon your "everything or nothing" tidbit, because I think a lot of people can see where your reasoning is flawed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As for the rich turning a profit no matter what, yes this occurs - but you're making sweeping generalizations about an entire group, where most of them have given generously to charity and have driven most of the advancements you see today.

As social scientists like Henry George ("Progress and Poverty") and Henry Demarest Lloyd ("Wealth Against Commonwealth") pointed out over a century ago, extreme poverty almost always accompanies and is actually one of the by-products of these grand achievements you tout and worship. This is because the rich use their power to continually drive the value of human life below their level further downwards. Note that when they get in trouble, they'll turn to the public trough to get themselves out, and when their decisions kill and injure scores of people, they strike hard to keep damage payments to as little as possible. All done to maintain their position of power.

What is happening right now, as we speak, is that the average wage is increasing

LOL. When Bill Gates walks into a room, the average wage of everyone has just gone up. I think a lot of people can see where your reasoning is flawed.

Most mines are actually incredibly safe, and much of the safety issues and fatalities are due to human error.

Incredibly safe? Flying is incredibly safe. Most mines are inherently dangerous. Mining would be a lot safer if the wealthy who own them were forced to spend half as much time in their mines as they do on planes.

When you're trying to make a profit in a mine, there will inevitably be a few fatalities

Let's keep in mind the wealthy did nothing to place minerals and oil in the ground. They can do nothing to extract the minerals themselves. All profit and wealth will come from Labor set to the task of extracting it. Justice demands Labor receive a share that is decided by contesting with the owner -- who will want to keep as much as possible for himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ryuusei

better standard of living for all

Nonsense. Not all, and you know it.

lower-cost alternatives for everyone,

Not everyone, only those who migrate to the cities. Much of China is still a rural backwater.

the average wage is increasing

I'm sure it is. Average wage is meaningless. If you have a group of 100 people, and 5 of them get a massive pay raise while the others get nothing, the average wage has increased. So?

Any reason you have switched the topic to China from the Scandanavian countries? China's a developing backwater and a pit of human rights abuses. Let's talk about the very equitable, free, Scandinavian countries, countries where everyone has opportunity and a decent standard of living, and growth + innovation are still high.

Any reason you don't like to talk about those countries anymore? Maybe they don't fit your agenda?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Any reason you have switched the topic to China from the Scandanavian countries? ... Any reason you don't like to talk about those countries anymore? Maybe they don't fit your agenda?

Would anyone be so ludicrous as to suggest that Norway, Denmark and Sweden need to become more like China and not the other way around? (I'm thinking we won't have to wait long for an answer to that.)

Let's not forget that the metric of "higher average wage" is going to be offset by a higher cost of living. Purchasing power is a far better metric, and it is the ultimate aim of an oligarchic system like China's (and the U.S.'s to a greater and greater extent) to reduce ordinary people to chattel. Predictable, interchangeable, and ultimately easily disposed of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits Agreed, but that doesn't mean that they don't drive most of the innovations and achievements - there'll be collateral damage, yes, but that's a part of any advancement in society. Not necessarily zero-sum, but definitely a part of it. However, there is no progress without sacrifice.

I knew you'd pull out the average wage and simple mathematics argument, so let's use something a little more advanced: purchasing power is keeping up with inflation, and wages are keeping up with CPI. Since you like touting history dating back a century, just look at wages vs inflation. A dollar back then is worth less than a dollar today, but you also earn a lot more. Furthermore, the standard of living has increased as productivity has increased - basic economics, which I'm sure you understand. You can't argue that healthcare, science, etc. were better back in the days before a widening wealth gap.

Actually, most mines are safe - I don't think you've ever been in one, but only the drilling parts are below-ground. There are plenty of above-ground mines, and there are strict measures and safety codes that must be adhered to. The mines you see in the media are purely for publicity's sake.

Your last tidbit is true, but yes - obviously skills in management are different from skills in labor. There are less people suited for management than labor, which means the management will be paid more. Sometimes disproportionately so, but you do realize a lot of these organizations have compensation set by shareholders, right?

@Pandabelle

No, average standard of living increases. This is the main point of the long-term growth argument. Same thing with average wages - see above for purchasing power argument.

Apart from China - growth and innovation in Scandinavian countries is not high relative to everywhere else. In fact, there is a reason why most startups and firms start off in the U.S., HK, Singapore, etc. The reason for the social welfare is because the Scandinavian countries have such high tax rates.

Another argument for the widening wealth gap - this gives people incentive to move up in the ladder, whereas if everyone is relatively the same, people are happy for status quo, and therefore no innovation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sometimes disproportionately so, but you do realize a lot of these organizations have compensation set by shareholders, right?

You continue to display your naivete. The largest "shareholders" are also part of the one percent who set their incomes at the highest level possible -- with rates of increase far exceeding the performance of the company. The tiny shareholder is more than likely to be part of pension fund, and their shares are proxy-voted on by the top managers of the fund -- who are also part of the one percent.

Another argument for the widening wealth gap - this gives people incentive to move up in the ladder, whereas if everyone is relatively the same, people are happy for status quo, and therefore no innovation.

One serious problem comes with the realization that a growing disparity in wealth represents a growing disparity in unchecked power. Great wealth corresponds with greater power, and power tends to corrupt -- with greater corruption almost an absolute certainty the move out-of-balance it gets.

It is very clear: Deep down, you have no inherent respect for people. You actually think that ordinary people need "an incentive to move up" (supplied by the rich at whose feet you worship) or else they would just rather wallow where they are. I certainly believe that people can be conditioned to think in the way you have, and the rich have to be very satisfied they have so many willing dupes who shill for them.

But it won't be that way forever. It can only go so far out of balance for so long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really no point in taking this further - refuted your mine argument since you've never seen one, refuted average wage argument, etc etc. The comp does indeed give incentives for better performance/meeting goals, but most of the comp is also vested for years so it's dependent on long-term growth. Agree w/ shareholders portion, but then again at the lower level you don't really understand how the company functions.

Agree w/ power statement

I think you're exaggerating many things and using too much rhetoric - you don't need this to get your point across. Ordinary people do need an incentive to move up - majority of rich are self-made, very few old-money left. Don't blame the glass ceiling on the rich, when in reality the only way you can move up in society is to grind it out and push yourself. They had to go through it, and so does everyone else. The system will stay the same for our lifetimes, so don't count on any justice from anyone except yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites