Are you hateful towards people who earn more money than you do?

I am hateful towards practically no one. I don't get hating someone who has more money than me and I especially don't get hating someone who has earned more money than me.

If that were the case I wouldn't like hardly anybody! lol

No..not if they actually "earn" it.

Hate is a bit strong.

I'm happy with the amount of money I have...I tend to hate the attitude of those people but other then that I can't complain

I you forgive you live longer.

No. Without them we wouldn't have places like Hearst castle, though it would be nicer if the public could create such places again. Bill gates personally has about $1000 per Californian, $100 per US citizen, or $10 per world resident.
I heard something like the 30 richest people have an equivalent wealth to the lowest 3 Billion people.
And that's what works in a capitalist system where the money is fictitious. When I was a kid the US debt reached the billions. Now we speak of such things in the trillions. Money has to be put out of commission by people like Bill, because it really didn't exist in the first place, and if it was actually spent we would have a hyperinflation like the wheelbarrel of deutschmarks required to buy a loaf of bread in the 30's. We print money at a level to sustain consumer industry by bailing out credit companies. I live just as well materially on $715 a month as when I was making $80k/yr.

I've noticed the odd peculiarity in my own experience that the harder you work, the less you get paid:
Fastfood $6/hr
Mechanic $15/hr
Programmer $30/hr
Cartoonist $40/hr
Psychic $80/hr
Bill Gates $1066666.66/hr (Based on 2 billion yr). I believe one of his childhood goals was to make a million an hour. See my rate calculator at www.ereiam.com if you want to convert anykind of salary into an hourly rate (which I made last night because I charge on a sliding scale based on hourly)
I do have a problem that society in general is disproportional like this. In my mind there should be equal opportunity to be a doctor or fastfood employee, and equally dedicated practitioners of either vocation should have equal benefits. But I didn't write the system. Make college another job instead of something you pay for and socialize lawsuits and most of that would change. You'd also get people who were happier about there position as a cook or doctor.

Are you suggesting that doctors and fast food employees be paid the same?

Yes, but only because I'm hateful to people in general

yes, but she is also suggesting that a fast food worker works harder then a programer or mechanic...... i think you need to rethink the theory. different types of work are different but if you work hard you work hard.

Yes, I sure am. The only reason now to justify the difference in pay is the cost of education, and operation costs if the doctor is paying for facility costs or liability; the stress of responsibility which is optional depending on one's state of consciousness. If one person enjoys flipping burgers and does it well, and another enjoys and excels at medicine, each should attend to their calling, unhindered by economic motivation. There is the issue of genetic intelligence, but are we really the former caste system of India in which your material success is entirely dependant on who your parents were?
The above chart was my career history (except for being mr. gates), and I feel that being a burger cook should have been the highest paying amongst those jobs. It was certainly the toughest. As a mechanic I repaired computers and built entire wiring looms above factory quality. As a programmer, I knew how to hot-rod Ole automation of Visual Fox Pro better than the microsoft programmers that wrote it. I am a gifted psychic with metaphysical training since the age of 5.
I am a genius living on $715/month while lecturing on metaphysics, currently to buddhists, though I have recently decided to make money again.
What's your argument for paying doctors more?

Hey Mr. Gifted Psychic, are you up for a test? Can you tell me anything, anything at all, about who I am, where I am, what I'm thinking, etc.?

The other reason, and the real one, to justify paying the doctor more is that whoever's paying is willing to pay more.

The salary paid to people has virtually nothing to do with how hoard they work. The two most important factors are the level of skill involved and the demand for the "product" of that person's work. Scott Adams earns lots of money for drawing a 3-square cartoon every day, but that's because lot's of people want to see it and most of us can't draw Dilbert. Doctors earn lots of money because they have to be very highly skilled - and we have no choice but to place a lot of trust in them. If a doctor screws up then someone could be dead - if a McDonalds employee screws up the worst you've got is a Big Mac when you ordered McNuggets.

The progression from hard work on low pay through to skilled work on high pay is normal. When you leave school or college, you may have some training but very little experience - even a top degree from a top university is only the start, it gives you knowledge but not necessarily skill. You have to work hard to get that experience, and as you do your work becomes easier. You also become more skilled, so your value rises and your salary rises with it. For people in their teens and early-to-mid twenties this may seem extremely unfair, but once you get a bit older it begins to make sense. The only people who generally earn large sums of money while still young are those with unique talents such as athletes, musicians and entertainers, and these are very much a minority.

Only if they're butt-holes.

If that were the case, maybe we'd be able to get a decent burger.

No. All my friends earn more money than I do. Well, all except one.

Brilliant, but you're confusing existing 'what the market will bear', with the alternative 'supply and demand'. Imagine if all the burger flippers who wanted to be doctors flooded that segment, and employment costs were isolated from operating expenses. The same has already happened in the computer programmers market. There was a time when a degree was necessary from a university with some IBM 360's and a punch card reader (which was how I learned.) A programmer was sure to make at least $40/hr in todays money. But now, with equal access to training tools, and employment based on skill demonstration, it is not uncommon to see skilled database coders making $15/hr.

Nice explanation, but I think it does have quite a lot to do with how 'hoard' they work. I don't disagree, but gaining experience in a way is demonstrating commitment if not hardship. In my eyes, it should be judged as a benchmark equally with sweat in fields that do not isvolve continuing education. What I want to know from you is do you consider it ultimately just that Scott Adams makes more money than an intensely dedicated grade school teacher? I have one friend who was a wondrous sweet & brilliant teacher, but had to resume mechanic-ing for the money. Visit the 'Economic Justice Discussion Room' at http://www.progress.org/banneker-cgi-bin/webbbs/config.pl . I haven't been there for months, but we discuss some radical thought. My main contribution was a dual system of socialized contract labor bidding (6 hrs week of garbage pick-up or 20 of librianship as adjusted by comparative demand for jobs) which would earn people their income; and a second system of monopoly money where popular vote launches public funding of enterprises like videogame production where management uses their semi-fictitious budget to bid on the highest caliber staff to meet their objectives. The fictitious rates of these workers would rise with demand, though they would only be motivated by prestige, education, and dedication. The system could gradually be implemented through corporate labor pools and intranet availability, bidding, and performance reviews.

What would you rather have: money or knowledge? (rhetorical)

You're a princess of cups (heart centered). You want to know the standard material stuff like wealth and relationships. Your relationship looks great (like young love). Your mind is heading towards difficult labors. Your emotions are heading towards the Queen of cups (dignity and loving grace). Your also heading towards greater prosperity, perhaps getting a house with your mate. You've entered the spirit realm and it's been slightly horrific, you have put off tryng to comprehend it, and have been 'happy go lucky' in it's application. You need to concentrate more on yourself as a person. Nonetheless, you seem inclined to move from the occult to the mystic. Honestly, I'm having an awful time with this reading: The cards descibe one woman, while my radio channelling describes a depressed and somewhat angry guy. I'd be tempted to think you were someone I knew to some degree, but the cards say not. You have a powerful connection with your family. You stay distant from strangers. You have a powerful hold on your friendships, which I suspect are few, with emphasis on your mate. You want a major change regarding work. You place strong value in the material as this is where your heart can relate. You want to be 'successful' and will get there by being clever. You have to watch out for being settled in a lush home, because it will prompt you to become jaded and distant; instead you should be mastering responsibility. The contemplative experiences of your drug use will lead to some self-empowering revelations. In the past you had a hellish relationship with a good man but you've no further need for remorse over your ruthlessness. Hope there's some truth in all that. As I said, I'm floundering in doubt tonight.
Does seem you know me well enough to use the dreaded title 'Mr.'. Tomorrow, I change that (or at least get the paperwork to do so), Yea. Fortunately no one I've been meeting lately catches on. They get thrown for a loop when I mention my ex-wife, or why they might get a complaint about my using the woman's room. I was dancing tonight with a guy who was all over me and amazed at my height (6'2"). I was so 'I don't know this guy' when the swing bang singer at the fair said everyone get naked, and he dropped his shorts in front of me. Alcohol.

I wonder if the response to this question would have been much different if the question was "people who have more money than you", not "earn more money than you".

Hopefully, it's a much different question.

Hmmm. One problem with spell checkers is that they don't spot mistakes like "hoard" for "hard"

As to whether I think it's "just" that Scott Adams earns more than a dedicated school teacher; I think that's asking the wrong question. I don't think that justice (or fairness) really comes into it. Dilbert cartoons are not essential to life; I don't have to read them and I don't have to buy Scott Adams's books. So if I choose to read them, then I'm implicitly condoning (if not necessarily approving) the fact that Adams earns lots of money from them. When it comes to things over which I have less choice, that's a bit harder - I might not like the fact that Bill Gates is so wealthy, but I have to use his products in order to do my work. However, I could leave my job and join a techno-phobe commune somewhere if I really felt that strongly about it, but I don't, so I'm still accepting that my disapproval is a relatively low-importance choice. (As it happens, I don't really disapprove of Bill Gates's wealth all that much).

What can be unfair is when salaries are held at artificially low levels by monopoly (or near-monopoly) employers, which is often the case when the government is running things. Teachers in state schools are a case in point; most independent school teachers earn more than state school teachers, but as most children are educated by the state schools there is insufficient opportunity for teachers to find alternative employment. Here in the UK, where I live, medical staff are usually underpaid because health care is provided primarily by the state-run NHS. However, staff costs are a major part of both education and health care, so there is a strong case to make for keeping salaries low where these salaries are funded by taxes. The problem with this is that the alternative is a US-style private health care system, in which medical staff can earn more but the costs are higher to users.

This is the whole problem with talking about "justice" and "fairness" in relation to salaries. There are two sides to every financial transaction, the payer and the recipient. If you pay someone a higher salary, that money has to come from somewhere - either taxes or increased cost of the goods/services provided by that person. If fast-food workers were paid more, then poorer people wouldn't be able to afford their product. If teachers were paid more, then education would become the privilege of the wealthy. It just isn't that simple.

Oh, and by the way, what do your psychic abilities tell you about me?

I've got to get to bed now, but I'd be happy to give you a free reading (contact through my site methods (e-mail) at EreIam.com).
As to your prior comment: you're somewhat of a fatalist. You don't believe the system can be changed. Look at the USSR. The only thing keeping the US from the same fate (we too live on fictitious wealth and depleted resources) is the public faith that the money still holds value and the system works. Opportunities for change exist, and in fact we are evolving towards the system I envisioned anyhow. (for the lower classes).

I'm not saying that the system can't be changed. I'm saying that the system we have (a free labour market) is probably the best, at least as regards the basic principles. Sure, it's not perfect, so there's always room for improvement, but the work that needs to be done is in balancing some of the aspects that conflict (such as the economic needs of employees with those of the consumer) rather than a fundamental redesign. Major change is only necessary where major error has been made.

Where the idea of a centrally-controlled labour market has been tried (eg, the USSR), it has almost always failed. You may argue that this is due to faulty implementation, but it does seem to be a very common theme - I can't think of any centrally-controlled economic system that has actually succeeded.

I had a quick look at your website, but wasn't quite sure what I was looking for (I hope that's not a metaphor for my life! ). Maybe I'll check it out in a bit more detail some other time.

Sometimes I'm jealous, but I often realize there are riches other than wealth.

I would think the difference between a medical doctor and a burger-flipper is mostly based on a)their respective value of their contribution to society, and (b) supply and demand.

Maybe.

No, not at all.

Thank you for visiting. You're the second of two critiques that got lost in info overload without identifying the critcal procedure. I was merely hoping you'd wander, then click "ReachMe" at the bottom.
My system is different because it still allows one to choose their profession and advance at their own pace with ego recognition. Also labor is allocated with bidding. It's like libertarian capitalism with the income removed. It could as you say fail though: it may well be that a large part of society is motivated to improve solely for personal economic reasons.

I think that personal economic improvement is a large part of motivation for many people. I don't think it's the only thing, and for some people it isn't that important at all, but it is a major factor in society as a whole. And I think that's OK - it's one of the things that helps to ensure that necessary, but unpleasant, jobs get done. It's also necessary to ensure that deferred gratification works - people need to know that working hard now will be rewarded by increased wealth in the future. For most people, money is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end - a way to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, a way to provide for their children's future, etc.

Well, that's personally comforting (while I wait to see if my site will show up in search engines). I think you've mentioned 'deferred gratification' before. But it seems to me that the US is a keynesian economy. 4/5 of the labor is unneccesary, though that's a bit more secreted than it was in the days of the Works-Progress-Administration. Few jobs pertain to food and housing. Labor is is entertainment, telemarketing, security, law, etc. I'm reminded of the hitchhiker's guide reference to one planet dumping all it's phone repairman and hair dressers on earth. My last job was an office clerk at the census bureau. I had to learn every position there to keep myself occupied. My last day was spent entirely showing my vacation photos. Most of my peers filled their time reading on Buddhism or something. I left, preferring development of my website over extra pay to do nothing. I think we should cut employment to a third, and encourage home parenting and local community volunteer work in urban beautification, etc..

Part of the problem is simply the way modern society works. The larger the social units in which we live (cities, states, etc), and the more specialised our roles become, the more we have people doing some apparently pointless jobs (like telephone sanitisers!) while others do vital work. But there's no simple solution to this - trying to turn back the clock to a time when most people lived in a village and nearly everyone was at least partly multi-skilled is neither possible nor (in my opinion) desirable. The real challenge for the next century is to adapt our traditional concepts of work and labour to suit a rapidly-changing technological world. For example (and here is one of my personal hobby-horses!), the idea of "intellectual property" and copyright is relatively recent in human terms - it really only developed in the 19th century, and didn't become a major issue until quite late in the 20th. And now technological advance (epitomised in the Internet, including systems such as Napster) is about to render the whole concept obsolete! I find it quite amusing that companies who have benefited the most from the technology of the late 20h century (music, video and software) are now complaining the loudest about the threat from the technology of the early 21st century. It only goes to show how short our corporate memories are, I suppose.

Not at all, unless of course that person is not a very likeable person.

Epsilon & Alpha evolving to Ilois & Murlock? What I would at least like to see is job placement based on interests. It annoys me that the minimum wage clerk at a Betty Boop paraphernalia store has no knowledge or interest in the topic, while a golf caddy somewhere loves Fleischer and could care less for 9 irons. Also, I would like to see the alphas have ample opportunity for utilizing their gifts. On the other hand I actually do support the return to village life. Every few blocks in the city would be responsible to some degree for rooftop gardening, waste water reclamation, a kibbutz style daycare, local enterprise (in a populist vote corporate-city-state). Centralized resource management has not shown to be effective. We need to stop commuting and behaving like resoource gathering and waste dumping at remote geographies can sustain global evolution.

Wow, you're actually making sense to me now!

Some of your ideas in this exchange seem like good ones, but it's hard to imagine how they could possibly come about because our society has gone too far in the wrong direction. Hopefully we'll at least see a gradual change as we humans evolve further and get back in touch with things that are more important than money.

As usual, you make some excellent points. I just wanted to let you know that I've enjoyed reading your comments above. It's an interesting debate!

Currently, we have to evolve through capitalist supply and demand. In the above example, it would take a job placement agency proactively offering the competitive edge that it's labor database could find a cheap employee that know's 'Betty Boop'. As far as social geography revitalisation goes, it would have to be in the hands of newly formed corporate city states, like the old company town, run by large companies with the attitude of the patagonia company which takes employees at all levels on nature hikes for round-table discussions. It's not going to happen through ballot measures or local church groups as might have worked half a century age. It's vote with your wallet now. Fortunately even organizations like world bank realize there are unfound resources remaining in rain forests, and that it needs to at least keep their global customers alive. The most critical aspect is how far ahead are the top administrators thinking. Will they plunder their own organizations future for immediate gain, or be like the US when it had the foresight to create national parks. If national parks were created today, it would probably mean some company got at least a 20 year maintenance contract or profited from providing the service of negotiating adjacent site purchases. And then the ballot box pays the bill. Modern business needs to evolve even more to serving public interest. But it needs the backing of the Gov or big far thinking companies, otherwise it will just produce disposable anything.

Thanks!

Oh, thanks for noticing.
I was using references obscure to those who don't read their utopian classics. There is a major difference in my goals here now. I am speaking in worldly terms on worldly topics. A year ago I was taking on the daunting task of being the logos for anyone here I could get to migrate into the mystic. I wouldn't be able to read the stuff now myself in all their originally intended time and interpersonally-psychic dependant contexts. To use the old biblical terms, there are the 'quick', and the 'dead'. I know more about what I can change and what to spend my effort on. I'm proud of what I accomplished way back then even if only 2% of you had a clue what I was doing. I don't think I'm even up to it now. I'm thankful that everyone put up with me during that period.

Well, I didn't really put up with you...I had you filtered for a long time, but I've undone that now. I don't think you can do much for people if you can't communicate on their level, but that's just my opinion.

Eh, some was on, but a lot was off. I don't have a mate, I've never used drugs (other than smoking pot a couple of times), and I love my job and don't want a change. I am a female, btw. Too bad. I would really like to believe psychic could exist.

pot was what I was imagining. Besides, I told you I was having a bad time with the reading. EVERYTHING spiritual requires a leap of faith. Absolutely insane things happen in my life, but it took me a while to actually believe what I knew from theoretical contemplation must be true. You got what you asked for. If you ever get a good reading from someone, it will be when you take for granted that the reading will be accurate, and are concerned more with the content. Thanks for giving me your gender. That assures me that when I'm doing a reading I can trust the cards above the radio.
If you are still in the 'looking for evidence' you shouldn't mind giving me permission to make an astral visit to you. Well, how about it? I just envisioned a new technique (probably ancient): give me a color, a rare or personal word, and describe a favorite object in your house ie a diary or flower vase. My theory is that these will allow me to find you better. Especially if you think about them before going to sleep. around 5am pst is when I'm best at astral flight (when I go to bed.)

Consider how foreign language is best taught by immersion. My best success has been teaching one on one with students actively seeking. I provide them first with theory then demonstrate how we can communicate using the radio or TV instead of speaking. I was trying to communicate experience, not theory, otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with you. Recently I've been invited a few times to lecture to buddhists on parallels between the lotus sutra and hindu & jewish (spanda karikas/cabalah) metaphysical/mystic principles. I try to keep the talk down to earth, but still end up with people saying I'm way over their heads. People with just a meagar awareness of primitive karma aren't going to have experiences to tie my lectures to no matter how concise or structured I speak.

Okay, I'm open-minded enough to give you the benefit of the doubt and admit that maybe I'm just not advanced enough to keep up with all that stuff, but you used to sound just plain whacko to me!

Ok, Krystal Rose, I am up for it. I will email you the info you requested.

http://www.danwinter.com/scorpio.html This is an example I found last night (when looking up Nergal (Enhed probly knows)) of the kind of stuff I enjoy reading that makes sense to me. Back during that period I was also writitg serious worldly stuff on the 'Economic Justice Boardroom'. I must admit, since losing my 2 best friends I'm not in the mystic fast lane.
Anony: rec'd