Posted on 08/10/2015 5:51:15 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
In the liberal universe, there's no correlation between hard work or ingenuity and financial success. As President Obama recently put it, the rich are simply "society's lottery winners."
Sounding a similar theme, Al Sharpton today declared it "astounding" that Rand Paul believes that income inequality is due to "some people working harder." Astounding, indeed! What's wrong with Rand? How could he possibly believe that someone someone who works, say, 60 hours per week might earn more than someone else who works 20?
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Unskilled, not so much but those are the entry level jobs.
Cops, firefighters, EMS do well in the cities. Not so well in small towns or rural areas.
For ten years my typical day was getting up at 5:00AM, going to a rental that we were renovating, work until 7:15, cleaning up and going to my regular job 8:00-5:00, back to the rental by 6:00, dinner brought by my wife until 6:20, work on the house until 11:30, home and in bed by 12:00 midnight.
We provided a lot of rental property to people that could not afford to buy. Eventually, we made some good money as a result of our hard work.
I don’t see any lottery here, just hard work.
Allow me to make a point off of your post. I think both Paul and Sharpton miss the mark on the question of income inequality. Income is just another word for the value of one’s labor. It is a product like any other product in the marketplace. The law of supply and demand are the determining factor, plus the productivity of the individual worker, based on the revenue each produces for the owner. If one breaks his back at work but produces $60,000 for the owner, while someone else pushes a pencil but his work product makes the company $600.000, who is more valuable has nothing to do with hard work, sometimes intelligence trumps, no pun intended, hark work. In my own company, in certain areas I value intelligence over hard work, especially in areas that require a lot of problem solving.
There is a direct correlation between what someone produces and what someone earns. Your two examples produced boat loads of money for a few media companies, freely determined by the viewers, the customers. If Paris Hilton makes $8M dollars a year, you can bet the house that the media company she worked for made a lot more than that off of her work product.
Perhaps 'Rev' Al's cannot relate as his extortion, poverty pimping, race warload workloads just may be light assignments.
I know he’s lost a lot of weight, but, is it me or does Al’s head look too big for his body? Maybe some weird trick of the lens...
Don’t know that I necessarily disagree with you about a correlation between what you produce and what you earn, although what are Paris or Kim producing when they get paid for a personal appearance at a party or venue?
The article, however, was about how HARD you work. Are you saying that Paris or Kim, getting paid to go make an appearance, are working HARDER than your average bricklayer? Or, if you don’t necessarily equate HARD work with physical labor, are they working HARDER than an electrical engineer?
It is quite possible that it is difficult to always be “on” in public whenever you leave the house. I’m sure it is taxing and stressful and that there is actually some hard work that goes on in maintaining a celebrity visage.
It’s not just money flowing into your wallet being a celebrity, just as it isn’t that way being a lawyer, a doctor, an electrician, a contractor, or anything for that matter.
The choice of words by Ron was poor, but the intent of the discussion is that what one earns is directly proportional to the worth of their output. The worth of one’s output is determined by the customer (be it a consumer, a company, a distributor, the next slot in the production line, your boss, etc...).
It's about how much value you provide to the people doing the paying compared to your competition.
Or that somebody who actually works might be judged more valuable than somebody who pretends to work.
And this from a grifter who NEVER worked a day in his life, got rich and does NOT pay his fair share. Makes sense to me.
Doing soft porn is grueling work.../ S
Gee, that’s really nice that you are saying how hard you work is irrelevant. It is, however, totally irrelevant to the thread on this article, which is entitled “Sharpton Astounded Rand Paul Thinks People Who Work Harder Earn More”.
It’s not how hard you work - it’s how much you accomplish.
I could sweep the kitchen floor for 8 hours straight, but if I don’t remove all the loose dust and dirt, I’ve not accomplished anything. Conversely, I could sweep the kitchen floor and effectively remove all the dust and dirt in 15 minutes. Clearly, I worked harder and longer in the first example, but accomplished more in the second.
How is pointing out that both Sharpton and Paul are wrong on the subject irrelevant to the thread. You brought up the examples of Hilton and Kardashian, not me. I was just trying to make sense to people why they make what they make. Irrelevant would be me explaining how to throw a slider, and I had a good one thirty years ago. But discussing income inequality and its reasons under an article dealing with income inequality is not irrelevant to the thread.
GREAT catch, and fantastic article, FRiend!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.