Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10517)	2/1/2006 3:21:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

I don't think that is an accurate assessment of how our economy works. I wish I could recall where I saw an analysis of generational wealth. If I could, I'd give you a link. I'm sure it indicated that there was a lot of turnover and this is not the problem you think it is.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10517)	2/1/2006 3:37:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

When a person works under contract for a single company for a long time the govt. essentially says that they have been acting like an employee and so should be treated like one. It is true that the government does this, however I don't really agree with the idea too much. Not that I have a huge problem with it, it isn't a "pet peeve" of mine and I even think there are some decent reasons why it was put in place, but the reasons are insufficient IMO. Those who work for a company and take it's interest as their own effectively act like the owners No they don't. They have no capital tied up in the business (unless they are also stockholders, but that is a separate thing from them being an employee). If the company goes under they have the stress and difficulty of finding a new job but they don't lose any assets directly from the company failing. They don't have a situation like the owners and they normally don't act as owners. If someone rents out a room to someone for a long time the renter might be emotionally invested in their current situation as much as an employee is emotionally invested in their job, but neither is the owner. The renter is more likely to act like an owner than the employee IMO, but it doesn't mean that the property should transfer to the renter. Neither the renter or the worker is, or "is like" the owner. Its unclear from your post but are you also arguing that companies that are privately owned and not-publicly traded would have to be turned over to employee ownership over time? If so that just gives me more reason to oppose this idea. If not than I don't understand how your statement was a response to the point that your quoted. Tim