Billionaire tells non-rich to 'Drink Less, Work More'

[Spanky]

While other comments are controversial, the following statement seems reasonable from a business point of view.

"You can't get rich without working hard, taking risks, investing and reinvesting your profits."

 

[mortal]

I think this is appropriate.

"Work is the curse of the drinking class"
Oscar Wilde

 

[NW-Bound]

How about the following quote? Never heard of Schopenhauer. Have you?

"Wealth is like seawater; the more we drink, the thirstier we become; and the same is true of fame." -- Schopenhauer, Arthur

Rich means being able to do what you want. I don't need anything close to a billion dollars to be able to do that.

I don't need a billion dollars either, nor $100M. I think I can use $10M. But it is because I tailor my "wants" to what I have.

If we want our own island like Larry Ellison, it is going to take a lot of dough.

 

[obgyn65]

Wow. How abnoxious can the super-rich be towards the rest of us ?

Drink Less, Work More

Thought this was worth sharing.

 

[Walt34]

Oh, so that's my problem!

Clearly, I've been spending far too much time drinking, smoking, and socializing.

 

[MichaelB]

Clearly, I've been spending far too much time drinking, smoking, and socializing.

Good thing you're not wasting your time. It's important to have priorities in life.

 

[Cessna5354]

Hey if you do not like what she said, do like me, I now tune to our Vice President and his wisdom...

It is a what ever moment for me. I never liked class envy.

Jealousy, Envy, Greed three very unproductive emotions, but I am just an engineer, from WVa, what might I know !!

 

[Redbugdave]

No, why would the unwashed masses get up and work when they can continue to collect bene's for being poor?

 

[ziggy29]

1. There might be less "class envy" if people didn't say these "let them eat cake" kind of things. Stuff like this really makes them look clueless and out of touch with reality.

2. Saying "all you have to do is work hard" is a slap in the face to the millions of struggling households who are willing and ready to work hard if they could just, I don't know, FIND A JOB. They act like everyone who is struggling wants to do nothing but collect welfare, unemployment and food stamps, that they don't WANT to work but only want to live on the taxpayer dime. That's offensive, IMO.

I'm all for personal responsibility and earning your own living, but that only goes so far; you need an economy that accommodates just about everyone who wants to make a decent, honest living and we don't have that now. These sound bites from folks who were born on third base and act like they hit a triple to get there don't help. If these people don't like class warfare, maybe they should stop making comments that imply that anyone who is struggling to make ends meet is just a lazy person who wants to sponge off the taxes paid by more successful people. Comments like these FEED class warfare.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

1. There might be less "class envy" if people didn't say these "let them eat cake" kind of things. Stuff like this really makes them look clueless and out of touch with reality.

2. Saying "all you have to do is work hard" is a slap in the face to the millions of struggling households who are willing and ready to work hard if they could just, I don't know, FIND A JOB. They act like everyone who is struggling wants to do nothing but collect welfare, unemployment and food stamps, that they don't WANT to work but only want to live on the taxpayer dime. That's offensive, IMO.

I'm all for personal responsibility and earning your own living, but that only goes so far; you need an economy that accommodates just about everyone who wants to make a decent, honest living and we don't have that now. These sound bites from folks who were born on third base and act like they hit a triple to get there don't help. If these people don't like class warfare, maybe they should stop making comments that imply that anyone who is struggling to make ends meet is just a lazy person who wants to sponge off the taxes paid by more successful people. Comments like these FEED class warfare.

Not going to turn this into a political discussion. However, there are jobs going begging in various places around the country. Many people travel halfway around the world for months, if not years, to take a job and provide for their families back home. Likewise, there are people who can't find a job working for someone else and decide to start their own businesses. In the end, there are always solutions to employment and money problems even in the worst economies.

John Stossel did an interesting piece on the unemployment welfare issue a while back. There seem to be several versions of it on Youtube, and I don't recall which one is correct. Suffice it to say, many of the people on unemployment welfare he interviewed claimed there were no jobs nearby. Stossel found dozens of them within a 1-block radius of the welfare office, many not requiring any experience. Others claimed that they couldn't get jobs in their fields (nursing), so they're collecting unemployment welfare until they do find one. Finally, another part of the piece showed that the numbers of people on unemployment welfare dropped off right before their benefits were to run out, and as countries shortened the period of welfare eligibility, the numbers aligned to the shorter period.

In sum, I'm all for helping people - but only those who actually *need* help and can't fend for themselves. This includes the elderly, the truly disabled (not someone who claims to have a back disability, and yet participates in bodybuilding contests), and the mentally-challenged. New college graduates have the most geographic and career mobility they'll ever have in their entire lives. Life doesn't always go as planned (i.e., people plan while g-d laughs) and adaptation is the key to survival.

 

[ziggy29]

Not going to turn this into a political discussion. However, there are jobs going begging in various places around the country.

Actually, one of the main reasons job openings go unfilled today is because in the past, employers used to believe in something called "on the job training." They used to hire people as much as they hired skill sets and specific educations. But that costs money and cheap-ass employers and their shareholders won't stand for that, so they no longer provide it. Have you seen how unrealistic some of the required education and experience is? Almost no one has the exact combination of ALL the education and experience they require. And that gives them an excuse to say "there are no qualified people here" and either bring in foreign workers on an H-1B visa or send the entire operation to places like India or China. I've been in the IT-related area for 25 years and I know there are plenty of competent people who would be "qualified" with a few weeks of retraining. And businesses used to be willing to do that -- but not any more.

And as for the jobs with "no experience necessary", sure -- if you can feed a family on a $9 per hour part-time job with zero benefits.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Finally, another part of the piece showed that the numbers of people on unemployment welfare dropped off right before their benefits were to run out, and as countries shortened the period of welfare eligibility, the numbers aligned to the shorter period.

I have a relative who is just what you post. Incentivized to live on unemployment. They won't even consider looking for work until the benefits run out. Granted low wage jobs generally aren't much fun. But something is really wrong here.

And I wonder how many more people have a similar approach to life.

 

[ziggy29]

I have a relative who is just what you post. Incentivized to live on unemployment. They won't even consider looking for work until the benefits run out. Granted low wage jobs generally aren't much fun. But something is really wrong here.

And I wonder how many more people have a similar approach to life.

My point wasn't that these people don't exist or that the system doesn't enable this behavior. My point is that the privileged folks like this heiress do their own cause no good when they act like everyone who is struggling is doing so because they are like this.

 

[growing_older]

I found the original piece she wrote. It looks pretty inoffensive to me. Some generic platitudes about everyone has opportunity to do well. She suggests that people who are jealous of others wealth should party less and work more. Not newsworthy. Actually seemed kind of encouraging. OTOH, she's generally a pretty unsympathetic person, easy to target with stereotypes because of her inherited wealth and overweight.

Her mining companies have longstanding contentious relationships with regulators and it looks like one guy with a particular feud with her has been the driving force behind getting all this press to portray her as obnoxiously out of touch with anyone not a billionaire. Lots of twisting by taking things out of context.

Maybe she's a mean terrible person, but maybe there's also a lot more history and backstory here than is apparent in these short castigating articles.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Actually, one of the main reasons job openings go unfilled today is because in the past, employers used to believe in something called "on the job training." They used to hire people as much as they hired skill sets and specific educations. But that costs money and cheap-ass employers and their shareholders won't stand for that, so they no longer provide it. Have you seen how unrealistic some of the required education and experience is? Almost no one has the exact combination of ALL the education and experience they require. And that gives them an excuse to say "there are no qualified people here" and either bring in foreign workers on an H-1B visa or send the entire operation to places like India or China. I've been in the IT-related area for 25 years and I know there are plenty of competent people who would be "qualified" with a few weeks of retraining. And businesses used to be willing to do that -- but not any more.

And as for the jobs with "no experience necessary", sure -- if you can feed a family on a $9 per hour part-time job with zero benefits.

I'm sorry, but you can't heap all of the blame on employers. On-the-job training is a luxury that most employers can't offer in a down economy where they're operating on skeleton crews. They expect that the people they hire can hit the ground running. It's not unreasonable to expect that job candidates have most of the skills for the jobs to which they are applying. A college degree in Renaissance Literature doesn't train you for much these days. Assuming you're right that it would only take a few weeks of training to make a U.S. citizen a viable candidate, I have to ask why that type of individual doesn't take it upon him or herself to sign up for a class at a local community college or other educational institution to get the requisite training? Finally, no experience necessary jobs allow people to get experience. No matter where you are in your career right now, like everyone else you started at the bottom. Some people have to do this only once when they're young, others have to do it again (and possibly again and again) when they're older.

 

[ziggy29]

I'm sorry, but you can't heap all of the blame on employers. On-the-job training is a luxury that most employers can't offer in a down economy where they're operating on skeleton crews.

It's not ALL on the employers, but people like this woman act like it's all the fault of people who are struggling to make ends meet, as if all of them are only struggling because they are defective. If only they were willing to work, they'd be rich! As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There are some companies that are struggling, sure. But even companies posting record profits are doing this as a regular practice now (this is why people have to put in 60 hour weeks and work through their "vacation" even as they haven't sniffed a raise in 5 years -- ALL redundancy has been removed and everyone is a potential single-point failure on the job). I've been at this for 25 years. I've seen how the industry has changed. And it has little to do with actual profitability. The down economy is an ongoing excuse for many of them. The reality is that many of them are more profitable than ever, but shareholders won't let the executives treat labor decently because, in this market, they don't HAVE to. They can treat their workers like crap and get away with it because people are desperate.

Even the most profitable companies are operating on skeleton crews now.

Shareholders are demanding double-digit earnings growth in a no-growth economy. That math doesn't work. The only way they can do that, when they can't increase revenues, is to cut costs by screwing their employees.

 

[HFWR]

As a data point, the max UE benefit in TX is $426/wk...

I wouldn't take just any job when I was laid off, because I needed to be able to look for a "real" job. Besides, many employers won't hire an "over-qualified" candidate, because they know you'll be looking elsewhere, and leave as soon as possible.

 

[teejayevans]

Hey, look at it this way. Even crazy people can get rich! How about that?

In fact, quite a few rich people are crazy, or act crazy. Well, maybe not as many as those exist among the poor peasants, but the presence of rich crazy people gives me hope. Perhaps I can be rich some day.

Wait a minute! First, I have to get off my ass and go back to work, just like this woman said. Damn!

Rich people aren't never crazy, some are just eccentric
TJ

 

[NW-Bound]

I am not rich, but I like to call myself eccentric. Other people may just call me crazy.

In the end, I decided not to care.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

It's not ALL on the employers, but people like this woman act like it's all the fault of people who are struggling to make ends meet, as if all of them are only struggling because they are defective. If only they were willing to work, they'd be rich! As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Maybe the author of the article and/or the interviewer wanted her to sound that way? [Channeling Captain Renault from Casablanca] The media never tries to shade a story in order to create or fan a controversy.

Assuming that they didn't shade things, her perspective is that of a hard-nosed employer, not an objective observer of the situation. Of course she is going to see things from her viewpoint. In her world, everyone has their hand out or tries to put it in her pocket, so naturally she will be cynical of most people who are not in her position.

There are some companies that are struggling, sure. But even companies posting record profits are doing this as a regular practice now (this is why people have to put in 60 hour weeks and work through their "vacation" even as they haven't sniffed a raise in 5 years -- ALL redundancy has been removed and everyone is a potential single-point failure on the job).

True, but again, you have to see things from their perspective. Their loyalty is to their shareholders first and their employees second. This is how capitalism works. The shareholders control the company, while employees simply work for the company. This is perhaps a cold and heartless perspective, but it is nonetheless reality. The exception is where a business is closely-held and the owner(s) treat employees like family, with a willingness to take less profits (or even no profits) to ensure that their employees still have a paycheck.

I've been at this for 25 years. I've seen how the industry has changed. And it has little to do with actual profitability. The down economy is an ongoing excuse for many of them. The reality is that many of them are more profitable than ever, but shareholders won't let the executives treat labor decently because, in this market, they don't HAVE to. They can treat their workers like crap and get away with it because people are desperate. Even the most profitable companies are operating on skeleton crews now.

In clarification of my prior remark, it's not always the shareholders who are actively controlling things, but rather the perception of corporate management that the shareholders (i.e. Wall Street) won't be satisfied with anything less than double-digit growth. On the other hand, employees often treat their employers like crap when the economy is good, taking a new job at the drop of a hat if the pay and benefits are better. How do you think the employer feels after someone has received training, benefits, vacation, etc... in other words, all the "goodies" and then bolts for greener pastures?

Shareholders are demanding double-digit earnings growth in a no-growth economy. That math doesn't work. The only way they can do that, when they can't increase revenues, is to cut costs by screwing their employees.

But it does work - case in point the current economy. When growth is scarce, the only thing you can do is cut overhead. Shareholders expect their investments to grow.

 

[NW-Bound]

How do you think the employer feels after someone has received training, benefits, vacation, etc... in other words, all the "goodies" and then bolts for greener pastures?

My wife's nephew worked for a place that paid for his MS degree in engineering. He lined up another job and quit a day or two after graduation! Of course this was during the heyday of the late 90s.

 

[Bikerdude]

"The chief advantage of money is only realized when one has more of it than the next guy"

Bikerdude

 

[MichaelB]

This thread is closed

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube