The prevailing assumption today seems to be that mankind is causing every extinction on the planet and, as such, we should be working to save every species and variety of endangered animal
If we had the attitude of Mr. Cook in the U.S., it would save loads of tax dollars and businesses wouldn't have to move or cancel expansion plans nearly as often. It's like programs that help save lives. If one costs $10,000 per life saved, and another costs $500,000 per life saved, clearly we should forgo the latter and concentrate on the former. Unfortunately, people are too sympathetic for logic to take over.
so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?
I actually made a website in the mid-90s based on this idea and dubbed it MovieGen - didn't expect to make money, just great fun. You could press a button, and it would reveal two random movies, like "Alien" meets "Liar Liar". I also added an option for a third, so you could have "Die Hard" meets "Gattaca" with a bit of "Tootsie". Great time-waster, and sadly some of the combinations have certainly been made into actual movies by now.
Every reasonable economist uses the "as a percentage of GDP" figure because it is by far the best indicator of government spending. For example, no one would compare FDR's actual numbers with Reagan's because the absolute dollar amounts are different due to inflation. In 1945 (I know there was a war to pay for, but that is irrelevant to this point), the GDP was $223 Billion and government spending was $118 Billion, which is well over 50%. 1984's numbers were $3,930 Trillion and $1,353 Trillion, which is about 33%. Now, who spent more in those individual years?
Reagan spent virtually the same percentage of GDP in his first year vs. Carter's last (33.72% vs. 34.73%) - I was slightly off in my original statement; the bar chart played tricks with my eyes, but 1.01% higher in eight years is pretty small. Ford's was higher if you count 1974, which may or may not be fair (3.77%). Carter's was less (0.28%). Bush 1 was higher (2.1% in four years). Clinton lowered it by 4.5%. Bush 2 increased it by 4.4% and Obama in two years has increased it by almost 4.7%
Your GP poster was indeed wrong and I stand by my statement.
Note that I would never be so naive as to give full credit or full blame to a President for spending. But it is interesting to note that the best combination of the last 30+ years was a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Congress.
Or, alternatively, folks could buck up a bit more cash so that we actually pay for all the shit we've been begging the government to give us.... (whether you want rich folks, poor folks, or in-between folks to buck up more cash is irrelevant, the point is, cutting away services is not the only way to reduce a deficit).
Why cut or "buck up a bit more cash"? Just keep spending at the current level.
I still remember Reagan talking about making the government smaller, while during his two-term presidency the US government expanded at the highest rate in recent history.
As you can see, Reagan and Clinton were President while the spending was reduced, and all the others saw spending increase during their terms (as a percent of GDP).
Just because something doesn't perfectly suit a government's needs when they suspect someone of a crime doesn't mean the product should be banned. Take pre-paid cell phones. No real tracking, and if a criminal is smart, there is zero chance any government agency could ever find out what was said on the phone, and in most cases, even who used the phone. Should we ban pre-paid cell phones? What about pipes? I can smoke anything I want in a pipe, including tobacco, marijuana, crack, or torn up bits of the Constitution. The fact is the vast majority of people using any of these devices are using them legally, and benefit much more than the inconvenience to the government caused by criminals using them for nefarious purposes.
Just because something doesn't entertain you doesn't make it a "mess". I hated American Beauty, but it wasn't a mess, merely boring. You may think it's semantics, but you don't even understand the definition of the word that you're using. There was a plot, and it followed the standard Beginning-Middle-End structure. There was motivation - he liked a girl, the basis for half the movies out there. If you choose to look at something through heavily tinted glasses, it doesn't mean that you are right. I'm not trying to convince you that you should like the movie, but you're throwing out arguments that make no sense.
Baking soda can make or break a cake, just as editing can make or break a movie. You may not be savvy enough to notice it, but it is more important than most aspects of film-making. If the editing sucks, the movie sucks, and you most likely have a "mess".
I had never heard of the comic book before the movie came out, and I still haven't read it. I'm not sure what that has to do with your claim, though, since most people can differentiate source material from a retelling.
If you thought the movie wasn't funny or entertaining, that's one thing, but it wasn't a mess. Everything was well-done, the script didn't have any major plot holes, and the editing, music, and acting were fine. I agree that Anna Kendrick was underused, but most movies have one flaw or another.
Given that the studios generally receive about 50% of the total gross and the marketing budget for most films is about 100% of the budget, both of these movies lost money if you only count the theatrical gross. Both may go on to be slightly profitable in the long run (but not likely), but studios want these to make money initially so that DVD/TV sales and merchandise are just gravy.
The R rating requires anyone under 17 to be accompanied by a parent, so any age can get in, but you have to be 17 to see it without an adult.
Nipple does not equal an R. From the MPAA: "More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented." So brief nudity is still allowed in PG movies, and longer nudity requires that it be given at a PG-13. Any nudity where sex is involved (or even implied) usually means an R rating.
I thought Scott Pilgrim was the best movie of last year (in an admittedly very weak year). It wasn't a "mess", and if you thought so, you weren't paying attention. It's fine to hate Michael Cera, but why pay to see a movie with him in it? He was like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix - neither are very good actors, but these roles fit them perfectly. The script was funny and never let up. The cameos were uniformly excellent. The movie was just fun, which is all I ask of a movie like this.
I think the failure was mainly due to budget - it was way too high for a movie like this. Even after seeing it and loving it, I knew it was destined for sub-$50 million territory. It's just hard to get millions of people to see a movie like that. I guess they thought people would see it just because Michael Cera was in it. They should have cast Justin Bieber if they really wanted it to make money.
It would be ignorant to believe that he is anything more than an entertainer. He gets paid quite a bit of money because people tune into his show and buy his books, which is the very definition of a professional entertainer. If you believe everything (or nothing) that he says then you're ignorant. If you follow his every idea (or or dismiss him completely) then you're ignorant. When you realize that virtually every political pundit says what they say because they want to get paid, you are not ignorant. And he should be "let off the hook". Crazy people are already crazy, and he does nothing to make them crazier.
The employer (if the "entitled" person is even employed) gains no benefit because his employee doesn't work any harder or contribute more to the company's bottom line. If you don't understand that someone who is taking entitlements directly from the government is the one actually benefiting from the entitlement (in the form no extra effort for a benefit) and therefore taking money indirectly from taxpayers, then there's no sense in continuing a debate.
Suppose I started a company that could afford to employ one person and needed exactly that one employee and me to produce a product. The total revenue from selling that product would be 1.5 times whatever you consider a "living wage". Being the owner who risked capital, time, etc... I pay myself 1.0 times that wage, and I have 0.5 left. By your thinking, I shouldn't even offer the job. So my company goes out of business and now two people are unemployed when two could have had jobs. The employee could have gone to work for someone else as well to get enough money to be at "living wage" status.
I completely reject the notion that people working more than 40 hours a week don't have lives, as I've worked anywhere from 40-80 hour weeks consistently for the last 25 years and have always had a "life". I may have wanted more free time at certain jobs, but that drove me to find employment that took less of my time for more money. I always had some time to do the things that I enjoy. I've been poor and worked 70 hour weeks (or 50 hour weeks plus college) because I knew that's what I had to do make a better life. I also know people who gladly work 60+ hours and don't consider that a burden in the least. All of the people that I know that would be considered middle-class or higher have (for extended periods) or do work more than 40 hours per week. It is practically a necessity if you have a family.
Absolutely ALL of the poor people that I know (six people that I can think of) work less than 40 hours per week at some mindless and physically undemanding job and receive some form of government entitlement. None of them look for truly better employment or try to further their education, but they all complain about not making more money. Just 10 or 20 hours per week doing something about their situation would make a huge difference in their lives, but they refuse. Why do these people deserve more money from their employer for just showing up 40 hours a week to punch a clock? Because you say so isn't a valid reason. The work should justify the pay.
"You're a sociopath who has no morals whatever."
You obviously have nothing of value to say, or you wouldn't resort to name-calling. Just because I am unwilling to be sympathetic to people who wish to steal from their employer (and that is exactly what you are proposing - less work than the pay is worth, and I'm the "immoral" one?) does not make me a sociopath. Do you even know what the term means? I have enormous empathy for my friends that I consider less well-off and am constantly helping them with money and encouragement to find better jobs (admittedly the money is really just enabling them to stay poor). I have never physically fought or abused anyone in my life, except maybe verbally in the course of my job, and even then I feel horribly guilty about it no matter how much that person deserved it. I give to charities and am planning to start a chairity that gives job training and childcare to single mothers. Does that sound remotely like a sociopath?
"WHY do you think it's moral to starve a family?"
Because I am not starving them - they are doing it to themselves. If the market rate for 40 hours of work is less than "living wage", then that's what it is. You can't arbitraily set the wage to something higher. Businesses go under and even more people are out of work. If a company is exploiting its workers by paying less than what a job is truly worth, a competitor will come along and take his employees or force him to pay more. In contrast, if someone is unwilling to work harder or longer to survive, then he certainly doesn't deserve to get a raise. I will gladly help friends and family that can't afford food or rent, and have, (and I suspect most people would/have as well, thus charities), but I should never be FORCED to.
"The same minimum wage your competetion is paying. A level playing field."
But it's not level. By forcing me to pay X dollars an hour, I may get less (or more) value out of an employee t
If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.
By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.
You're not demonstrating any logic at all. A professional who has invested the time to get an education should of course earn more than a high school dropout, but if that dropout is working full time and going hungry, he's being ripped off by his employer.
It is you who are not demonstrating any logic at all. If highly specialized knowledge and experience are required for certain jobs, and virtually no knowledge and skill are required for others, then there should be a discrepancy, and there should be no limit to that discrepancy, top or bottom. If I hire someone to push a button once a minute for eight hours, why should I have to pay more than that job is worth to me? No one is forcing that person to take the job and if he/she had better skills, another job would probably be available. If I have need for four employees but can only afford to hire one at some government-imposed minimum wage, then my business is hampered by forcing costs to be higher, and three people are potentially left unemployed (assuming not every job in the area has been filled). It is always better to have a job at a low wage than no job at all.
An employer does not have any moral obligation to provide anything other than a fair wage for the job done, which should be solely determined by the market.
Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will buy misery. If your employee is going hungry, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Lack of money should motivate people to find a better job or work longer hours. And I would never be ashamed of myself if my employee was going hungry. It is he who should be ashamed of himself in that case.
If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.
By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.
I would posit that far less than 40 hours should be considered "full time employment".
Most people think like you, and that is why most people will never be rich, or even "well-off". Work your 35-40 hours at a "living wage" until you're 65, depend on someone else or the government to support you until you die, and leave nothing to your kids. Not how I want to spend the rest of my days.
There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?
No, by inflation.
Seriously, when the lottery first came out, a million dollar payout of $20,000 per year for 50 years was an amazing amount - I could have retired at 21 years of age and lived off that indefinitely. Now, a million dollars cash in hand is barely enough to retire on at age 67.
If you're poor or middle class, inflation doesn't get you a million dollars unless you invest well and really long time (decades) passes. The point of the study was to show that most millionaires in America are self-made, whether through starting businesses, investing well, or working hard at a high-income job. Very little luck or inflation had anything to do with it.
The soviets managed the first satellite, the manned lunar orbit, and the first robotic probe on the moon as well as plasma engine technology, and this was all done about 30 years ago.
Why should a company be forced to pay a "living wage" if the work doesn't warrant that wage? Any moron can stand at a door and say, "Hello". Most morons can handle stocking shelves, cash registers, driving trucks, etc... How are these jobs worth as much as professions like teachers, nurses, engineers, etc... that do earn what you would probably consider a "living wage"? And more importantly, what gives the government the moral right to tell a company how much any particular job is worth?
And why is 40 hours a week the magic number? Most people that become "rich" during their lives work far more than 40 hours.
The poor get very little at all from any level of government, the rich get damned near everything.
Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, federally funded schools, unemployment insurance, military employment (and the training and college educations that come with it), just to name a few. How do the rich directly benefit from these?
Slashdot Mirror
The prevailing assumption today seems to be that mankind is causing every extinction on the planet and, as such, we should be working to save every species and variety of endangered animal
If we had the attitude of Mr. Cook in the U.S., it would save loads of tax dollars and businesses wouldn't have to move or cancel expansion plans nearly as often. It's like programs that help save lives. If one costs $10,000 per life saved, and another costs $500,000 per life saved, clearly we should forgo the latter and concentrate on the former. Unfortunately, people are too sympathetic for logic to take over.
I'm still trying to get "Donuts, Beer, and Hookers" made.
so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?
I actually made a website in the mid-90s based on this idea and dubbed it MovieGen - didn't expect to make money, just great fun. You could press a button, and it would reveal two random movies, like "Alien" meets "Liar Liar". I also added an option for a third, so you could have "Die Hard" meets "Gattaca" with a bit of "Tootsie". Great time-waster, and sadly some of the combinations have certainly been made into actual movies by now.
Reagan spent virtually the same percentage of GDP in his first year vs. Carter's last (33.72% vs. 34.73%) - I was slightly off in my original statement; the bar chart played tricks with my eyes, but 1.01% higher in eight years is pretty small. Ford's was higher if you count 1974, which may or may not be fair (3.77%). Carter's was less (0.28%). Bush 1 was higher (2.1% in four years). Clinton lowered it by 4.5%. Bush 2 increased it by 4.4% and Obama in two years has increased it by almost 4.7%
Your GP poster was indeed wrong and I stand by my statement.
Note that I would never be so naive as to give full credit or full blame to a President for spending. But it is interesting to note that the best combination of the last 30+ years was a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Congress.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010
"I'm done with this guy."
Or, alternatively, folks could buck up a bit more cash so that we actually pay for all the shit we've been begging the government to give us.... (whether you want rich folks, poor folks, or in-between folks to buck up more cash is irrelevant, the point is, cutting away services is not the only way to reduce a deficit).
Why cut or "buck up a bit more cash"? Just keep spending at the current level.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-cbo-numbers-re-confirm-that-balancing-the-budget-is-simple-with-modest-fiscal-restraint/
the lesser-known Futball.
I think a few billion people would disagree with you.
I still remember Reagan talking about making the government smaller, while during his two-term presidency the US government expanded at the highest rate in recent history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
As you can see, Reagan and Clinton were President while the spending was reduced, and all the others saw spending increase during their terms (as a percent of GDP).
"I'm done with this guy."
Just because something doesn't perfectly suit a government's needs when they suspect someone of a crime doesn't mean the product should be banned. Take pre-paid cell phones. No real tracking, and if a criminal is smart, there is zero chance any government agency could ever find out what was said on the phone, and in most cases, even who used the phone. Should we ban pre-paid cell phones? What about pipes? I can smoke anything I want in a pipe, including tobacco, marijuana, crack, or torn up bits of the Constitution. The fact is the vast majority of people using any of these devices are using them legally, and benefit much more than the inconvenience to the government caused by criminals using them for nefarious purposes.
Just because something doesn't entertain you doesn't make it a "mess". I hated American Beauty, but it wasn't a mess, merely boring. You may think it's semantics, but you don't even understand the definition of the word that you're using. There was a plot, and it followed the standard Beginning-Middle-End structure. There was motivation - he liked a girl, the basis for half the movies out there. If you choose to look at something through heavily tinted glasses, it doesn't mean that you are right. I'm not trying to convince you that you should like the movie, but you're throwing out arguments that make no sense.
Baking soda can make or break a cake, just as editing can make or break a movie. You may not be savvy enough to notice it, but it is more important than most aspects of film-making. If the editing sucks, the movie sucks, and you most likely have a "mess".
I had never heard of the comic book before the movie came out, and I still haven't read it. I'm not sure what that has to do with your claim, though, since most people can differentiate source material from a retelling.
If you thought the movie wasn't funny or entertaining, that's one thing, but it wasn't a mess. Everything was well-done, the script didn't have any major plot holes, and the editing, music, and acting were fine. I agree that Anna Kendrick was underused, but most movies have one flaw or another.
Kick-Ass $30M budget, grossed $96M worldwide.
Watchmen: $130M budget, grossed $195M worldwide.
Given that the studios generally receive about 50% of the total gross and the marketing budget for most films is about 100% of the budget, both of these movies lost money if you only count the theatrical gross. Both may go on to be slightly profitable in the long run (but not likely), but studios want these to make money initially so that DVD/TV sales and merchandise are just gravy.
If Game of Thrones was done right and released theatrically, it would be NC-17.
The R rating requires anyone under 17 to be accompanied by a parent, so any age can get in, but you have to be 17 to see it without an adult.
Nipple does not equal an R. From the MPAA: "More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented." So brief nudity is still allowed in PG movies, and longer nudity requires that it be given at a PG-13. Any nudity where sex is involved (or even implied) usually means an R rating.
I thought Scott Pilgrim was the best movie of last year (in an admittedly very weak year). It wasn't a "mess", and if you thought so, you weren't paying attention. It's fine to hate Michael Cera, but why pay to see a movie with him in it? He was like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix - neither are very good actors, but these roles fit them perfectly. The script was funny and never let up. The cameos were uniformly excellent. The movie was just fun, which is all I ask of a movie like this.
I think the failure was mainly due to budget - it was way too high for a movie like this. Even after seeing it and loving it, I knew it was destined for sub-$50 million territory. It's just hard to get millions of people to see a movie like that. I guess they thought people would see it just because Michael Cera was in it. They should have cast Justin Bieber if they really wanted it to make money.
It would be ignorant to believe that he is anything more than an entertainer. He gets paid quite a bit of money because people tune into his show and buy his books, which is the very definition of a professional entertainer. If you believe everything (or nothing) that he says then you're ignorant. If you follow his every idea (or or dismiss him completely) then you're ignorant. When you realize that virtually every political pundit says what they say because they want to get paid, you are not ignorant. And he should be "let off the hook". Crazy people are already crazy, and he does nothing to make them crazier.
He's an entertainer, nothing more. He says stuff like this to get publicity like this.
We've seen all of those. We want new pics!
The employer (if the "entitled" person is even employed) gains no benefit because his employee doesn't work any harder or contribute more to the company's bottom line. If you don't understand that someone who is taking entitlements directly from the government is the one actually benefiting from the entitlement (in the form no extra effort for a benefit) and therefore taking money indirectly from taxpayers, then there's no sense in continuing a debate.
Are we going to remove the n-word from Blazing Saddles?
"Isn't it a lovely morning?"
"Up yours, my good African-American friend!"
Suppose I started a company that could afford to employ one person and needed exactly that one employee and me to produce a product. The total revenue from selling that product would be 1.5 times whatever you consider a "living wage". Being the owner who risked capital, time, etc... I pay myself 1.0 times that wage, and I have 0.5 left. By your thinking, I shouldn't even offer the job. So my company goes out of business and now two people are unemployed when two could have had jobs. The employee could have gone to work for someone else as well to get enough money to be at "living wage" status.
I completely reject the notion that people working more than 40 hours a week don't have lives, as I've worked anywhere from 40-80 hour weeks consistently for the last 25 years and have always had a "life". I may have wanted more free time at certain jobs, but that drove me to find employment that took less of my time for more money. I always had some time to do the things that I enjoy. I've been poor and worked 70 hour weeks (or 50 hour weeks plus college) because I knew that's what I had to do make a better life. I also know people who gladly work 60+ hours and don't consider that a burden in the least. All of the people that I know that would be considered middle-class or higher have (for extended periods) or do work more than 40 hours per week. It is practically a necessity if you have a family.
Absolutely ALL of the poor people that I know (six people that I can think of) work less than 40 hours per week at some mindless and physically undemanding job and receive some form of government entitlement. None of them look for truly better employment or try to further their education, but they all complain about not making more money. Just 10 or 20 hours per week doing something about their situation would make a huge difference in their lives, but they refuse. Why do these people deserve more money from their employer for just showing up 40 hours a week to punch a clock? Because you say so isn't a valid reason. The work should justify the pay.
"You're a sociopath who has no morals whatever."
You obviously have nothing of value to say, or you wouldn't resort to name-calling. Just because I am unwilling to be sympathetic to people who wish to steal from their employer (and that is exactly what you are proposing - less work than the pay is worth, and I'm the "immoral" one?) does not make me a sociopath. Do you even know what the term means? I have enormous empathy for my friends that I consider less well-off and am constantly helping them with money and encouragement to find better jobs (admittedly the money is really just enabling them to stay poor). I have never physically fought or abused anyone in my life, except maybe verbally in the course of my job, and even then I feel horribly guilty about it no matter how much that person deserved it. I give to charities and am planning to start a chairity that gives job training and childcare to single mothers. Does that sound remotely like a sociopath?
"WHY do you think it's moral to starve a family?"
Because I am not starving them - they are doing it to themselves. If the market rate for 40 hours of work is less than "living wage", then that's what it is. You can't arbitraily set the wage to something higher. Businesses go under and even more people are out of work. If a company is exploiting its workers by paying less than what a job is truly worth, a competitor will come along and take his employees or force him to pay more. In contrast, if someone is unwilling to work harder or longer to survive, then he certainly doesn't deserve to get a raise. I will gladly help friends and family that can't afford food or rent, and have, (and I suspect most people would/have as well, thus charities), but I should never be FORCED to.
"The same minimum wage your competetion is paying. A level playing field."
But it's not level. By forcing me to pay X dollars an hour, I may get less (or more) value out of an employee t
If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.
By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.
You're not demonstrating any logic at all. A professional who has invested the time to get an education should of course earn more than a high school dropout, but if that dropout is working full time and going hungry, he's being ripped off by his employer.
It is you who are not demonstrating any logic at all. If highly specialized knowledge and experience are required for certain jobs, and virtually no knowledge and skill are required for others, then there should be a discrepancy, and there should be no limit to that discrepancy, top or bottom. If I hire someone to push a button once a minute for eight hours, why should I have to pay more than that job is worth to me? No one is forcing that person to take the job and if he/she had better skills, another job would probably be available. If I have need for four employees but can only afford to hire one at some government-imposed minimum wage, then my business is hampered by forcing costs to be higher, and three people are potentially left unemployed (assuming not every job in the area has been filled). It is always better to have a job at a low wage than no job at all.
An employer does not have any moral obligation to provide anything other than a fair wage for the job done, which should be solely determined by the market.
Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will buy misery. If your employee is going hungry, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Lack of money should motivate people to find a better job or work longer hours. And I would never be ashamed of myself if my employee was going hungry. It is he who should be ashamed of himself in that case.
If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.
By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.
I would posit that far less than 40 hours should be considered "full time employment".
Most people think like you, and that is why most people will never be rich, or even "well-off". Work your 35-40 hours at a "living wage" until you're 65, depend on someone else or the government to support you until you die, and leave nothing to your kids. Not how I want to spend the rest of my days.
There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?
No, by inflation. Seriously, when the lottery first came out, a million dollar payout of $20,000 per year for 50 years was an amazing amount - I could have retired at 21 years of age and lived off that indefinitely. Now, a million dollars cash in hand is barely enough to retire on at age 67.
If you're poor or middle class, inflation doesn't get you a million dollars unless you invest well and really long time (decades) passes. The point of the study was to show that most millionaires in America are self-made, whether through starting businesses, investing well, or working hard at a high-income job. Very little luck or inflation had anything to do with it.
The soviets managed the first satellite, the manned lunar orbit, and the first robotic probe on the moon as well as plasma engine technology, and this was all done about 30 years ago.
Slavery gets shit done.
And why is 40 hours a week the magic number? Most people that become "rich" during their lives work far more than 40 hours.
The poor get very little at all from any level of government, the rich get damned near everything.
Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, federally funded schools, unemployment insurance, military employment (and the training and college educations that come with it), just to name a few. How do the rich directly benefit from these?