Poor Widdle Billionaire

[paft.livejournal.com]

Remember back in July, when Mike Huckabee sent a shout-out to employers to threaten to fire employees if Obama wins a second term? Well, it looks like at least one member of the 1% was listening. Time-share billionaire David Siegel, borrowing heavily from a 2008 chain letter, has sent a message out to his employees:

Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest…

Nice little job ya got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

…Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for….

Luxuries? You mean like food? Shelter? Healthcare?

Or have people been out in the streets, camping out in front of banks and demanding homes with ice-skating/roller rinks, bowling allies and health spas?

David Siegel and his wife Jackie are the subjects of a documentary called The Queen of Versailles, which documents a few of those “luxuries (Siegel) earned and sacrificed 42 years of (his) life for.” The following video begins with a revealing clip from the film, which includes a tour of the fabulous mansion they were in the process of building down in Florida. Sadly, they've had to put it on the market, unfinished. Looks like Mr. and Mrs. Siegel are guilty of just a wee bit of overspending:

Jackie Siegel: I said, 'I'd like to have a bowling ally, and he says, 'I want a health spa,' and then I said, 'We need maids' quarters.' I forgot how many kitchens. Ten kitchens. We have a sushi bar."

David Siegel: Two tennis courts, one movie, a stadium court, full sized baseball field, which will double as a parking lot when we have parties.

But back to the letter:

…If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job?

Honest. He’s really worried about his employees. And if President Obama is elected to a second term – well, it’s really going to wreck poor David Siegel’s motivation. His feelings will be so hurt!

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

It will break his spirit. Just...break...it.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

Just in case any of them forgot.

Seriously, the sense of entitlement this reveals on the part of Siegel is pretty damned staggering. "Versailles" definitely comes to mind, and not in a good, "spectacular-architecture-and-beautiful-art" way. More like, "How dare the peasants who work for me presume to vote for a candidate I dislike. Better give them a 'friendly' reminder about my ability to turn their lives to sh*t if the election doesn't go the way I want it to."

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[aelf.livejournal.com]

My employer's funding was specifically up for debate in Congress. How is that different from an employer analyzing his expenses and seeing less money available for hiring people?

To my mind, my employer alerting me that our funding was going to be up for debate in Congress was quite similar to my husband's employer alerting his employees that he may not be able to continue employing them all / employing them with the same hours they have currently depending on his future overhead.

However, in both cases those situations could have been read as a threat. "Vote the wrong way and you'll lose your job." That said, I don't think in either case they *were* threats. Nor do I think the letter you posted was a threat. Can you provide an example of an employer notifying employees that a particular action might lead to them losing their job / losing hours that *couldn't* be interpreted as a threat?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

My employer's funding was specifically up for debate in Congress. How is that different from an employer analyzing his expenses and seeing less money available for hiring people?

• Were any of the congress-people up for election in your husband's district?
  
• Were these elections between the congressional review and therefore the job?
  
• Did your employer demonstrate a veritable fountain of money at his or her beck and call for personal (and therefore theoretically for business) use?

If you answer no to any of these questions, I doubt the two instances can be described in any way as analogous.

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Yes, Congress people with influence in the legislation were running for office in districts in which employees lived.

We were notified of impending issues before elections.

Government funds can seem to be a veritable fountain at times. :) However, as with the case in the original letter, just because there would be funds available to keep certain folks employed at the institute, there would not be enough funds to maintain everyone's employments. In other words, the pot of money would be smaller, and how it would be allocated would be changed.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

However, as with the case in the original letter, just because there would be funds available to keep certain folks employed at the institute, there would not be enough funds to maintain everyone's employments.

Ah, there is a difference between what you describe and the original letter. Read this excerpt from the original closely:

. . . the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't.

(Yes, I emphasized.)

So, how does he know he "made all the right decisions?" He tips this hand later in the letter when he refers to "a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive." Translation: those with money are productive, and those without money are not. People with money therefore "made all the right decisions."

In essence, he is channeling the Protestant work ethic into a higher realm of wealth, where the money he earns anoints him with the right to carry on as if he were royalty. This letter addresses people he regards as his subjects, despite the thinly-veiled opening alluding to their "right to vote."

One need not delve too far into this financial cluster fuck to realize that one can make all the right decisions and still be of modest means, and that there are some real crooks that made a bundle. Only those crooks that received guilty verdicts seem to draw attention, for some reason.

He's a thug, quite unlike your husband's employer, which seems to be addressing an issue more open to direct lobbying of the vested congressional authorities.

[paft.livejournal.com]

a: My employer's funding was specifically up for debate in Congress. How is that different from an employer analyzing his expenses and seeing less money available for hiring people?

Mr. Siegel's company has not, as far as I know, been specifically targeted by the president.