Export thread
Is income inequality unjust, and if so, where is the injustice?
Limit: 500
#1
strawman
strawman
So thinking about the wage gap, which is obviously bad for society, I started wondering if it was unjust. Surely it must be, I supposed, but then that leads one to wonder where the injustice occurs? This leads to thoughts about whether success is therefore unjust as well, or, in fact if capitalism is inherently unjust.
Note that I'm using the common (simple) definition of "unjust" as "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." We all differ on what might be considered "fair" or "morally right", but as long as we acknowledge that then it seems like we could have an interesting discussion on this topic.
Note that I'm using the common (simple) definition of "unjust" as "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." We all differ on what might be considered "fair" or "morally right", but as long as we acknowledge that then it seems like we could have an interesting discussion on this topic.
#2
MindDetective
MindDetective
Not inherently, but inducing it through intentional or unintentional action might be. Actions, not situations, should be considered unjust. Obviously the problem that inspires the debate is what actions might lead to such injustice and how to avoid committing it.So thinking about the wage gap, which is obviously bad for society, I started wondering if it was unjust. Surely it must be, I supposed, but then that leads one to wonder where the injustice occurs? This leads to thoughts about whether success is therefore unjust as well, or, in fact if capitalism is inherently unjust.
Note that I'm using the common (simple) definition of "unjust" as "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." We all differ on what might be considered "fair" or "morally right", but as long as we acknowledge that then it seems like we could have an interesting discussion on this topic.
#3
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
30+ years of supply side economics... there is the injustice.
#4
strawman
strawman
Lowering the barriers to create things is unjust? How so?30+ years of supply side economics... there is the injustice.
#5
TommiR
Unless there is a convincing solution to this problem, I tend to consider the alternative to be a significantly greater injustice than what we currently have. Yes, I'm well aware that not every rich person has gained their wealth on their own merits, and not every poor person is poor due to being good-for-nothing, but without material benefits and penalties how would society at large encourage desirable behaviour and hard work, while disincentivising undesirable behavious? If everything provides the same material comfort, why take the time and effort to actually do something with one's life?
TommiR
If there was no wage gap, and the earnings of all were more or less the same, then how in today's society would one encourage hard work, good performance, and achievement? What rewards could be offered to those whose efforts prove to be of benefit, and what penalties could be imposed on the free-riders?So thinking about the wage gap, which is obviously bad for society, I started wondering if it was unjust. Surely it must be, I supposed, but then that leads one to wonder where the injustice occurs?
Unless there is a convincing solution to this problem, I tend to consider the alternative to be a significantly greater injustice than what we currently have. Yes, I'm well aware that not every rich person has gained their wealth on their own merits, and not every poor person is poor due to being good-for-nothing, but without material benefits and penalties how would society at large encourage desirable behaviour and hard work, while disincentivising undesirable behavious? If everything provides the same material comfort, why take the time and effort to actually do something with one's life?
#6
strawman
strawman
Perhaps, but that doesn't provide insight into why the wage gap is or isn't unjust. Unless you are attempting to claim that the gap, as currently exists in our society, is just, and is the result of a desirable attempt to encourage productive workers?If ... the earnings of all were more or less the same...
#7
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
For that time the Government tilted the playing field to support the people that don't need support.Lowering the barriers to create things is unjust? How so?
#8
MindDetective
MindDetective
Believe it or not, people are not so singularly motivated. Motivation is complex and cannot be distilled easily to a purely reinforcement paradigm, no matter how much Skinner insisted it to be true. Most economists are Skinnerians at heart. Since Skinner was wrong, so are his proteges.but without material benefits and penalties how would society at large encourage desirable behaviour and hard work, while disincentivising undesirable behavious?
#9
Dave
Dave
#10
Dei
Dei
You can say not most people are like that, but unless we get education costs under control, there is going to be people who will earn more because they put more investment into the ability to do so. Again, this does not take into account people who earn their money from playing the market, or other such things viewed as income, but the fact of the matter is that the income gap is something that exists because a skill gap exists.
#11
TommiR
TommiR
The wage gap as a concept, a disparity on what forms of material wealth can be acquired by which individuals. As long as there is a positive correlation in the amount of effort put into an endeavour, and the benefits accrued thereof, I believe there exists an argument as to why the wage gap, itself one form of reward, can not be considered as inherently unjust.Perhaps, but that doesn't provide insight into why the wage gap is or isn't unjust. Unless you are attempting to claim that the gap, as currently exists in our society, is just, and is the result of a desirable attempt to encourage productive workers?
I certainly believe it; a simple glance at the history of management theories will offer a convincing argument as to why human motivation is not simply a question of material benefits. But is it truly the case that material benefits are not a significant factor in the human psyche, or that the differences in the things that motivate humans render the income gap unjust?Believe it or not, people are not so singularly motivated. Motivation is complex and cannot be distilled easily to a purely reinforcement paradigm, no matter how much Skinner insisted it to be true. Most economists are Skinnerians at heart. Since Skinner was wrong, so are his proteges.
#12
MindDetective
MindDetective
They are likely a significant factor, but not necessarily due to reinforcement contingencies. Evolutionary psychologists might point out, for example, that women, but not men, are more likely to emphasize material security in selecting a mate, which places an evolutionary (and social) pressure on men to acquire and show off their wealth to enhance mating probabilities. This suggests a biological (read: not a reinforcement contingency) disparity in the reasons that material wealth is both acquired and displayed between genders, as well as the wealthy and the poor and the married and the single and the young and the old. The bottom line is that even if rewards do matter, they don't matter in a universal fashion, and they may not even matter because of the contingency, which is important to the economist's line of thought.The wage gap as a concept, a disparity on what forms of material wealth can be acquired by which individuals. As long as there is a positive correlation in the amount of effort put into an endeavour, and the benefits accrued thereof, I believe there exists an argument as to why the wage gap, itself one form of reward, can not be considered as inherently unjust.
I certainly believe it; a simple glance at the history of management theories will offer a convincing argument as to why human motivation is not simply a question of material benefits. But is it truly the case that material benefits are not a significant factor in the human psyche, or that the differences in the things that motivate humans render the income gap unjust?
#13
TommiR
Taking that to be true, if material wealth matters less to some than to others, how do you find it renders the income gap unjust?
TommiR
Mmm. So it's an ingrained biological instinct amongst a certain subset of the population to acquire and display wealth as a sign of material security in order to enhance mating prospects?They are likely a significant factor, but not necessarily due to reinforcement contingencies. Evolutionary psychologists might point out, for example, that women, but not men, are more likely to emphasize material security in selecting a mate, which places an evolutionary (and social) pressure on men to acquire and show off their wealth to enhance mating probabilities. This suggests a biological (read: not a reinforcement contingency) disparity in the reasons that material wealth is both acquired and displayed between genders, as well as the wealthy and the poor and the married and the single and the young and the old. The bottom line is that even if rewards do matter, they don't matter in a universal fashion, and they may not even matter because of the contingency, which is important to the economist's line of thought.
Taking that to be true, if material wealth matters less to some than to others, how do you find it renders the income gap unjust?
#14
MindDetective
MindDetective
I don't find any mechanism inherently unjust. Unjust to me revolves around the actions that one or more people take that harm the actions of others. Someone who acquires wealth to the point that it harms another group of people (that is in no way their enemy) are the ones who are unjust in their actions. Recognizing mechanisms is useful towards education and policymaking.Mmm. So it's an ingrained biological instinct amongst a certain subset of the population to acquire and display wealth as a sign of material security in order to enhance mating prospects?
Taking that to be true, if material wealth matters less to some than to others, how do you find it renders the income gap unjust?
#15
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think the injustice comes in with the collusion. The rich and powerful work together to prevent the lessers from achieving the same success, usually by placing artificial barriers to progress (the inflated importance of college degrees and their ever rising price, influencing politicians to keep minimum wage beneath a living wage, dismantling the attempts of workers to organize, etc.). It doesn't help that they've skewed the legal system in their favor. By preventing the lessers from being able to take advantage of the same opportunities they had, they ensure that wealth and power remains in their hands. Effort and talent can occasionally make up for short comings, but no amount of effort or talent can equal having powerful friends and connections that will assist you.
To put it simply, income inequality is unjust because it is enforced by an unjust system that is run by those who do not wish the poor to have the same success as the rich. The Haves would rather have workers than competitors and thus they have made it so.
To put it simply, income inequality is unjust because it is enforced by an unjust system that is run by those who do not wish the poor to have the same success as the rich. The Haves would rather have workers than competitors and thus they have made it so.
#16
Bubble181
Bubble181
I find this discussion to be, almost always, far too black-and-white. We get presented with the choice: either everyone earns the same, or some people are free to earn whatever the hell they want. That's obvious rubbish, really.
Is it "just" to give everyone the exact same amount of money/income, no matter what they have, do or need? Even most modern day communists will agree that it's not.
Is it "just" to have worthy, intelligent people who have worked hard all their lives but were somehow hit by fate/bad luck/karma/whatever starve in the streets while useless nobodies can live in opulence and decadence because their father was smart? Even the most neoliberal conservative American ought to agree that (while they may think this is the best way to order society) it isn't particularly "just"'.
TommiR hinted at what makes people feel it is "just" to have income inequality: a positive correlation between effort and return. Ashburner pointed out the problem with our current system: the haves can and do work together to stay in the "have" group, keeping the havenots down.
There have been many different points of view on this. The French idea - limit the income of everyone to maximum 20x what the lowest-paid employee in a company earns - seems to me to be fairly just....But it can, of course, be easily avoided (nobody says management and direction have to be officially employed by the same company as the mailroom clerk). The idea's been offered to just limit all wages to 20x minimum wage. Another idea I've heard proposed is to limit inheritance: limiting any possible inheritance to 10 years' worth of income, with the rest being redistributed, could work as a way to limit the amount of people able to live without earning their own way. Both of these are practically impossible to put into proactice on a national scale (in Europe) - they'd have to be put into action across the EU or better yet worldwide to be at all effective.
An option that's gaining more and more traction with the left in Europe is to replace unemplyment benefits/welfare with a "'basic income" awarded to everyone over 18. No matter what your income, no matter what your job (or none) - you get X per month - in this set-up, this should be enough to live off of ("comfortably" or not depends on who you ask). It simplifies many things - student support, housewife support, disabilities support, retirement funding, unemployment,.... can all be roled into one. Any wages you earn would be in addition to your basic income, and would provide the 'extras'. Of course, taxes would have to be adjusted for this to work, and it'd be an enormos undertaking. I'm not at all convinced it's possible or desirable, but...Yeah.
Is it "just" to give everyone the exact same amount of money/income, no matter what they have, do or need? Even most modern day communists will agree that it's not.
Is it "just" to have worthy, intelligent people who have worked hard all their lives but were somehow hit by fate/bad luck/karma/whatever starve in the streets while useless nobodies can live in opulence and decadence because their father was smart? Even the most neoliberal conservative American ought to agree that (while they may think this is the best way to order society) it isn't particularly "just"'.
TommiR hinted at what makes people feel it is "just" to have income inequality: a positive correlation between effort and return. Ashburner pointed out the problem with our current system: the haves can and do work together to stay in the "have" group, keeping the havenots down.
There have been many different points of view on this. The French idea - limit the income of everyone to maximum 20x what the lowest-paid employee in a company earns - seems to me to be fairly just....But it can, of course, be easily avoided (nobody says management and direction have to be officially employed by the same company as the mailroom clerk). The idea's been offered to just limit all wages to 20x minimum wage. Another idea I've heard proposed is to limit inheritance: limiting any possible inheritance to 10 years' worth of income, with the rest being redistributed, could work as a way to limit the amount of people able to live without earning their own way. Both of these are practically impossible to put into proactice on a national scale (in Europe) - they'd have to be put into action across the EU or better yet worldwide to be at all effective.
An option that's gaining more and more traction with the left in Europe is to replace unemplyment benefits/welfare with a "'basic income" awarded to everyone over 18. No matter what your income, no matter what your job (or none) - you get X per month - in this set-up, this should be enough to live off of ("comfortably" or not depends on who you ask). It simplifies many things - student support, housewife support, disabilities support, retirement funding, unemployment,.... can all be roled into one. Any wages you earn would be in addition to your basic income, and would provide the 'extras'. Of course, taxes would have to be adjusted for this to work, and it'd be an enormos undertaking. I'm not at all convinced it's possible or desirable, but...Yeah.
#17
tegid
tegid
I don't think income inequality is intrinsically unfair. I do think it is unfair in the way it is set up now.
In my mind, for income inequality to be as just as possible, income should be very strongly correlated with a combination of effort and skill (I do not know in which proportion). As it stands now, I think it depends too much on your starting point and on some things that can depend on effort/skills but often don't, such as connections. I also think that some skills are related to a disproportionate improvement in income, that some bad decisions can be a disproportionately large drawback and that in general the correlation between effort/skills and income is too strong (i.e. a small change in skill means a big change in income) in some cases and too low in others.
Also, if we are talking about inequality in general, I think it is wrong that any person is without the bare minimum of food and shelter, and dignity (what is this bare minimum is hard to know). I think almost no bad decision or concatenation of bad decisions are bad enough to deserve such a big penalty. Therefore, I think that if any inequality is to be just, its spectrum should never go below this bare minimum.
In my mind, for income inequality to be as just as possible, income should be very strongly correlated with a combination of effort and skill (I do not know in which proportion). As it stands now, I think it depends too much on your starting point and on some things that can depend on effort/skills but often don't, such as connections. I also think that some skills are related to a disproportionate improvement in income, that some bad decisions can be a disproportionately large drawback and that in general the correlation between effort/skills and income is too strong (i.e. a small change in skill means a big change in income) in some cases and too low in others.
Also, if we are talking about inequality in general, I think it is wrong that any person is without the bare minimum of food and shelter, and dignity (what is this bare minimum is hard to know). I think almost no bad decision or concatenation of bad decisions are bad enough to deserve such a big penalty. Therefore, I think that if any inequality is to be just, its spectrum should never go below this bare minimum.
#18
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
The only way this can work is if the governments of the EU were to standardize the price of goods, services and property to prevent people from taking advantage of the now flush market. It's the same problem the raising minimum has in the US: there is nothing to stop companies from raising the price of goods to make up for the lost income, bringing everyone back to square one. Even then, you'd have to forgive a shitload of debts to even make this work. It would basically be like calling a do over on society and that's not going to happen until we reach a post-scarcity state.An option that's gaining more and more traction with the left in Europe is to replace unemplyment benefits/welfare with a "'basic income" awarded to everyone over 18. No matter what your income, no matter what your job (or none) - you get X per month - in this set-up, this should be enough to live off of ("comfortably" or not depends on who you ask). It simplifies many things - student support, housewife support, disabilities support, retirement funding, unemployment,.... can all be roled into one. Any wages you earn would be in addition to your basic income, and would provide the 'extras'. Of course, taxes would have to be adjusted for this to work, and it'd be an enormos undertaking. I'm not at all convinced it's possible or desirable, but...Yeah.
#19
tegid
tegid
Depending on how you do it many companies stand to lose nothing from it: obviously, if you have this Basic Universal Income coming from the government, you won't have a minimum wage anymore and companies can pay a lot less. The other side of this coin is that workers do not need to accept very low paying jobs either.
In any case, it is a very interesting and socially challenging idea, but it would need many economical and social changes to work.
In any case, it is a very interesting and socially challenging idea, but it would need many economical and social changes to work.
#20
Charlie Don't Surf
yeah
Charlie Don't Surf
, in fact if capitalism is inherently unjust.
.
yeah
#21
GasBandit
GasBandit
Life is inherently unjust.
#22
strawman
strawman
Interesting. I suspect that life is, overall and on average just, however it my be unjust on an individual scale, or depending on one's perspective. It rains on the rich and the poor equally, but only a few in each group might be able to take advantage of the rain to improve their situation. The majority probably don't care. And another few in each group will be hurt by the rain.Life is inherently unjust.
#23
PatrThom
PatrThom
(I started a big post on this yesterday, but then accidentally refreshed the page and lost it. I had a sad.)
To directly answer the question posed in the OP, income inequality (the "wage gap") is most certainly unjust. The harm caused by this tilting of the playing field is a thing which is not in dispute, and anyone who claims otherwise is either not paying attention, or is deliberately choosing to ignore it. Every wealthy businessperson, every effective government, and even every lottery winner might think their success is due to their own actions, but in reality they each owe their respective successes to the collective efforts of others. They may have done A Thing, but it was the efforts of others which added value to That Thing. The sole proprietorship is pretty much the only exception. An injustice occurs when the person(s) reaping the most benefit fail to adequately compensate the ones doing the majority of the work. And yes, I realize that "adequately compensate" is open to some debate. I've already said quite a bit over in another thread about much the same issue (especially as regards the gulf between the "mean" and "median" wages), and I still stand by the dozens of sentences I spewed there.
There is a second kind of "wage gap" that I think deserves more attention, and that is the gap between a person's wages and their basic living expenses. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to show* that the amount of income in the personal sector in toto is sufficent to meet (and exceed!) all a person's basic needs (and I am including such things as a vehicle for transportation, a computer and some form of decent Internet access, etc) for every US citizen, and yet this is far from the reality. This is a very telling thing, and what it tells is that our society places a high value on selfishness. I don't for one minute count myself as a Socialist, as I don't believe the Government should own the means of production (it should instead concern itself with managing those things that nobody wants to be bothered with but which have to get done), but I do feel that the people to whom the system has been so very kind need to exhibit a bit more concern about whether the system is going to survive. As I state in that other thread:
--Patrick
*In the US, at least. I realize I'm being Americentric, it's my area of focus.
To directly answer the question posed in the OP, income inequality (the "wage gap") is most certainly unjust. The harm caused by this tilting of the playing field is a thing which is not in dispute, and anyone who claims otherwise is either not paying attention, or is deliberately choosing to ignore it. Every wealthy businessperson, every effective government, and even every lottery winner might think their success is due to their own actions, but in reality they each owe their respective successes to the collective efforts of others. They may have done A Thing, but it was the efforts of others which added value to That Thing. The sole proprietorship is pretty much the only exception. An injustice occurs when the person(s) reaping the most benefit fail to adequately compensate the ones doing the majority of the work. And yes, I realize that "adequately compensate" is open to some debate. I've already said quite a bit over in another thread about much the same issue (especially as regards the gulf between the "mean" and "median" wages), and I still stand by the dozens of sentences I spewed there.
There is a second kind of "wage gap" that I think deserves more attention, and that is the gap between a person's wages and their basic living expenses. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to show* that the amount of income in the personal sector in toto is sufficent to meet (and exceed!) all a person's basic needs (and I am including such things as a vehicle for transportation, a computer and some form of decent Internet access, etc) for every US citizen, and yet this is far from the reality. This is a very telling thing, and what it tells is that our society places a high value on selfishness. I don't for one minute count myself as a Socialist, as I don't believe the Government should own the means of production (it should instead concern itself with managing those things that nobody wants to be bothered with but which have to get done), but I do feel that the people to whom the system has been so very kind need to exhibit a bit more concern about whether the system is going to survive. As I state in that other thread:
In other words, the economy would be much healthier, and people a lot happier, if instead of having 10 people spend a billion dollars each, we had 10 million people spending $1000 each. If the roots don't get sufficient food and water, the tree will die, no matter how much air and sunshine you give the leaves.I know it may be obvious to some people, but a healthy economy isn't one where everyone has a lot, a healthy economy is one where everyone does a lot of commerce. It's this flow of wealth that is important, and when it slows/stops, everyone suffers.
--Patrick
*In the US, at least. I realize I'm being Americentric, it's my area of focus.
#24
GasBandit
Wealth doesn't figure into it. Merit doesn't figure into it. Cancer, lightning strikes and car accidents happen to the virtuous as much as the villainous, and to some people that sounds like fairness "on average," but taken one person at a time in a subjective reference, there is not a day that passes without a worthy person suffering an ill that they did not deserve nor can they absorb. The injustice is on an individual basis, not a systemic one - and thus the efforts to address them must be similar. The only thing socialism can do to to alleviate the unjust is to inflict the misery upon all to the highest common denominator.
Someone will always be hurt. Someone will always be killed. Someone will always be poorer than someone else. The "leveling of the playing field" cliche is often perverted into meaning that the contest must be perverted until it guarantees everyone crossing the finish line in a tie. This is not accomplished by making a slow runner faster, but rather hobbling the quick. It stems from a belief that the only path to success is through inflicting injustice - that there must have been some unfair advantage, or some wrong committed, something stolen, someone elbowed aside, to get that fatcat capitalist to the feeding trough first, so the answer is to inflict injustice upon them to restore some kind of alleged balance. It's a sick viewpoint rooted in envy and sloth that means that the "level playing field" is only achieved once everyone is dug down to bedrock, playing ball in a deep, dark hole. The only possible fairness is the complete, total, universal, and therefor equal, application of utter and abject misery and pain. True equality will only be attained upon heat death.
GasBandit
The rain is not the sole random hardship of life, though I know you were using it as a metaphor. I, in turn, was more just responding to Charlie's predictable monosyllabic anticapitalist contribution. But an individual basis is the only true basis for determining what is just.Interesting. I suspect that life is, overall and on average just, however it my be unjust on an individual scale, or depending on one's perspective. It rains on the rich and the poor equally, but only a few in each group might be able to take advantage of the rain to improve their situation. The majority probably don't care. And another few in each group will be hurt by the rain.
Wealth doesn't figure into it. Merit doesn't figure into it. Cancer, lightning strikes and car accidents happen to the virtuous as much as the villainous, and to some people that sounds like fairness "on average," but taken one person at a time in a subjective reference, there is not a day that passes without a worthy person suffering an ill that they did not deserve nor can they absorb. The injustice is on an individual basis, not a systemic one - and thus the efforts to address them must be similar. The only thing socialism can do to to alleviate the unjust is to inflict the misery upon all to the highest common denominator.
Someone will always be hurt. Someone will always be killed. Someone will always be poorer than someone else. The "leveling of the playing field" cliche is often perverted into meaning that the contest must be perverted until it guarantees everyone crossing the finish line in a tie. This is not accomplished by making a slow runner faster, but rather hobbling the quick. It stems from a belief that the only path to success is through inflicting injustice - that there must have been some unfair advantage, or some wrong committed, something stolen, someone elbowed aside, to get that fatcat capitalist to the feeding trough first, so the answer is to inflict injustice upon them to restore some kind of alleged balance. It's a sick viewpoint rooted in envy and sloth that means that the "level playing field" is only achieved once everyone is dug down to bedrock, playing ball in a deep, dark hole. The only possible fairness is the complete, total, universal, and therefor equal, application of utter and abject misery and pain. True equality will only be attained upon heat death.
#25
TommiR
I'll put up a better reply tomorrow, when I'm less tired and more sober.
Until they figure out a way to escape death and price it accordingly. Then rich people will continue to accumulate more and more wealth until forever, whereas poor people will continue to... well, die.
TommiR
The bad part of this as I see it is that the distribution seems inefficient. It spreads the burden around to everyone through taxation, gives a part of the monies to people who do not need it (the rich), while depriving the people who do need it (the poor) of that much more.An option that's gaining more and more traction with the left in Europe is to replace unemplyment benefits/welfare with a "'basic income" awarded to everyone over 18. No matter what your income, no matter what your job (or none) - you get X per month - in this set-up, this should be enough to live off of ("comfortably" or not depends on who you ask).
I'll put up a better reply tomorrow, when I'm less tired and more sober.
When you are a rotting corpse, it doesn't really matter how opulent your tomb is.True equality will only be attained upon heat death.
Until they figure out a way to escape death and price it accordingly. Then rich people will continue to accumulate more and more wealth until forever, whereas poor people will continue to... well, die.
#26
PatrThom
Mind you, I am not saying that corporations are Evil. They are not (see my statement above about no conscience/free will of their own). They are in no way more Evil than scorpions, guns, chemicals, or explosives...it is how they are used which matters.
--Patrick
PatrThom
They did figure this out. It is a process called "incorporation" which creates an entity (a corporation) which will never die of old age, and therefore has this as an advantage. While corporations have no conscience nor free will of their own, they can be steered by individuals who no doubt do have their own respective agenda. While these individuals will eventually die (or even just retire, a sort of "death without actually dying") and therefore lose their influence, they will no doubt have ensured that it is the people who matter most to them who will benefit from the corporation's continued existence, and who will no doubt continue the trend, therefore playing a sort of extended, one-way-towards-the-future version of "keep-away" with the assets that the corporation controls.Until they figure out a way to escape death and price it accordingly. Then rich people will continue to accumulate more and more wealth until forever, whereas poor people will continue to... well, die.
Mind you, I am not saying that corporations are Evil. They are not (see my statement above about no conscience/free will of their own). They are in no way more Evil than scorpions, guns, chemicals, or explosives...it is how they are used which matters.
--Patrick
#27
@Li3n
Yes, because obviously, we either keep the current level of income inequality, of just pay everyone the same... no middle ground anywhere.
Really, i'd like to see how one actually justifies someone getting paid 100 time more then someone else in the same field based on the effort they put in alone. Or how someone writing a derivative, if well written, series of books deserves more money then someone who does back breaking manual labour.
Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as we can... but that's not that easy, and requires a lot of fine tuning that most people with fixed ideas don't seem willing to try.
@Li3n
If there was no wage gap, and the earnings of all were more or less the same, then how in today's society would one encourage hard work, good performance, and achievement? What rewards could be offered to those whose efforts prove to be of benefit, and what penalties could be imposed on the free-riders?
Unless there is a convincing solution to this problem, I tend to consider the alternative to be a significantly greater injustice than what we currently have.
Yes, because obviously, we either keep the current level of income inequality, of just pay everyone the same... no middle ground anywhere.
Really, i'd like to see how one actually justifies someone getting paid 100 time more then someone else in the same field based on the effort they put in alone. Or how someone writing a derivative, if well written, series of books deserves more money then someone who does back breaking manual labour.
Well, there's always progressive taxes...[DOUBLEPOST=1390152613,1390152297][/DOUBLEPOST]The bad part of this as I see it is that the distribution seems inefficient. It spreads the burden around to everyone through taxation, gives a part of the monies to people who do not need it (the rich), while depriving the people who do need it (the poor) of that much more.
Life's unjust, because "effort put in" =/= "profit got out"... i mean you can work a field as hard as you can and you'll never get more wield then a certain amount, while someone who writes a song can sell as many copies of it as there are people who can buy it...So thinking about the wage gap, which is obviously bad for society, I started wondering if it was unjust. Surely it must be, I supposed, but then that leads one to wonder where the injustice occurs? This leads to thoughts about whether success is therefore unjust as well, or, in fact if capitalism is inherently unjust.
Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as we can... but that's not that easy, and requires a lot of fine tuning that most people with fixed ideas don't seem willing to try.
#28
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
There are a lot of people whose thinking is, "I oversee 10 bookkeepers, therefore I am 10x more important than a bookkeeper and my salary should be 10x a bookkeeper's salary."Yes, because obviously, we either keep the current level of income inequality, of just pay everyone the same... no middle ground anywhere.
--Patrick
#29
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Then the bookkeepers think, "I actually do the work of this organization, why am I the lowest paid?"There are a lot of people whose thinking is, "I oversee 10 bookkeepers, therefore I am 10x more important than a bookkeeper and my salary should be 10x a bookkeeper's salary."
--Patrick
#30
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I assure you that the heat death of the universe will not spare the biologically immortal. Also, this.Until they figure out a way to escape death and price it accordingly. Then rich people will continue to accumulate more and more wealth until forever, whereas poor people will continue to... well, die.
Is it impossible to help the slow run faster, though? I would argue charity (weather through investment of funds, or generosity of time/energy) does not necessarily slow down the volunteer, and can bring the lagging up to pace, or at least improve their position. Speed may also not be the greatest metaphor; I find life is more an endurance race where you're either trying to finish or beating your own goals.The rain is not the sole random hardship of life, though I know you were using it as a metaphor. I, in turn, was more just responding to Charlie's predictable monosyllabic anticapitalist contribution. But an individual basis is the only true basis for determining what is just.
Wealth doesn't figure into it. Merit doesn't figure into it. Cancer, lightning strikes and car accidents happen to the virtuous as much as the villainous, and to some people that sounds like fairness "on average," but taken one person at a time in a subjective reference, there is not a day that passes without a worthy person suffering an ill that they did not deserve nor can they absorb. The injustice is on an individual basis, not a systemic one - and thus the efforts to address them must be similar. The only thing socialism can do to to alleviate the unjust is to inflict the misery upon all to the highest common denominator.
Someone will always be hurt. Someone will always be killed. Someone will always be poorer than someone else. The "leveling of the playing field" cliche is often perverted into meaning that the contest must be perverted until it guarantees everyone crossing the finish line in a tie. This is not accomplished by making a slow runner faster, but rather hobbling the quick. It stems from a belief that the only path to success is through inflicting injustice - that there must have been some unfair advantage, or some wrong committed, something stolen, someone elbowed aside, to get that fatcat capitalist to the feeding trough first, so the answer is to inflict injustice upon them to restore some kind of alleged balance. It's a sick viewpoint rooted in envy and sloth that means that the "level playing field" is only achieved once everyone is dug down to bedrock, playing ball in a deep, dark hole. The only possible fairness is the complete, total, universal, and therefor equal, application of utter and abject misery and pain. True equality will only be attained upon heat death.
#31
PatrThom
PatrThom
Many (dare I say most?) people have something that motivates them that is more of a lure than money.
I cannot even begin to try and explain how much it irks me that I was (and probably forever will be) denied the opportunity to experiment with the Universe due to a combination of lack of equipment, lack of funds, restrictions on materials, etc. I have a curiosity which cannot be contained, but I run into soooo many roadblocks that keep me from following it where it otherwise would lead. I look at the achievements of Da Vinci, Franklin, Tesla, etc., and while I don't for one moment think that I would bend History as much as any of them, the fact that I am denied the opportunity to even try due to my urgent need to spend almost every waking moment keeping a roof over my family's heads and food in our bellies makes me SO FRUSTRATED.
You could "pay" me in food, shelter, and lab supplies, and I would probably live a productive and happy life on next to no "income," but that is not how this world works...and it burns. Burns.
--Patrick
I cannot even begin to try and explain how much it irks me that I was (and probably forever will be) denied the opportunity to experiment with the Universe due to a combination of lack of equipment, lack of funds, restrictions on materials, etc. I have a curiosity which cannot be contained, but I run into soooo many roadblocks that keep me from following it where it otherwise would lead. I look at the achievements of Da Vinci, Franklin, Tesla, etc., and while I don't for one moment think that I would bend History as much as any of them, the fact that I am denied the opportunity to even try due to my urgent need to spend almost every waking moment keeping a roof over my family's heads and food in our bellies makes me SO FRUSTRATED.
You could "pay" me in food, shelter, and lab supplies, and I would probably live a productive and happy life on next to no "income," but that is not how this world works...and it burns. Burns.
--Patrick
#32
Dei
Dei
My friend linked this on Facebook and I found it really interesting.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html?_r=0&referrer=
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html?_r=0&referrer=
#33
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I found it rather reassuring, actually. Makes me feel like I'm in the ballpark with my assessments.I found it really interesting.
--Patrick
#34
strawman
strawman
That's an interesting perspective, thanks!My friend linked this on Facebook and I found it really interesting.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html?_r=0&referrer=
#35
Bubble181
Bubble181
Both wealth and power have been proven to be addictive several times over.
Unfortunately, both are very closely tied, and almost by definition, those who desire power achieve power, and once they have it, will do whatever they can to stack the deck in their favor. How on earth would they suddenly dismantle the system that puts themselves on top and keeps them there? Moreover, why would they?
Plato said it a long time ago - the only ones fit to lead are those who don't want to and have it thrust upon them.
Unfortunately, both are very closely tied, and almost by definition, those who desire power achieve power, and once they have it, will do whatever they can to stack the deck in their favor. How on earth would they suddenly dismantle the system that puts themselves on top and keeps them there? Moreover, why would they?
Plato said it a long time ago - the only ones fit to lead are those who don't want to and have it thrust upon them.
#36
TommiR
TommiR
I think there is such a transfer of wealth from the elite to the working classes. I believe it's called 'wages', and it happens every month or so.An injustice occurs when the person(s) reaping the most benefit fail to adequately compensate the ones doing the majority of the work. And yes, I realize that "adequately compensate" is open to some debate. I've already said quite a bit over in another thread about much the same issue (especially as regards the gulf between the "mean" and "median" wages), and I still stand by the dozens of sentences I spewed there.
I'm sure it will comfort the less fortunate to know that those more fortunater will get their come-uppance eventually... even if it should take some billions of years.I assure you that the heat death of the universe will not spare the biologically immortal.
Some schools of thought think that charity is a form of a security net for the upper classes. When it comes to social upheaval and civil uprisings, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.Is it impossible to help the slow run faster, though? I would argue charity (weather through investment of funds, or generosity of time/energy) does not necessarily slow down the volunteer, and can bring the lagging up to pace, or at least improve their position.
#37
Krisken
Krisken
That's the rub though, isn't it? It's not nearly as much as they are getting from the working class through their hard work. If it was, there wouldn't be increases in the percentage of wealth earned by the wealthy and the poor.I think there is such a transfer of wealth from the elite to the working classes. I believe it's called 'wages', and it happens every month or so.
#38
TommiR
TommiR
What mechanism would you suggest to determine the proper amount of wages, if not the market? They're getting as much as their bargaining position entitles them to, according to the law of supply and demand. If they were in a position to demand for more, they'd get it.That's the rub though, isn't it? It's not nearly as much as they are getting from the working class through their hard work. If it was, there wouldn't be increases in the percentage of wealth earned by the wealthy and the poor.
#39
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
I wasn't endeavouring to provide solace to the hypothetically less fortunate, or imply that the more fortunate 'deserve' any particular fate; you seemed to misunderstand Gas_Bandit's statement that heat death would equalise us all, by suggesting some kind of immortality mechanism would evade that while others still died. I was just saying that immortal or not, heat death of the universe would indeed equalise us all, regardless of any factor.I'm sure it will comfort the less fortunate to know that those more fortunater will get their come-uppance eventually... even if it should take some billions of years.
Well I am inclined to disagree with those schools, I suppose.Some schools of thought think that charity is a form of a security net for the upper classes. When it comes to social upheaval and civil uprisings, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
#40
Krisken
I don't pretend to have the best system, Tommi, but even I can see the wage disparity over the years and realize the have's are taking more and giving less. If it keeps up, the market won't make the correction, the riots will.
Krisken
The market isn't a perfect mechanism. It's the reason capitalism on its own isn't a good system and requires checks and balances from other systems to keep it honest.What mechanism would you suggest to determine the proper amount of wages, if not the market? They're getting as much as their bargaining position entitles them to, according to the law of supply and demand. If they were in a position to demand for more, they'd get it.
I don't pretend to have the best system, Tommi, but even I can see the wage disparity over the years and realize the have's are taking more and giving less. If it keeps up, the market won't make the correction, the riots will.
#41
PatrThom
--Patrick
*yes, literally literally.
PatrThom
I think there is such a transfer of wealth from the elite to the working classes. I believe it's called 'wages', and it happens every month or so.
The forces of market capitalism exert a downward pressure on wages. As more wealth is controlled by the upper classes, the more of a scarcity of wealth (a vacuum) exists in the lower classes, and therefore the greater demand from those lower classes. This means that, as wealth is conveyed upwards, that scarcity lowers the lower classes' breakpoint, and makes those lower classes more willing (desperate, really) to work for lower and lower wages, just because they want to have any sort of wages at all. They are therefore in no position to really demand anything, and, as time goes on, what demands they could make become less and less, until you literally* get workers who are willing to work at (or below!) subsistence level...and beyond (i.e., slavery).They're getting as much as their bargaining position entitles them to, according to the law of supply and demand. If they were in a position to demand for more, they'd get it.
--Patrick
*yes, literally literally.
#42
GasBandit
GasBandit
Wealth is not a finite quanta. Economics is not a zero sum game.
#43
PatrThom
Even with infinite supply, a segment of the population will still "die" (economically) if their share of the (infinite) stream is so thin that it is insufficient to meet their needs.
--Patrick
PatrThom
100% correct, but not really relevant so far as it concerns "injustice."Wealth is not a finite quanta. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Even with infinite supply, a segment of the population will still "die" (economically) if their share of the (infinite) stream is so thin that it is insufficient to meet their needs.
--Patrick
#44
GasBandit
Let me know when we're doing the pitchforks and torches things, I've had mine ready for years.
GasBandit
It would have had to be finite for what you said to be the case. Remember, we're still in the worst economic slump in almost 100 years. Prior to 2008, unemployment was low and wages were higher, and the US was experiencing the greatest economic mobility in recorded history. Five plus years of "batten down the hatches" has made for a very different landscape these days, full of employment desperation and despair as you describe it. However, this is not due to the failings of actual capitalism but rather the quasifascist ubergovernment "crony capitalism" and drenched in class-war rhetoric we've been enduring that never had a hope of actually providing for economic recovery. The charlatans who put us in the ditch are still strapped in the driver's seat, haven't learned anything, and neither have the rest of us apparently because we keep electing them.100% correct, but not really relevant so far as it concerns "injustice."
--Patrick
Let me know when we're doing the pitchforks and torches things, I've had mine ready for years.
#45
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I did amend my comment while you were replying to address that. In Minecraft terms, even if everyone has access to an infinite cobblestone generator, if I rig the game so I'm the only one who gets to use anything better than a wooden pickaxe, then I'm going to have an unfair advantage (this example is imperfect, because there is nothing in Minecraft representing expenditures, i.e., nothing that says you have to pay 1000 cobblestone an hour in order to stay alive or something...though that would be an interesting mod).It would have had to be finite for what you said to be the case.
--Patrick
#46
Bubble181
Of course, completely unrestricted capitalism can't work and isn't civilized. It's anarchy. Also, any "coronyism" Gas wants to complain about fettering the market and keeping it down, is a direct result of that same market. Complete freedom means freedom to protect your own gains, and thus, lobbying. The free market without any protections from the state will inevitably lead to tyranny of the richest/most powerful.
Bubble181
You do realise that you're actively arguing in favor of a worker's uprising and revolution for the laborers to "take back" their share of the wealth, right? In a completely free market, that's their right too. The market will force prices down until they're untenable and the workers will have to use "their bargaining position" - i.e. "there's plenty of us and we can stop your plants and you can't shoot us all".What mechanism would you suggest to determine the proper amount of wages, if not the market? They're getting as much as their bargaining position entitles them to, according to the law of supply and demand. If they were in a position to demand for more, they'd get it.
Of course, completely unrestricted capitalism can't work and isn't civilized. It's anarchy. Also, any "coronyism" Gas wants to complain about fettering the market and keeping it down, is a direct result of that same market. Complete freedom means freedom to protect your own gains, and thus, lobbying. The free market without any protections from the state will inevitably lead to tyranny of the richest/most powerful.
#47
Necronic
Necronic
My only problem with the wealth gap is that extreme wealth is a self sustaining thing, and often through dishonest means
#48
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
... which is especially frustrating when extreme wealth often enables someone to completely avoid the consequences of their actions, whether it be through bribery, escape, threats of violence, or plain old extortion.My only problem with the wealth gap is that extreme wealth is a self sustaining thing, and often through dishonest means
#49
Necronic
Necronic
Its a tricky thing though, because its not always like that. Lots of wealthy people are wealthy because they work insanely hard. Like, hard enough that the ideo of screwing around playing video games is completely alien. And I get that, and I'm ok with that. Those people help make the world run. What kills me though is the lobbying for quasi legal tax loopholes and the use of other esoteric tricks.
#50
@Li3n
The way it works actually means that there will never be anything but a small minority that is rich, and the majority that isn't (and do remember that the middle class is a historical aberration). Even if you gave everyone more money, it would just devalue money etc.
I mean you basically admit you know that a few posts back when you said the only way to even things out is to make everyone miserable.
I always wondered, do you guys really think of the market as fair (which it isn't even when both parties are totally aware of everything, both having the same amount of power in the exchange is a rare thing, if it happens at all), or is just that it's easier to use it as an excuse because it's not something anyone can be blamed for (like nature)?[DOUBLEPOST=1390491133,1390491009][/DOUBLEPOST]
@Li3n
Resources will always be limited, while needs will always be unlimited, so it really is, at any given time, a zero sum game, even if there's growth overall.Wealth is not a finite quanta. Economics is not a zero sum game.
The way it works actually means that there will never be anything but a small minority that is rich, and the majority that isn't (and do remember that the middle class is a historical aberration). Even if you gave everyone more money, it would just devalue money etc.
I mean you basically admit you know that a few posts back when you said the only way to even things out is to make everyone miserable.
Which is why wages went way up after the Black Death, the market adjusted to the sudden drop in supply of labour, while demand for it was high.What mechanism would you suggest to determine the proper amount of wages, if not the market? They're getting as much as their bargaining position entitles them to, according to the law of supply and demand. If they were in a position to demand for more, they'd get it.
I always wondered, do you guys really think of the market as fair (which it isn't even when both parties are totally aware of everything, both having the same amount of power in the exchange is a rare thing, if it happens at all), or is just that it's easier to use it as an excuse because it's not something anyone can be blamed for (like nature)?[DOUBLEPOST=1390491133,1390491009][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ah, but dont have to shoot you all, just a few to make an example. Also, because there's plenty of you i can just replace you with new people... it's your own fault for not using birth control...[DOUBLEPOST=1390491243][/DOUBLEPOST]"there's plenty of us and we can stop your plants and you can't shoot us all".
Well, to be fair, you can't pay them exactly what you get from their work, as then there would be no profit, and you'd be penniless.[DOUBLEPOST=1390491399][/DOUBLEPOST]That's the rub though, isn't it? It's not nearly as much as they are getting from the working class through their hard work. If it was, there wouldn't be increases in the percentage of wealth earned by the wealthy and the poor.
Hahahahahaha... yeah, they're transferring their wealth to you in exchange for you making them more wealth through your labour...I think there is such a transfer of wealth from the elite to the working classes. I believe it's called 'wages', and it happens every month or so.
#51
GasBandit
But you're right, we agree that there will always be rich people and poor people, in any given system, because even in a socialist society somebody's deciding where those resources go, and makes sure they get the nicest dacha.
GasBandit
Yes, that's what I said, but when I said it's not a zero sum game, what I meant is that for someone to get rich it does not require making someone else poor, and it is possible to move from poor to rich (income mobility) without making a rich man poor to "even it out."Resources will always be limited, while needs will always be unlimited, so it really is, at any given time, a zero sum game, even if there's growth overall.
The way it works actually means that there will never be anything but a small minority that is rich, and the majority that isn't (and do remember that the middle class is a historical aberration). Even if you gave everyone more money, it would just devalue money etc.
I mean you basically admit you know that a few posts back when you said the only way to even things out is to make everyone miserable.
But you're right, we agree that there will always be rich people and poor people, in any given system, because even in a socialist society somebody's deciding where those resources go, and makes sure they get the nicest dacha.
#52
@Li3n
But, going by the example provided, i'd say that, even if some get better dacha, it would still nice that everyone has a dacha... there is something to be said about the difference between the rich and poor not being as great as atm. I mean you might say that's it's infeasible, but i say if we're not going to at least try, then what's the point of being here anyway?
@Li3n
Well of course not, because it's not that simplistic, but it does require resources to be moved from something/where to the new rich guy (unless he actually creates a new resource, and even then you remove some wealth from somewhere to invest into the new thing). But it's almost never just from one other person (unless you owned a monopoly on horse whips around the time the model T came out, but i digress), and it's usually spread out enough that you hardly notice (barring extreme cases).Yes, that's what I said, but when I said it's not a zero sum game, what I meant is that for someone to get rich it does not require making someone else poor, and it is possible to move from poor to rich (income mobility) without making a rich man poor to "even it out."
Wait, we're still pretending the russian where socialists? They where about as socialist as they are capitalist now... maybe when the Vulcans come and we start the Federation they'll finally stop being an oligarchy, but until then they'll always be the same.But you're right, we agree that there will always be rich people and poor people, in any given system, because even in a socialist society somebody's deciding where those resources go, and makes sure they get the nicest dacha.
But, going by the example provided, i'd say that, even if some get better dacha, it would still nice that everyone has a dacha... there is something to be said about the difference between the rich and poor not being as great as atm. I mean you might say that's it's infeasible, but i say if we're not going to at least try, then what's the point of being here anyway?
#53
GasBandit
So I did feel it needed to be pointed out.
GasBandit
The thing is, there's a growing percentage of the American populace, whipped into a frenzy by the democrats, that demonizes wealth because "there's obviously no way to get rich legitimately. If you're rich it's because you stole from someone or exploited someone or rode on the backs of others." These were the people cheering at the Obama speech when he was decrying wealthy businesses, saying they didn't get rich because they were smart or hard working "because there's a lot of smart and hard working people who aren't rich" so it obviously only came to them on the backs of the poor (and of course because the government was there to build the street their building was on), and now it's time for them to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that the top half of the country is already paying all the taxes, and the top 10% are paying 70% of that.Well of course not, because it's not that simplistic, but it does require resources to be moved from something/where to the new rich guy (unless he actually creates a new resource, and even then you remove some wealth from somewhere to invest into the new thing). But it's almost never just from one other person (unless you owned a monopoly on horse whips around the time the model T came out, but i digress), and it's usually spread out enough that you hardly notice (barring extreme cases).
So I did feel it needed to be pointed out.
It's what they presented/purported to be, even though they obviously weren't. It's what kept the average Vlad in the street from rising up - they had him convinced someone up top was making sure everything got split fairly when clearly it wasn't. I heard someone say something recently that seems appropriate - In a capitalism, the rich become the powerful, and in socialism, the powerful become the rich. No matter what you try to do, there will always be rich, and there will always be poor.Wait, we're still pretending the russian where socialists?
#54
Necronic
Necronic
People wouldnt feel like the rich were dishonest if they stopped doing dishonest things like dodging taxes, or getting away with murder due to "affluenza". I don't agree with increasing taxes on the rich, and I do agree that many wealthy people got there legitimately (and those people do make the world turn), but I also understand where everyone elses frustration comes from. I mean hell, read GSElevator for a week and, after you've had a healthy chuckle, realize what complete scum some of these people are.The thing is, there's a growing percentage of the American populace, whipped into a frenzy by the democrats, that demonizes wealth because "there's obviously no way to get rich legitimately. If you're rich it's because you stole from someone or exploited someone or rode on the backs of others." These were the people cheering at the Obama speech when he was decrying wealthy businesses, saying they didn't get rich because they were smart or hard working "because there's a lot of smart and hard working people who aren't rich" so it obviously only came to them on the backs of the poor (and of course because the government was there to build the street their building was on), and now it's time for them to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that the top half of the country is already paying all the taxes, and the top 10% are paying 70% of that.
So I did feel it needed to be pointed out.
#55
@Li3n
C'mon Gas, you can do better, if you couldn't your 8th grade math teacher wouldn't have passed you (or do you guys learn about those things in highschool, i recall seeing a lot of american shows about highschool where the math was way too simple compared to what we learned over here, no offence meant, i was just wondering if they where accurate, or just one of those things show do because no sne cares?).
@Li3n
As opposed to the other extreme, where you got rich all alone, with no help from anyone or anything, it was just you and and empty piece of land... could we please stay away from strawmen, my crows are getting spooked.The thing is, there's a growing percentage of the American populace, whipped into a frenzy by the democrats, that demonizes wealth because "there's obviously no way to get rich legitimately. If you're rich it's because you stole from someone or exploited someone or rode on the backs of others."
Well, while i'm not going to assume everyone actually understands why that is true, it isn't false. Even the most fair and hard working rich guy still needed other people to work for him (unless he's a Tesla, but those guys never stay rich, they suck at money)...These were the people cheering at the Obama speech when he was decrying wealthy businesses, saying they didn't get rich because they were smart or hard working "because there's a lot of smart and hard working people who aren't rich" so it obviously only came to them on the backs of the poor (and of course because the government was there to build the street their building was on), and now it's time for them to "pay their fair share,"
While owning more then 70% of wealth, if i recall right...despite the fact that the top half of the country is already paying all the taxes, and the top 10% are paying 70% of that.
C'mon Gas, you can do better, if you couldn't your 8th grade math teacher wouldn't have passed you (or do you guys learn about those things in highschool, i recall seeing a lot of american shows about highschool where the math was way too simple compared to what we learned over here, no offence meant, i was just wondering if they where accurate, or just one of those things show do because no sne cares?).
Heh... nope, it was the secret police and the fact that they all feared their neighbour was going to rat them out... or at least that's what the people that lived through communism tell me.[DOUBLEPOST=1390495327,1390494836][/DOUBLEPOST]It's what kept the average Vlad in the street from rising up - they had him convinced someone up top was making sure everything got split fairly when clearly it wasn't.
Yeah, but highest income mobility (before the crisis, which was caused by people doing dodgy things for moar money) and all that jazz.People wouldnt feel like the rich were dishonest if they stopped doing dishonest things like dodging taxes, or getting away with murder due to "affluenza". I don't agree with increasing taxes on the rich, and I do agree that many wealthy people got there legitimately (and those people do make the world turn), but I also understand where everyone elses frustration comes from. I mean hell, read GSElevator for a week and, after you've had a healthy chuckle, realize what complete scum some of these people are.
#56
Necronic
Necronic
Finance guys are what bother me the most. You invent something? Put together a good store/restaurant? Have a good business idea and make it work? Kudos for you. You got rich and made the world a better place. Finance though....man, I would like to hear how derivatives and credit default swaps made the world a better place. They make money by obfuscating value and stealing it when no one is looking.
#57
GasBandit
GasBandit
I wasn't saying this was YOU, I was addressing it because it's part of the debate on this topic that can't be ignored.As opposed to the other extreme, where you got rich all alone, with no help from anyone or anything, it was just you and and empty piece of land... could we please stay away from strawmen, my crows are getting spooked.
And they paid those people accordingly. They weren't slave labor.Well, while i'm not going to assume everyone actually understands why that is true, it isn't false. Even the most fair and hard working rich guy still needed other people to work for him (unless he's a Tesla, but those guys never stay rich, they suck at money)...
There you go again, treating wealth as a zero sum quanta. Yes, the top half is significantly wealthier than the bottom (though the number is different), but that isn't wealth taken away from the bottom half.While owning more then 70% of wealth, if i recall right...
And here I thought we could have a reasonable discussion. I guess I forgot who I was talking to.C'mon Gas, you can do better, if you couldn't your 8th grade math teacher wouldn't have passed you (or do you guys learn about those things in highschool, i recall seeing a lot of american shows about highschool where the math was way too simple compared to what we learned over here, no offence meant, i was just wondering if they where accurate, or just one of those things show do because no sne cares?).
Certainly, once the cat was out of the bag and the honeymoon was over, but you can bet in 1917 they didn't sit in their committees saying "how can we make the most unfair, oppressive regime ever imagined in post industrial times?" The idea was sold as socialism, and became what all such attempts become.Heh... nope, it was the secret police and the fact that they all feared their neighbour was going to rat them out... or at least that's what the people that lived through communism tell me.
Actually, no, prior to the economic crash, the US had the highest income mobility and most new millionaires per year than anywhere in recorded history.Yeah, but highest income mobility (before the crisis, which was caused by people doing dodgy things for moar money) and all that jazz.
#58
Necronic
Necronic
This is true in a lot of cases (like starting a novel business), but if we're talking about stocks, commodities, or derivatives (where a lot of the rich come from) it more or less IS a zero sum game. If you make money on a stock its because the person that sold it to you lost money on it, or, lost oppurtunity cost.There you go again, treating wealth as a zero sum quanta. Yes, the top half is significantly wealthier than the bottom (though the number is different), but that isn't wealth taken away from the bottom half.
#59
GasBandit
Nobody is forced to buy stock, or sell stock. All stock trades are mutual and agreed. And even if someone does lose their pants in the stock market, nobody took that money from them, and being wrong about an investment isn't the same as someone else "getting rich off of you." Assuming there wasn't fraud involved, which is a crime, of course.
GasBandit
That is a voluntary transaction made because both parties believe they will make money - the buyer of the stock believes it will increase in value, the seller believes it won't and would rather have money than the stock.This is true in a lot of cases (like starting a novel business), but if we're talking about stocks, commodities, or derivatives (where a lot of the rich come from) it more or less IS a zero sum game. If you make money on a stock its because the person that sold it to you lost money on it, or, lost oppurtunity cost.
Nobody is forced to buy stock, or sell stock. All stock trades are mutual and agreed. And even if someone does lose their pants in the stock market, nobody took that money from them, and being wrong about an investment isn't the same as someone else "getting rich off of you." Assuming there wasn't fraud involved, which is a crime, of course.
#60
Necronic
Necronic
I totally agree, I'm just saying that it is (sort of) a zero sum game. The indexes over all increase in value over time, but high velocity trading is more or less zero sum
ed: Same with real estate. Values change over time, but there is a finite supply. Someone buys an acre. someone loses an acre. Zero sum.
ed2: And a good example of the latter in wealth inequality is in Gentrification.
ed: Same with real estate. Values change over time, but there is a finite supply. Someone buys an acre. someone loses an acre. Zero sum.
ed2: And a good example of the latter in wealth inequality is in Gentrification.
#61
GasBandit
The biggest example of this is the constant barrage of "Quantitative Easing" we've been undergoing for years now, with the Fed creating and injecting $40 billion of fiat currency per month out of thin air (or thin hard drive data, to be more accurate) and sticking it into the economy to keep interest rates down. Not to say I agree with this practice, as it can't help but lead to inflation later on which will hurt everyone (but naturally it will hurt the poor most, who don't have much wealth and most of what they have is liquid).
The big problem right now comes from those who have more wealth are not spending it. They're not hiring, they're not buying, they're squirreling it away because they're scared of what's going to happen as we keep going down this self destructive course. The strength of an economy is not its total wealth but in the rate at which that wealth moves around - and right now it's not moving. Which is why all the wealth envy is starting to bubble over.
GasBandit
I don't agree with either the stock or the real estate examples. Both are exchanging money, which has value, for property, which has value, at what both consider to be the value of the property in question at that time. Yes, there is a finite amount of land, but that is not the only measure of wealth, and the land was sold for its worth in currency.I totally agree, I'm just saying that it is (sort of) a zero sum game. The indexes over all increase in value over time, but high velocity trading is more or less zero sum
ed: Same with real estate. Values change over time, but there is a finite supply. Someone buys an acre. someone loses an acre. Zero sum.
ed2: And a good example of the latter in wealth inequality is in Gentrification.
The biggest example of this is the constant barrage of "Quantitative Easing" we've been undergoing for years now, with the Fed creating and injecting $40 billion of fiat currency per month out of thin air (or thin hard drive data, to be more accurate) and sticking it into the economy to keep interest rates down. Not to say I agree with this practice, as it can't help but lead to inflation later on which will hurt everyone (but naturally it will hurt the poor most, who don't have much wealth and most of what they have is liquid).
The big problem right now comes from those who have more wealth are not spending it. They're not hiring, they're not buying, they're squirreling it away because they're scared of what's going to happen as we keep going down this self destructive course. The strength of an economy is not its total wealth but in the rate at which that wealth moves around - and right now it's not moving. Which is why all the wealth envy is starting to bubble over.
#62
Necronic
Necronic
Actually Quantitative easing may not lead to inflation simply because that system ISN'T a zero sum game. If the money supply increases at the same rate as the "asset-value" of the country then you won't see inflation as the ratio of $/assets is unchanged. Not saying it wont cause inflation, because if you do it too fast then it will, just explaining why the statement "it can't help but lead to inflation" is wrong.
#63
strawman
Now some small portion of what they do probably doesn't benefit society, but the vast majority of what they do performs a necessary function in our society. We simply would not be able to function without these people essentially greasing the financial wheels so the money moves around efficiently.
strawman
To be fair, the vast majority of what they do is move money to where it will do the most good. A car needs oil, but if the oil is in a can in the back it isn't going to do the engine any good.Finance guys are what bother me the most.
Now some small portion of what they do probably doesn't benefit society, but the vast majority of what they do performs a necessary function in our society. We simply would not be able to function without these people essentially greasing the financial wheels so the money moves around efficiently.
#64
Necronic
Necronic
I was talking to someone who said that all the different careers can be seen as organs in the body, and Finance is the blood, as it moves the resources around. Ideally this is true, and it's true for a lot of finance guys. But there are also the "Lukemia" finance people, who grow uncontrolled at the expense of the organs they feed. There's nothing new here, this has been happening since pre-biblical days (the "money lenders"). The years of regulation have stopped the more obvious versions of it, but, just like the Cancerous cells they imitate, there is no real elimination of them regardless of the scorched earth regulatory chemo we throw at them.
One thing that bothers me the most about them is how the whole "regulation" argument has gotten confused because of them. People get mad at the government for the regulations that come out to stop these practices, and people blame the government for the regulations. While these regulations have significant collateral damage, they exist only because there are scumbags out there who only understand ethics in terms of legality. They have to be told that stealing candy from a baby is actually wrong. These people are the problem, not the government trying to reign them in.
These people flat out disgust me. I'm having someone over this weekend like this. He is an ex-hedge fund manager that found a way to buy ghetto section 9 housing and run it as a slumlord (no repairs/oversight) while getting guaranteed rent from the government, turning a massive profit. He told me this with a smile in the same conversation he whinged about too much governmetn regulation. I wanted to hit him. I am not looking forward to spending more time with this scumbag.
One thing that bothers me the most about them is how the whole "regulation" argument has gotten confused because of them. People get mad at the government for the regulations that come out to stop these practices, and people blame the government for the regulations. While these regulations have significant collateral damage, they exist only because there are scumbags out there who only understand ethics in terms of legality. They have to be told that stealing candy from a baby is actually wrong. These people are the problem, not the government trying to reign them in.
These people flat out disgust me. I'm having someone over this weekend like this. He is an ex-hedge fund manager that found a way to buy ghetto section 9 housing and run it as a slumlord (no repairs/oversight) while getting guaranteed rent from the government, turning a massive profit. He told me this with a smile in the same conversation he whinged about too much governmetn regulation. I wanted to hit him. I am not looking forward to spending more time with this scumbag.
#65
GasBandit
GasBandit
... why are you then?
#66
Necronic
Necronic
Boyfriend of my girlfriend's coworker. So I have to be nice.
Want to know the really great part? He's 45. She is 23.
Want to know the really great part? He's 45. She is 23.
#67
GasBandit
GasBandit
Not to turn this into a relationships thread, but... can't you tell your girlfriend you hate her coworker's boyfriend and are more likely to stab him the longer you are put in close proximity?Boyfriend of my girlfriend's coworker. So I have to be nice.
Want to know the really great part? He's 45. She is 23.
#68
Bowielee
Bowielee
Somewhat related, we're about to see the last bastion of ACTUAL free market capitalism disappear with the repeal of Net Neutrality. It truely was the last bastion of small businesses, and when service providers can restrict any new online business' access, that all goes away.
Oligopolies for the lose.
I think one of the biggest problems is that we've been conditioned to bark at all these strawman arguments with social issues while collusion is the biggest threat to both sides.
Oligopolies for the lose.
I think one of the biggest problems is that we've been conditioned to bark at all these strawman arguments with social issues while collusion is the biggest threat to both sides.
#69
GasBandit
GasBandit
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public.” - Adam SmithSomewhat related, we're about to see the last bastion of ACTUAL free market capitalism disappear with the repeal of Net Neutrality. It truely was the last bastion of small businesses, and when service providers can restrict any new online business' access, that all goes away.
Oligopolies for the lose.
I think one of the biggest problems is that we've been conditioned to bark at all these strawman arguments with social issues while collusion is the biggest threat to both sides.
#70
Bowielee
Bowielee
If you don't think net neutrality being abolished won't effect the independent business market on the internet, you're wearing blinders.“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public.” - Adam Smith
#71
Necronic
Necronic
They are in a graduate program together. I rarely have to spend time with this guy, and it's really important that my gf maintains a good working relationship with the girl. Also sooner or later he will die of old age.Not to turn this into a relationships thread, but... can't you tell your girlfriend you hate her coworker's boyfriend and are more likely to stab him the longer you are put in close proximity?
#72
GasBandit
GasBandit
No no, my quote supports your opinion. It's Adam Smith, the grand patriarch of Capitalism, saying you can't trust business not to collude.If you don't think net neutrality being abolished won't effect the independent business market on the internet, you're wearing blinders.
#73
Bowielee
Bowielee
Sorry, I was just used to you disagreeing with meNo no, my quote supports your opinion. It's Adam Smith, the grand patriarch of Capitalism, saying you can't trust business not to collude.
#74
GasBandit
But, in any case, I'd like to think I've got a consistent message going where I do believe there is a legitimate role for government in regulating the economy, and that most important role is in enforcing competition and fair competitive practices.
In the case of net neutrality, that really means that until there is an acceptable level of private competition in the Broadband ISP markets of the vast majority of American cities, we have to consider broadband internet access to be de facto civil infrastructure, and regulate it accordingly, same as we would roads and highways, ensuring equal and equitable access for all. (IE, Net Neutrality.)
GasBandit
Well, that's an understandable mistake.Sorry, I was just used to you disagreeing with me
But, in any case, I'd like to think I've got a consistent message going where I do believe there is a legitimate role for government in regulating the economy, and that most important role is in enforcing competition and fair competitive practices.
In the case of net neutrality, that really means that until there is an acceptable level of private competition in the Broadband ISP markets of the vast majority of American cities, we have to consider broadband internet access to be de facto civil infrastructure, and regulate it accordingly, same as we would roads and highways, ensuring equal and equitable access for all. (IE, Net Neutrality.)
#75
TommiR
If you live on government handouts, okay, you are most likely entitled to them. But I'm not sure I quite understand people who claim that those who have done better than you are somehow cheating you out of your fair share of the wealth of your society.
TommiR
When there's more supply of labor than there are available jobs in a given sector, sure, wages are subject to downward pressure in a free market. But to what extent is society responsible for ameliorating the effects of the free decisions of it's members, really? If they have nothing interesting to sell (their labor), then whose fault is it when nobody wants to buy?The forces of market capitalism exert a downward pressure on wages. As more wealth is controlled by the upper classes, the more of a scarcity of wealth (a vacuum) exists in the lower classes, and therefore the greater demand from those lower classes. This means that, as wealth is conveyed upwards, that scarcity lowers the lower classes' breakpoint, and makes those lower classes more willing (desperate, really) to work for lower and lower wages, just because they want to have any sort of wages at all. They are therefore in no position to really demand anything, and, as time goes on, what demands they could make become less and less, until you literally* get workers who are willing to work at (or below!) subsistence level...and beyond (i.e., slavery).
What do you mean by "their share" of wealth? They are entitled to the fruits of their own labors, and as I see it no civilized society should have it's members dying on the streets of starvation and exposure, but otherwise their own financial standing is up for them to manage. I don't think they should be able to lay claim to pretty much anything more by the virtue of just being born.You do realise that you're actively arguing in favor of a worker's uprising and revolution for the laborers to "take back" their share of the wealth, right? In a completely free market, that's their right too. The market will force prices down until they're untenable and the workers will have to use "their bargaining position" - i.e. "there's plenty of us and we can stop your plants and you can't shoot us all".
If you live on government handouts, okay, you are most likely entitled to them. But I'm not sure I quite understand people who claim that those who have done better than you are somehow cheating you out of your fair share of the wealth of your society.
I think about the only thing you can trust business to do is to act according to what they believe to be their own interest. I believe that's fair enough, as long as things stay within the limits of the law. It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation to what they deem to provide the most benefit to society at large, as business does not and should not have such a requierment.No no, my quote supports your opinion. It's Adam Smith, the grand patriarch of Capitalism, saying you can't trust business not to collude.
#76
Krisken
Krisken
#77
strawman
It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation --> create laws --> business ... stay within the limits of the law --> provide the most benefit to society at large --> It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation --> ...
strawman
That paragraph screamed for one of those little cause/effect cycle charts:I think about the only thing you can trust business to do is to act according to what they believe to be their own interest. I believe that's fair enough, as long as things stay within the limits of the law. It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation to what they deem to provide the most benefit to society at large, as business does not and should not have such a requierment.
It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation --> create laws --> business ... stay within the limits of the law --> provide the most benefit to society at large --> It is up to society to influence that cost-benefit calculation --> ...
#78
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
You're not talking about me? are you?They are in a graduate program together. I rarely have to spend time with this guy, and it's really important that my gf maintains a good working relationship with the girl. Also sooner or later he will die of old age.
#79
PatrThom
...which is kinda the problem we had in the first place.
Even people who don't contribute their labor via employment are still enriching the system via their consumption. The Wealthy would not be able to achieve such a degree of wealth without such a large Society to feed them, whether directly (labor) or indirectly (consumption).
--Patrick
PatrThom
I think you are confusing "Society" with "The Wealthy," unless you are suggesting that The Wealthy should speak for all of Society, despite making up such a small percentage of it.When there's more supply of labor than there are available jobs in a given sector, sure, wages are subject to downward pressure in a free market. But to what extent is society responsible for ameliorating the effects of the free decisions of it's members, really? If they have nothing interesting to sell (their labor), then whose fault is it when nobody wants to buy?
...which is kinda the problem we had in the first place.
Even people who don't contribute their labor via employment are still enriching the system via their consumption. The Wealthy would not be able to achieve such a degree of wealth without such a large Society to feed them, whether directly (labor) or indirectly (consumption).
--Patrick
#80
Necronic
Necronic
I sure hope not. That would be awkward as hell. You live in Huntsville?You're not talking about me? are you?
#81
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I'm not in the graduate program...I sure hope not. That would be awkward as hell. You live in Huntsville?
#82
GasBandit
GasBandit
But is your girlfriend? And is she half your age?I'm not in the graduate program...
#83
Necronic
Necronic
And if so (even if you aren't the guy), isn't that a bit weird?
I hate lopsided power dynamics in my relationships. That is definitely a lopsided dynamic.
I hate lopsided power dynamics in my relationships. That is definitely a lopsided dynamic.
#84
GasBandit
GasBandit
Depends on what you want out of the relationship, I suppose. But it does break the x/2+7 rule.And if so (even if you aren't the guy), isn't that a bit weird?
I hate lopsided power dynamics in my relationships. That is definitely a lopsided dynamic.
#85
Necronic
Necronic
Dude, it breaks the x/3 + 7 rule....
#86
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I don't have a GF per se, but the girl I've been flirting with is 18 years younger than I am. Actually the girl that has been flirting with me.But is your girlfriend? And is she half your age?
#87
TommiR
The Wealthy, even though they may carry a particularly heavy burden of financing social expenditure through taxes, do not make up for the whole society. But as far as justice is concerned, I believe one must take into account the actions of a particular individual that led to whatever the circumstances may be. That particular individual does bear primary responsibility over their own circumstances in most if not almost all cases, I think, and it should not be the case that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their means and lifestyle.
That may have come off as a bit harsh. Let me clarify by saying that I have no problem with people who are content with less material possessions; indeed, concentrating on other aspects can often lead to a happier life with less stress. Just as long as they earn their own keep, instead of being a burden on others.
TommiR
I am certainly not suggesting anything of the kind. I believe not only The Wealthy but also all members of society have some form of duty towards those who are less fortunate, whether through their own actions or force of circumstance. In most western societies that duty is discharged through various forms of government welfare, though you can of course debate what is a reasonable limit.I think you are confusing "Society" with "The Wealthy," unless you are suggesting that The Wealthy should speak for all of Society, despite making up such a small percentage of it.
...which is kinda the problem we had in the first place.
The Wealthy, even though they may carry a particularly heavy burden of financing social expenditure through taxes, do not make up for the whole society. But as far as justice is concerned, I believe one must take into account the actions of a particular individual that led to whatever the circumstances may be. That particular individual does bear primary responsibility over their own circumstances in most if not almost all cases, I think, and it should not be the case that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their means and lifestyle.
Based on your description there, their financial contribution is derived from government welfare. They personally provide no added value, and their consumption is financed through taxes on others, who will not be able to spend/invest those funds. Short of what is required for subsistance, the government could put those tax dollars/euros/whatever into roads, schools, hospitals, or other things that actually improve society. Or not spend it at all and lower taxes, allowing the taxpayers to enjoy a bigger cut of the fruits of the sweat of their brow. But no, you have the downshifters, the lifestyle artists, and the plain old lazy folks who just draw welfare year-in year-out without giving anything in return.Even people who don't contribute their labor via employment are still enriching the system via their consumption. The Wealthy would not be able to achieve such a degree of wealth without such a large Society to feed them, whether directly (labor) or indirectly (consumption).
That may have come off as a bit harsh. Let me clarify by saying that I have no problem with people who are content with less material possessions; indeed, concentrating on other aspects can often lead to a happier life with less stress. Just as long as they earn their own keep, instead of being a burden on others.
#88
PatrThom
From a "for the benefit of Society as a whole" point of view, it strikes me as irresponsible that every human is not receiving some minimum base level of quality of life, if not through the actions of Government, then through social pressure or even outright generosity. As I mentioned previously, there are times when the need to sacrifice sufficient resources and time merely in order to accumulate enough money to survive has the (presumably) unintended side effect of smothering the ability for an individual to really make a difference under his/her own power. I don't believe that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their lifestyle and that of the disadvantaged, instead I believe they are obligated to finance the difference at least up to sufficiency. The Wealthy can go on being wealthy, I'm sure they've earned it, but they should never be able (or allowed!) to sit idly by atop their stockpiles while people go unfed, unclothed, unsheltered, etc. This sort of willful ignorance/turning a blind eye is flat out reprehensible, in my opinion. As you yourself say:
I would love to go on, but my designated meal period is over, and I must return to work.
--Patrick
*I do not actually live in Minnesota. Just work with me, here.
PatrThom
From a "fairness" point of view, I certainly can't argue that a person must suffer the results of his or her (in)actions. People who continue to make unwise choices should have incentive to improve. However, this line of thinking is entirely inapplicable if everyone is not offered the same set of choices. If I slide my front-wheel drive car into a Minnesota* ditch during Snowmageddon, you could certainly retort, "Stupid Minnesotan should have known better and gotten something with all-wheel drive, then this wouldn't have happened." However true that might be, if I had only managed to save up $2000 by the time I purchased that vehicle, that 4x4 choice would not have been available for me, no matter how much I personally may have wanted to do what made more sense.The Wealthy, even though they may carry a particularly heavy burden of financing social expenditure through taxes, do not make up for the whole society. But as far as justice is concerned, I believe one must take into account the actions of a particular individual that led to whatever the circumstances may be. That particular individual does bear primary responsibility over their own circumstances in most if not almost all cases, I think, and it should not be the case that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their means and lifestyle.
From a "for the benefit of Society as a whole" point of view, it strikes me as irresponsible that every human is not receiving some minimum base level of quality of life, if not through the actions of Government, then through social pressure or even outright generosity. As I mentioned previously, there are times when the need to sacrifice sufficient resources and time merely in order to accumulate enough money to survive has the (presumably) unintended side effect of smothering the ability for an individual to really make a difference under his/her own power. I don't believe that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their lifestyle and that of the disadvantaged, instead I believe they are obligated to finance the difference at least up to sufficiency. The Wealthy can go on being wealthy, I'm sure they've earned it, but they should never be able (or allowed!) to sit idly by atop their stockpiles while people go unfed, unclothed, unsheltered, etc. This sort of willful ignorance/turning a blind eye is flat out reprehensible, in my opinion. As you yourself say:
Why does a government get some sort of guaranteed subsistence stipend but not extend that same privilege to its constituents? Shouldn't the health and welfare of its constituents be any successful government's first priority? Why would you not make sure your foundation is sound before trying to build anything atop it? Why do so many decisions made by an entity (person/business/government) always seem to be driven primarily by how they will affect himself/itself rather than how they will effect everybody?Short of what is required for subsistance, the government could put those tax dollars/euros/whatever into roads, schools, hospitals, or other things that actually improve society.
I would love to go on, but my designated meal period is over, and I must return to work.
--Patrick
*I do not actually live in Minnesota. Just work with me, here.
#89
TommiR
TommiR
Perhaps I was not entirely clear on my meaning. Permit me to clarify
With this I disagree. One lives within one's means, and if one can't afford something or chooses to prioritise other things, then one needs to live without it. And deal with the consequences.However, this line of thinking is entirely inapplicable if everyone is not offered the same set of choices. If I slide my front-wheel drive car into a Minnesota* ditch during Snowmageddon, you could certainly retort, "Stupid Minnesotan should have known better and gotten something with all-wheel drive, then this wouldn't have happened." However true that might be, if I had only managed to save up $2000 by the time I purchased that vehicle, that 4x4 choice would not have been available for me, no matter how much I personally may have wanted to do what made more sense.
As I believe I've said previously, I agree with this, though one can always debate what constitutes "sufficiency". Perhaps the necessities for basic physical survival is a baseline, with people having different ideas of how far above that society should go.I don't believe that those who are better off are automatically obligated to finance the difference between their lifestyle and that of the disadvantaged, instead I believe they are obligated to finance the difference at least up to sufficiency.
I meant subsistence as to what the government is, in my opinion, obligated to guarantee to it's people.Why does a government get some sort of guaranteed subsistence stipend but not extend that same privilege to its constituents? Shouldn't the health and welfare of its constituents be any successful government's first priority? Why would you not make sure your foundation is sound before trying to build anything atop it?
I think they've done studies on this. I don't know myself, but it might have something to do with the idea that a person is primarily responsible for themselves and those immediately around them, and the rest of society comes quite a bit further behind, while the rest of the world merits a fleeting thought and a shaking of head when you hear about it on the evening news.Why do so many decisions made by an entity (person/business/government) always seem to be driven primarily by how they will affect himself/itself rather than how they will effect everybody?
#90
PatrThom
It could also be that I'm just really sick of seeing so many people who act like they're trying to "win" at life, like it's some sort of competition of them against The World, where everyone who isn't on your team must be The Enemy and therefore what happens to them doesn't matter. This whole attitude of "if you didn't catch me then it must not be wrong" is one of the few things that can make me instantly hate a person.
--Patrick
PatrThom
This is the difference in our viewpoints, I think. When one's means are not sufficient to survive, then that is when something should be making up that "sufficiencies" shortfall. In a northern climate, a 4x4 might be more likely to be seen as a necessity. There is a difference between necessities and luxuries, of course, and trying to establish fair and honest guidelines would be quite a task (as well as an encouragement to a large number of rules lawyers who would no doubt try to game the system for their own benefit). Necessities you get, luxuries you have to work for. I have no problem with everyone automatically getting a soylent subsidy, but if you want cake and pie (or Reese's Cups), you have to work for it.With [the car thing] I disagree. One lives within one's means, and if one can't afford something or chooses to prioritise other things, then one needs to live without it. And deal with the consequences.
Again, I see the general welfare of its constituency as the non-discriminatory primary function of any government, with any and all other functions subordinate to that. If the entire constituency is not receiving some sort of significant benefit from its government (in one way or another), then that government is not doing its job.I meant subsistence as to what the government is, in my opinion, obligated to guarantee to it's people.
You are probably thinking of Dunbar's Number, which is an approximation of the number of other people a given individual can be expected to legitimately care about. It has also more amusingly (and impactfully) been labeled the Monkeysphere. All that I meant by my question is that I have no qualm with people prioritizing themselves (or their friends) when it comes to things like where to party, which movie to see, or who gets on the Christmas list ("small" things), but I don't understand how anyone who claims to act "for the good of (presumably all) the people" could justify such things as pork barrel politics, insider trading, or all of that obfuscation sheltering that goes on.I think they've done studies on this. I don't know myself, but it might have something to do with the idea that a person is primarily responsible for themselves and those immediately around them, and the rest of society comes quite a bit further behind, while the rest of the world merits a fleeting thought and a shaking of head when you hear about it on the evening news.
It could also be that I'm just really sick of seeing so many people who act like they're trying to "win" at life, like it's some sort of competition of them against The World, where everyone who isn't on your team must be The Enemy and therefore what happens to them doesn't matter. This whole attitude of "if you didn't catch me then it must not be wrong" is one of the few things that can make me instantly hate a person.
--Patrick
#91
TommiR
TommiR
I think we are in agreement as to the general principle, but we disagree on the application. But as you said, establishing guidelines on what constitutes 'necessities' would be a monumental task. Though I still think a vehicle, to say nothing of a particular kind of vehicle such as a 4x4, falls very much towards the luxuries on the scale, not the necessities. It's something you buy if you can afford it, but at the end of the day it is non-essential and therefore not something the government is obligated to arrange for you.This is the difference in our viewpoints, I think. When one's means are not sufficient to survive, then that is when something should be making up that "sufficiencies" shortfall. In a northern climate, a 4x4 might be more likely to be seen as a necessity. There is a difference between necessities and luxuries, of course, and trying to establish fair and honest guidelines would be quite a task (as well as an encouragement to a large number of rules lawyers who would no doubt try to game the system for their own benefit). Necessities you get, luxuries you have to work for. I have no problem with everyone automatically getting a soylent subsidy, but if you want cake and pie (or Reese's Cups), you have to work for it.
I agree up to a point. I believe the primary task of a government is to manage public and common goods, arrange for rule of law, and such things. All members of society benefit from a government taking good care of these things, even without a government handing a private citizen a wad of cash and telling them to go out and buy what they need. So I'm not sure I'd personally put social welfare up as a yardstick to measure whether or not a government is doing a good job in promoting general welfare. I personally think certain forms of social welfare, and a government providing other private goods to the citizenry in excess of what is absolutely necessary, are a good idea, and if there were people dying on the streets, I would definitely agree that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. But above the bare necessities of physical survival, social welfare is not, in my opinion, the only or even a notably significant test of whether the government is fulfilling it's responsibilities.Again, I see the general welfare of its constituency as the non-discriminatory primary function of any government, with any and all other functions subordinate to that. If the entire constituency is not receiving some sort of significant benefit from its government (in one way or another), then that government is not doing its job.
#92
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I would be in agreement with you, if only there were some sort of minimum requirement for public transportation out there. As it is, unless you live in a city with a million or more people in the US, you're lucky to get more than a handful of irregular buses to move around the carless folks.I still think a vehicle, to say nothing of a particular kind of vehicle such as a 4x4, falls very much towards the luxuries on the scale, not the necessities.
--Patrick
#93
strawman
strawman
You might want to consider whether living where you want to live is a luxury. Living in an area that has public transportation and all other necessities within that area is possible, so why should the government bankroll those who prefer, but don't need, to live outside an urban area?
Just to throw something else on the vehicle consideration.
Just to throw something else on the vehicle consideration.
#94
Bubble181
Also, I expected that Soylent link to go to a Wiki about the movie. What the hey? it's real?
Bubble181
Because, since we're talking about poor and needy, living in the city is umpteen times more expensive.You might want to consider whether living where you want to live is a luxury. Living in an area that has public transportation and all other necessities within that area is possible, so why should the government bankroll those who prefer, but don't need, to live outside an urban area?
Just to throw something else on the vehicle consideration.
Also, I expected that Soylent link to go to a Wiki about the movie. What the hey? it's real?
#95
strawman
strawman
The city's transportation system typically travels far enough outside the financial center that the costs are less than the cost of a car 30 miles further. Of course, the math is different in Europe which appears to me to be more heavily urbanized than the US.Because, since we're talking about poor and needy, living in the city is umpteen times more expensive.
#96
PatrThom
I'm sure that, building atop Dunbar's Number, there comes a level of population density when it becomes necessary to start pushing people apart before they reach some sort of critical mass that would start to negatively impact the local society. At that population point, some form of individual vehicular transportation might be cheaper than building out public infrastructure until the rural population density makes the public transportation option more economically advantageous.
--Patrick
PatrThom
If you could get everything you need locally, why would you want to? I'm sure there would still be introverts, but I almost see them starting their own little seed colonies.You might want to consider whether living where you want to live is a luxury. Living in an area that has public transportation and all other necessities within that area is possible, so why should the government bankroll those who prefer, but don't need, to live outside an urban area?
I'm sure that, building atop Dunbar's Number, there comes a level of population density when it becomes necessary to start pushing people apart before they reach some sort of critical mass that would start to negatively impact the local society. At that population point, some form of individual vehicular transportation might be cheaper than building out public infrastructure until the rural population density makes the public transportation option more economically advantageous.
--Patrick
#97
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Public transportation in the US typically sucks outside of ether very new, rich, or important cities. You can get around New York City easily, but Columbus, OH cuts off it's bus routes well within it's commercial district so it's impossible for anyone living outside the city proper to get a bus that GOES anywhere. We have fucking park-and-ride bus routes at the edge of the line because apparently the city planners seem to think making people drive to a bus stop is a good idea.The city's transportation system typically travels far enough outside the financial center that the costs are less than the cost of a car 30 miles further. Of course, the math is different in Europe which appears to me to be more heavily urbanized than the US.
#98
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'd like to know where you're getting the typicality of this? It doesn't mesh with my experience outside of Chicago or NY.The city's transportation system typically travels far enough outside the financial center that the costs are less than the cost of a car 30 miles further. Of course, the math is different in Europe which appears to me to be more heavily urbanized than the US.
#99
Krisken
Krisken
#100
GasBandit
GasBandit
That was the most roundabout way I've ever heard somebody say "maybe, maybe not."
#101
Bowielee
Bowielee
There is one thing that he does get wrong. From a purely clinical viewpoint, it doesn't matter if unskilled labor is more productive in their jobs because in this economy the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the need to keep employees productive. It's unskilled labor, so retraining is minimal. That's why there are so many places out there who will literally hire anybody and pay them boarderline slave wages. There's no incentive for them not to.
#102
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
What I got out of that was "We probably should, because it's the cheapest way to get SOME people out of poverty, but it's not the cure-all we all want it to be."That was the most roundabout way I've ever heard somebody say "maybe, maybe not."
#103
GasBandit
At least he admits it isn't a sure thing. That's a start. After all, if all you have to do to fight poverty is raise the minimum wage, why not make it $20 an hour? Why not $50/hr?
The fact of the matter is not every job is supposed to be a lifestyle (much less family) -supporting "living wage" lifetime career, and it's insane to try to assert you should have to pay busboys and other part-time unskilled labor a full living wage "because feelings."
GasBandit
He kinda glossed over the "oh yeah and there's some other studies that disagree with the one I gushed over." And he mentioned the fact that higher minimum wages mean higher product prices, but stopped short of pointing out that those higher prices hurt most those the higher minimum wage is supposed to help.What I got out of that was "We probably should, because it's the cheapest way to get SOME people out of poverty, but it's not the cure-all we all want it to be."
At least he admits it isn't a sure thing. That's a start. After all, if all you have to do to fight poverty is raise the minimum wage, why not make it $20 an hour? Why not $50/hr?
The fact of the matter is not every job is supposed to be a lifestyle (much less family) -supporting "living wage" lifetime career, and it's insane to try to assert you should have to pay busboys and other part-time unskilled labor a full living wage "because feelings."
#104
Necronic
Necronic
I think he was pretty positive about it, and I liked the reference.
Here's my view. ~25% of people earn less than 10$/hour (correct me if I am wrong). Lets assume we brought all of them up to 10$/ hour, which works out to 20k/year. And lets assume we are talking about what, 70% of the country (excluding children, elderly, etc.). So that's 55 million people brought up to 20k/year, a total cost of 1.1 Billion Dollars. Being conservative lets say we brought all of these people up from 6$/hour. So that's a change in cost of 660 million.
660 million dollars brings up everyone earning minimum wage to 10$/hr.
The US GDP is 16,244,600 million dollars/year. Let's take the rough estimate that labor is 25% of your operating costs. That (and some more rounding) leaves us with 4,000,000 million dollars/year spent on labor in the US.
That means that the added labor cost of bringing up all people to 10$/hr relative to toal US labor costs is
drumroll please
0.0165%
This is an oversimplification, but its also an important oversimplification. When I was in college my first chemistry professor taught us to math in our heads. No calculators allowed on tests. But he also gave full credit if you were within 10%. His thought was that you need to be able to do a cursory check of your math on your own before you delve into the deep analytical stuff just to make sure you aren't completely out of the ballpark. People talk about raising the minimum wage like it would be some kind of economy collapsing thing. A 0.0165% in national labor costs should not cause the economy to collapse. It's a blip on the national radar. Ballpark math shows you how ridiculous that is.
Will certain businesses be hit harder than others? Sure. Will it cause some prices to increase? Sure. But our economy has absorbed larger costs than this in a single oil spill or rogue trader.
Here's my view. ~25% of people earn less than 10$/hour (correct me if I am wrong). Lets assume we brought all of them up to 10$/ hour, which works out to 20k/year. And lets assume we are talking about what, 70% of the country (excluding children, elderly, etc.). So that's 55 million people brought up to 20k/year, a total cost of 1.1 Billion Dollars. Being conservative lets say we brought all of these people up from 6$/hour. So that's a change in cost of 660 million.
660 million dollars brings up everyone earning minimum wage to 10$/hr.
The US GDP is 16,244,600 million dollars/year. Let's take the rough estimate that labor is 25% of your operating costs. That (and some more rounding) leaves us with 4,000,000 million dollars/year spent on labor in the US.
That means that the added labor cost of bringing up all people to 10$/hr relative to toal US labor costs is
drumroll please
0.0165%
This is an oversimplification, but its also an important oversimplification. When I was in college my first chemistry professor taught us to math in our heads. No calculators allowed on tests. But he also gave full credit if you were within 10%. His thought was that you need to be able to do a cursory check of your math on your own before you delve into the deep analytical stuff just to make sure you aren't completely out of the ballpark. People talk about raising the minimum wage like it would be some kind of economy collapsing thing. A 0.0165% in national labor costs should not cause the economy to collapse. It's a blip on the national radar. Ballpark math shows you how ridiculous that is.
Will certain businesses be hit harder than others? Sure. Will it cause some prices to increase? Sure. But our economy has absorbed larger costs than this in a single oil spill or rogue trader.
#105
GasBandit
GasBandit
I can name 5 people where I work just off the top of my head who would be immediately let go if we were required to pay them $10 an hour.I think he was pretty positive about it, and I liked the reference.
Here's my view. ~25% of people earn less than 10$/hour (correct me if I am wrong). Lets assume we brought all of them up to 10$/ hour, which works out to 20k/year. And lets assume we are talking about what, 70% of the country (excluding children, elderly, etc.). So that's 55 million people brought up to 20k/year, a total cost of 1.1 Billion Dollars. Being conservative lets say we brought all of these people up from 6$/hour. So that's a change in cost of 660 million.
660 million dollars brings up everyone earning minimum wage to 10$/hr.
The US GDP is 16,244,600 million dollars/year. Let's take the rough estimate that labor is 25% of your operating costs. That (and some more rounding) leaves us with 4,000,000 million dollars/year spent on labor in the US.
That means that the added labor cost of bringing up all people to 10$/hr relative to toal US labor costs is
drumroll please
0.0165%
This is an oversimplification, but its also an important oversimplification. When I was in college my first chemistry professor taught us to math in our heads. No calculators allowed on tests. But he also gave full credit if you were within 10%. His thought was that you need to be able to do a cursory check of your math on your own before you delve into the deep analytical stuff just to make sure you aren't completely out of the ballpark. People talk about raising the minimum wage like it would be some kind of economy collapsing thing. A 0.0165% in national labor costs should not cause the economy to collapse. It's a blip on the national radar. Ballpark math shows you how ridiculous that is.
Will certain businesses be hit harder than others? Sure. Will it cause some prices to increase? Sure. But our economy has absorbed larger costs than this in a single oil spill or rogue trader.
#106
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
For every item that gets imported to the USA, there needs to be a $1 minimum wage attached.
#107
Necronic
Necronic
If you can eliminate 5 positions with so little thought then I think you have more serious staffing problems, like employing
People that do no work
People that do no work
#108
GasBandit
They do work. But if everybody has to be paid $10 an hour, several of them will be fired and the others will have to pick up the slack. And hey, they're getting paid more for it. Good for them I guess. Sucks for the unemployed wondering why nobody will hire them.
GasBandit
Or having to make an actual payroll on a budget - something most people who advocate for higher minimum wages don't.If you can eliminate 5 positions with so little thought then I think you have more serious staffing problems, like employing
People that do no work
They do work. But if everybody has to be paid $10 an hour, several of them will be fired and the others will have to pick up the slack. And hey, they're getting paid more for it. Good for them I guess. Sucks for the unemployed wondering why nobody will hire them.
#109
Necronic
Necronic
So you pass the costs on, no one said you couldn't. That was my point with the previous statement, you wouldn't fire them, because you need them.
What I said was that the additional costs are pretty insignificant nationally
You pass on your costs, customers pass that on, it's an insignificant blip[DOUBLEPOST=1391640355,1391640033][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait....my math is wrong
Lol[DOUBLEPOST=1391640677][/DOUBLEPOST]Ok, whoops, forgot a few zeros in there. It would cost 660 BILLION, not million.
So it's more like a 16% increase.....that's significant.
What I said was that the additional costs are pretty insignificant nationally
You pass on your costs, customers pass that on, it's an insignificant blip[DOUBLEPOST=1391640355,1391640033][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait....my math is wrong
Lol[DOUBLEPOST=1391640677][/DOUBLEPOST]Ok, whoops, forgot a few zeros in there. It would cost 660 BILLION, not million.
So it's more like a 16% increase.....that's significant.
#110
Necronic
Necronic
My horrendous miscalculations aside, I'm curious how significant the salaries of those 5 employees is. What % would you have to increase your budget to increase their wages to 10$/hrOr having to make an actual payroll on a budget - something most people who advocate for higher minimum wages don't.
They do work. But if everybody has to be paid $10 an hour, several of them will be fired and the others will have to pick up the slack. And hey, they're getting paid more for it. Good for them I guess. Sucks for the unemployed wondering why nobody will hire them.
#111
GasBandit
GasBandit
Unfortunately, I'm not privy to our exact budget numbers, but these are all people who have been sternly warned they were putting in too much hours and that the budget couldn't handle it, so that if they persisted they'd be let go. I do know they're all currently at minimum wage.My horrendous miscalculations aside, I'm curious how significant the salaries of those 5 employees is. What % would you have to increase your budget to increase their wages to 10$/hr
#112
strawman
strawman
When you raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10, you don't end up paying your ten employees $10 an hour, and charge your customers $20 more per hour. You get rid of the two bottom performing employees, and tell your other 8 that they better pick up the slack so they're worth the increase, or you'll fire them and hire someone else who is worth $10 an hour. Then you start reevaluating your bottom line and change your business so you can reduce costs, such as using more automation.
Minimum wage increases will benefit hard workers, and ruin below average workers.
Minimum wage increases will benefit hard workers, and ruin below average workers.
#113
Bowielee
Bowielee
Aren't you the one always harping on the fact that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant?Unfortunately, I'm not privy to our exact budget numbers, but these are all people who have been sternly warned they were putting in too much hours and that the budget couldn't handle it, so that if they persisted they'd be let go. I do know they're all currently at minimum wage.
#114
GasBandit
GasBandit
In this case, it's the closest thing this thread has come to in the way of real world numbers.[DOUBLEPOST=1391645039,1391644993][/DOUBLEPOST]Aren't you the one always harping on the fact that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant?
Pretty much this.When you raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10, you don't end up paying your ten employees $10 an hour, and charge your customers $20 more per hour. You get rid of the two bottom performing employees, and tell your other 8 that they better pick up the slack so they're worth the increase, or you'll fire them and hire someone else who is worth $10 an hour. Then you start reevaluating your bottom line and change your business so you can reduce costs, such as using more automation.
Minimum wage increases will benefit hard workers, and ruin below average workers.
#115
Necronic
Necronic
then why are you against it?
#116
GasBandit
GasBandit
... because... we... don't want to ruin the 50% of the population who is below average?then why are you against it?
#117
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
As I've said before, we're quickly approaching the point where it's no longer necessary or practical to have all available workers working. It's really time to start talking about giving a basic standard of living to everyone and making "work" extra income to fuel the economy.
#118
strawman
That would be disastrous.
strawman
That would be disastrous.
#119
PatrThom
Well, actually you don't, since the people who get fired to bring the payroll expenses back under the budgeted cap will have to sell their belongings to make ends meet until they can get another job, and since you're still employed, you can scoop up some primo deals on Craigslist. It happens all the time.
This is why I'm more for the idea of something like my previously-mentioned subsidy. Both methods "work" (achieve the goal of putting more money into people's pockets), the difference is just who is responsible. By hiking the minimum wage, the onus of pulling us out of recession is put upon employers to administer/fund/etc., rather than the government itself. Hey, kids! Let's all give a big Welcome Back to Mr. Unfunded Mandate!
I would much rather see "redefining the zero" become the social pressure to do more than just get by. Your social status would not be determined by how much more than $0 you make, rather it would be determined by how much more than $x.00, where X is the amount of money necessary to meet your needs (and have x be the "new zero").
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yes. I've mentioned before about how altering the minimum wage effectively just "redefines the zero." That is, in order to get ahead, you need to earn more than everyone else (or spend a lot less, I suppose), and if everyone else gets a bump (and your wage delta goes from $2/hr to $0/hr) then you lose your economic advantage.As I've said before, we're quickly approaching the point where it's no longer necessary or practical to have all available workers working. It's really time to start talking about giving a basic standard of living to everyone and making "work" extra income to fuel the economy.
Well, actually you don't, since the people who get fired to bring the payroll expenses back under the budgeted cap will have to sell their belongings to make ends meet until they can get another job, and since you're still employed, you can scoop up some primo deals on Craigslist. It happens all the time.
This is why I'm more for the idea of something like my previously-mentioned subsidy. Both methods "work" (achieve the goal of putting more money into people's pockets), the difference is just who is responsible. By hiking the minimum wage, the onus of pulling us out of recession is put upon employers to administer/fund/etc., rather than the government itself. Hey, kids! Let's all give a big Welcome Back to Mr. Unfunded Mandate!
I would much rather see "redefining the zero" become the social pressure to do more than just get by. Your social status would not be determined by how much more than $0 you make, rather it would be determined by how much more than $x.00, where X is the amount of money necessary to meet your needs (and have x be the "new zero").
--Patrick
#120
Bubble181
See, the Western industrial world is quickly approaching this.
The Western services industry actually needs more workers, not less.
Not to mention the Developing world needs a metric fuckton of extra workers in the agricultural industry.
Honestly? All the unemployed should be retrained as either farmers and shipped off to Africa and Asia, or, if they're capable, turned into nurses and caretakers for children/the elderly/the handicapped.
I know it's technically impossible and inhumane and all that, but it'd make sense economically.
Unfortunately, while we're all aging way too much and having children survive that would've died in their youth or in the womb 100 years or so ago, and we're automating more and more, and everything's becoming more efficient, we need less workers on actual economic growth. We need a heck of a lot more in "non-productive" sectors (care, education, but also all of those "non-productive" jobs in office buildings - cleaners, maintenance, secretary, reception,...).
Our economic model isn't quite fit to handle that, though: those non-productive people in an office (or factory) are OK and their wages are paid by their boss, but who's paying nurses in retirement homes? Handicapped childrens' caretakers?
I'm liberal as all hell, but the way our technology and society is advancing, we'd have to change into some sort of Star Trekian neocommunist state to keep it all going; which is not going to happen.
Bubble181
As I've said before, we're quickly approaching the point where it's no longer necessary or practical to have all available workers working. It's really time to start talking about giving a basic standard of living to everyone and making "work" extra income to fuel the economy.
See, the Western industrial world is quickly approaching this.
The Western services industry actually needs more workers, not less.
Not to mention the Developing world needs a metric fuckton of extra workers in the agricultural industry.
Honestly? All the unemployed should be retrained as either farmers and shipped off to Africa and Asia, or, if they're capable, turned into nurses and caretakers for children/the elderly/the handicapped.
I know it's technically impossible and inhumane and all that, but it'd make sense economically.
Unfortunately, while we're all aging way too much and having children survive that would've died in their youth or in the womb 100 years or so ago, and we're automating more and more, and everything's becoming more efficient, we need less workers on actual economic growth. We need a heck of a lot more in "non-productive" sectors (care, education, but also all of those "non-productive" jobs in office buildings - cleaners, maintenance, secretary, reception,...).
Our economic model isn't quite fit to handle that, though: those non-productive people in an office (or factory) are OK and their wages are paid by their boss, but who's paying nurses in retirement homes? Handicapped childrens' caretakers?
I'm liberal as all hell, but the way our technology and society is advancing, we'd have to change into some sort of Star Trekian neocommunist state to keep it all going; which is not going to happen.
#121
GasBandit
GasBandit
As I've said before, we're quickly approaching the point where it's no longer necessary or practical to have all available workers working. It's really time to start talking about giving a basic standard of living to everyone and making "work" extra income to fuel the economy.
#122
Necronic
Necronic
I can't say I will ever agree with Universal Basic Income.
#123
PatrThom
Also, news stories like this one all but confirming our descent into Plutocracy do not exactly inspire confidence in our economy, especially for those of us not privileged enough to be in that top 5%.
*Note: I do not actually desire a PS4, nor do I consider it a necessity. I chose it only because it is a familiar object to many. I could have just as easily said, "critical car repairs."
PatrThom
When you're at a point where it would take three months of saving 100% of your disposable income to be able to afford a PS4*, your viewpoint on this changes a bit.I can't say I will ever agree with Universal Basic Income.
Also, news stories like this one all but confirming our descent into Plutocracy do not exactly inspire confidence in our economy, especially for those of us not privileged enough to be in that top 5%.
--PatrickSince 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by [the top 5%] has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.
*Note: I do not actually desire a PS4, nor do I consider it a necessity. I chose it only because it is a familiar object to many. I could have just as easily said, "critical car repairs."
#124
TommiR
TommiR
That idea would seem to me to be a massive under-utilisation of a society's resources. Why not encourage job creation by making conducting business and hiring people a little easier for the companies instead?As I've said before, we're quickly approaching the point where it's no longer necessary or practical to have all available workers working. It's really time to start talking about giving a basic standard of living to everyone and making "work" extra income to fuel the economy.
#125
Krisken
Krisken
They did that here in Wisconsin when Walker took over. Know what? Had no effect on job growth. Now we have shitty jobs and get paid less. Yay!
#126
GasBandit
Today: 6.2%
It's not Texas, but it's something.
GasBandit
Unemployment rate in Wisconsin when Scott Walker took office: 7.7%They did that here in Wisconsin when Walker took over. Know what? Had no effect on job growth. Now we have shitty jobs and get paid less. Yay!
Today: 6.2%
It's not Texas, but it's something.
Yeah, about that "Recession ended in 2009" bit. Does it count as having ended if the recovery didn't even start to get traction until 2011?Also, news stories like this one all but confirming our descent into Plutocracy do not exactly inspire confidence in our economy, especially for those of us not privileged enough to be in that top 5%.
Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by [the top 5%] has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.
#127
jwhouk
jwhouk
Coulda fooled me. Unemployment's still pretty high in my vicinity.
#128
Bowielee
Bowielee
Unemployment was already on the decline before he even took office. He's just taking credit for the slow recovery that's happening in the region. If you look at the unemployment rates of Minnesota and Illinois, the unemployment rates are almost completely parallel from the point of the recession, and the three states have wildly different leadership.
#129
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yet another example of where it's more important to consider the median instead of the mean. The recession "ended" because overall spending went up, etc., but "overall" spending only went up because a small segment of the population can disproportionately skew the numbers so drastically.Does it count as having ended if the recovery didn't even start to get traction until 2011?
--Patrick
#130
GasBandit
GasBandit
... it's still early for me. Does that mean you also don't consider summer 2009 the end of the recession, or you do?Yet another example of where it's more important to consider the median instead of the mean. The recession "ended" because overall spending went up, etc., but "overall" spending only went up because a small segment of the population can disproportionately skew the numbers so drastically.
--Patrick
#131
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Ending a recession is easy, just have some tick upwards in the economy. But the hard times take much longer to get over.
#132
PatrThom
PatrThom
Personally, I won't consider the recession "over" until banks and other lenders start showing a willingness to do some speculative lending again, rather than requiring the ol' "prove you don't need a loan in order to get a loan" rigamarole (so the answer to your question is "I don't."). But the people who watch the trends declared the recession technically "over" because they saw sustained growth in business. That's all well and good for businesses (and for the super-rich), but it continues to not trickle down to the lower classes. What I meant by my median/mean comment above is that the fortunes of this tiny group of wealthy people affect the overall economy so much that you can no longer trust these numbers to actually reflect the overall economy. Normally when you take statistics you throw out the high and low numbers so they don't skew the results, except that apparently these "recession is over-W00T!" folks are forgetting to do that (probably because they want to believe it so badly, or because it sells papers/clicks).
--Patrick
--Patrick
#133
Krisken
Krisken
Wages in Wisconsin have gone down over the last 4 years, whether you use real median, family income, or per capita income.
#134
GasBandit
GasBandit
I think it has more to do with pushing a political agenda. After all, remember in 2005 when the media was years into it's Bush-bashing froth, that a steady 5.35% national unemployment rate was trumpeted as an indicator that our economy was collapsing. Now we're supposed to just get used to 8+% being the new normal, apparently.Personally, I won't consider the recession "over" until banks and other lenders start showing a willingness to do some speculative lending again, rather than requiring the ol' "prove you don't need a loan in order to get a loan" rigamarole (so the answer to your question is "I don't."). But the people who watch the trends declared the recession technically "over" because they saw sustained growth in business. That's all well and good for businesses (and for the super-rich), but it continues to not trickle down to the lower classes. What I meant by my median/mean comment above is that the fortunes of this tiny group of wealthy people affect the overall economy so much that you can no longer trust these numbers to actually reflect the overall economy. Normally when you take statistics you throw out the high and low numbers so they don't skew the results, except that apparently these "recession is over-W00T!" folks are forgetting to do that (probably because they want to believe it so badly, or because it sells papers/clicks).
--Patrick
#135
GasBandit
GasBandit
Here's the real way to gauge the true value of your country's minimum wage -
#136
Terrik
Terrik
A beer in a Chinese bar or restaurant in say, Beijing or Shanghai is about the same price as it would be in the US. But outside of the restaurant, you can get a 500ml bottle of beer for less than a dollar.
#137
Bowielee
Bowielee
At first I read that chart wrong and thought that the first one was Georgia the state, not the country. I was thinking to myself. God DAMN it must be tough being an alcoholic in the south.
#138
Covar
Covar
I had the same reaction.At first I read that chart wrong and thought that the first one was Georgia the state, not the country. I was thinking to myself. God DAMN it must be tough being an alcoholic in the south.
#139
Bubble181
Belgian minimum wage is almost double that of Germany, and beer is probably the last consumption article not rated a "luxury" and thus, not as heavily taxed. Both countries at 0.4 hours for a beer is nonsense.
Thinking a bit further, not taking into account they look at bars, minimum wage in Belgium leaves approximately €6.8 after all taxes. The cheapest kinds of beer (discount brands) sell for €3.43 for a crate. That's half an hour at minimum wage for a crate of beer.
Going back to bars, I know plenty of places where I can get a 25cl (so half of what they're looking at) for €1.10 - though obviously these are the "cheap" bars. That's €2.20 for a 0.5l. That's still rather 0.3 than 0.4.
Luxembourg, on the other hand, has the exact same minimum wage as Belgium, and far higher tax tariffs on beer.
Bubble181
Here's the real way to gauge the true value of your country's minimum wage -
Belgian minimum wage is almost double that of Germany, and beer is probably the last consumption article not rated a "luxury" and thus, not as heavily taxed. Both countries at 0.4 hours for a beer is nonsense.
Thinking a bit further, not taking into account they look at bars, minimum wage in Belgium leaves approximately €6.8 after all taxes. The cheapest kinds of beer (discount brands) sell for €3.43 for a crate. That's half an hour at minimum wage for a crate of beer.
Going back to bars, I know plenty of places where I can get a 25cl (so half of what they're looking at) for €1.10 - though obviously these are the "cheap" bars. That's €2.20 for a 0.5l. That's still rather 0.3 than 0.4.
Luxembourg, on the other hand, has the exact same minimum wage as Belgium, and far higher tax tariffs on beer.
#140
PatrThom
PatrThom
Hey, I just heard about this on the radio (a portion of it was part of this show about money), and I thought I would post it here.
Now, some of you are going to think this is a crock of shit, and others are probably going to be more sympathetic.
And I am almost willing to bet that which group you fall into could be predetermined by looking at how financially well-off you are.
--Patrick
Now, some of you are going to think this is a crock of shit, and others are probably going to be more sympathetic.
And I am almost willing to bet that which group you fall into could be predetermined by looking at how financially well-off you are.
--Patrick
#141
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
Not financially well-off. Maybe not a crock of shit, but I don't exactly think this is significant information.Now, some of you are going to think this is a crock of shit, and others are probably going to be more sympathetic.
And I am almost willing to bet that which group you fall into could be predetermined by looking at how financially well-off you are.
--Patrick
#142
Necronic
Necronic
I was going to take issue with that video until I saw that cheating section. I have always felt that greed and self-interest are good, but ONLY if the players don't cheat. If they cheat the equation flips wildly and greed/self-interest becomes very destructive. That cheating and the candy thing.....ugh. Makes me sick.
#143
Bowielee
Bowielee
I've seen some interesting studies linking cleanliness to conservatism. When viewed in the scope of cultural evolution, it's really quite interesting.
Sourcity source source.
Sourcity source source.
#144
GasBandit
GasBandit
When was the last time you washed behind your ears, Bowie?I've seen some interesting studies linking cleanliness to conservatism. When viewed in the scope of cultural evolution, it's really quite interesting.
Sourcity source source.
#145
Bowielee
Bowielee
I keep myself clean, but I don't mind getting messy between showers 
#146
PatrThom
PatrThom
Ooo! Necro! Another study has been done, but this one was not so much about income as it was about the sorts of liberties a person is willing to take and the motivation behind them.
The upper class isn't less ethical, just more likely to lie for selfish reasons.
So...glad to know the reality is that we're ultimately on or about on par with each other as regards our level of ethics, I guess.
--Patrick
The upper class isn't less ethical, just more likely to lie for selfish reasons.
So...glad to know the reality is that we're ultimately on or about on par with each other as regards our level of ethics, I guess.
--Patrick
#147
Bowielee
Bowielee
This is actually one of the journal articles I'm citing on my master's thesis work
#148
@Li3n
@Li3n
TIL lying to help other people is just as bad as lying to help yourself...Ooo! Necro! Another study has been done, but this one was not so much about income as it was about the sorts of liberties a person is willing to take and the motivation behind them.
The upper class isn't less ethical, just more likely to lie for selfish reasons.
So...glad to know the reality is that we're ultimately on or about on par with each other as regards our level of ethics, I guess.
--Patrick
#149
PatrThom
PatrThom
#150
@Li3n
@Li3n
TIL, you need to be unethical if yo want to be a good person.
#151
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I'm sure it's more a question of extreme cases of "Spirit of" v. "Letter of" than one of being unethical. See also "jobsworth"TIL, you need to be unethical if yo want to be a good person.
--Patrick
#152
PatrThom
I almost expect this video to be taken down at some point. (EDIT: It was!)
As the plot for a reality show, I can get behind Give + DocumentIt. People could learn a lot from such a show. A lot about people, about finance, about budgets, etc.
...but Give + PitThemAgainstEachOtherANDThePublicEye + DocumentIt? It's like watching someone place two piles of meat in the big cat enclosure at a struggling zoo and then poke the animals with sticks just to see what they'll do. Dramatic entertainment? Sure...but also infuriatingly void of any genuinely altruistic sentiment.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I almost expect this video to be taken down at some point. (EDIT: It was!)
As the plot for a reality show, I can get behind Give + DocumentIt. People could learn a lot from such a show. A lot about people, about finance, about budgets, etc.
...but Give + PitThemAgainstEachOtherANDThePublicEye + DocumentIt? It's like watching someone place two piles of meat in the big cat enclosure at a struggling zoo and then poke the animals with sticks just to see what they'll do. Dramatic entertainment? Sure...but also infuriatingly void of any genuinely altruistic sentiment.
--Patrick
#153
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Looks like a variation of the prisoners dilemma. Except it's a "reality" show, meaning it'll be scripted and fake.
I almost expect this video to be taken down at some point.
As the plot for a reality show, I can get behind Give + DocumentIt. People could learn a lot from such a show. A lot about people, about finance, about budgets, etc.
...but Give + PitThemAgainstEachOtherANDThePublicEye + DocumentIt? It's like watching someone place two piles of meat in the big cat enclosure at a struggling zoo and then poke the animals with sticks just to see what they'll do. Dramatic entertainment? Sure...but also infuriatingly void of any genuinely altruistic sentiment.
--Patrick
#154
Mathias
Yes... But that's why we shouldn't model society on the foundations of evolution and "life".
If anything society is constructed exclusively to take nature out of the equation. Nature is indifferent to suffering. Society and civilization is constructed to circumvent the notion of survival of the fittest.
Mathias
Life is inherently unjust.
Yes... But that's why we shouldn't model society on the foundations of evolution and "life".
If anything society is constructed exclusively to take nature out of the equation. Nature is indifferent to suffering. Society and civilization is constructed to circumvent the notion of survival of the fittest.
#155
Bowielee
Bowielee
I saw this a couple of weeks ago and it struck me as being particularly evil. The entire concept is just gross.
I almost expect this video to be taken down at some point.
As the plot for a reality show, I can get behind Give + DocumentIt. People could learn a lot from such a show. A lot about people, about finance, about budgets, etc.
...but Give + PitThemAgainstEachOtherANDThePublicEye + DocumentIt? It's like watching someone place two piles of meat in the big cat enclosure at a struggling zoo and then poke the animals with sticks just to see what they'll do. Dramatic entertainment? Sure...but also infuriatingly void of any genuinely altruistic sentiment.
--Patrick
#156
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
In the show "Deal or No Deal," it was just one person against one person, and it was all-or-nothing. In this case it's not so extreme (doesn't have to be all-or-nothing) but instead of it being an elective like a game show, they're messing with people's actual lives.Looks like a variation of the prisoners dilemma. Except it's a "reality" show, meaning it'll be scripted and fake.
--Patrick
#157
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
..who give consent and sign a waiver to be on t.v. Should we feel sorry for the ignorant masses that play the lottery or walk into a casino?they're messing with people's actual lives...
--Patrick
#158
drifter
drifter
From what I've read, they were told they'd be involved in a documentary about money. Which is technically true, I suppose...who give consent and sign a waiver to be on t.v. Should we feel sorry for the ignorant masses that play the lottery or walk into a casino?
#159
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
No, we should feel outrage at the institutions who prey on these people...who give consent and sign a waiver to be on t.v. Should we feel sorry for the ignorant masses that play the lottery or walk into a casino?
--Patrick
#160
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
I support the efforts of the hashtag #GiveYourMoneyToWomen
#161
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
These guys?No, we should feel outrage at the institutions who prey on these people.
--Patrick
#162
GasBandit
GasBandit
#163
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
The practice is despicable, regardless of source.These guys?
--Patrick
#164
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
That's called being in a relationship.I support the efforts of the hashtag #GiveYourMoneyToWomen
#165
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
OKI support the efforts of the hashtag #GiveYourMoneyToWomen
#166
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
You're gross.
#167
PatrThom
PatrThom
Technically relates to the thread topic.
I found some genuinely entertaining and insightful moments in here.
Redditors who grew up filthy rich, what did you think was normal till your [sic] learned otherwise?
--Patrick
I found some genuinely entertaining and insightful moments in here.
Redditors who grew up filthy rich, what did you think was normal till your [sic] learned otherwise?
--Patrick
#168
PatrThom
This could've been me.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Many (dare I say most?) people have something that motivates them that is more of a lure than money.
I cannot even begin to try and explain how much it irks me that I was (and probably forever will be) denied the opportunity to experiment with the Universe due to a combination of lack of equipment, lack of funds, restrictions on materials, etc. I have a curiosity which cannot be contained, but I run into soooo many roadblocks that keep me from following it where it otherwise would lead. I look at the achievements of Da Vinci, Franklin, Tesla, etc., and while I don't for one moment think that I would bend History as much as any of them, the fact that I am denied the opportunity to even try due to my urgent need to spend almost every waking moment keeping a roof over my family's heads and food in our bellies makes me SO FRUSTRATED.
You could "pay" me in food, shelter, and lab supplies, and I would probably live a productive and happy life on next to no "income," but that is not how this world works...and it burns. Burns.
This could've been me.
--Patrick
#169
PatrThom
PatrThom
To the thread's title, when one person's decision to relocate actually threatens the economy of the entire state of New Jersey, I think that's a definite thing you can point to and say, "Hmm, perhaps there really is some threshold beyond which income inequality could be considered unjust."
From the article:
From the article:
--PatrickThe New Jersey resident [is] hedge-fund billionaire David Tepper. In December, Mr. Tepper declared himself a resident of Florida after living for over 20 years in New Jersey. He later moved the official headquarters of his hedge fund, Appaloosa Management, to Miami.
[...]
Mr. Tepper’s move is a case study in how tax collections are affected when income becomes very highly concentrated. With the top tenth of 1 percent of the population reaping the largest income gains, states with the highest tax rates on the rich are growing increasingly dependent on a smaller group of superearners for tax revenue.
In New York, California, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey, the top 1 percent pay a third or more of total income taxes. Now a handful of billionaires or even a single individual like Mr. Tepper can have a noticeable impact on state revenues and budgets.
#170
GasBandit
GasBandit
Or, you know, exactly what everybody has been saying about progressive taxes coming home to roost.To the thread's title, when one person's decision to relocate actually threatens the economy of the entire state of New Jersey, I think that's a definite thing you can point to and say, "Hmm, perhaps there really is some threshold beyond which income inequality could be considered unjust."
From the article:
--Patrick
#171
PatrThom
Because the only thing I know "everybody" has been saying about progressive taxes is that it was dumb to cap them at some sort of max instead of maintaining the sort of asymptotic relationship they had in the late 30's/early 40's.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Since this is apparently "everybody but me," can you expand on this a little?Or, you know, exactly what everybody has been saying about progressive taxes coming home to roost.
Because the only thing I know "everybody" has been saying about progressive taxes is that it was dumb to cap them at some sort of max instead of maintaining the sort of asymptotic relationship they had in the late 30's/early 40's.
--Patrick
#172
AshburnerX
Part of the problem of this is that the extremely wealthy have the means to avoid virtually all the downsides of leaving the vicinity of family: they have the means to connect with them over long distance, travel virtually anywhere, or bring them along for the ride. Part of them problem is that state/national barriers dissolve for the Rich in ways they don't for even exceptional middle class or poorer people; the common man cannot escape the effects of economic issues as readily as the Rich can.
But really, the main problem is that the Rich feel no accountability to their communities and view other human beings as replaceable, as well as that the suffering they cause by their actions is irrelevant as long as they themselves suffer no consequences. We should really be testing the Top 1% of Wealth Holders for psychopathy the same way they do for stock brokers now... I'd bet we'd see the same correlation.
AshburnerX
He's implying that since rich people have the ability to be as mobile as they wish, taxing them progressively is unwise because it will simply encourage them to move to state/countries that charge them less, hurting local economies when they move.Since this is apparently "everybody but me," can you expand on this a little?
--Patrick
Part of the problem of this is that the extremely wealthy have the means to avoid virtually all the downsides of leaving the vicinity of family: they have the means to connect with them over long distance, travel virtually anywhere, or bring them along for the ride. Part of them problem is that state/national barriers dissolve for the Rich in ways they don't for even exceptional middle class or poorer people; the common man cannot escape the effects of economic issues as readily as the Rich can.
But really, the main problem is that the Rich feel no accountability to their communities and view other human beings as replaceable, as well as that the suffering they cause by their actions is irrelevant as long as they themselves suffer no consequences. We should really be testing the Top 1% of Wealth Holders for psychopathy the same way they do for stock brokers now... I'd bet we'd see the same correlation.
#173
@Li3n
Nah, that's totally ok as long as you keep them there by having them pay less taxes...
@Li3n
Yeah, that's clearly the problem, and not the fact that one person has managed to accrue so much of the wealth that they're single handedly able to ruin a states economy...Or, you know, exactly what everybody has been saying about progressive taxes coming home to roost.
Nah, that's totally ok as long as you keep them there by having them pay less taxes...
#174
GasBandit
Maybe the REAL problem is that income taxes are just a bad idea poorly executed in just about every situation.
GasBandit
New Jersey decided they'd rather have 9% of nothing than 6% of what they were getting. Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.Yeah, that's clearly the problem, and not the fact that one person has managed to accrue so much of the wealth that they're single handedly able to ruin a states economy...
Nah, that's totally ok as long as you keep them there by having them pay less taxes...
Maybe the REAL problem is that income taxes are just a bad idea poorly executed in just about every situation.
#175
PatrThom
I mean, it makes perfect sense, given the studies, but I didn't realize there was anything formal.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I didn't realize this was a thing.We should really be testing the Top 1% of Wealth Holders for psychopathy the same way they do for stock brokers now...
I mean, it makes perfect sense, given the studies, but I didn't realize there was anything formal.
--Patrick
#176
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
We can argue about whether money should be taxed when it is given to you (income tax) or when you give it to someone else (sales tax, gift tax, inheritance tax) or whether it should even be taxed at all, but the reality is this--as @AshburnerX says above, the people who have dedicated their lives to the growth and accumulation of money (like, for example, hedge fund managers) are also the people least likely to feel any sort of social responsibility. As such, in order to get them to contribute to society as a whole, they must be forced to do so though mechanisms like taxation, because otherwise they would happily sit on their piles of money, continuing to build their private little dynasty and watching the world crumble around them, so long as everybody else keeps their hands off of their stack. And I don't wanna hear anything about "That's Government interference, they earned that money, therefore it's theirs to do with or not as they will," because that's just as ludicrous as suggesting that everyone else should work for no wages, merely the satisfaction of a job well done, in order for Mr. Rich Guy's fortune to be permitted to grow at its maximum possible speed.Maybe the REAL problem is that income taxes are just a bad idea poorly executed in just about every situation.
--Patrick
#177
GasBandit
GasBandit
Government is a necessary evil, and as such it requires money to operate, so obviously some form of taxation is needed. We've had multiple huge threads over the various arguments of how big a government needs to be and what the best/fairest way to fund it is. I don't think it would be productive to do so yet again. But in this specific case, it was definitely an instance of New Jersey making a bad decision with a predictable result. Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.We can argue about whether money should be taxed when it is given to you (income tax) or when you give it to someone else (sales tax, gift tax, inheritance tax) or whether it should even be taxed at all, but the reality is this--as @AshburnerX says above, the people who have dedicated their lives to the growth and accumulation of money (like, for example, hedge fund managers) are also the people least likely to feel any sort of social responsibility. As such, in order to get them to contribute to society as a whole, they must be forced to do so though mechanisms like taxation, because otherwise they would happily sit on their piles of money, continuing to build their private little dynasty and watching the world crumble around them, so long as everybody else keeps their hands off of their stack. And I don't wanna hear anything about "That's Government interference, they earned that money, therefore it's theirs to do with or not as they will," because that's just as ludicrous as suggesting that everyone else should work for no wages, merely the satisfaction of a job well done, in order for Mr. Rich Guy's fortune to be permitted to grow at its maximum possible speed.
--Patrick
#178
@Li3n
I mean, who needs a middle class anyway... it's not like having one has ever helped.
Neo-feudalism will be great.
Also, if i remember Dallas well enough, i'm also guessing oil has something to do with Texas being one of the few states that is a net contributor instead of a welfare moocher... And yet it's still not the worlds 6th (or was it 5th nowadays with Brexit?) largest economy, like that damn liberal hellhole called California.
@Li3n
Yup, there's no other reason why it's a bad idea to have most of the wealth in the hands of a few people but envy...Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.
I mean, who needs a middle class anyway... it's not like having one has ever helped.
Neo-feudalism will be great.
Is it because most other red states get more in federal taxes then they pay into?Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.
Also, if i remember Dallas well enough, i'm also guessing oil has something to do with Texas being one of the few states that is a net contributor instead of a welfare moocher... And yet it's still not the worlds 6th (or was it 5th nowadays with Brexit?) largest economy, like that damn liberal hellhole called California.
#179
AshburnerX
The biggest employers in Texas are Pizza Hut (I'm assuming they include all national workers in this), AT&T (same), Keller Williams (Real Estate), American Airlines, Tennet Healthcare. Of those companies... Pizza Hut is basically on the way out unless they do something MAJOR to compete with Dominoes and new chains like Blaze Pizza and AT&T isn't exactly doing hot ether.
AshburnerX
Texas is like the 10th largest economy in the world. Yes, it's not even CLOSE to California, but it's still up there.Also, if i remember Dallas well enough, i'm also guessing oil has something to do with Texas being one of the few states that is a net contributor instead of a welfare moocher... And yet it's still not the worlds 6th (or was it 5th nowadays with Brexit?) largest economy, like that damn liberal hellhole called California.
The biggest employers in Texas are Pizza Hut (I'm assuming they include all national workers in this), AT&T (same), Keller Williams (Real Estate), American Airlines, Tennet Healthcare. Of those companies... Pizza Hut is basically on the way out unless they do something MAJOR to compete with Dominoes and new chains like Blaze Pizza and AT&T isn't exactly doing hot ether.
#180
@Li3n
I wasn't really knocking Texas, i was just pointing out that an opposite example exists, and is doing better!
@Li3n
So it's only half as good then...Texas is like the 10th largest economy in the world. Yes, it's not even CLOSE to California, but it's still up there.
I wasn't really knocking Texas, i was just pointing out that an opposite example exists, and is doing better!
#181
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
While it’s true I would be lying if I said I have no desire to be more wealthy, I did not link the article out of jealousy nor spite. I linked it because I believe it to be an example of how it is inherently dangerous to allow that much influence to be concentrated in any one person, regardless of their tax rate(s). To argue otherwise is to suggest someone like the Mule should have been allowed to carry out his plans unimpeded.Griping that one billionaire affects the tax roles so much is little else than wealth envy.
—Patrick
#182
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
That guy was a fool.To argue otherwise is to suggest someone like the Mule should have been allowed to carry out his plans unimpeded.
—Patrick
#183
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Well maybe it's easier to get by with 0% income tax when you have a country right next door to your south which the President says is going to cover your defense budget.Somehow Texas manages to get by better than most with 0% income tax.
--Patrick
#184
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Nah, see, the ultra rich controlling everything is fine, so long as the GOVERNMENT doesn't interfere. Because that would be like slavery.While it’s true I would be lying if I said I have no desire to be more wealthy, I did not link the article out of jealousy nor spite. I linked it because I believe it to be an example of how it is inherently dangerous to allow that much influence to be concentrated in any one person, regardless of their tax rate(s). To argue otherwise is to suggest someone like the Mule should have been allowed to carry out his plans unimpeded.
—Patrick
#185
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
No, it would be de facto plutocracy, which obviously has a different name.Nah, see, the ultra rich controlling everything is fine, so long as the GOVERNMENT doesn't interfere. Because that would be like slavery.
--Patrick
#186
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Small counterpoint to the keep taxes low and rich people will shower the wealth down upon the unworthy.
#187
PatrThom
I know we talked about the upcoming AT&T layoffs (but can’t find it), because my BIL is one of the people who got laid off. 10-15yrs service? Who cares, take a hike, enjoy unemployment.
—Patrick
PatrThom
Verizon, too.Small counterpoint to the keep taxes low and rich people will shower the wealth down upon the unworthy.
I know we talked about the upcoming AT&T layoffs (but can’t find it), because my BIL is one of the people who got laid off. 10-15yrs service? Who cares, take a hike, enjoy unemployment.
—Patrick
#188
PatrThom
PatrThom
Maybe instead of “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” they should have named it “The Tax and Jobs Cut Act of 2017.”
—Patrick
—Patrick
#189
@Li3n
Also, if they really wanted to encourage them to trickle it down on the masses, they'd make laws that give tax breaks for investing the profits back into the firms instead of just regular tax cuts. Not that most taxes i know of usually tax profits, and not operating income, which has teh same effect.
@Li3n
Small counterpoint to the keep taxes low and rich people will shower the wealth down upon the unworthy.
It's like people invest money in their business only if it makes them more money, and not just because they have cash lying around...Verizon, too.
I know we talked about the upcoming AT&T layoffs (but can’t find it), because my BIL is one of the people who got laid off. 10-15yrs service? Who cares, take a hike, enjoy unemployment.
—Patrick
Also, if they really wanted to encourage them to trickle it down on the masses, they'd make laws that give tax breaks for investing the profits back into the firms instead of just regular tax cuts. Not that most taxes i know of usually tax profits, and not operating income, which has teh same effect.
#190
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.It's like people invest money in their business only if it makes them more money, and not just because they have cash lying around...
—Patrick
#191
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.
—Patrick
#192
Tress
Holy shit.
That might be the most boneheaded move I’ve ever heard from a company.
Tress
Initially I had no idea what you were talking about, so I hopped over to Google for info.Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.
Holy shit.
That might be the most boneheaded move I’ve ever heard from a company.
#193
@Li3n
@Li3n
It’s one thing to trim fat, cut dead weight, etc. it’s another to replace experienced employees with greenhorns just to cut your payroll budget.
—Patrick
"That's next quarter's problem." - golden parachute having motherfucker...Just Ask Circuit City. Oh, wait. You can't. Because firing all the most experienced people then telling them they could reapply at starting wages was one of the things that killed the company.
#194
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
This is pretty much what's killed Barnes & Noble too. Fire associates making over a certain paygrade, tell them to reapply at starting wages.Initially I had no idea what you were talking about, so I hopped over to Google for info.
Holy shit.
That might be the most boneheaded move I’ve ever heard from a company.
#195
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
That's how I stopped working for Verizon.This is pretty much what's killed Barnes & Noble too. Fire associates making over a certain paygrade, tell them to reapply at starting wages.
#196
PatrThom
PatrThom
I mean, a few more advances in mesh networking and we won’t NEED telecoms for anything other than hooking the continents together.
—Patrick
—Patrick
#197
Eriol
And that's the labour market. Like any supply/demand, unlimited supply or unlimited demand leads to many getting screwed. Unlimited demand means wages rise, and workers benefit, and "owners/companies" (whatever your term) can't fleece employees, but also often leads to increased prices, and/or decreased margins, where some businesses can't cope. Also fewer businesses see it as "worth it" to start up. Unlimited supply means that wages freeze (or decline), and the workers are exploited, because nobody has job security.
Skilled labour more-or-less (depending on whom you ask) regulates itself via availability. Unskilled labour and the "supply" of such is a "politically charged" topic right now. A country can have too much of it, but rarely can it have too little.
Eriol
Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Company A vs Company B. Company A does stupid shit, goes out of business. Company B doesn't, stays in business. Where it breaks down is when you have an unhealthy labour market, where people are scrambling for any job possible, and thus abusing your workers is "fine" because there's always more who can be abused. Unlimited labour supply means that you are only worth something if you have a skill, and you'd better hope that your skills are better than somebody else's.This is pretty much what's killed Barnes & Noble too. Fire associates making over a certain paygrade, tell them to reapply at starting wages.
And that's the labour market. Like any supply/demand, unlimited supply or unlimited demand leads to many getting screwed. Unlimited demand means wages rise, and workers benefit, and "owners/companies" (whatever your term) can't fleece employees, but also often leads to increased prices, and/or decreased margins, where some businesses can't cope. Also fewer businesses see it as "worth it" to start up. Unlimited supply means that wages freeze (or decline), and the workers are exploited, because nobody has job security.
Skilled labour more-or-less (depending on whom you ask) regulates itself via availability. Unskilled labour and the "supply" of such is a "politically charged" topic right now. A country can have too much of it, but rarely can it have too little.
#198
Tress
Tress
Having too little labor also leads to lower customer service and/or employee work ethic. If you know that you won't be fired because the company is desperate to keep workers, you won't feel pressure to actually work hard.
Admittedly this is a very rare circumstance overall.
Admittedly this is a very rare circumstance overall.
#199
Bubble181
Bubble181
Also, automation throws a wrench in the whole thing...unskilled labor is first to be replaced. The USA has always had cheap labor, comparatively (you have people bagging groceries ffs!). We've talked about such differences before here - Belgium is an example of a much more expensive labor market (partially because of the unions), and as a result, much more labor gets replaced by much more machines much faster. We've got plenty of highly educated people, and one engineer is cheaper than ten unskilled workers. Great for the higher educated people, but lower education people, including but certainly not limited to a majority of immigrants, suffer as a result.
#200
@Li3n
Also, Ford had this shit figured out like 80+ years ago... pay people enough money to buy your shit, which makes the other monkeys want to buy your shit too...
@Li3n
Luckily, there's finally a solution:Where it breaks down is when you have an unhealthy labour market, where people are scrambling for any job possible, and thus abusing your workers is "fine" because there's always more who can be abused.
Also, Ford had this shit figured out like 80+ years ago... pay people enough money to buy your shit, which makes the other monkeys want to buy your shit too...
#201
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”The USA has always had cheap labor, comparatively (you have people bagging groceries ffs!).
—Patrick
#202
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
As someone who manages a grocery store, you are welcome to come down to Florida and push in as many carts as you want.I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”
—Patrick
#203
Eriol
Eriol
I will again mention how I was practically booed for bringing a shopping cart into the store from the lot, with someone actually rebuking me because: “People get paid to do that, why are you depriving them of work?”
As somebody who worked in high school at a grocery store for a few years, I would also encourage you to continue this practice. Or at least keep putting carts into the corrals. The "rogue carts" across the lot are a huge pain in the ass.As someone who manages a grocery store, you are welcome to come down to Florida and push in as many carts as you want.
#204
D
Dubyamn
As for the rest of your point which I foolishly deleted rather than just quote off to the side. I don't think that has ever been the case. I mean the history of labor in America has always been one of exploitation and degradation. Up until unions were formed to negotiate and laws were put in place to insure workers rights.
D
Dubyamn
Sometimes staying in business isn't even the point. Much of the time the point is to suck all the money out of the company and put it in the owner's pocket IE: Toys R Us and Sears. Which is just terrible for the company but a huge payout for the vulture capital company and the executives that receive big bonuses to drive it into the dirt and sell it.Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Company A vs Company B. Company A does stupid shit, goes out of business. Company B doesn't, stays in business.
As for the rest of your point which I foolishly deleted rather than just quote off to the side. I don't think that has ever been the case. I mean the history of labor in America has always been one of exploitation and degradation. Up until unions were formed to negotiate and laws were put in place to insure workers rights.
#205
PatrThom
So many "corporate takeovers" aren't takeovers in the sense that the people doing the takeover want their shot at running the company. They're takeovers because the company has XXmillion dollars in cash with expected YYmillion revenue in the next year (or so), BUT controlling interest in the company can be acquired for significantly less than XX+YY, so the takeover folks buy the company for (XX+YY)/2 or whatever, and then spend the remainder of that company's life just putting as much of that money into their or their friends' pockets as possible until it runs out, at which point they just toss the empty wrapper aside and hunt for their next victim.
--Patrick
PatrThom
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.Sometimes staying in business isn't even the point. Much of the time the point is to suck all the money out of the company and put it in the owner's pocket
So many "corporate takeovers" aren't takeovers in the sense that the people doing the takeover want their shot at running the company. They're takeovers because the company has XXmillion dollars in cash with expected YYmillion revenue in the next year (or so), BUT controlling interest in the company can be acquired for significantly less than XX+YY, so the takeover folks buy the company for (XX+YY)/2 or whatever, and then spend the remainder of that company's life just putting as much of that money into their or their friends' pockets as possible until it runs out, at which point they just toss the empty wrapper aside and hunt for their next victim.
--Patrick
#206
GasBandit
GasBandit
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS.
So many "corporate takeovers" aren't takeovers in the sense that the people doing the takeover want their shot at running the company. They're takeovers because the company has XXmillion dollars in cash with expected YYmillion revenue in the next year (or so), BUT controlling interest in the company can be acquired for significantly less than XX+YY, so the takeover folks buy the company for (XX+YY)/2 or whatever, and then spend the remainder of that company's life just putting as much of that money into their or their friends' pockets as possible until it runs out, at which point they just toss the empty wrapper aside and hunt for their next victim.
--Patrick
#208
PatrThom
PatrThom
American export of human blood and blood products now exceeds that of all corn or soy by value.
Talk about "bleeding the poor dry."
--Patrick
Talk about "bleeding the poor dry."
--Patrick
#209
@Li3n
@Li3n
Trade wars are so easy to win, you guys... i'm just going to need some of your blood though....American export of blood and blood products now exceeds that of all corn or soy by value.
Talk about "bleeding the poor dry."
--Patrick
#210
figmentPez
figmentPez
Just so no one skips this article thinking it's animal blood. No, this is human blood. Most commonly plasma. Other countries have banned paying people to donate plasma, on ethical grounds, but are still perfectly happy to buy from US companies that are doing unethical shit for them.American export of blood and blood products now exceeds that of all corn or soy by value.
Talk about "bleeding the poor dry."
#211
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
You know, I didn't realize I wasn't clear. I'm-a fix that.Just so no one skips this article thinking it's animal blood. No, this is human blood.
--Patrick
#212
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Also don't forget that time Bayer knowingly sold hiv-infected blood to third world countries because they would lose too much money destroying it
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/
#213
@Li3n
Fuckers...
@Li3n
Oh right, and they killed Asimov too.Also don't forget that time Bayer knowingly sold hiv-infected blood to third world countries because they would lose too much money destroying it
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24785997/
Fuckers...
#214
PatrThom
And I'd vote for him, too.
--Patrick
PatrThom
If he were still alive today, he'd be 99yrs old.Oh right, and they killed Asimov too.
Fuckers...
And I'd vote for him, too.
--Patrick
#215
mikerc
mikerc
Are you a FTSE 100 CEO? Do you work 09:00 - 17:00 Monday to Friday? Did you go back to work after the New Year on Thursday 2nd Jan? If you answered "yes" to all of the above then congratulations your pay so far this year is greater than the average full time employee will be paid over the entirety of 2020.
#216
PatrThom
And then there's also this rather interesting thread on reddit:
Why should any American company ever act responsibly again?
--Patrick
PatrThom
The following tweet's been going around since Fall of last year, and if it doesn't demonstrate the idea of "imbalance," I don't know what else would:Are you a FTSE 100 CEO? Do you work 09:00 - 17:00 Monday to Friday? Did you go back to work after the New Year on Thursday 2nd Jan? If you answered "yes" to all of the above then congratulations your pay so far this year is greater than the average full time employee will be paid over the entirety of 2020.
And then there's also this rather interesting thread on reddit:
Why should any American company ever act responsibly again?
The comments are pretty rant-y (and Boeing shows up a lot), but there are other comments which are actually insightful.Whats the point of good corporate governance and fiscal responsibility? The companies that leveraged themselves to the moon, did stock buybacks to hyper-inflate their stock price, live on constant debt instead of good balance sheets are now being bailed out by unlimited QE. Free money to cover your mistakes. Why would anyone run a good business ever again? Just cheat and scheme and get bailed out later.
--Patrick
#217
PatrThom
PatrThom
To continue pointing people to reddit threads:
Fed should pay every American more, let hedge funds and billionaires ‘get wiped out,’ says Social Capital CEO
Some good stuff in this thread as well, such as a link to the Velocity of money.
--Patrick
Fed should pay every American more, let hedge funds and billionaires ‘get wiped out,’ says Social Capital CEO
And in case you were wondering about the math, $2 trillion / US population = just over $6000/person.Palihapitiya argued that rather [than] giving workers relatively small $1,200 checks, the U.S. would be better off giving everyone larger payments directly, and skip businesses entirely. “What we’ve done is disproportionately prop up poor-performing CEOs and boards, and you have to wash these people out,” he said.
Some good stuff in this thread as well, such as a link to the Velocity of money.
--Patrick
#218
@Li3n
@Li3n
C'mon guys, it's just feudalism's turn again...
#219
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Well we're at the plague stage, so I guess we only have about another hundred years or so left before it's over.C'mon guys, it's just feudalism's turn again...
--Patrick
#220
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I've already been reading stuff from Pro-Feudalism Right Libertarians. They're concerned the "Event" came sooner than they predicted and that they don't have the means to control their workers (mind control devices, electroshock collars, robot workforce, etc...) that they predicted would exist by now and might be held accountable for their actions by the mob if they try anything. It's some weird, chilling shit... there are a lot of very rich people with some very fucked up world views.C'mon guys, it's just feudalism's turn again...
#222
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
By the sound of it, people who believe some lives are worth significantly more than others, and that the rest are just downright expendable, possibly even considered as nothing more than livestock.The what now?
—Patrick
#223
AshburnerX
Here's an article that talks briefly about it, but I'll just quote the relevant bit.
AshburnerX
Kinda? It's mostly hedge-fund managers believing some "Event" will destroy civilization as we know it and are making plans to basically escape it and lock the door behind them. It's basically a doomsday cult, but the religion is worship of the almighty dollar.By the sound of it, people who believe some lives are worth significantly more than others, and that the rest are just downright expendable, possibly even considered as nothing more than livestock.
—Patrick
Here's an article that talks briefly about it, but I'll just quote the relevant bit.
To paraphrase the article: these are people who see Humanity's free will as a bug and not a feature. They want to live like kings and are making plans not only to do it, but to force us to comply.After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology. They had come with questions of their own.
They started out innocuously enough. Ethereum or bitcoin? Is quantum computing a real thing? Slowly but surely, however, they edged into their real topics of concern.
Which region will be less impacted by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? Is Google really building Ray Kurzweil a home for his brain, and will his consciousness live through the transition, or will it die and be reborn as a whole new one? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”
The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr. Robot hack that takes everything down.
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time.
That’s when it hit me: At least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the aging process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape.
#224
PatrThom
Money/It's a hit/Don't give me that do goody-good bullshit
--Patrick
PatrThom
Money/Get back/I'm all right Jack/Keep your hands off of my stackIt's basically a doomsday cult, but the religion is worship of the almighty dollar.
Money/It's a hit/Don't give me that do goody-good bullshit
--Patrick
#225
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Historically these are the people who eventually get their head cut off by an angry mobKinda? It's mostly hedge-fund managers believing some "Event" will destroy civilization as we know it and are making plans to basically escape it and lock the door behind them. It's basically a doomsday cult, but the religion is worship of the almighty dollar.
Here's an article that talks briefly about it, but I'll just quote the relevant bit.
To paraphrase the article: these are people who see Humanity's free will as a bug and not a feature. They want to live like kings and are making plans not only to do it, but to force us to comply.
#226
@Li3n
Yeah, it's really great that you can ensure none of them accidentally live.
@Li3n
Heh, i love this quote: The living individual will be hooked up to a machine which pumps them with embalming chemicals, a method which is “100 per cent fatal” the company claimed.Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers,
Yeah, it's really great that you can ensure none of them accidentally live.
#227
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Apparently the richest people have been making out like bandits while 60,000 of their fellow Americans die. And while in Bezos' case he fails to provide a safe working environment for his employees.
#228
Bubble181
Bubble181
Not exactly surprising.Apparently the richest people have been making out like bandits while 60,000 of their fellow Americans die. And while in Bezos' case he fails to provide a safe working environment for his employees.
#229
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Speaking of Bezos, there is an effective visualization of Bezos' wealth on GitHub called "1-pixel-wealth" that's been making the rounds recently. It does a good job of illustrating the inequity visually rather than via incomprehensible numbers. Towards the end it veers off into territory that even _I_ think smells a bit like L'Eau d'Wealth Envy, but I gotta say I agree completely with the overall message.Apparently the richest people have been making out like bandits while 60,000 of their fellow Americans die. And while in Bezos' case he fails to provide a safe working environment for his employees.
--Patrick
#230
Bubble181
Bubble181
Nobody will ever accuse me of being a communist (I'm considered right wing scum by Belgian standards), but yes, this complete imbalance, which has grown enormously over the last 20-30 years, simply isn't reasonable or healthy anymore.
One main issue, of course, is defining wealth - and worthy causes. Let's consider a world where president Bernie does this...what stops a next generation Trump from doing the same simply to line his own pockets? What stops a next generation president Lenin from confiscating 80% of everything over $1 million?
It's definitely unequal and unjust - but that doesn't mean a solution is simple.
One main issue, of course, is defining wealth - and worthy causes. Let's consider a world where president Bernie does this...what stops a next generation Trump from doing the same simply to line his own pockets? What stops a next generation president Lenin from confiscating 80% of everything over $1 million?
It's definitely unequal and unjust - but that doesn't mean a solution is simple.
#231
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
What's supposed to stop them (besides having a dang conscience, that is!) is the constant specter hanging over them of being ousted when they screw up. By the People, by the Senate, by whatever. But unfortunately the ability of the People has been eroded via things like Gerrymandering, the Senate has chosen to sit on their hands while turning a blind eye (a convoluted posture if ever there was one), and the end result is what we've been seeing--lack of transparency, outright grift, rampant cronyism, the trampling of personal rights and segregation of "undesirables," and all that.what stops a next generation [this]? What stops a next generation [that]?
--Patrick
#232
GasBandit
GasBandit
Did we ever get resolution on my simple capitalism-except idea, where basically every year the person with the largest net worth is killed? The idea was a race to put as much into charitable giving as possible...
#233
PatrThom
PatrThom
We did not, and it will never be implemented.
Because everyone voting on such a plan is going to vote "No," because they all think they are "temporarily inconvenienced" and will someday rise to be that person on top.
--Patrick
Because everyone voting on such a plan is going to vote "No," because they all think they are "temporarily inconvenienced" and will someday rise to be that person on top.
--Patrick
#234
PatrThom
PatrThom
Sixpackshaker‘s post in another thread...
My wife likes to say that some things are SO obvious that one wonders why anyone would waste money funding a study to prove them. To those people, she says, “Because no matter how obvious something might be, there are still gonna be people who aren’t gonna believe it until after there’s some kinda study that proves it. And maybe not even then.”
—Patrick
...reminded me of this recently published study (PDF Link). 50 years of data over 18 countries, and what was their conclusion?Can we try trickle up voodoo economics for 50 years?
In other words, the only measurable result of cutting taxes for the rich was that it increased the income/wealth of the richest 1% of the population. It had no measurable effect on any of the economies studied (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States).Our results show that…major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform. The magnitude of the effect is sizeable; on average, each major reform leads to a rise in top 1% share of pre-tax national income of 0.8 percentage points. The results also show that economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich. The estimated effects for these variables are statistically indistinguishable from zero.
My wife likes to say that some things are SO obvious that one wonders why anyone would waste money funding a study to prove them. To those people, she says, “Because no matter how obvious something might be, there are still gonna be people who aren’t gonna believe it until after there’s some kinda study that proves it. And maybe not even then.”
—Patrick
#235
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Better idea. There are less than 3000 billionaires in the world. Now, that's a large number, but with a sharp enough guillotine doable in a weekendDid we ever get resolution on my simple capitalism-except idea, where basically every year the person with the largest net worth is killed? The idea was a race to put as much into charitable giving as possible...
#236
bhamv3
bhamv3
I am genuinely horrified by all these, seemingly serious, suggestions that we murder the rich, without a single person speaking up that we should eat the rich too. I mean, wasting all that good meat? For shame!
#237
GasBandit
GasBandit
Too fatty. I can't deal with the grease anymore, I need lean meat.I am genuinely horrified by all these, seemingly serious, suggestions that we murder the rich, without a single person speaking up that we should eat the rich too. I mean, wasting all that good meat? For shame!
#238
bhamv3
bhamv3
Rich people can afford personal trainers.Too fatty. I can't deal with the grease anymore, I need lean meat.
#239
chris
chris
Only if you want an upset stomach thanks to food poisoning. Most are rotten to the core.I am genuinely horrified by all these, seemingly serious, suggestions that we murder the rich, without a single person speaking up that we should eat the rich too. I mean, wasting all that good meat? For shame!
#240
Bubble181
Bubble181
While I'm not overly concerned er enjoy the fat content, I worry most of them contain way too many microplastics for digestion.
#241
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
yeet the rich
#242
PatrThom
source
PatrThom
source
--Patrick"We get hundreds of calls every single day," said Dr Ehsan Ali, who runs Beverly Hills Concierge Doctor. His clients, who include Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber, pay between $US2000 ($2654) and $US10,000 a year for personalised care. "This is the first time where I have not been able to get something for my patients."
#243
blotsfan
blotsfan
$2000-$10000 a year doesn't seem like a lot given who they are and the USA.
#244
PatrThom
You know, like a poll tax.
--Patrick
PatrThom
The price itself doesn't really matter, it only needs to be set juuuust high enough to keep it inaccessible to the majority of the population.$2000-$10000 a year doesn't seem like a lot given who they are and the USA.
You know, like a poll tax.
--Patrick
#245
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Yeah, this is what my former doctor is doing now. After years of providing care to the West Side (where we don't have a lot of general practitioners anymore), she moved to Hillard with a handful of other GPs to play concierge to the rich and elite of Columbus.
#246
figmentPez
figmentPez
One of the arguments against raising minimum wage has perpetually been "But it'll raise food prices, you'll pay more for a Big Mac!"
Only three countries in the world pay more for their Big Macs than the US does. Among the countries that pay less are many who have higher minimum wages than the US. Including Denmark which has a minimum wage for fast food workers (who are unionized) of ~$20 US.
How much less is Denmark paying for Big Macs, despite paying them a lot more than the $15 an hour everyone is worrying about? Big Macs in the US averaged $5.71 in the US for 2020, in Denmark they went for $4.58. Big Macs made by $20 an hour labor are 59¢ cheaper!
Only three countries in the world pay more for their Big Macs than the US does. Among the countries that pay less are many who have higher minimum wages than the US. Including Denmark which has a minimum wage for fast food workers (who are unionized) of ~$20 US.
How much less is Denmark paying for Big Macs, despite paying them a lot more than the $15 an hour everyone is worrying about? Big Macs in the US averaged $5.71 in the US for 2020, in Denmark they went for $4.58. Big Macs made by $20 an hour labor are 59¢ cheaper!
#247
Tress
Tress
I had this same argument with someone I know. They believed that the costs of any minimum wage hike will immediately be passed onto the consumer, and somehow that would actually hurt the lower class more. I pointed out that if you jack up the prices of things like fast food, their sales will drop and the companies will lose even more. So corporations will probably do the smart thing and just leave prices the same. A Big Mac is not suddenly going to cost $11 dollars, and if it did people are going to go to Wendy’s instead.
I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.
I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.
#248
Celt Z
Celt Z
I think this has been mentioned here before but it bears repeating: the cost of things continued to go up while minimum wage remained stagnant for the past, what, 30 years? They've BEEN passing on the cost of things to the consumer regardless of the cost of employees. We've gotten into this mess because greedy people have been getting away with this con.
#249
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
People who have this argument have no understanding of economics. The price you pay is generally not influenced by the cost of the thing to make. Price is decided based on where the company will make the most profit. For example the 25% tariff on goods imported from China I haven't seen the price for any good in my life jump by 25% because such a jump would lead people to not buy as much and they would lose profit.I had this same argument with someone I know. They believed that the costs of any minimum wage hike will immediately be passed onto the consumer, and somehow that would actually hurt the lower class more. I pointed out that if you jack up the prices of things like fast food, their sales will drop and the companies will lose even more. So corporations will probably do the smart thing and just leave prices the same. A Big Mac is not suddenly going to cost $11 dollars, and if it did people are going to go to Wendy’s instead.
I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.
#250
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
2020: These people are ESSENTIAL WORKERS and are heroes, risking their own health to save our economy.
2021: Fuck no they don't deserve $15/hour
2021: Fuck no they don't deserve $15/hour
#251
figmentPez
figmentPez
My mom put forth the most bizarre argument I've ever heard against raising the minimum wage. She said she read an article by a reporter who tried to find people living on working minimum wage jobs and couldn't find anyone. Apparently she says that everyone she interviewed said that they were making more than minimum wage and thus it was a myth that we need a minimum wage at all. Which is the biggest fucking strawman argument I have ever come across, and I'm also calling bullshit that she couldn't find anyone who has had to get by on a minimum wage job. This wasn't a reporter who set out to find the truth, this was someone looking for propaganda.
Wow, there's high turnover in jobs that don't pay enough? Wow, tell me something that shouldn't be fucking obvious. And, no, it's not high turnover because the people don't deserve more money. People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.
Wow, there's high turnover in jobs that don't pay enough? Wow, tell me something that shouldn't be fucking obvious. And, no, it's not high turnover because the people don't deserve more money. People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.
#252
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Tell your mom, with every bit of disrespect I can muster, "Right here! RIGHT FUCKING HERE!!"My mom put forth the most bizarre argument I've ever heard against raising the minimum wage. She said she read an article by a reporter who tried to find people living on working minimum wage jobs and couldn't find anyone. Apparently she says that everyone she interviewed said that they were making more than minimum wage and thus it was a myth that we need a minimum wage at all. Which is the biggest fucking strawman argument I have ever come across, and I'm also calling bullshit that she couldn't find anyone who has had to get by on a minimum wage job. This wasn't a reporter who set out to find the truth, this was someone looking for propaganda.
Wow, there's high turnover in jobs that don't pay enough? Wow, tell me something that shouldn't be fucking obvious. And, no, it's not high turnover because the people don't deserve more money. People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.
#253
TommiR
People talk about how such an increase in wages will bring in more business, and make the employees more diligent and loyal, and decrease employee turnover. I hope they are right, and the trade-off will be worth it to the small businesses.
TommiR
A multi-billion dollar corporation might be able to eat the cost if necessary. I'm more worried about the small mom-and-pop businesses that do not have such deep pockets, where labour costs usually make up a higher percentage, and who do not have the pricing power to offset such an increase in expenses. And that increase might not be limited only to labor costs, as any suppliers might also be affected by the wage hike and come under pressure to increase their prices.I’m getting tired of hearing corporations making 7 billion dollars in profits whine about how they’ll somehow be ruined if they make 6.5 billion instead.
People talk about how such an increase in wages will bring in more business, and make the employees more diligent and loyal, and decrease employee turnover. I hope they are right, and the trade-off will be worth it to the small businesses.
I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.I think this has been mentioned here before but it bears repeating: the cost of things continued to go up while minimum wage remained stagnant for the past, what, 30 years? They've BEEN passing on the cost of things to the consumer regardless of the cost of employees. We've gotten into this mess because greedy people have been getting away with this con.
Worth, or value, is quite subjective I think. I presume you are talking living wage levels of minimum wage here. While I can understand the appeal of the concept of every working person enjoying a decent (as opposed to merely passable) standard of living, my main concern with above-market-rate minimum wage like arrangements is that they constitute price controls, which have their own challenges as they often result in market inefficiencies. Linked to that is that a minimum wage may disproportionally impact the most vulnerable, those who do not possess much in the way of marketable skills, as the cost may incentivise employers to seek labor saving alternatives to hiring people for low-skilled jobs.People shouldn't have to prove that they're worthy of earning enough to live. Every human being's time is worth, at minimum, enough for them to live off of.
#254
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
IDGAF about economics lectures. I should not have to try to live on $25 for two weeks after I make my rent payment. If I had to pay utilities, I'd be completely fucked.
#255
Bubble181
Bubble181
Well that's the thing, isn't it? By now, in many parts of the USA, the minimum wage doesn't even get you to the "merely passable" standard of living anymore. I don't think anyone really thinks minimum wage should guarantee you a three bedroom house, a car, two vacations abroad a year, and yearly splurges.
#256
Celt Z
Celt Z
The article you linked to shows an average hourly wage, not the minimum wage, which is $2 an hour less than the numbers you're using.I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.
#257
PatrThom
And the usual rejoinder to that is that no mom-n-pop is ever going to be able to pay out sufficient wages for its employees to be able to provide for a family, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education, retirement, etc., especially when that business is first starting out, though then the immediate response to this should really be... why should it have to? The only reason that "a living wage" is so high to start with is because we have the notion that it is employers who are expected to shoulder this entire "wage" burden. If government were to assume the burden of the cost of a universal need* such as healthcare, for instance, then the amount required to achieve a "living" wage would be reduced.
Deriding businesses for "not paying a living wage" (or forcing them to short-change employees or else go bankrupt) while at the same time ensuring that the threshold for said living wage is set so high is effectively just an end run to ensure that there exists a barrier to entry for new businesses high enough that already-established businesses will see no new competition unless that competition is backed/funded by another already-established business (or its heirs).
In other words, only jacking up the minimum wage without also shifting some of that cost over to government is just going to magnify the influence of big corporations, drive more consolidation, shrink the market even more, etc. So when you hear those people saying, "What America needs is more small businesses!" it's because extant corporations want to eat them.
--Patrick
*and really, what is a government's raison d'être if not to handle its population's universal needs?
PatrThom
The usual rejoinder to this is that "...no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." Which is not to say that mom-n-pop businesses shouldn't exist, nor that Mom and Pop should be prohibited from starting their own business, but rather that they should not go into business in the first place unless they will be able to provide a living wage to their employees.I'm more worried about the small mom-and-pop businesses that do not have such deep pockets, [...] and who do not have the pricing power to offset such an increase in expenses.
And the usual rejoinder to that is that no mom-n-pop is ever going to be able to pay out sufficient wages for its employees to be able to provide for a family, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education, retirement, etc., especially when that business is first starting out, though then the immediate response to this should really be... why should it have to? The only reason that "a living wage" is so high to start with is because we have the notion that it is employers who are expected to shoulder this entire "wage" burden. If government were to assume the burden of the cost of a universal need* such as healthcare, for instance, then the amount required to achieve a "living" wage would be reduced.
Deriding businesses for "not paying a living wage" (or forcing them to short-change employees or else go bankrupt) while at the same time ensuring that the threshold for said living wage is set so high is effectively just an end run to ensure that there exists a barrier to entry for new businesses high enough that already-established businesses will see no new competition unless that competition is backed/funded by another already-established business (or its heirs).
In other words, only jacking up the minimum wage without also shifting some of that cost over to government is just going to magnify the influence of big corporations, drive more consolidation, shrink the market even more, etc. So when you hear those people saying, "What America needs is more small businesses!" it's because extant corporations want to eat them.
--Patrick
*and really, what is a government's raison d'être if not to handle its population's universal needs?
#258
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I would question your understanding.I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.
#259
figmentPez
Just what jobs are dragging that average up over $24? Because I can't think of any common jobs that could drag all those up.
Wait, what are the most common jobs in the US?
Most common jobs in the US, and their national average hourly wage
1. Cashier $10.84 per hour
2. Food preparation worker $11.38 per hour
3. Janitor $11.60 per hour
4. Bartender $11.64 per hour
5. Server $11.72 per hour
6. Retail sales associate $12.17 per hour
7. Stocking associate $12.72 per hour
8. Laborer $13.13 per hour
9. Customer service representative $13.41 per hour
10. Office clerk $13.84 per hour
11. Administrative assistant $14.82 per hour
12. Line supervisor $15.08 per hour
13. Medical assistant $15.36 per hour
14. Construction worker $15.55 per hour
15. Bookkeeper $17.97 per hour
16. Mechanic $20.27 per hour
17. Carpenter $21.67 per hour
18. Electrician $26.45 per hour
Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.
What that tells me is that there are some very high paying jobs down the list that only a few people have, but are outliers that are skewing the average. Then consider that the 1970s number of $23.24 (adjusted) also came with an (adjusted) minimum wage of something like $9.46, which is about 30% higher than $7.25 we currently have.
So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.
figmentPez
So, if we're to believe that the average employee is making nearly $24 an hour, but we also know that the average fast food worker is only earning $11 and the average factory worker is only earning $14, and the average office worker is only making $14, and the average janitor is making $15, and the average restaurant wait staff is only making $9... telemarketer $11, grocery store worker $13, construction $18...I understand that average real hourly wages in the US haven't really declined over the long haul, though, so the average american can buy about the same with their hourly wage today as they could before. Now, it may be true that real wage growth has fallen behind economic growth, but the discussion as to why is perhaps a bigger one than I'm willing to get into at the moment.
Just what jobs are dragging that average up over $24? Because I can't think of any common jobs that could drag all those up.
Wait, what are the most common jobs in the US?
Most common jobs in the US, and their national average hourly wage
1. Cashier $10.84 per hour
2. Food preparation worker $11.38 per hour
3. Janitor $11.60 per hour
4. Bartender $11.64 per hour
5. Server $11.72 per hour
6. Retail sales associate $12.17 per hour
7. Stocking associate $12.72 per hour
8. Laborer $13.13 per hour
9. Customer service representative $13.41 per hour
10. Office clerk $13.84 per hour
11. Administrative assistant $14.82 per hour
12. Line supervisor $15.08 per hour
13. Medical assistant $15.36 per hour
14. Construction worker $15.55 per hour
15. Bookkeeper $17.97 per hour
16. Mechanic $20.27 per hour
17. Carpenter $21.67 per hour
18. Electrician $26.45 per hour
Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.
What that tells me is that there are some very high paying jobs down the list that only a few people have, but are outliers that are skewing the average. Then consider that the 1970s number of $23.24 (adjusted) also came with an (adjusted) minimum wage of something like $9.46, which is about 30% higher than $7.25 we currently have.
So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.
#260
@Li3n
@Li3n
#261
jwhouk
jwhouk
When unions bargained away automatic COLA increases in the 70's and 80's in lieu of keeping their jobs, we lost the connection between what a person makes and what they need to live on. And the genie's not going back in the bottle.
#262
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
If only there was research on the effect raising the minimum wage had on unemployment rates. But why would anybody actually research such a subject?Worth, or value, is quite subjective I think. I presume you are talking living wage levels of minimum wage here. While I can understand the appeal of the concept of every working person enjoying a decent (as opposed to merely passable) standard of living, my main concern with above-market-rate minimum wage like arrangements is that they constitute price controls, which have their own challenges as they often result in market inefficiencies. Linked to that is that a minimum wage may disproportionally impact the most vulnerable, those who do not possess much in the way of marketable skills, as the cost may incentivise employers to seek labor saving alternatives to hiring people for low-skilled jobs.
#263
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
My wife is a manager at her job, and she doesn't even make $24/hour. And she's at the cap imposed by the business for her position.So, if we're to believe that the average employee is making nearly $24 an hour, but we also know that the average fast food worker is only earning $11 and the average factory worker is only earning $14, and the average office worker is only making $14, and the average janitor is making $15, and the average restaurant wait staff is only making $9... telemarketer $11, grocery store worker $13, construction $18...
Just what jobs are dragging that average up over $24? Because I can't think of any common jobs that could drag all those up.
Wait, what are the most common jobs in the US?
Most common jobs in the US, and their national average hourly wage
1. Cashier $10.84 per hour
2. Food preparation worker $11.38 per hour
3. Janitor $11.60 per hour
4. Bartender $11.64 per hour
5. Server $11.72 per hour
6. Retail sales associate $12.17 per hour
7. Stocking associate $12.72 per hour
8. Laborer $13.13 per hour
9. Customer service representative $13.41 per hour
10. Office clerk $13.84 per hour
11. Administrative assistant $14.82 per hour
12. Line supervisor $15.08 per hour
13. Medical assistant $15.36 per hour
14. Construction worker $15.55 per hour
15. Bookkeeper $17.97 per hour
16. Mechanic $20.27 per hour
17. Carpenter $21.67 per hour
18. Electrician $26.45 per hour
Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.
What that tells me is that there are some very high paying jobs down the list that only a few people have, but are outliers that are skewing the average. Then consider that the 1970s number of $23.24 (adjusted) also came with an (adjusted) minimum wage of something like $9.46, which is about 30% higher than $7.25 we currently have.
So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.
#264
Tinwhistler
www.epi.org
Tinwhistler
State of Working America Wages 2019: A story of slow, uneven, and unequal wage growth over the last 40 years
Rising wage inequality and slow and uneven hourly wage growth for the vast majority of workers have been defining features of the U.S. labor market for the last four decades, despite steady (if too slow) productivity growth. In only 10 of the last 40 years did most workers see any consistent...
www.epi.org
- Slow wage growth persists: Consistent positive wage growth has occurred in only 10 of the last 40 years.
- Inequality continues: The highest earners (95th percentile) continue to pull away from middle- and low-wage workers.
- Policy matters: Wage growth at the bottom was strongest in states with minimum wage increases in 2019.
- Black–white wage gaps persist: In 2019, black wages exceeded their 2000 and 2007 levels across the wage distribution for the first time in this recovery. Even so, black–white wage gaps are significantly wider now than in 2000.
- Gender gaps defy educational attainment: Women with an advanced degree are paid, on average, less than men with a college degree.
- College graduates are losing ground: Wages for the bottom 50% of college graduates are lower today than they were in 2000.
Finally, we dispel some rather pervasive but uninformed myths about why wage growth has been so slow for most workers over the last 40 years. Slow wage growth cannot be explained away by positing education shortages, by including benefits and looking at total compensation, or by changing the price deflator (changing the way wages are adjusted for inflation). To the contrary, the potential for wage growth has been squandered on the very few at the top, leaving the vast majority of the U.S. workforce without economic power and the means to achieve a decent standard of living.
#265
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
In this town, hotel desk clerk is a minimum wage job. Hotel desk clerk with 10+ years experience is STILL a minimum wage job.
Which may explain why I run into so many people openly refusing to care about their work. But somehow I'm the asshole for calling them out on it.
Which may explain why I run into so many people openly refusing to care about their work. But somehow I'm the asshole for calling them out on it.
#266
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yes but now you can add "Essential Worker" to your résumé.In this town, hotel desk clerk is a minimum wage job. Hotel desk clerk with 10+ years experience is STILL a minimum wage job.
--Patrick
#267
TommiR
TommiR
Thank you all for your replies. I'll attempt to address your points in this same post.
I tend towards a similar approach when it comes to the choices people make on where to live. Accommodation tends to be one of the biggest expenses in those expensive-to-live areas. If one's income level is not sufficient to cover the cost of the place where one would like to live, then would it be possible to look at more affordable options more in the appropriate budget range? To move to a smaller apartment further out, or to rent a room in a shared accommodation arrangement or something?
Looking at the discussions on the subject on the interwebs, one might wonder. Sometimes it seems that the majority opinion holds that minimum wage should be sufficient to fund conveniences that essentially approach a middle-class lifestyle. I guess marketing has been rather successful in transforming wants into needs with some people.Well that's the thing, isn't it? By now, in many parts of the USA, the minimum wage doesn't even get you to the "merely passable" standard of living anymore. I don't think anyone really thinks minimum wage should guarantee you a three bedroom house, a car, two vacations abroad a year, and yearly splurges.
I tend towards a similar approach when it comes to the choices people make on where to live. Accommodation tends to be one of the biggest expenses in those expensive-to-live areas. If one's income level is not sufficient to cover the cost of the place where one would like to live, then would it be possible to look at more affordable options more in the appropriate budget range? To move to a smaller apartment further out, or to rent a room in a shared accommodation arrangement or something?
Yes, the development of the real average hourly wage over time. As I seem to understand, though the line has gone up and down over the years, taken as a whole system the wages paid in the US have retained their purchasing power so the average wage will buy roughly the same as it did in years before.The article you linked to shows an average hourly wage, not the minimum wage, which is $2 an hour less than the numbers you're using.
I agree with many points in your post. Though the discussion on the government's proper role in the labor marketplace is still ongoing, the effects of increasing automation on low-skilled and repeatable task jobs may require some form of intervention. We'll see what they come up with, but paving the way by making low-skilled workers even less employable by increasing the cost to employers seems, to me, to be an interesting approach.And the usual rejoinder to that is that no mom-n-pop is ever going to be able to pay out sufficient wages for its employees to be able to provide for a family, shelter, transportation, healthcare, education, retirement, etc., especially when that business is first starting out, though then the immediate response to this should really be... why should it have to? The only reason that "a living wage" is so high to start with is because we have the notion that it is employers who are expected to shoulder this entire "wage" burden. If government were to assume the burden of the cost of a universal need* such as healthcare, for instance, then the amount required to achieve a "living" wage would be reduced.[...]
*and really, what is a government's raison d'être if not to handle its population's universal needs?
Alright. Can you show me where I'm wrong?I would question your understanding.
If we look at the median hourly wage, meaning the wage where exactly half of the wage earners are making less and half are making more per hour, then in May 2019 it was $19.14. Which would mean number sixteen on your list. It would seem that the majority of hourly wages listed are quite little for the usual american.Eighteen! We had to get to number eighteen on the list before we got to a single job that pays more than $24 an hour. The top 5 don't even pay half of that.
By and large, the average hourly wage seems to have retained its purchasing power, however. As I understand, much of the reason for increasing cost of education have been public sector cutbacks, which represent a conscious decision by policy makers on funding priorities, while the costs of housing seem to be a rather complex matter. Neither of these are the fault of a normal business owner, who I do not think deserves to be forced to pay for them. Other solutions to address the causes behind those issues should be found.So, even aside from the fact that certain things have severely outpaced inflation, like housing and education, that average wage number really serves to illustrate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, even when you don't include executive salaries.
Indeed. If only the findings of the different studies said the same, then things might be much easier.If only there was research on the effect raising the minimum wage had on unemployment rates. But why would anybody actually research such a subject?
#268
figmentPez
You're ignoring the fact that those who are below fall much further below, and those that are above rise much higher. Income inequality exists and you are doing nothing to disprove it. Nor have you done anything to show that those earning the least are still able to afford a reasonable standard of living.
Here, an article on how those who earn a middle income are earning less of the overall income. The top 5% gained a lot of income, their purchasing power is skewing the graph so that it looks like purchasing power has remained steady, while many middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.
EDIT: Fixed a typo.
figmentPez
You do realize that the median being lower than the mean is a demonstration of how skewed the high end of data is, right? I don't know enough about statistics to tell you how significant the skew on this data set is, but you've basically said nothing of worth. Without a graph showing the curve of incomes, median and mean are both pretty damn useless.If we look at the median hourly wage, meaning the wage where exactly half of the wage earners are making less and half are making more per hour, then in May 2019 it was $19.14. Which would mean number sixteen on your list. It would seem that the majority of hourly wages listed are quite little for the usual american.
You're ignoring the fact that those who are below fall much further below, and those that are above rise much higher. Income inequality exists and you are doing nothing to disprove it. Nor have you done anything to show that those earning the least are still able to afford a reasonable standard of living.
Here, an article on how those who earn a middle income are earning less of the overall income. The top 5% gained a lot of income, their purchasing power is skewing the graph so that it looks like purchasing power has remained steady, while many middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.
EDIT: Fixed a typo.
#269
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
So my study was a real world study based on actual facts while yours is an unproven estimation.Indeed. If only the findings of the different studies said the same, then things might be much easier.
#270
Tinwhistler
That was around $600/month take home after taxes and stuff. Maybe a bit less. I could afford an apartment (granted in a shithole), utilities and food and not much else. Rent was $280/month. That left me 320 to pay utilities, eat, and afford a car. I paid about $150/month for car payments and insurance, and about $50.00/month in utilities leaving---$120 left over to eat, or about $30/week. I ate a lot of free food at Taco Bell. Didn't leave a lot left over for essentials like shampoo, toilet paper, etc. But I was an aggressive deals shopper, and often shopped at Fiesta where I could get crap sandwich bread at 2 loaves for a dollar. You could often get two dozen eggs for a dollar if you bought old ones. I ate a lot of egg sandwiches.
Minimum wage in Texas is now $7.50/hour. That's exactly double, as it so happens, to what I was making more than 30 years ago. Take home would be about $1175/month according to https://us.thetaxcalculator.net/hourly-wage-tax-calculator
Looking online, rent in that same shithole part of town is about $800/month. Notice that's more than double. That leaves 375 left over. Tell me that you can buy the same amount of stuff (car, insurance, food) with $375 these days as you could with $320 33 years ago.
Take a look there, and tell me if college rates have kept the same pace as inflation, and if it's as affordable now as it was in 1988 
Tinwhistler
I moved out of my parents house in 1987. I worked at Taco Bell making $3.75/hour. The minimum wage was $3.35/hour, but I had earned a couple of raises over the previous 3 years.I tend towards a similar approach when it comes to the choices people make on where to live. Accommodation tends to be one of the biggest expenses in those expensive-to-live areas. If one's income level is not sufficient to cover the cost of the place where one would like to live, then would it be possible to look at more affordable options more in the appropriate budget range? To move to a smaller apartment further out, or to rent a room in a shared accommodation arrangement or something?
That was around $600/month take home after taxes and stuff. Maybe a bit less. I could afford an apartment (granted in a shithole), utilities and food and not much else. Rent was $280/month. That left me 320 to pay utilities, eat, and afford a car. I paid about $150/month for car payments and insurance, and about $50.00/month in utilities leaving---$120 left over to eat, or about $30/week. I ate a lot of free food at Taco Bell. Didn't leave a lot left over for essentials like shampoo, toilet paper, etc. But I was an aggressive deals shopper, and often shopped at Fiesta where I could get crap sandwich bread at 2 loaves for a dollar. You could often get two dozen eggs for a dollar if you bought old ones. I ate a lot of egg sandwiches.
Minimum wage in Texas is now $7.50/hour. That's exactly double, as it so happens, to what I was making more than 30 years ago. Take home would be about $1175/month according to https://us.thetaxcalculator.net/hourly-wage-tax-calculator
Looking online, rent in that same shithole part of town is about $800/month. Notice that's more than double. That leaves 375 left over. Tell me that you can buy the same amount of stuff (car, insurance, food) with $375 these days as you could with $320 33 years ago.
Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution: 1964-65 through 2006-07
The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private...
nces.ed.gov
#271
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Just wanted to add: I'm a top 5 percenter. I've got a pretty comfortable life. But I remember very well when I didn't. It sucked, but was doable. And while living on near minimum wage sucked in 1988, I managed. I could have likely managed to squeeze in some college classes in there, too, if I'd made harder choices about other things in life. Looking at today's numbers for minimum wage workers, I can't even imagine how they'd manage even basic necessities, much less a car and a few college hours at the community college.
#272
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
One thing I never understood was all the blame on the people that suffer the most.
Not even talking about the jealous, "But I had to suffer why can't they suffer through it too!?" nonsense that some people have, but even going to things like raising the minimum wage, these assholes freak out how prices will go up. They don't question why they are going up, they just assume "the company has to pay more" and instead of looking up and seeing executives getting 40 million dollar sign on bonuses, they look down at the single mom working a double shift at McDonalds and Arbys while also having to get welfare just to survive, and call her a leech on society.
Guess what? The whole point of the free market is competition drives prices. McDonalds isn't going to raise your big mac by four dollars because they have to pay more money to employees, because Wendys might be able to only raise their cost by three dollars, and then Taco Bell finds out they only have to raise by two dollars, etc etc until equilibrium is reached. This is why other countries that saw minimum wage increases saw price increases of less then a dollar even in the worst cases. A population with more buying power is more important then your big mac being 50 cents cheaper.
Not even talking about the jealous, "But I had to suffer why can't they suffer through it too!?" nonsense that some people have, but even going to things like raising the minimum wage, these assholes freak out how prices will go up. They don't question why they are going up, they just assume "the company has to pay more" and instead of looking up and seeing executives getting 40 million dollar sign on bonuses, they look down at the single mom working a double shift at McDonalds and Arbys while also having to get welfare just to survive, and call her a leech on society.
Guess what? The whole point of the free market is competition drives prices. McDonalds isn't going to raise your big mac by four dollars because they have to pay more money to employees, because Wendys might be able to only raise their cost by three dollars, and then Taco Bell finds out they only have to raise by two dollars, etc etc until equilibrium is reached. This is why other countries that saw minimum wage increases saw price increases of less then a dollar even in the worst cases. A population with more buying power is more important then your big mac being 50 cents cheaper.
#273
Bubble181
Bubble181
Yes.
Now, however, there IS the thing that in the USA, there are still a LOT of human positions that have been replaced with robots/computers/other forms of automation in other countries. The higher minimum wage, the less such jobs will survive.
Gas station attendant, bag filler at the supermarket, whatever, are jobs much like an elevator boy, that are going the way of the dodo. It's also sensible to say that, well, such things maybe don't constitute an actual job. I remember in South Africa they have an actual real life person just standing at the start of road works to wave a flag and signal "careful, road works coming up" to drivers. That sort of "job" simply isn't economically viable.
The poorer a country, the more such made up jobs can be around - and are important as a way of keeping people busy. In a richer country, like say Belgium, such jobs simply don't meet productivity standards to exist.
On the other hand, of course, a lot of jobs DO still have to be done. But perhaps with better tools, to make the people more efficient. Belgian workers are still horribly overpriced, even compared to our neighboring countries, but we (partly) make up for it by having the most productive work force in the world (except for one Asian country, surprisingly not Japan, but I don't remember which one. Also, this may no longer be true).
If burger flippers cost a dime a dozen, you can have a dozen of them sit around in a mostly empty McDonalds. If they cost a dime each, you may just have one in that same McDonalds, and expect him to do the job of the 11 others as well. Obviously there are diminishing returns and all that (1 person can't man two tills and a frying pan at once) but exercises in raising cost efficiency will always also mean putting more pressure on people to do more in less time.
It can of course also be argued that American companies have already made those exercises, and the people now are simply underpaid for the amount of work they have to do.
And, of course, the big problem there is that some jobs simply can't be made more efficient by automation. A teacher teaching 50 kids at once isn't doing the same job as two teachers each teaching 25.
Now, however, there IS the thing that in the USA, there are still a LOT of human positions that have been replaced with robots/computers/other forms of automation in other countries. The higher minimum wage, the less such jobs will survive.
Gas station attendant, bag filler at the supermarket, whatever, are jobs much like an elevator boy, that are going the way of the dodo. It's also sensible to say that, well, such things maybe don't constitute an actual job. I remember in South Africa they have an actual real life person just standing at the start of road works to wave a flag and signal "careful, road works coming up" to drivers. That sort of "job" simply isn't economically viable.
The poorer a country, the more such made up jobs can be around - and are important as a way of keeping people busy. In a richer country, like say Belgium, such jobs simply don't meet productivity standards to exist.
On the other hand, of course, a lot of jobs DO still have to be done. But perhaps with better tools, to make the people more efficient. Belgian workers are still horribly overpriced, even compared to our neighboring countries, but we (partly) make up for it by having the most productive work force in the world (except for one Asian country, surprisingly not Japan, but I don't remember which one. Also, this may no longer be true).
If burger flippers cost a dime a dozen, you can have a dozen of them sit around in a mostly empty McDonalds. If they cost a dime each, you may just have one in that same McDonalds, and expect him to do the job of the 11 others as well. Obviously there are diminishing returns and all that (1 person can't man two tills and a frying pan at once) but exercises in raising cost efficiency will always also mean putting more pressure on people to do more in less time.
It can of course also be argued that American companies have already made those exercises, and the people now are simply underpaid for the amount of work they have to do.
And, of course, the big problem there is that some jobs simply can't be made more efficient by automation. A teacher teaching 50 kids at once isn't doing the same job as two teachers each teaching 25.
#274
Dave
Dave
I want to remind everyone that at one time I was unemployed, on food stamps, and was living in the projects.
Without the safety net (and let's face it, the color of my skin) I would not have been able to get out of there. You will NEVER see me giving anyone shit for using food stamps to buy things that are luxuries. You will NEVER see me looking down on anyone having to use welfare to pay their bills, or housing assistance, or any other thing that I pay my taxes to cover. I would rather pay more so the families that need it GET more. Welfare and safety net fraud is a lot like voter fraud - it's never who they are TELLING you that are doing it. It's the doctors who are double/triple billing medicaid, the landlords who are fucking over their tenants, the foster parents who are only in it for the money.
Punching down at the poor and less fortunate is a fucking evil thing to do. I've been that less fortunate guy and it sucked. But I did what I had to do to feed my family.
Without the safety net (and let's face it, the color of my skin) I would not have been able to get out of there. You will NEVER see me giving anyone shit for using food stamps to buy things that are luxuries. You will NEVER see me looking down on anyone having to use welfare to pay their bills, or housing assistance, or any other thing that I pay my taxes to cover. I would rather pay more so the families that need it GET more. Welfare and safety net fraud is a lot like voter fraud - it's never who they are TELLING you that are doing it. It's the doctors who are double/triple billing medicaid, the landlords who are fucking over their tenants, the foster parents who are only in it for the money.
Punching down at the poor and less fortunate is a fucking evil thing to do. I've been that less fortunate guy and it sucked. But I did what I had to do to feed my family.
#275
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Been there, done that. I made *bank* on my patents in the 90's. I was unemployed for 3 years after the tech bubble burst. When I finally found work again, I was one week away from being homeless. In Texas, there seems to be a big stigma for using food stamps, welfare, etc. Everyone I know who's unemployed seem to want to 'tough it out', but after going through that myself, I always tell them to make use of social services as much as possible. Your taxes pay for the damn things.I want to remind everyone that at one time I was unemployed, on food stamps, and was living in the projects.
Without the safety net (and let's face it, the color of my skin) I would not have been able to get out of there. You will NEVER see me giving anyone shit for using food stamps to buy things that are luxuries. You will NEVER see me looking down on anyone having to use welfare to pay their bills, or housing assistance, or any other thing that I pay my taxes to cover. I would rather pay more so the families that need it GET more. Welfare and safety net fraud is a lot like voter fraud - it's never who they are TELLING you that are doing it. It's the doctors who are double/triple billing medicaid, the landlords who are fucking over their tenants, the foster parents who are only in it for the money.
Punching down at the poor and less fortunate is a fucking evil thing to do. I've been that less fortunate guy and it sucked. But I did what I had to do to feed my family.
#276
Bubble181
Bubble181
I don't understand the too-proud-to-use-it crowd.
I mean, I do understand them in some ways, but in other ways....
You are (or were, or perhaps will someday, whatever) party taxes for this. If and when you need it, it's there to use - not abuse, or take advantage of. Being too proud to use it is like having your house burn down and being too proud to accept the cover money from the insurance.
Ehh yeah, good on you for being able to rebuild without it if you can, I guess, and sucks if your end up in a cardboard box... But either way, you're still an idiot for not accepting help when needed.
Also, un-Christian. Give people the opportunity to help you, dingus.
I mean, I do understand them in some ways, but in other ways....
You are (or were, or perhaps will someday, whatever) party taxes for this. If and when you need it, it's there to use - not abuse, or take advantage of. Being too proud to use it is like having your house burn down and being too proud to accept the cover money from the insurance.
Ehh yeah, good on you for being able to rebuild without it if you can, I guess, and sucks if your end up in a cardboard box... But either way, you're still an idiot for not accepting help when needed.
Also, un-Christian. Give people the opportunity to help you, dingus.
#277
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Here is the thing, these people only have pride when they DON'T NEED the assistance. The vast majority of the people that talk about how they would never go on these programs, do go on those programs when they need it, like unemployment, welfare, etc. I bet no one here can tell me of a family member that was offered a social program while on hard times and told them, "No, I am going to do it on my own."
It's never a problem for them when they need it, it's only a problem for them when they no longer do and now the people that do need it are "stealing my taxes". It's years of "welfare queen" propaganda and demonization, the lie that there is a literally army of people out there having babies and then watching BET on their new 60 inch flat screen they purchased with foot stamps and never work a day in their life. Remember when Fox argued how many people on welfare had refrigerators? Like it was some blaringly luxurious object for a poor person to want to have. I mean holy shit, we have people literally living in cardboard boxes and heating up trash can beans out of a fire in a barrel and they still think giving them help is too damn much.
They find themselves in the box a year from now? Dude will be screaming for help and then wonder why no one does.
It's never a problem for them when they need it, it's only a problem for them when they no longer do and now the people that do need it are "stealing my taxes". It's years of "welfare queen" propaganda and demonization, the lie that there is a literally army of people out there having babies and then watching BET on their new 60 inch flat screen they purchased with foot stamps and never work a day in their life. Remember when Fox argued how many people on welfare had refrigerators? Like it was some blaringly luxurious object for a poor person to want to have. I mean holy shit, we have people literally living in cardboard boxes and heating up trash can beans out of a fire in a barrel and they still think giving them help is too damn much.
They find themselves in the box a year from now? Dude will be screaming for help and then wonder why no one does.
#278
Tinwhistler
I think it's mostly bigotry and social stigma. Part of it is that they don't want to be one of 'those people' (you know, those people they looked down on when they were able to work themselves). Part of it is social stigma among their peers. People who have to take public assistance are considered 'less'. And you don't want to bring yourself down in the eyes of your friends and family. Part of it is good ol' racism--the 'black welfare mother abusing the system' is still a common enough meme 'round those parts. And they'd rather go hungry than put themselves in the same boat as one of 'those'.
Tinwhistler
That's what I'm saying: I've known plenty of people who could have used assistance in Texas who've refused. I know, currently, a lady that could get SSDI benefits and won't. I think only part of it is pride. A very small part.Here is the thing, these people only have pride when they DON'T NEED the assistance. The vast majority of the people that talk about how they would never go on these programs, do go on those programs when they need it, like unemployment, welfare, etc. I bet no one here can tell me of a family member that was offered a social program while on hard times and told them, "No, I am going to do it on my own."
I think it's mostly bigotry and social stigma. Part of it is that they don't want to be one of 'those people' (you know, those people they looked down on when they were able to work themselves). Part of it is social stigma among their peers. People who have to take public assistance are considered 'less'. And you don't want to bring yourself down in the eyes of your friends and family. Part of it is good ol' racism--the 'black welfare mother abusing the system' is still a common enough meme 'round those parts. And they'd rather go hungry than put themselves in the same boat as one of 'those'.
#279
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
I don't know man. I live in Texas, and while I can only give my own anecdotal evidence, but the few times I ever met someone that was super anti-socialist programs, struggling but saying they would never ask the government for help, always turned out to be they WERE getting the assistance, but simply told people they were not due to the "social stigma" of it all. I can't say for certain if that happened in your cases, but it seems to be the norm for me.
#280
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
I guess you'd know better than me what my friends and family have doneI don't know man. I live in Texas, and while I can only give my own anecdotal evidence, but the few times I ever met someone that was super anti-socialist programs, struggling but saying they would never ask the government for help, always turned out to be they WERE getting the assistance, but simply told people they were not due to the "social stigma" of it all. I can't say for certain if that happened in your cases, but it seems to be the norm for me.
#281
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Touché.I guess you'd know better than me what my friends and family have done
#282
TommiR
As to purchasing power between different income groups, here is an article about real household incomes per quintile. The scale may make it challenging to accurately observe changes in the bottom quintile, but I don't see any dramatic drops.
EDIT: Fixed a TYPO.
TommiR
Well, if you look at my previous two posts, I believe you will not find any mention of mine saying that income INequality does not exist. I think it does.You do realize that the median being lower than the mean is a demonstration of how skewed the high end of data is, right? I don't know enough about statistics to tell you how significant the skew on this data set is, but you've basically said nothing of worth. Without a graph showing the curve of incomes, median and mean are both pretty damn useless.
You're ignoring the fact that those who are below fall much further below, and those that are above rise much higher. Income inequality exists and you are doing nothing to disprove it. Nor have you done anything to show that those earning the least are still able to afford a reasonable standard of living.
Here, an article on how those who earn a middle income are earning less of the overall income. The top 5% gained a lot of income, their purchasing power is skewing the graph so that it looks like purchasing power has remained steady, while many middle income earners have seen their purchasing power decline.
As to purchasing power between different income groups, here is an article about real household incomes per quintile. The scale may make it challenging to accurately observe changes in the bottom quintile, but I don't see any dramatic drops.
It sounds to me like you performed some very sensible financial management, which likely assisted you a great deal in navigating through the rough patch and helping you towards the success that was to follow. I think many people in many places who are in financially difficult circumstances could take heart and benefit by learning from your example.I moved out of my parents house in 1987. I worked at Taco Bell making $3.75/hour. The minimum wage was $3.35/hour, but I had earned a couple of raises over the previous 3 years.
That was around $600/month take home after taxes and stuff. Maybe a bit less. I could afford an apartment (granted in a shithole), utilities and food and not much else. Rent was $280/month. That left me 320 to pay utilities, eat, and afford a car. I paid about $150/month for car payments and insurance, and about $50.00/month in utilities leaving---$120 left over to eat, or about $30/week. I ate a lot of free food at Taco Bell. Didn't leave a lot left over for essentials like shampoo, toilet paper, etc. But I was an aggressive deals shopper, and often shopped at Fiesta where I could get crap sandwich bread at 2 loaves for a dollar. You could often get two dozen eggs for a dollar if you bought old ones. I ate a lot of egg sandwiches.
I won't. I have no idea what those things cost in Texas, though I would guess you are not able to buy them with that amount of money. As I mentioned in my previous post, some form of government action may become necessary, and I see you've already engaged in discussion of utilising welfare schemes to help people in distress to make ends meet. Which I view to be an important discussion for society to have.Looking online, rent in that same shithole part of town is about $800/month. Notice that's more than double. That leaves 375 left over. Tell me that you can buy the same amount of stuff (car, insurance, food) with $375 these days as you could with $320 33 years ago.
I think I briefly examined the abnormally high increase in cost of education in the United States in the same post as the previous point. A solution should be found, but I don't think making the employers pay the costs is it.Take a look there, and tell me if college rates have kept the same pace as inflation, and if it's as affordable now as it was in 1988Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by type and control of institution: 1964-65 through 2006-07
The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private...nces.ed.gov
Well, I certainly don't think helping them is too much, and a refrigerator is necessary to keep food from spoiling. I'm just worried messing with minimum wage laws too much will put more people into those cardboard boxes.Remember when Fox argued how many people on welfare had refrigerators? Like it was some blaringly luxurious object for a poor person to want to have. I mean holy shit, we have people literally living in cardboard boxes and heating up trash can beans out of a fire in a barrel and they still think giving them help is too damn much.
EDIT: Fixed a TYPO.
#283
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
FUUUCK this kind of attitude. This is the same pull yourself up by your bootstraps asshole mentality that leads people to believe that anyone that's poor and struggling are just not being financially smart enough and thus deserve what they get. You entirely gloss over the point where Tin says he was only able to do this -then- and would be incapable of doing it -now-. It's an incredibly short sighted, unempathetic viewpoint of got mine so anyone that didn't is just doing it wrong. Get that shit outta here.It sounds to me like you performed some very sensible financial management, which likely assisted you a great deal in navigating through the rough patch and helping you towards the success that was to follow. I think many people in many places who are in financially difficult circumstances could take heart and benefit by learning from your example.
#284
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
You mean like raising the minimum wage?As I mentioned in my previous post, some form of government action may become necessary
#285
Dave
I think part of the problem is that you are from Finland. Finland has a strong social safety net where the US does not. This may just be something lost in the cultural translation.
Dave
You forget that it's much more expensive to be poor than to have money. If you have nothing left over after bills (assuming you can pay all of them) then there's no way to make "sensible financial management" decisions. There's just nothing left. And god help you if you have an emergency bill or something breaks.It sounds to me like you performed some very sensible financial management, which likely assisted you a great deal in navigating through the rough patch and helping you towards the success that was to follow. I think many people in many places who are in financially difficult circumstances could take heart and benefit by learning from your example.
I think part of the problem is that you are from Finland. Finland has a strong social safety net where the US does not. This may just be something lost in the cultural translation.
#286
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
#287
figmentPez
Furthermore, it shows that the income for younger people rose slower, and in most years fell. Which, if you've been paying attention, is a major factor in why rich people keep getting richer, and why it's difficult to escape poverty. If you spend your 20s and early 30s investing, then compound interest puts you ahead for the rest of your life. If you spend your 20s and early 30s staving off debt and recovering from being underpaid, then you're behind from the start, no matter how much your income improves after that. Also, you get the double-whammy of young people getting paid less while also being expected to afford education, which costs more.
And those younger people making less money provides another reason why the graphs are skewed. Older people whose income slowly rose with inflation stabilize the graph, and hide the long-term effects on younger people.
"See, one person succeeded decades ago, that means it can be done now!" Yeah, it doesn't work that way! The very articles you've quoted prove that younger people make less than previous generations did.
figmentPez
The graph adjusted for inflation shows that the gap between the richest and poorest grew. You literally proved my point.As to purchasing power between different income groups, here is an article about real household incomes per quintile. The scale may make it challenging to accurately observe changes in the bottom quintile, but I don't see any dramatic drops.
Furthermore, it shows that the income for younger people rose slower, and in most years fell. Which, if you've been paying attention, is a major factor in why rich people keep getting richer, and why it's difficult to escape poverty. If you spend your 20s and early 30s investing, then compound interest puts you ahead for the rest of your life. If you spend your 20s and early 30s staving off debt and recovering from being underpaid, then you're behind from the start, no matter how much your income improves after that. Also, you get the double-whammy of young people getting paid less while also being expected to afford education, which costs more.
And those younger people making less money provides another reason why the graphs are skewed. Older people whose income slowly rose with inflation stabilize the graph, and hide the long-term effects on younger people.
FUCK OFF. I'm done with your bullshit. People who manage to succeed in a system stacked against them have to get lucky in addition to making wise decisions. There are too many setbacks that can happen that make it impossible to get by no matter how smart someone is with their finances. If you're going to continue to cherry pick examples, then there's no point in even trying. Especially right now, in the middle of a pandemic, when job loss has disproportionately effected women and minorities.It sounds to me like you performed some very sensible financial management, which likely assisted you a great deal in navigating through the rough patch and helping you towards the success that was to follow. I think many people in many places who are in financially difficult circumstances could take heart and benefit by learning from your example.
"See, one person succeeded decades ago, that means it can be done now!" Yeah, it doesn't work that way! The very articles you've quoted prove that younger people make less than previous generations did.
#288
PatrThom
Our situation was one where we suddenly went from being a two-income family to one with only a single income. To our good fortune, that single income (mine) was enough to cover all our ongoing expenses, but only barely. Once our child was born, we had to choose between either keeping two jobs and hiring a full-time nanny, or else just having one parent stay home. Since the cost of hiring a nanny would (unsurprisingly) offset the income from one full-time job, we decided to go the easier route, because paying a stranger $25k/yr to raise your kid just so you can continue to go to your $25k/yr job is... stupid. This is exactly the situation where something like UBI would have made all the difference in the world, but instead we were denied any aid (even food stamps!) because my single income happened to be just over the threshold where we could qualify for anything useful.
When my wife left work, we entered a sort of cycle. All recurring expenses got paid every month. Utilities, credit cards, food, mortgage, taxes, insurance, licenses, gasoline/maint, medicines, doctor visits, etc... these were all totaled up yearly and then split to determine how much needed to come out of every biweekly paycheck (with some slop to account for variance, such as with the heating bill). But that only accounted for the ongoing expenses, and with so little left over every month, that means credit had to be used as a buffer to soak up any spikes. Tires wear out. Our hot water heater needed replacement. I had to replace the floor in one entire room of my house. These sorts of things may have the name "Durable Goods," but there's a reason they aren't called "permanent goods," and like Terry Pratchett alludes to above, you have to spend a premium if you want them to last. Now that premium will probably be amortized over the life of the product, but a poor person is unfortunately barred from ever being able to take advantage due to their inability to pay the higher up-front cost.
As such, when I sat down one day to not only plot a year's worth of expenses and payments, I also decided out of curiosity to extend that and extrapolate how long it would take to eliminate all the finite recurring expenses (loans, etc) through a sort of Debt Avalanche strategy until there was nothing but utilities and other "forever" expenses left--basically to find out how long it would take before I could start putting money away for retirement. And the answer I got was that if I applied 100% of our disposable income to debt reduction, I would not be able to make my first retirement deposit until age sixty-three. Furthermore, this projection would only work if we could go decades without ever having any kind of large expense--in other words, we would have to forgo ALL vacations, Christmas presents, and so on, our house/appliances/car (singular!) could never break down nor have any parts wear out, none of us would be allowed to have any medical emergencies or medication changes, no new computers/phones/technology, etc., for the next 20+ years -- oh and all this without access to any kind of government/outside aid ha ha fat chance. That means 20+ years of waiting, being bored/trapped at home, all the while stressing about the plumbing, etc. Needless to say, it was... sobering.
We are MUCH better off right now, as I've also mentioned, but while my financial juggling skills have been legendary (and they unequivocally, objectively were!), the only reason we have managed to make so much progress in so little time is because we benefitted from a windfall--in other words, because we were LUCKY. If we had been forced to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" in order to do it all the True American Way, it would have been impossible, or else it would have effectively meant a 30yr period that would have the two of us holding our newborn child going in, but that child would be the only one coming out the other end, with his parents dead and surrounded by broken-down 30yr-old stuff.
Also, the term for what you are describing is "Survivorship Bias."
--Patrick
PatrThom
Heh. That was... a pretty significant typo.EDIT: Fixed a TYPO.
I believe that, like @Tinwhistler , I've also already spoken about this sort of experience:If you have nothing left over after bills (assuming you can pay all of them) then there's no way to make "sensible financial management" decisions. There's just nothing left. And god help you if you have an emergency bill or something breaks.
(link to referenced article)I managed our family’s finances with all our needs met every month and with literally only $50-100 of disposable income left over for anything and everything else that did not either go in our faces or over our heads. My expenses (except for “donations” [because I was never able to donate anything] actually weren’t that far off [the dollar amounts] listed in the above graph (even though I [lived] in a Detroit suburb, not Boston) and I did those same expenditures for almost TEN YEARS on maybe a THIRD (I think? It’s been a while) of the $100k reported in the article.
Our situation was one where we suddenly went from being a two-income family to one with only a single income. To our good fortune, that single income (mine) was enough to cover all our ongoing expenses, but only barely. Once our child was born, we had to choose between either keeping two jobs and hiring a full-time nanny, or else just having one parent stay home. Since the cost of hiring a nanny would (unsurprisingly) offset the income from one full-time job, we decided to go the easier route, because paying a stranger $25k/yr to raise your kid just so you can continue to go to your $25k/yr job is... stupid. This is exactly the situation where something like UBI would have made all the difference in the world, but instead we were denied any aid (even food stamps!) because my single income happened to be just over the threshold where we could qualify for anything useful.
When my wife left work, we entered a sort of cycle. All recurring expenses got paid every month. Utilities, credit cards, food, mortgage, taxes, insurance, licenses, gasoline/maint, medicines, doctor visits, etc... these were all totaled up yearly and then split to determine how much needed to come out of every biweekly paycheck (with some slop to account for variance, such as with the heating bill). But that only accounted for the ongoing expenses, and with so little left over every month, that means credit had to be used as a buffer to soak up any spikes. Tires wear out. Our hot water heater needed replacement. I had to replace the floor in one entire room of my house. These sorts of things may have the name "Durable Goods," but there's a reason they aren't called "permanent goods," and like Terry Pratchett alludes to above, you have to spend a premium if you want them to last. Now that premium will probably be amortized over the life of the product, but a poor person is unfortunately barred from ever being able to take advantage due to their inability to pay the higher up-front cost.
As such, when I sat down one day to not only plot a year's worth of expenses and payments, I also decided out of curiosity to extend that and extrapolate how long it would take to eliminate all the finite recurring expenses (loans, etc) through a sort of Debt Avalanche strategy until there was nothing but utilities and other "forever" expenses left--basically to find out how long it would take before I could start putting money away for retirement. And the answer I got was that if I applied 100% of our disposable income to debt reduction, I would not be able to make my first retirement deposit until age sixty-three. Furthermore, this projection would only work if we could go decades without ever having any kind of large expense--in other words, we would have to forgo ALL vacations, Christmas presents, and so on, our house/appliances/car (singular!) could never break down nor have any parts wear out, none of us would be allowed to have any medical emergencies or medication changes, no new computers/phones/technology, etc., for the next 20+ years -- oh and all this without access to any kind of government/outside aid ha ha fat chance. That means 20+ years of waiting, being bored/trapped at home, all the while stressing about the plumbing, etc. Needless to say, it was... sobering.
We are MUCH better off right now, as I've also mentioned, but while my financial juggling skills have been legendary (and they unequivocally, objectively were!), the only reason we have managed to make so much progress in so little time is because we benefitted from a windfall--in other words, because we were LUCKY. If we had been forced to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps" in order to do it all the True American Way, it would have been impossible, or else it would have effectively meant a 30yr period that would have the two of us holding our newborn child going in, but that child would be the only one coming out the other end, with his parents dead and surrounded by broken-down 30yr-old stuff.
Heh. I was composing my post for hours before I finally read yours, and it looks like we hit on many of the same points.one person succeeded decades ago, that means it can be done now!
Also, the term for what you are describing is "Survivorship Bias."
--Patrick
#289
TommiR
TommiR
We were discussing that very option, were we not? I don't think it is a good idea due to too many job losses and hardship for small enterprises. Seems like others feel differently.You mean like raising the minimum wage?
#290
figmentPez
Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong
And that's for a single person who plans out their life from high school. I imagine it's a lot more difficult once someone has already suffered a setback.
figmentPez
You're not the only one to calculate such that number:Furthermore, this projection would only work if we could go decades without ever having any kind of large expense--in other words, we would have to forgo ALL vacations, Christmas presents, and so on, our house/appliances/car (singular!) could never break down nor have any parts wear out, none of us would be allowed to have any medical emergencies or medication changes, no new computers/phones/technology, etc., for the next 20+ years -- oh and all this without access to any kind of government/outside aid ha ha fat chance. That means 20+ years of waiting, being bored/trapped at home, all the while stressing about the plumbing, etc. Needless to say, it was... sobering.
Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong
And that's for a single person who plans out their life from high school. I imagine it's a lot more difficult once someone has already suffered a setback.
#291
@Li3n
@Li3n
Reality feels different.many job losses and hardship for small enterprises. Seems like others feel differently.
#292
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
This may help inform where TommiR is coming from:
www.theguardian.com
Nordic countries at odds with EU over minimum wage
Countries including Denmark and Finland fear one-size-fits-all plan could undermine collective bargaining
www.theguardian.com
Of the 28 member states, only Denmark, Italy, Cyprus, Austria, Finland and Sweden do not have a statutory minimum wage.
But workers in Nordic countries enjoy comparatively high average salaries with employers in Denmark paying labour costs of €43.50 (£37) an hour per worker in 2018 – the highest in the EU.
Danes on even the lowest salaries can expect to be paid around £15 an hour. Swedish and Finnish workers are similarly well paid under their collective bargaining models.
#293
Krisken
Krisken
So he's the one who gets to live in a fantasy land while the rest of us are in reality? Lame.This may help inform where TommiR is coming from:
Nordic countries at odds with EU over minimum wage
Countries including Denmark and Finland fear one-size-fits-all plan could undermine collective bargaining
#294
figmentPez
figmentPez
It's worth noting that all of the arguments TommiR is using against raising minimum wage are arguments that have been made against having unions.
"Unions will cause the price of living to go up." , "Unions shouldn't decide how much businesses should pay workers." , "Unions will make it impossible for mom & pop stores to keep up financially.", "I know that something has to be done about poverty, but Unions forcing businesses to pay people more will only result in fewer jobs.", etc. etc. We've heard it all before, and it's always been bullshit.
"Unions will cause the price of living to go up." , "Unions shouldn't decide how much businesses should pay workers." , "Unions will make it impossible for mom & pop stores to keep up financially.", "I know that something has to be done about poverty, but Unions forcing businesses to pay people more will only result in fewer jobs.", etc. etc. We've heard it all before, and it's always been bullshit.
#295
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
Huh. I calculated that for our specific situation. I had no idea it was practically a constant.You're not the only one to calculate such that number:
Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong
—Patrick
#296
MindDetective
MindDetective
So far this is a bit spread out across other threads but I'm going to put this take from The Hill here. I love the glee with which they report on the $GME spike.
#297
Dave
Dave
Wall Street Bets is currently set to private and there's talk the SEC is shutting it down for market manipulation - which it absolutely is not doing according to the definition of manipulation. There is no secret trading at all. In fact, the only market manipulation has been the Hedge Fund managers who tried to manipulate the stock to go up so they could short-sell and make a killing. But Wall Street and the government doesn't care if THEY do it, just normal people.
#298
MindDetective
MindDetective
I'd wager (ha!) that even if WSB is completely banished, this isn't the end. $GME exposed the fragility of the sleight of hand going on in the stock market and these kinds of guerrilla tactics are going to change the game.Wall Street Bets is currently set to private and there's talk the SEC is shutting it down for market manipulation - which it absolutely is not doing according to the definition of manipulation. There is no secret trading at all. In fact, the only market manipulation has been the Hedge Fund managers who tried to manipulate the stock to go up so they could short-sell and make a killing. But Wall Street and the government doesn't care if THEY do it, just normal people.
#299
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
If using publicly available information and distributing it to the masses is market manipulation, so is the entirety of MSNBC and other stock focused tv shows, channels, and websites.
Let the mob take it's blood this one time and see how quick Wall St. learns to worry about it's actions... because the only reason -any- of this happened is because a bunch of hedge funds tried to tank GameStop on a schedule.
Let the mob take it's blood this one time and see how quick Wall St. learns to worry about it's actions... because the only reason -any- of this happened is because a bunch of hedge funds tried to tank GameStop on a schedule.
#300
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
We need a political cartoon with GameStop and Express using the (reddit) Force to fight off a wave of hedgelords while force ghosts of Toys 'Я' Us, GNC, Forever 21, and others look on.the only reason -any- of this happened is because a bunch of hedge funds tried to tank GameStop on a schedule.
--Patrick
#301
MindDetective
MindDetective
The subreddit reopened, it seems, and the SEC is watching but not moving on any redditors right now. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/536212-reddit-traders-cause-wall-street-havoc-by-buying-gamestopWall Street Bets is currently set to private and there's talk the SEC is shutting it down for market manipulation - which it absolutely is not doing according to the definition of manipulation. There is no secret trading at all. In fact, the only market manipulation has been the Hedge Fund managers who tried to manipulate the stock to go up so they could short-sell and make a killing. But Wall Street and the government doesn't care if THEY do it, just normal people.
#302
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
That'd buy a LOT of used copies of NHL 2019!
#303
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
I only learned that short-sellers were a thing today and I absolutely hate them. I never liked stocks or wall street because I always felt they drove companies to worry more about investors then customers, destroying risk in favor of easier profits (cough, video game industry, cough), but learning that some people basically "pre-sell" their stocks with the anticipation they can make some money off the company folding is absolutely stupid to me.
#304
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
It's yet another expression of the sort of short-sighted, careless "Fuck the future, I've got mine" behavior that leads to that sort of character getting killed in some sort of schadenfreude-laden manner in all the movies.learning that some people basically "pre-sell" their stocks with the anticipation they can make some money off the company folding is absolutely stupid to me.
--Patrick
#305
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
In other words, all these hedge fund short sellers are the lawyer in Jurassic Park.It's yet another expression of the sort of short-sighted, careless "Fuck the future, I've got mine" behavior that leads to that sort of character getting killed in some sort of schadenfreude-laden manner in all the movies.
--Patrick
#306
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I was thinking of making that exact example, as a matter of fact. Either him, or Ellis from Die Hard.In other words, all these hedge fund short sellers are the lawyer in Jurassic Park.
--Patrick
#307
bhamv3
bhamv3
There are stories being posted on WSB of people who suffered due to the financial crisis in '08, some really gut-wrenching stories of poverty and desperation. That lingering bitterness towards the banks, the hedge funds, the 1% is driving some people to throw their money into buying GME, just to screw the financial elite some more. They know they'll likely lose money if they hold too long, but it's not about the money. To them, this is personal. This is vengeance. This is payback for having to sleep on bare floors, or go hungry, or be evicted, or forgo their education, or watch their family and friends lose everything.
#308
Dave
Dave
And now Wall Street is no longer allowing people to buy these stocks. When THEY do it it's fine. Now they are just shutting down regular people who figured out how to game the system that's been gamed for decades by the rich.
And isn't what THEY are doing the real market manipulation?
And isn't what THEY are doing the real market manipulation?
#309
blotsfan
blotsfan
There should be a billion lawsuits over this. Incidentally, there's a Chinese equivalent of robinhood called webull and just by not banning trades of these companies they're getting a shitton of new users.
#310
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
There are stories being posted on WSB of people who suffered due to the financial crisis in '08, some really gut-wrenching stories of poverty and desperation. That lingering bitterness towards the banks, the hedge funds, the 1% is driving some people to throw their money into buying GME, just to screw the financial elite some more. They know they'll likely lose money if they hold too long, but it's not about the money. To them, this is personal. This is vengeance. This is payback for having to sleep on bare floors, or go hungry, or be evicted, or forgo their education, or watch their family and friends lose everything.
All they are doing is encouraging these people to do it again. They'll find another weak stock, use gains from this to do the same thing.And now Wall Street is no longer allowing people to buy these stocks. When THEY do it it's fine. Now they are just shutting down regular people who figured out how to game the system that's been gamed for decades by the rich.
And isn't what THEY are doing the real market manipulation?
#311
PatrThom
And if two people do it, on an Internet forum, they may think they're both furries and they won't listen to either of them.
And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people joining RH, throwin' a bunch of their life savings into GME and hangin' on? They may think it's an Organization!
And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day signin' up, grabbin' a bunch of GME and holdin' onto it? Friends, they may think it's a Movement, and that's what it is... THE grassroots anti-hedge-fund-and-market-manipulation movement! And all you gotta do to join is to wanna help a financial firm tank the next time they try to game the market to their advantage.
With feelin'
--Patrick
PatrThom
From that thread:
Me, over in the Biden thread:To CNBC: you must realize your short term gains through promoting institutions' agenda is just that - short term. Your staple audience will soon become too old to care, and the millions of us, not just at WSB but every person affected by the '08 crash that's now paying attention to GME, are going to remember how you stuck up for the firms that ruined so many of us, and tried to tear down the little guys.
You know, if one person, just one person, buys GME and holds it, they may think he's crazy and they won't listen him.Dear Media,
Stop pandering to boomers while alienating your younger audience. They'll all be dead soon, and we'll be the only audience you have left.
And if two people do it, on an Internet forum, they may think they're both furries and they won't listen to either of them.
And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people joining RH, throwin' a bunch of their life savings into GME and hangin' on? They may think it's an Organization!
And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day signin' up, grabbin' a bunch of GME and holdin' onto it? Friends, they may think it's a Movement, and that's what it is... THE grassroots anti-hedge-fund-and-market-manipulation movement! And all you gotta do to join is to wanna help a financial firm tank the next time they try to game the market to their advantage.
With feelin'
--Patrick
#312
Fun Size
Fun Size
Right up until RH locks these stocks because the firms that pay them probably asked nice.From that thread:
Me, over in the Biden thread:
You know, if one person, just one person, buys GME and holds it, they may think he's crazy and they won't listen him.
And if two people do it, on an Internet forum, they may think they're both furries and they won't listen to either of them.
And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people joining RH, throwin' a bunch of their life savings into GME and hangin' on? They may think it's an Organization!
And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day signin' up, grabbin' a bunch of GME and holdin' onto it? Friends, they may think it's a Movement, and that's what it is... THE grassroots anti-hedge-fund-and-market-manipulation movement! And all you gotta do to join is to wanna help a financial firm tank the next time they try to game the market to their advantage.
With feelin'
--Patrick
#313
@Li3n
I don't know if any other stocks that's in that situation.
@Li3n
It's my understanding that the reason why Gamestop is causing all this trouble is because teh hedge funds have shorted more stocks then there are, and when they come due they basically need to buy them all and then some.All they are doing is encouraging these people to do it again. They'll find another weak stock, use gains from this to do the same thing.
I don't know if any other stocks that's in that situation.
#314
Krisken
Krisken
#315
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
There are unconfirmed reports that the Robinhood app is selling people's GME and AMC shares without their consent.
#316
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
No, apparently that isn't a problem at all. The problem is they shorted the stocks at like $5-10 and tried to make them go lower, but they've balloned so high that they can't afford to pay what they owe. They would literally be paying 20x or more what they sold them for at this point. Even if they liquidate their entirety of their assets, they don't have the liquidity to pay for the stocks at the current price.It's my understanding that the reason why Gamestop is causing all this trouble is because teh hedge funds have shorted more stocks then there are, and when they come due they basically need to buy them all and then some.
I don't know if any other stocks that's in that situation.
#317
@Li3n
@Li3n
Well, that's kind of teh same thing, but from the perspective of the hedge funds going bankrupt instead of the one of the r/tards at WSB knowing they got them by the balls.
Having to buy back a majority of teh stock means the "diamond hands" have the advantage. Even if the stock drops, if they still need to buy after they exhaust the one from the regular stock holders and only the r/tards have some left the price goes up again. Hence teh fucking insane fluactuations today (400-100-200-400-200).
Tomorrow and next week is going to be insane.
Having to buy back a majority of teh stock means the "diamond hands" have the advantage. Even if the stock drops, if they still need to buy after they exhaust the one from the regular stock holders and only the r/tards have some left the price goes up again. Hence teh fucking insane fluactuations today (400-100-200-400-200).
Tomorrow and next week is going to be insane.
#318
Krisken
Krisken
Ugh, won't copy right. Apparently white house called and pressured them to stop Gameatop trading.
#319
@Li3n
@Li3n
That's totally left wing of them...
#320
MindDetective
MindDetective
According to RobinHood, they couldn't cover the costs of the trading. The same with Public and WeBull and others, although it was the financial firms covering them in those cases and not them directly. Once they secured funding, they opened up buying again for the selected stocks.
That said, their risk management was VERY selective and the lawsuit filed against RobinHood might still be justified.
That said, their risk management was VERY selective and the lawsuit filed against RobinHood might still be justified.
#321
Krisken
Krisken
Yeah, it's shaky ground, but market manipulation is such a squishy charge they open up all the hedge funds to it as well. It really does sound like "Fuck you, the rich have theirs, you stay poor".
#322
Krisken
Krisken
Good to see Hank break it down.
#323
figmentPez
figmentPez
#324
Bubble181
Bubble181
"reddit is pushing stock X" will be a great way of duping idiots for the next few weeks /months, I don't doubt.
#325
PatrThom
PatrThom
I admit at first glance I was thinking "reddit silver" (awards) and not, like, Hunt brothers shenanigans.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#326
figmentPez
figmentPez
#328
figmentPez
It's possible that she thinks it should be illegal because the public is paying a lot of attention to student debt right now. If/when the government passes a debt-forgiveness law that won't apply to WF's privately held debts, and this sell-off allows Wells Fargo to maintain a better public image, while Firstmark (which probably has roughly the same people benefiting financially from it) gets to be as abusive as they want about collecting the debt. It also likely enables all sorts of barely legal financial acrobatics.
Any time I hear people defend a financial practice as "that's the normal way of doing it", instead of explaining why it's beneficial to allow the practice, I just assume that it's unethical.
figmentPez
I'm not sure what her argument is; I should have just found an article about Wells Fargo exiting the student loan business, as that was the part I found interesting. It just raised big red flags in my mind that a major financial institution would be dropping student loans completely, and illustrates that it was an area of finance that was very unhealthy. Most likely because it was predatory and was going through unsustainable growth because of that.Why should it be illegal?
It's possible that she thinks it should be illegal because the public is paying a lot of attention to student debt right now. If/when the government passes a debt-forgiveness law that won't apply to WF's privately held debts, and this sell-off allows Wells Fargo to maintain a better public image, while Firstmark (which probably has roughly the same people benefiting financially from it) gets to be as abusive as they want about collecting the debt. It also likely enables all sorts of barely legal financial acrobatics.
Any time I hear people defend a financial practice as "that's the normal way of doing it", instead of explaining why it's beneficial to allow the practice, I just assume that it's unethical.
#329
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
This isn't anything special to student loans. Our mortgage was sold. The only thing that changed for us was who we send our money to. It's a complete non-issue and I don't see what about it could possibly be illegal as long as they don't try to change the terms of your loan.
Why Banks Sell Loans They Make
Why Banks Sell Loans They Make
It looks like Wells Fargo just made a business decision for the health of the company.“Most lenders sell loans due to liquidity reasons, meaning they don’t want the loans in their balance sheet,” says Cristina Zorrilla, assistant vice president of mortgage pricing and investor relations with Navy Federal Credit Union. “They sell loans so they can lend to more borrowers.”
Wells Fargo is also getting out of the international wealth-management business.San Francisco banking giant Wells Fargo has sold off its $10 billion private student loan portfolio as it looks to shed costs amid a directive under CEO Charlie Scharf to cut billions in expenses and retrench the lender into its core businesses. The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2021.
#330
Dei
Dei
The biggest issue I find is when they change billing systems. Especially when you go from a place with an easy online interface to one that was made in the 90s.
#331
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I think you could argue that the ability to sell debt makes predatory lending more likely, especially on something like student loans, which are among the only debts that can't be defaulted on.This isn't anything special to student loans. Our mortgage was sold. The only thing that changed for us was who we send our money to. It's a complete non-issue and I don't see what about it could possibly be illegal as long as they don't try to change the terms of your loan.
Why Banks Sell Loans They Make
It looks like Wells Fargo just made a business decision for the health of the company.
Wells Fargo is also getting out of the international wealth-management business.
#332
jwhouk
jwhouk
My mortgage went from Equitable to Washington Mutual to Chase Financial. The last two were because WaMu got swallowed up by Chase.
#333
PatrThom
PatrThom
I think the OP is making the argument that if a loan company goes under or something, the debt should die with them instead of being able to lateral it off to someone else before they go under? I'm not sure.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#334
AshburnerX
Banks had bad loans they felt they couldn't collect on > they combined and sold those loans to "debt management" companies (i.e. loan collectors) for pennies on the dollar > those securities were bad bets because not enough people could pay those loans to actually make them profitable. Toss in the fact that most banks already repossessed the only thing of real value these people had (their homes) and you get the one-two punch of a housing market crash and debt crisis... and we're headed for one again, if we don't start letting banks and companies die when their bets go sour.
AshburnerX
It's really more that selling and combining debts into securities is one of the things that lead to the 2008 economic crash.I think you could argue that the ability to sell debt makes predatory lending more likely, especially on something like student loans, which are among the only debts that can't be defaulted on.
Banks had bad loans they felt they couldn't collect on > they combined and sold those loans to "debt management" companies (i.e. loan collectors) for pennies on the dollar > those securities were bad bets because not enough people could pay those loans to actually make them profitable. Toss in the fact that most banks already repossessed the only thing of real value these people had (their homes) and you get the one-two punch of a housing market crash and debt crisis... and we're headed for one again, if we don't start letting banks and companies die when their bets go sour.
#335
Sara_2814
If the problem is predatory lending, then crack down on predatory lending.
Sara_2814
You could also argue that forcing banks to hold all debts until they are paid off could make many banks less willing to give loans to higher risk people (younger, less wealthy, less white, less male). I mean, us (white) ladies will still have our (white) fathers and husbands to co-sign for us, but most poor and/or brown people will have no other choice than to go to loan sharks. Just like the good old days!I think you could argue that the ability to sell debt makes predatory lending more likely, especially on something like student loans, which are among the only debts that can't be defaulted on.
If the problem is predatory lending, then crack down on predatory lending.
#336
jwhouk
jwhouk
Problem is, there's always a predator.
#337
figmentPez
figmentPez
Texas, ladies and gentlemen:
#338
blotsfan
blotsfan
Which party is he a member of?
#339
Tress
The guy resigned today, but he wants you to know that people are being mean to him on Twitter and that’s wrong because he would never say anything mean to other people.
Tress
True story:Texas, ladies and gentlemen:
The guy resigned today, but he wants you to know that people are being mean to him on Twitter and that’s wrong because he would never say anything mean to other people.
#340
Dei
Dei
This guy must have the biggest bootstraps.
#341
Bones
Bones
the utilities nor governments owe you nothing! "so, i dont have to pay my power, water, sewer, or property taxes?"Texas, ladies and gentlemen:
#342
bhamv3
bhamv3
I dislike his typos and spelling errors.
#343
Frank
Frank
Former mayor Immortan Joe says that all the water addicts were mean to him.
#344
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
As someone who literally lost their house to a utility company's incompetence in a weather emergency, I hope someone or a few someones punch this asshat square in the mouth.
Repeatedly.
Repeatedly.
#345
Bubble181
Bubble181
I've rarely seen someone so openly calling for The Purge.
Does that guy not realize that if society owes me nothing, I don't owe society anything either?
How does he imagine people are supposed to be able to create their own power and gas again? Other than, you know, taking it by force?
Does that guy not realize that if society owes me nothing, I don't owe society anything either?
How does he imagine people are supposed to be able to create their own power and gas again? Other than, you know, taking it by force?
#346
MindDetective
MindDetective
He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.I've rarely seen someone so openly calling for The Purge.
Does that guy not realize that if society owes me nothing, I don't owe society anything either?
How does he imagine people are supposed to be able to create their own power and gas again? Other than, you know, taking it by force?
#347
chris
chris
That makes sense for people who lives in single family homes and/or remote places. But apartment complexes in a city may not have access to extra emergency gas tanks.He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.
#348
Bubble181
And in the same mentality, be very surprised if other people actually band together, and come and take your food/elektricity away. Those bastards!
Bubble181
I know. But he's not saying "Be Prepared!", he's saying "when something happens, make a game plan to Get Yours, and screw everybody else". His call there can just straight-up be taken to mean "it's a free for all! Nobody owes anybody anything! Take what you can get!"He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.
And in the same mentality, be very surprised if other people actually band together, and come and take your food/elektricity away. Those bastards!
#349
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Outside a certain ex-official's house in a certain city in a certain Texas:
#350
figmentPez
Governments do owe a level of care to their citizens, businesses do owe a standard of care to their customers, people have moral and ethical responsibilities to each other. Hoping to be kept from freezing to death is not "expecting a handout". There are people who don't have options and are not "lazy" because they didn't do anything. Yes, he does give a few token words to "those in need" but he also says "the weak will parish [sic]", and says nothing about caring for those in need. Taken literally, his message seems to be that those in need should perish because freeloaders ruined it for everyone.
Language matters. I can't judge what he "meant" to say, only the message that he actually sent out. A message which is literally wrong, and morally abhorrent.
figmentPez
And he talked about it in a completely unreasonable manner. He can say "I didn't mean it like that..." all day long, and it won't change what he actually said. Like a racist who didn't mean the "joke" about hanging black people to be offensive, or the abusive parent who didn't mean their child to feel worthless after being berated mercilessly, they're just plain wrong about what they actually said. His entire statement is highly prejudiced, including both classism and ableism, and entirely framed around denying that human rights and social responsibilities exist.He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.
Governments do owe a level of care to their citizens, businesses do owe a standard of care to their customers, people have moral and ethical responsibilities to each other. Hoping to be kept from freezing to death is not "expecting a handout". There are people who don't have options and are not "lazy" because they didn't do anything. Yes, he does give a few token words to "those in need" but he also says "the weak will parish [sic]", and says nothing about caring for those in need. Taken literally, his message seems to be that those in need should perish because freeloaders ruined it for everyone.
Language matters. I can't judge what he "meant" to say, only the message that he actually sent out. A message which is literally wrong, and morally abhorrent.
#351
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
But he's saying that you deserve to die when the government and the utilities fail. It's fucking disgusting.He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.
#352
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Not even the fail part. Just "you deserve to die."But he's saying that you deserve to die when the government and the utilities fail. It's fucking disgusting.
#353
Bones
Bones
i continue to be caught on "the thing you pay for the use of and the taxes you pay for the infrastructure don't guarantee you shit pleb" like forget about being prepared, no one ever brings up the cost of having your electrical system correctly set-up for a generator, the cost have keeping the generator up, the fuel fresh, all of that is a super luxury for the rich and crazy. because the idea is no critical infrastructure like power/water should ever be down for more than a few days unless there is a catastrophic storm. up here in the frozen wastes of mn a blizzard/ice storm that caused this kind of damage would literally have to rip the poles out of the ground.
#354
chris
chris
I just saw pictures and videos from Texas . Just fuck that asshole. How can people prepare for something that happen maybe once in a century.
#355
Celt Z
Celt Z
Guy says, "You don't need the government." People says, "Then we don't need you, do we?". Self-fulfilling prophecy.True story:
The guy resigned today, but he wants you to know that people are being mean to him on Twitter and that’s wrong because he would never say anything mean to other people.
#356
Bubble181
The Founding Fathers didn't mention a flight to electricity, gas, wifi, or anything, after all. Just guns and words. And people worth 3/5ths of a man.
Bubble181
No, no, you've got that wrong. The rich get the privilege of still having electricity, gas, whatever. The poor just have to learn to settle for less, and accept living in hovels and sending the kids to the well half an hour away every morning.i continue to be caught on "the thing you pay for the use of and the taxes you pay for the infrastructure don't guarantee you shit pleb" like forget about being prepared, no one ever brings up the cost of having your electrical system correctly set-up for a generator, the cost have keeping the generator up, the fuel fresh, all of that is a super luxury for the rich and crazy. because the idea is no critical infrastructure like power/water should ever be down for more than a few days unless there is a catastrophic storm. up here in the frozen wastes of mn a blizzard/ice storm that caused this kind of damage would literally have to rip the poles out of the ground.
The Founding Fathers didn't mention a flight to electricity, gas, wifi, or anything, after all. Just guns and words. And people worth 3/5ths of a man.
#357
PatrThom
PatrThom
The entire purpose of banding together to create a collective government in the first place is so your society will be able to handle situations that are beyond the reach of its individuals. This dude's rant literally makes it sound like he thinks people elected to government are elevated there because society deemed them homo superior and that, when the chips are down, it's perfectly okay for the plebs to be sacrificed die off because what matters most is the survival of these elected elite.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#358
Shakey
Shakey
That’s the entire Republican platform right there. Except for abortion, fetusii are more important than people.when the chips are down, it's perfectly okay for the plebs tobe sacrificeddie off because what matters most is the survival of these elected elite.
--Patrick
#359
Bubble181
Bubble181
Those have the potential to be superior, after all. Even born to a poor black woman after incestual rape, you never know it'll turn out to be a pro basketball player!That’s the entire Republican platform right there. Except for abortion, fetusii are more important than people.
#360
PatrThom
And don't forget that the only people allowed to have abortions are high-ranking members of society, and even then only if the womb's father says it's ok.
--Patrick
PatrThom
*fœtiThat’s the entire Republican platform right there. Except for abortion, fetusii are more important than people.
And don't forget that the only people allowed to have abortions are high-ranking members of society, and even then only if the womb's father says it's ok.
--Patrick
#361
@Li3n
@Li3n
Ah yes, "Only the strong will survive and the weak will parish (sic)" is just about that fo' sho'.He's talking about having a generator and extra tanks of gas on hand for emergencies.
#362
MindDetective
MindDetective
It was definitely about more than that. And I certainly don't agree with his position.Ah yes, "Only the strong will survive and the weak will parish (sic)" is just about that fo' sho'.
#363
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
It really wasn't. That the weak will die was the central point of his writing.It was definitely about more than that. And I certainly don't agree with his position.
#364
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Texas Republicans really want want you to just die, don't they?
#365
figmentPez
figmentPez
Texas freeze allows Jerry Jones’ natural gas company to “hit jackpot”
"The Insurance Council of Texas said insurers are expecting the winter storm of 2021 to become the costliest weather event in the history of the state, topping Hurricane Harvey."
....
“This week is like hitting the jackpot with some of these incredible prices,” Chief Financial Officer [of Comstock Resources Inc.] Roland Burns said on an earnings call Wednesday, via Bloomberg. “Frankly, we were able to sell at super premium prices for a material amount of production.”
"The Insurance Council of Texas said insurers are expecting the winter storm of 2021 to become the costliest weather event in the history of the state, topping Hurricane Harvey."
....
“This week is like hitting the jackpot with some of these incredible prices,” Chief Financial Officer [of Comstock Resources Inc.] Roland Burns said on an earnings call Wednesday, via Bloomberg. “Frankly, we were able to sell at super premium prices for a material amount of production.”
#366
Frank
Frank
Texans, the men profiting from this should probably be done away with in the French fashion.
#367
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Apparently there is a company in Texas that has been charging people thousands to barely provide power.
#368
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
How long before someone else goes on Fox to say "this is what you signed up for, so pay up."?Apparently there is a company in Texas that has been charging people thousands to barely provide power.
#369
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
I got signal boosted by Wil Wheaton. 
#370
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
"Yes, let's find a legal way for the State of TX to just hand money to Jerry Jones."Apparently there is a company in Texas that has been charging people thousands to barely provide power.
--Patrick
#371
figmentPez
figmentPez
Worse than that, one of the companies with soaring bills, Griddy, charges as you go, not with a monthly statement. Their hook to get people to sign up is charging wholesale rates for electricity, and wholesale rates went through the roof during the crisis. People who use them aren't just getting billed thousands of dollars, that money has already been taken out of their bank accounts in most cases.Apparently there is a company in Texas that has been charging people thousands to barely provide power.
#372
Bones
Bones
and this is why republicans seem to scream "REGULATIONS RUIN EVERYTHING" there will, if there is a god, a regulation about selling people uninsulated wholesale pricing for power. This is why we have utility rules up here in mn, afaik its not possible for this to happen here as the power companies are pretty rigorously trying to dampen price fluctuations through generation throughput control via multi-plant go and slow mechanisms. I mean also we dont liver in this dystopian nightmare of utilities that literally lack the mechanisms to protect their infrastructure as bad as texas, possibly because our utilities didnt try to skirt national regulations?Worse than that, one of the companies with soaring bills, Griddy, charges as you go, not with a monthly statement. Their hook to get people to sign up is charging wholesale rates for electricity, and wholesale rates went through the roof during the crisis. People who use them aren't just getting billed thousands of dollars, that money has already been taken out of their bank accounts in most cases.
#373
D
Dubyamn
Wonder how long it'll be before Texas politicians are crowing about their utilities again.
D
Dubyamn
Ah that fills in a couple questions I had about the story. Yeesh hopefully the feds can claw back that money instead of letting the brokers to keep it.Worse than that, one of the companies with soaring bills, Griddy, charges as you go, not with a monthly statement. Their hook to get people to sign up is charging wholesale rates for electricity, and wholesale rates went through the roof during the crisis. People who use them aren't just getting billed thousands of dollars, that money has already been taken out of their bank accounts in most cases.
Wonder how long it'll be before Texas politicians are crowing about their utilities again.
#374
blotsfan
blotsfan
The sad thing is, griddy apparently was going to announce a change in their model to protect against the price being too high within the next few months. But now it's probably too late for them.and this is why republicans seem to scream "REGULATIONS RUIN EVERYTHING" there will, if there is a god, a regulation about selling people uninsulated wholesale pricing for power. This is why we have utility rules up here in mn, afaik its not possible for this to happen here as the power companies are pretty rigorously trying to dampen price fluctuations through generation throughput control via multi-plant go and slow mechanisms. I mean also we dont liver in this dystopian nightmare of utilities that literally lack the mechanisms to protect their infrastructure as bad as texas, possibly because our utilities didnt try to skirt national regulations?
#375
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
i may not post as much, but god bless him, every time i read the title of this thread, i laugh until i cry
#376
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
It is a question that's answered in the asking.i may not post as much, but god bless him, every time i read the title of this thread, i laugh until i cry
#377
PatrThom
PatrThom
Given the OP, my impression was (and still is) that the thread's primary purpose is for sparking discussion and change, isolation and implementation, and not as a place to incubate revolt.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#378
PatrThom
PatrThom
Zero chill.
ZE.
RO.
--Patrick
ZE.
RO.
--Patrick
#379
PatrThom
PatrThom
Somewhat related to the video in the previous post: The Government Just Admitted It Doesn't Really Try to Collect Rich People's Taxes (their headline, not mine).
--PatrickA recent report from the Treasury Department's inspector general concluded that at the IRS, "high-income taxpayers are generally not a collection priority, nor is there a strategy in place to address nonpayment by high-income taxpayers." As evidence, the report showed that the agency failed to recover more than 60 percent of the $4 billion in back taxes owed by those making more than $1.5 million.
#380
mikerc
mikerc
Not sure if this is the right thread, but it speaks of the lack of respect those at the top have for those under them...
Goldman Sachs first year investment bankers: 95 hour weeks are inhumane can we get our working hours capped at only (only!) 80 hours a week.
Goldman Sachs boss: Hey guys don't forget to go the extra mile in your work.
Goldman Sachs first year investment bankers: 95 hour weeks are inhumane can we get our working hours capped at only (only!) 80 hours a week.
Goldman Sachs boss: Hey guys don't forget to go the extra mile in your work.
#381
PatrThom
PatrThom
What it mostly speaks to is this country's fetishization of "hard work" and how anyone who isn't automatically willing to put in extra overtime deserves to be cast aside like the useless slacker they are.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#382
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
I once got tagged as a 'clock watcher' at a job because I would stand up and leave as soon as my 8 hours was complete. One day as I was heading out, one of the guys I worked with said "some of us are willing to put in more time to make sure things get done." and my reply was "and some of us are competent enough to finish our tasks in an 8 hour day."What it mostly speaks to is this country's fetishization of "hard work" and how anyone who isn't automatically willing to put in extra overtime deserves to be cast aside like the useless slacker they are.
--Patrick
#383
Fun Size
Fun Size
Before we all worked from home, I would joke that by the end of the company driveway I would fully forget I had a job at all, as I have a whole lot of other things going on and my work was done for the day.I once got tagged as a 'clock watcher' at a job because I would stand up and leave as soon as my 8 hours was complete. One day as I was heading out, one of the guys I worked with said "some of us are willing to put in more time to make sure things get done." and my reply was "and some of us are competent enough to finish our tasks in an 8 hour day."
#384
Krisken
Krisken
I say all the time "I don't do math on weekends". Just my way of saying my day job is as an accountant and I'm not going out of my way to do it in my free time too.
#386
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Too bad that's not what they tell the politicians
#388
PatrThom
PatrThom
#389
Frank
Frank
I read an article about how Amazon execs are worried they may run out of workers willing to work for Amazon based on the incredible churn they have. Something like 150% of their workforce yearly.
It's insane. There's like...a way...you can stop that from happening.....
It's insane. There's like...a way...you can stop that from happening.....
#390
Bubble181
Bubble181
Robotization? Outsourcing? Using prison labor? I'm sorry, you lost me.It's insane. There's like...a way...you can stop that from happening.....
#391
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
I read an article a few weeks ago about how Chilis was giving interviewees free appetizers for coming in an submitting an application, and I seriously was like "All these guys will literally do anything but raise the hourly wage."
#392
blotsfan
blotsfan
Those “free x just for interviewing” jobs usually require you to give them all of your information. Then they offer you a job at minimum wage and if you say no, they tell you they’re reporting that you turned down a job so you lose your unemployment.I read an article a few weeks ago about how Chilis was giving interviewees free appetizers for coming in an submitting an application, and I seriously was like "All these guys will literally do anything but raise the hourly wage."
#393
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
So it's even worst! hahaThose “free x just for interviewing” jobs usually require you to give them all of your information. Then they offer you a job at minimum wage and if you say no, they tell you they’re reporting that you turned down a job so you lose your unemployment.
#394
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
I kinda wanna go get some free appetizers, and turn down the job, and then laugh and laugh if they threaten to report me for turning it down.Those “free x just for interviewing” jobs usually require you to give them all of your information. Then they offer you a job at minimum wage and if you say no, they tell you they’re reporting that you turned down a job so you lose your unemployment.
#395
bhamv3
bhamv3
Do they offer the appetizers before or after the interview? Cause I'd be interested in going down there, having a snack, and then deliberately tanking the interview in the most hilarious ways possible.
#396
PatrThom
PatrThom
KFC here is offering a $500 signing bonus.
At $12/hr, that's an entire week's pay (40hrs).
--Patrick
At $12/hr, that's an entire week's pay (40hrs).
--Patrick
#397
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
I have never been offered an appetizer at an interview. Nachos would make the accounting talk so much better!
#398
Krisken
Krisken
Saw this and thought "THERE, THERE IS THE INJUSTICE"
That is some rich people bullshit. Pay a living wage you cheap fuck!
That is some rich people bullshit. Pay a living wage you cheap fuck!
#399
PatrThom
PatrThom
To paraphrase what I said in the other thread, “Hello there, prospective guest! Would you be willing to volunteer to help me shoulder the burden of paying my employees a living wage?“
—Patrick
—Patrick
#400
Frank
Frank
If my boss told me he wasn't giving me a raise despite everyone quitting over low wages but instead would try to get us more tips, I would promptly slit his throat.
At this point I'm only half-kidding.
At this point I'm only half-kidding.
#401
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
I tip. I tip more to reward excellent service. I would prefer to pay a higher price to avoid any confusion over how much is expected/required as this can change by area.
I also cannot fathom how executives can consider bonuses when paying below minimum wage means that they can't keep the staff they need to stay in business. That is basic math, right?
I also cannot fathom how executives can consider bonuses when paying below minimum wage means that they can't keep the staff they need to stay in business. That is basic math, right?
#402
PatrThom
I’m willing to bet most of these people are still assuming any people who quit can be immediately filled from the huge pool of unemployed that’s always milling about outside.
Except when it’s suddenly not there any more, of course.
—Patrick
PatrThom
Only when actually considering the long-term effect(s) of their actions.That is basic math, right?
I’m willing to bet most of these people are still assuming any people who quit can be immediately filled from the huge pool of unemployed that’s always milling about outside.
Except when it’s suddenly not there any more, of course.
—Patrick
#403
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
Senior management thinking ahead? Come now...
#404
MindDetective
MindDetective
Nobody tips in Australia...because the minimum wage is reasonable and service workers do not rely on tips to survive. And prices are fine here. They might be slightly more expensive at a fast-food joint (where nobody tips anyways). I have zero complaints about this system. It is how things should work everywhere.
#405
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
I worked at Tim's after university when I was trying to find a job in my field. I needed a firm to take me on as a student and I went to school in a smaller city where the firms took one person each. Of course they took the A+ dudes. I get that.
I got a crazy amount of tips. Who knew? I never had to pay for my cabs or beer that summer. I had no idea that tips were a thing at a fast food place until I worked there.
I got a crazy amount of tips. Who knew? I never had to pay for my cabs or beer that summer. I had no idea that tips were a thing at a fast food place until I worked there.
#406
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
If my boss told me he wasn't giving me a raise despite everyone quitting over low wages but instead would try to get us more tips, I would promptly slit his throat.
At this point I'm only half-kidding.
#407
Tiger Tsang
Tiger Tsang
It's been a looooong time from my service in Germany, but from what I remember, in a general restaurant, unless there was some circumstance that pushed the dining experience outside the normal into exceptional,
Tipping, in the US tradition, was actually rude. Waiters, Waitresses, etc all got paid living wages.
Tipping, in the US tradition, was actually rude. Waiters, Waitresses, etc all got paid living wages.
#408
Bubble181
Mind you, those numbers depend on the country. In France 5%or so is regular, especially in tourist regions because of the damn Yankees
Bubble181
Yes, exaggerated tipping is considered poor form. Round upwards for normal service, maybe 5% or so for really good service, maybe 10% for exceptional things (you changed tables twice and they were accommodating, they took care of a dozen different allergies and sensitivities without any errors, whatever). Tipping much more is boorish, boastful, arrogant, showing off riches.It's been a looooong time from my service in Germany, but from what I remember, in a general restaurant, unless there was some circumstance that pushed the dining experience outside the normal into exceptional,
Tipping, in the US tradition, was actually rude. Waiters, Waitresses, etc all got paid living wages.
Mind you, those numbers depend on the country. In France 5%or so is regular, especially in tourist regions because of the damn Yankees
#409
DarkAudit
www.nbcnews.com
DarkAudit
Front desk *NEVER* gets tips, which makes my blood boil when I read crap like this.exaggerated tipping is considered poor form
Customer leaves $16,000 tip at New Hampshire restaurant
The patron tacked the tip to his $37.93 tab for two chili dogs, pickle chips and some drinks at a restaurant in Londonderry, about 30 miles south of Concord.
#410
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
The thing I hate most about tipping is just that the etiquette isn't really standard. My family always made it out that if someone serves you for an extended period, they should get a tip, so a waiter watching your table, a man delivering your food a good distance, a private chef being hired for a party, etc. Where it always gets muddy is what do you do when you don't have someone specifically serve you? Sometimes I order food for pickup, so the restaurant just has to make the food and bag it while I do the 20 minute drive to get there and grab it. When I don't put a tip in the tip area of the check or put in a small one, some of them give me the side eye like I was destroying their lives.
Tips need to be either a bonus you give, like a tip jar at a smoothie shop, or they just need to be baked into the prices and the servers given a living wage, because I am just so tired of not knowing that I am walking into a landmine because a tip is expected even when I didn't think it was needed.
Tips need to be either a bonus you give, like a tip jar at a smoothie shop, or they just need to be baked into the prices and the servers given a living wage, because I am just so tired of not knowing that I am walking into a landmine because a tip is expected even when I didn't think it was needed.
#411
PatrThom
PatrThom
Yes, when I see stuff like "A 20% gratuity will be added to parties of 5 or more," this just makes me ask for two separate tables for 3.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#412
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Let's just be 100% honest here: Tipping in the US exists entirely because Southerner's needed a way to retain social power in business relationships with recently freed slaves, especially in hospitality and service industries. By forcing recently freed Black Americans to be subservient to racist Southerners in these industries, Southerners were able to "preserve the atmosphere" of the Antebellum South and pretend they were kindly lords employing and educating the poor.
It's time to do away with it.
It's time to do away with it.
#413
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I don't know, that sounds kinda like critical race theory to me. And Tucker Carlson says that makes you racist.Let's just be 100% honest here: Tipping in the US exists entirely because Southerner's needed a way to retain social power in business relationships with recently freed slaves, especially in hospitality and service industries. By forcing recently freed Black Americans to be subservient to racist Southerners in these industries, Southerners were able to "preserve the atmosphere" of the Antebellum South and pretend they were kindly lords employing and educating the poor.
It's time to do away with it.
#414
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Okay as a funny aside, when critical race theory became the new super hot button for the month, I kept seeing people all over being like "What the hell is wrong with CRT? CRT is what makes you racist!" and I kind of stood there like, "Why are all these people so mad at old monitors!?"
Of course then someone actually said critical race theory and it clicked.
Of course then someone actually said critical race theory and it clicked.
#415
Frank
Frank
It was double funny because vidja game twitter was arguing the need for CRTs in old pixel games
#416
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Something else from the brilliant minds over there: Amazon to Some Vendors: If You Want to Work With Us, We Demand A Piece of Your CompanyI read an article about how Amazon execs are worried they may run out of workers willing to work for Amazon based on the incredible churn they have.
And they haven't been penalized yet nor forced to divest/disgorge...why, exactly?Suppliers that want to land Amazon.com Inc. as a client for their goods and services can find that its business comes with a catch: the right for Amazon to buy big stakes in their companies at potentially steep discounts to market value [as part of their contract].
--Patrick
#417
Bubble181
Bubble181
because Amazon has a lot of Free Speech to move around.And they haven't been penalized yet nor forced to divest/disgorge...why, exactly?
--Patrick
#418
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
This guy may be onto something...
#419
chris
chris
Patriotism ends where greed starts.This guy may be onto something...
#420
Tiger Tsang
Tiger Tsang
The point is getting a message to the mouth breathers, like "Freedom Fries", that they can latch onto.Patriotism ends where greed starts.
#421
mikerc
mikerc
Google is going to cut the pay of employees who continue to work from home after the pandemic (potentially by up to 25%!). Um, Google, you do know that the value of their work doesn't change depending on where they do that work right?
In fact since them working from home means that they're using their electricity instead of your electricity it might actually be cheaper for you this way.
In fact since them working from home means that they're using their electricity instead of your electricity it might actually be cheaper for you this way.
#422
Shakey
Shakey
That’s fucked up. Employers are freaking out because employees have shown they don’t need to be watched like little kids to get their work done. Working from home means you’re no longer restricted to jobs in your area and without the social ties from in office interactions, employees have even less incentive to stay with that company.
#423
Bubble181
Bubble181
Imagine people getting paid google-in-Silicon-Valley dollars and living in actually-affordable-and-nice-to-live-in Nowhereville! We can't have that! Quick, find some way to keep 'm coming here!
WFH means a company doesn't need to provide as much office space, electricity, water, etc etc. It's a saving to the company and not even a small one. Trying to dock pay for it is incredibly backwards.
This really is all about control.
WFH means a company doesn't need to provide as much office space, electricity, water, etc etc. It's a saving to the company and not even a small one. Trying to dock pay for it is incredibly backwards.
This really is all about control.
#424
Tinwhistler
Early on, I realized that the whole WFH phenomenon would let workers do some kind of salary arbitrage. It's exactly why I moved back to Texas. I get paid a DC-area salary (which is high compared to here), and moving to Texas saves me about $15,000/year in various state taxes. Plus, the cost of living for most everything is so much lower here. I'll end up with a lot more money in my pocket.
Right now, I'm supporting two apartments, and with the loss of those taxes, I'll still have slightly more money at the end of August than I'd have had if I stayed in VA and only had the one apartment.
Tinwhistler
One company I interviewed with recently had a base pay for the (fully remote) job, but then depending on where you lived, applied some formula to it to adjust the base pay up or down depending on the cost of living of where you were living. Still kind of bullshit, but still seemed more fair than just docking pay for working from home.Imagine people getting paid google-in-Silicon-Valley dollars and living in actually-affordable-and-nice-to-live-in Nowhereville! We can't have that! Quick, find some way to keep 'm coming here!
WFH means a company doesn't need to provide as much office space, electricity, water, etc etc. It's a saving to the company and not even a small one. Trying to dock pay for it is incredibly backwards.
This really is all about control.
Early on, I realized that the whole WFH phenomenon would let workers do some kind of salary arbitrage. It's exactly why I moved back to Texas. I get paid a DC-area salary (which is high compared to here), and moving to Texas saves me about $15,000/year in various state taxes. Plus, the cost of living for most everything is so much lower here. I'll end up with a lot more money in my pocket.
Right now, I'm supporting two apartments, and with the loss of those taxes, I'll still have slightly more money at the end of August than I'd have had if I stayed in VA and only had the one apartment.
#425
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
I’m in a union (which is hilarious, but awesome given what I do) and my pay for where I live is great. If I lived in a big city, I wouldn’t be happy. I think there should be a sliding scale/cost of living index or something, but there isn’t.
#426
Celt Z
Celt Z
This is something I'm curious to see play out as WFH changes the playing field. Right now, cost of living is inflated in areas that have the highest/most competitive jobs. If WFH becomes more common place, how will this effect the market when demand for city and major metropolitan areas goes down? Will cities once again become majority of lower-income workers and jobs that HAVE to be done in person? How will it effect the housing market? Will small towns and places with "affordable living" become swallowed up by those making more money, but don't have to commute? Or will it bring life back to towns and states that have been suffering since production has moved over-seas? I don't know if we'll see the results in our lifetime, but I feel like this is something that millennials/Gen Z/etc. may become their new normal.I think there should be a sliding scale/cost of living index or something, but there isn’t.
#427
PatrThom
PatrThom
It's gonna be a big bunch o' upheaval, that's for sure.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#428
Bubble181
Bubble181
It'll make the whole "convince people to live smaller and closer together for the climate" sell a lot harder, I know that
#429
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
For us, we will be going back with a hybrid model. Certain positions will have more required days a week in person than others due to the nature of the job/public interaction.
#430
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
It's also going to make it harder for companies to "encourage" you to live in convenient, company-sponsored housing.It'll make the whole "convince people to live smaller and closer together for the climate" sell a lot harder, I know that
--Patrick
#431
figmentPez
figmentPez
"I'll work for free before I let restaurant workers earn a higher wage!" - Boomers, apparently.
#432
Squidleybits
Squidleybits
I don’t have the words for this.
#433
Frank
Frank
I fucking cant wait to hear the stories of restaurants complaining that their senior volunteer staff fucked off in the middle of a rough shift because "Fuck this, it's not worth it"
This happens to people who NEED the job to survive, let alone a bunch of likely well off pensioners.
Small businesses in BC have trouble finding workers? Workers in BC have trouble finding places to fucking live.
This happens to people who NEED the job to survive, let alone a bunch of likely well off pensioners.
Small businesses in BC have trouble finding workers? Workers in BC have trouble finding places to fucking live.
#434
Celt Z
"So, will you wear a mask indoors and get vaccinated?"
"FUCK, NO!" -also many Boomers
Celt Z
"It's about helping and protecting our community!""I'll work for free before I let restaurant workers earn a higher wage!" - Boomers, apparently.
"So, will you wear a mask indoors and get vaccinated?"
"FUCK, NO!" -also many Boomers
#435
PatrThom
PatrThom
I saw this linked last week, but the emphasis then was more “hero boomers step in to keep small businesses afloat” and not “bored boomers living off semi-secure government stipend hog all the jobs, ensuring students will never be able to pay off their loans."
--Patrick
--Patrick
#436
Celt Z
Celt Z
These are the people that were dubbed "The Me Generation", or to borrow a quote:I saw this linked last week, but the emphasis then was more “hero boomers step in to keep small businesses afloat” and not “bored boomers living off semi-secure government stipend hog all the jobs, ensuring students will never be able to pay off their loans."
So business as usual. I feel sorry for those who are of this generation and are not like this at all, but few of those people, if any, seem to be in charge of things.The 1970s were dubbed the "Me decade" ...on the rise of a culture of narcissism among the younger generation of that era. The phrase caught on with the general public, at a time when "self-realization" and "self-fulfillment" were becoming cultural aspirations to which young people supposedly ascribed higher importance than social responsibility.
#437
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
These are the people that were dubbed "The Me Generation", or to borrow a quote:
So business as usual. I feel sorry for those who are of this generation and are not like this at all, but few of those people, if any, seem to be in charge of things.
#438
Frank
Scenes from a dystopia.
Frank
Scenes from a dystopia.
#439
PatrThom
arstechnica.com
--Patrick
PatrThom
Billionaire Sacklers granted lifetime legal immunity in opioid settlement
Several states already plan to appeal what the judge himself called "a bitter result."
arstechnica.com
What.A federal bankruptcy judge on Wednesday approved a $4.5 billion opioid settlement that provides sweeping lifetime legal immunity for the billionaire Sackler family behind Purdue Pharma. [...] Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson [said,] “This order lets the Sacklers off the hook by granting them permanent immunity from lawsuits in exchange for a fraction of the profits they made from the opioid epidemic—and sends a message that billionaires operate by a different set of rules than everybody else[. T]his order is insulting to victims of the opioid epidemic who had no voice in these proceedings—and must be appealed."
--Patrick
#440
Frank
Frank
Yeah dude, make billions, be responsible for thousands of deaths, be fined half of those billions, debt paid! Immunity forever.
#441
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
this thread title still make me laugh out loud every time i see it
#442
Ravenpoe
Also, how ya been
Ravenpoe
Yeah, you'd think the answer is obvious in the asking.this thread title still make me laugh out loud every time i see it
Also, how ya been
#443
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
alright, all things consideredYeah, you'd think the answer is obvious in the asking.
Also, how ya been
#444
Dave
Dave
Good to see you, man.
#445
PatrThom
PatrThom
Wow. Someone sure got inspired by Bo.
(NSFW audio)
--Patrick
(NSFW audio)
--Patrick
#446
figmentPez
figmentPez
Jay Leno hates high-priced sandwiches does not understand inflation.
"CNBC notes that Leno used to frequent New York’s iconic Carnegie Deli before his rise to fame, back when the deli’s burgers cost $1.10 and the roast beef sandwich was $4.95. 'I always thought, ‘someday I’m going to make enough money that I can go in there and have the roast beef sandwich,’ Leno told the network. But when he returned to get that roast beef—as a millionaire, some 30 years later—he found the sandwich’s price had inflated to around $18. He walked out. 'I still couldn’t bring myself to do that,' he says. "
Jay first appeared on the Tonight Show in 1977. Using an inflation calculator, I found that $4.95 in 1977 would be worth $22.59 today. Guess $18 isn't that unreasonable.
"CNBC notes that Leno used to frequent New York’s iconic Carnegie Deli before his rise to fame, back when the deli’s burgers cost $1.10 and the roast beef sandwich was $4.95. 'I always thought, ‘someday I’m going to make enough money that I can go in there and have the roast beef sandwich,’ Leno told the network. But when he returned to get that roast beef—as a millionaire, some 30 years later—he found the sandwich’s price had inflated to around $18. He walked out. 'I still couldn’t bring myself to do that,' he says. "
Jay first appeared on the Tonight Show in 1977. Using an inflation calculator, I found that $4.95 in 1977 would be worth $22.59 today. Guess $18 isn't that unreasonable.
#447
figmentPez
figmentPez
Factory workers threatened with firing if they left before tornado, employees say
“I asked to leave and they told me I’d be fired,” Johnson said. “Even with the weather like this, you’re still going to fire me?” he asked.
“Yes,” a manager responded, Johnson told NBC News.
At least eight people died in that factory when a tornado destroyed it.
That enough injustice?
“I asked to leave and they told me I’d be fired,” Johnson said. “Even with the weather like this, you’re still going to fire me?” he asked.
“Yes,” a manager responded, Johnson told NBC News.
At least eight people died in that factory when a tornado destroyed it.
That enough injustice?
#448
Krisken
Krisken
As frustrating as Unions can be, this is what happens without them.
#449
chris
chris
How many of them were managers?
#450
Bubble181
I mean, the ones around here are still a bunch of useless self-destructive idiots who don't understand business, but unions are absolutely necessary to curb the worst effects of runaway capitalism where labor is considered cheap and easily replaceable.
Bubble181
It's easy being opposed to unions or feel they aren't pulling their weight in a social-democratic country in Western Europe. I used to be fairly opposed to unions. By now I've become a member and I'm thankful they're around.As frustrating as Unions can be, this is what happens without them.
I mean, the ones around here are still a bunch of useless self-destructive idiots who don't understand business, but unions are absolutely necessary to curb the worst effects of runaway capitalism where labor is considered cheap and easily replaceable.
#451
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Or, as someone else put it:As frustrating as Unions can be, this is what happens without them.
--Patrick
#452
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
So why the fuck aren't we comparing this shit to the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire? We've got...
- Negligent Official Policy
- Workers forced to choose between their jobs and their lives
- A mountain of evidence that indicates that Amazon knew something like this could happen
- Negligent Official Policy
- Workers forced to choose between their jobs and their lives
- A mountain of evidence that indicates that Amazon knew something like this could happen
#453
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Odd little fact, but I didn't know about the tornado until I was sitting around and my Amazon work app pinged me with a priority notification talking about the damage and loss of life at the warehouse. Went straight to the news to read up more on what happened.
#454
PatrThom
- It happened over 100 years ago
- We deemphasize our failures when teaching history
--Patrick
PatrThom
BecauseSo why the fuck aren't we comparing this shit to the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire?
- It happened over 100 years ago
- We deemphasize our failures when teaching history
--Patrick
#455
Frank
Frank
Triangle Shirt Waist Fire was the first thing I saw this compared to.
#456
blotsfan
blotsfan
Yeah I've seen Triangle Shirtwaist comparisons all over the internet.
#457
GasBandit
GasBandit
When The American Conservative is calling it "Amazon's Triangle Shirtwaist fire," it might be time for some heads to roll.
www.theamericanconservative.com
Amazon’s Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
In Illinois, echoes of the 1911 industrial disaster caused by corporate greed
www.theamericanconservative.com
#458
Bubble181
Bubble181
I had never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.
#459
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It doesn't get taught much in school these days, but it used to be something a lot of Rust Belt states covered.I had never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.
#460
Tress
Tress
Yes, it does. It gets taught in high school frequently, and almost always in any basic US History course in college. Anyone who attended the US school system has no excuse for not knowing about it.It doesn't get taught much in school these days, but it used to be something a lot of Rust Belt states covered.
#461
Celt Z
Celt Z
I was going to say, we definitely learned about it in middle school.
#462
Fun Size
Fun Size
Both my kids learned about it in high school.
#463
PatrThom
—Patrick
PatrThom
Neither had I.I had never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.
Welp.Anyone who attended the US school system has no excuse for not knowing about it.
—Patrick
#464
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I'd never heard of it, and I've been through highschool and college US History courses.Yes, it does. It gets taught in high school frequently, and almost always in any basic US History course in college. Anyone who attended the US school system has no excuse for not knowing about it.
#465
Tress
Tress
Okay, maybe I should revise my statement. Given that the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is a standard part of state standards for history in high school, every student in the US should have heard about it. It's very possible many people forget it as they get older; however, if your teacher truly didn't talk about it they did a shit job and should be ashamed.
#466
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Maybe *should* is the appropriate word here, but you realize every state sets their own standards, right?my statement. Given that the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is a standard part of state standards for history in high school, every student in the US should have heard about it. It's very possible many people forget it as they get older; however, if your teacher truly didn't talk about it they did
#467
Tress
Tress
Of course I do. I’ve studied many of them. It’s in every standard I’ve seen.Maybe *should* is the appropriate word here, but you realize every state sets their own standards, right?
#468
Tinwhistler
I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it's not in Texas'
Tinwhistler
I don't want to derail too much into politics, but...Of course I do. I’ve studied many of them. It’s in every standard I’ve seen.
I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it's not in Texas'
#469
bhamv3
bhamv3
I suspect there are many incidents in American history that should be covered in school, but there are only so many hours in a school year so some things get dropped or glossed over.
I mean, I didn't learn about the Kent State Massacre until I was a university student in Taiwan.
I mean, I didn't learn about the Kent State Massacre until I was a university student in Taiwan.
#470
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
This one is actively being erased and even when it does get taught, they keep trying to call it the Kent State Shooting. No you fucking idiots, the National Guard fired on a crowd of unarmed and defenseless students... you can't even pretend it was justified or there is some moral ambiguity here.I suspect there are many incidents in American history that should be covered in school, but there are only so many hours in a school year so some things get dropped or glossed over.
I mean, I didn't learn about the Kent State Massacre until I was a university student in Taiwan.
#471
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
It's not a requirement in Florida. Shocking to everyone, I'm sure.Of course I do. I’ve studied many of them. It’s in every standard I’ve seen.
#472
PatrThom
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JIQZF2EOBRKYPIWZRELM6AFPQ4.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Good. Let's see if it sticks.
--Patrick
PatrThom
UPDATE:Billionaire Sacklers granted lifetime legal immunity in opioid settlement
Several states already plan to appeal what the judge himself called "a bitter result."
U.S. judge tosses $4.5 bln deal shielding Sacklers from opioid lawsuits
A federal judge overturned a roughly $4.5 billion settlement that legally shielded members of the Sackler family who stand accused of helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic, a decision that threatened to upend the bankruptcy reorganization of their company, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP.
www.reuters.com
Good. Let's see if it sticks.
--Patrick
#473
figmentPez
figmentPez
Even if you don't care about boycotts, it might be wise to stay away from Kellogg's products:
#474
PatrThom
PatrThom
I mean, it's not like there's much cereal on shelves anyway (the aisle is constantly being cleaned out), and I live only something like 35mi from their main plant/HQ.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#475
jwhouk
jwhouk
That is much more than "Yikes!" You almost gotta wonder if there's malicious intent on the part of overworked scab labor.
#476
AshburnerX
I suspect they'll start hiring goons soon and the Republicans will just look the other way, like they always do. Hell, the Pinkertons are still around...
AshburnerX
Sabotage of outgoing goods (ether directly or by interfering with the manufactoring process such as by altering important machine settings) to cost the company money in recalls and undermine the public's faith in the company is one of the oldest union tactics there is. And there is nothing Kellog's can do about it because arresting people for it is just going to antagonize their workers further.That is much more than "Yikes!" You almost gotta wonder if there's malicious intent on the part of overworked scab labor.
I suspect they'll start hiring goons soon and the Republicans will just look the other way, like they always do. Hell, the Pinkertons are still around...
#477
figmentPez
figmentPez
Kellogg's removed their name from Pop Tarts (and presumably other products), because they're hoping people won't remember how much stuff Kellogg's makes, and they know their name is toxic right now:
#478
Krisken
Krisken
If your answer was "racism", you get 10 points.
#479
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Fuck Mojo Manchin. His uncle A. James was a clown. This asshole is a joke.
#480
figmentPez
figmentPez
Amazon Driver Was Warned She'd Be Fired For Returning With Packages During a Tornado
the driver was told that returning to the warehouse would be viewed as a route refusal, "which [would] ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning."
Amazon is denying that this is corporate policy, and trying to make a scapegoat of the dispatcher.
the driver was told that returning to the warehouse would be viewed as a route refusal, "which [would] ultimately end with you not having a job come tomorrow morning."
Amazon is denying that this is corporate policy, and trying to make a scapegoat of the dispatcher.
#481
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
Having gotten a month now into Amazon, and as much as I liked the ease of the onboarding process, I can't deny the company as a whole is pretty fucking stupid.
They have a ton of rules, signs, training, etc. Once you on the floor though? Fuck it, rules are for pussies. Signs everywhere don't put boxes on the floor, leave it on the belt. Piles of stuff now on the belt? "Why didn't you put it on the floor?"
The hardest thing for me as a professional is dealing with the absolute negligence of management. I know WHY they are negligent, they are basically a single rung above you on the ladder, but it gets to me when I get stuck picking up tons of slack on something because management is too busy looking at a number screen for quotas then actually fixing pipeline discrepancies. So many days I come in, get assigned a job working duo in a lane only for the other person to not show up. Since we all have to check in, you would think management would know this and work on a replacement, but no, I now have to work by myself until a manager kind of wanders by on his little cart and wonders where the other person is like they didn't notice their name tag on the sign in board was not marked as there.
Anyways enough ranting, I have had worst jobs, I just get sick of the over reliance on brute numbers over any type of viable efficiency, since it makes the work harder on everyone, but that is a whole other argument. That is why they get pissed about drivers possibly stopping for anything, because the numbers are everything to them.
They have a ton of rules, signs, training, etc. Once you on the floor though? Fuck it, rules are for pussies. Signs everywhere don't put boxes on the floor, leave it on the belt. Piles of stuff now on the belt? "Why didn't you put it on the floor?"
The hardest thing for me as a professional is dealing with the absolute negligence of management. I know WHY they are negligent, they are basically a single rung above you on the ladder, but it gets to me when I get stuck picking up tons of slack on something because management is too busy looking at a number screen for quotas then actually fixing pipeline discrepancies. So many days I come in, get assigned a job working duo in a lane only for the other person to not show up. Since we all have to check in, you would think management would know this and work on a replacement, but no, I now have to work by myself until a manager kind of wanders by on his little cart and wonders where the other person is like they didn't notice their name tag on the sign in board was not marked as there.
Anyways enough ranting, I have had worst jobs, I just get sick of the over reliance on brute numbers over any type of viable efficiency, since it makes the work harder on everyone, but that is a whole other argument. That is why they get pissed about drivers possibly stopping for anything, because the numbers are everything to them.
#482
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
That's why I get annoyed at the constant "how many rooms did YOU sell?" BS. If we're sold out, does it matter? Do you realize that the rooms I *don't* sell might be more important than the ones I do? At this hour, it's imperative to keep out the dealers, junkies, and hookers so the guests we REALLY want aren't scared off.because the numbers are everything to them
#483
figmentPez
No, Jesus, I didn't see you poor and needy, the market did! I would have housed you, blame the market not me!
Fuck Davey Ramsey and his false gospel. He's a racist, ableist, piece of shit who preys on the disadvantaged.
figmentPez
No, Jesus, I didn't see you poor and needy, the market did! I would have housed you, blame the market not me!
Fuck Davey Ramsey and his false gospel. He's a racist, ableist, piece of shit who preys on the disadvantaged.
#484
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Did his mortgage go up on his rent houses? No, fuck him for increasing rent in a depressed market.
#485
TommiR
TommiR
The scripture does make references to helping the poor and needy. Leaving aside religious considerations, however, what exactly is wrong or morally objectionable in wanting to get market value for you property?
No, Jesus, I didn't see you poor and needy, the market did! I would have housed you, blame the market not me!
Fuck Davey Ramsey and his false gospel. He's a racist, ableist, piece of shit who preys on the disadvantaged.
#486
figmentPez
Christians are called to care for others, especially the poor. Part of Dave Ramsey's teachings is that you're supposed to "live like no one else" so that you can "give like no one else". He's built his empire on the image of being a Christian, living by Christian teachings, and claiming that by following those precepts God will reward people with wealth. He's made the promise that if you work hard like he has, then you will be able to give back from your wealth, the way he gives with his wealth. Ramsey has the power to make someone's life better by not demanding what the world says is owed to him. This is a Christian principle, to sacrificially give to others when it is your right to claim more for yourself.
Dave Ramsey absolutely can afford to let one of his properties earn less than market rate. Many landlords make less than market rate, because they find it worth it to keep good tenants, or because they don't want to force someone to move just because they didn't get a raise to keep up with a world in chaos. You don't even have to be religious to decide that people are more important than money. However, if you are going to say, "I am a Christian. I follow Christ's teachings." well, then Christ said to give to those in need, and that whatever you do to the least of humans, you've also done to him. Dave Ramsey is only right in raising the rent beyond his clients means to pay, if he'd also do the same to a poor and in need Jesus Christ Himself.
Raising rent for those that can pay? Fine. Raising rent because you can't afford to provide the housing without charging more? Morally frustrating, but sometimes people don't have anything to give. Raising rent because the market says you should be earning more on your investment, even though you have more than enough to live on already, and raising the rent so high that you force someone out of their home during a pandemic? Well, now, that's just being a greedy asshole who is exploiting the image of religion while refusing to practice what they preach.
figmentPez
Kicking someone out of their home because you want to make a better return on your investment is greed, pure and simple. If he had said that a landlord has costs, and that the overhead of maintaining a property has increased, so too much rent increase, that would have been different. No, he said the market value, and we all know that the market value is based on how much money can be wrung out of people, not on how much it costs to provide it. Mr. Ramsey is advocating raising the rent just because everyone else is, and hiding behind what the world does as an excuse for a Christian to avoid the responsibilities of their faith.The scripture does make references to helping the poor and needy. Leaving aside religious considerations, however, what exactly is wrong or morally objectionable in wanting to get market value for you property?
Christians are called to care for others, especially the poor. Part of Dave Ramsey's teachings is that you're supposed to "live like no one else" so that you can "give like no one else". He's built his empire on the image of being a Christian, living by Christian teachings, and claiming that by following those precepts God will reward people with wealth. He's made the promise that if you work hard like he has, then you will be able to give back from your wealth, the way he gives with his wealth. Ramsey has the power to make someone's life better by not demanding what the world says is owed to him. This is a Christian principle, to sacrificially give to others when it is your right to claim more for yourself.
Dave Ramsey absolutely can afford to let one of his properties earn less than market rate. Many landlords make less than market rate, because they find it worth it to keep good tenants, or because they don't want to force someone to move just because they didn't get a raise to keep up with a world in chaos. You don't even have to be religious to decide that people are more important than money. However, if you are going to say, "I am a Christian. I follow Christ's teachings." well, then Christ said to give to those in need, and that whatever you do to the least of humans, you've also done to him. Dave Ramsey is only right in raising the rent beyond his clients means to pay, if he'd also do the same to a poor and in need Jesus Christ Himself.
Raising rent for those that can pay? Fine. Raising rent because you can't afford to provide the housing without charging more? Morally frustrating, but sometimes people don't have anything to give. Raising rent because the market says you should be earning more on your investment, even though you have more than enough to live on already, and raising the rent so high that you force someone out of their home during a pandemic? Well, now, that's just being a greedy asshole who is exploiting the image of religion while refusing to practice what they preach.
#487
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
One could argue it is morally objectional to be a landlord in the first place, but the obvious answer is you are valuing wanting more money over letting people stay in their home.The scripture does make references to helping the poor and needy. Leaving aside religious considerations, however, what exactly is wrong or morally objectionable in wanting to get market value for you property?
#488
Bubble181
Depending on the housing market in the area/country, and the way you treat the house(s) you own, it absolutely can be sleazy and immoral, but it certainly doesn't come with the simple act of owning a house.
Bubble181
I disagree that being a landlord in and of itself is inherently immoral.One could argue it is morally objectional to be a landlord in the first place, but the obvious answer is you are valuing wanting more money over letting people stay in their home.
Depending on the housing market in the area/country, and the way you treat the house(s) you own, it absolutely can be sleazy and immoral, but it certainly doesn't come with the simple act of owning a house.
#489
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Owning a house doesn't make you a landlord.but it certainly doesn't come with the simple act of owning a house.
#490
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I can't sleep, so I guess I'll elaborate on why landlords are immoral.
First, what is a landlord? A landlord is someone who owns a home or other property that they are not using and so rent out to others to live in. I'm talking entirely about residential landlords. People with capital, aka wealth, use it to buy a valuable commodity, in this case a home, apartment, etc, and then rent to those that can't afford to buy property of their own. Why can't they afford their own property? A great many very complicated reasons, but one of them is because landlords have purchased all the property so that others can't have it. Why do "market values" (which, as a reminder, is entirely made up) go up? Because those with capital use their wealth to continue the divide, pricing out poorer people so that they can justify charging more and gaining even more capital, while those renting effectively see no lasting benefit to their labor, working to instead fund the landlord's next venture.
This thread is about asking if income inequality is unjust. Most people here outside of steinman and the guy with the increasingly unironic Mr Burns avatar seem to think so. Landlords profit off of this inequality.
So this is why you are morally justified to punch a landlord in the face.
First, what is a landlord? A landlord is someone who owns a home or other property that they are not using and so rent out to others to live in. I'm talking entirely about residential landlords. People with capital, aka wealth, use it to buy a valuable commodity, in this case a home, apartment, etc, and then rent to those that can't afford to buy property of their own. Why can't they afford their own property? A great many very complicated reasons, but one of them is because landlords have purchased all the property so that others can't have it. Why do "market values" (which, as a reminder, is entirely made up) go up? Because those with capital use their wealth to continue the divide, pricing out poorer people so that they can justify charging more and gaining even more capital, while those renting effectively see no lasting benefit to their labor, working to instead fund the landlord's next venture.
This thread is about asking if income inequality is unjust. Most people here outside of steinman and the guy with the increasingly unironic Mr Burns avatar seem to think so. Landlords profit off of this inequality.
So this is why you are morally justified to punch a landlord in the face.
#491
PatrThom
As for landlords being morally bankrupt, I disagree. Being a landlord does not automatically mean a person is morally bankrupt. It is quite possible to be a landlord who responsibly provides shelter and so on to the people who need it without being a greedy asshole, but due to the opportunities such a profession provides, it is one that unfortunately attracts the sort of person who enjoys treating tenants as nothing more than a crop to be harvested for the money they contain. Similarly it is entirely possible to be an MMA fighter because you enjoy the thrill and opportunity to display your skill, but the position is also going to attract a lot of people who get into it solely because they see it as an opportunity to get their jollies by hurting others "for free," so to speak.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I can see why you think that about @TommiR , but I don't know as Steinman is one who believes there is no divide.This thread is about asking if income inequality is unjust. Most people here outside of steinman and the guy with the increasingly unironic Mr Burns avatar seem to think so.
As for landlords being morally bankrupt, I disagree. Being a landlord does not automatically mean a person is morally bankrupt. It is quite possible to be a landlord who responsibly provides shelter and so on to the people who need it without being a greedy asshole, but due to the opportunities such a profession provides, it is one that unfortunately attracts the sort of person who enjoys treating tenants as nothing more than a crop to be harvested for the money they contain. Similarly it is entirely possible to be an MMA fighter because you enjoy the thrill and opportunity to display your skill, but the position is also going to attract a lot of people who get into it solely because they see it as an opportunity to get their jollies by hurting others "for free," so to speak.
--Patrick
#492
MindDetective
MindDetective
I was a landlord because I couldn't sell my house except at a tragic loss during the market crash after 2008. I was not financially stable enough to take on that loss, so renting was my only real option.
#493
Vrii
Vrii
That's very different than "I'm going to buy this eighth property because I prefer that the money poor people spend on housing create value for me instead of them" though, yeah?I was a landlord because I couldn't sell my house except at a tragic loss during the market crash after 2008. I was not financially stable enough to take on that loss, so renting was my only real option.
#494
MindDetective
MindDetective
Which is why I shared my story. Not all landlords are Landlords.That's very different than "I'm going to buy this eighth property because I prefer that the money poor people spend on housing create value for me instead of them" though, yeah?
#495
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
So I thought about including niche scenarios, like the family down on their luck renting a room out of their house to try to make extra income, or scenarios like yours, but I like to think these people would be willing to catch random hands now and then if it meant all the other landlords get their shit kicked in regularly.I was a landlord because I couldn't sell my house except at a tragic loss during the market crash after 2008. I was not financially stable enough to take on that loss, so renting was my only real option.
#496
Bubble181
Bubble181
Which is why I asked. I'm on the phone so don't want to make a long post right now, but... Some landlords are evil jackasses. Slumlords are evil? Sure, fine. Corporations like JLL or whatever using large housing sites as money farms are evil? Damn right. All owners of a house that is rented out are evil? Nonsense.Which is why I shared my story. Not all landlords are Landlords.
#497
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Pretty close thoughAll owners of a house that is rented out are evil? Nonsense.
#498
Vrii
Vrii
Not everyone who owns a house being rented, sure. Everyone who buys a house for the sole purpose of renting it, though? Or as an investment? Fuck 'em.All owners of a house that is rented out are evil?
#499
PatrThom
I have no idea what the percentages are, though I assume the assholes outnumber the rest.
--Patrick
PatrThom
The assholes definitely ruin the image for the rest, that's for sure.Pretty close though
I have no idea what the percentages are, though I assume the assholes outnumber the rest.
--Patrick
#500
D
Dubyamn
I'm not saying that being a landlord is the moral equivalent of being a slave owner just pointing out that there being good people doing a thing doesn't mean the thing isn't fundamentally evil.
D
Dubyamn
I'm sure there were slave holders who treated their property well. Doesn't make the institution or the action of owning another person any less reprehensible.I can see why you think that about @TommiR , but I don't know as Steinman is one who believes there is no divide.
As for landlords being morally bankrupt, I disagree. Being a landlord does not automatically mean a person is morally bankrupt. It is quite possible to be a landlord who responsibly provides shelter and so on to the people who need it without being a greedy asshole, but due to the opportunities such a profession provides, it is one that unfortunately attracts the sort of person who enjoys treating tenants as nothing more than a crop to be harvested for the money they contain. Similarly it is entirely possible to be an MMA fighter because you enjoy the thrill and opportunity to display your skill, but the position is also going to attract a lot of people who get into it solely because they see it as an opportunity to get their jollies by hurting others "for free," so to speak.
--Patrick
I'm not saying that being a landlord is the moral equivalent of being a slave owner just pointing out that there being good people doing a thing doesn't mean the thing isn't fundamentally evil.