If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 209
    More: Interesting, First they came..., President Obama, Sam Zell, wealths, Tom Perkins  
•       •       •

3844 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 6:51 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 07:57:53 PM

DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?


I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.
 
2014-02-07 07:58:21 PM
www.dimensionsinfo.com

Here, let me play a song to ease their suffering.
 
2014-02-07 08:04:01 PM
I agree mostly with the article. However, I'm not sure letting your dog kill the cheeky bastards would be the best thing for your dog.
 
2014-02-07 08:04:17 PM

StopLurkListen: [www.zerohedge.com image 600x432]
\


Nice boat.
 
2014-02-07 08:05:12 PM
Obviously deluded rich people: "We're being scapegoated by envious liberals."

Fark Liberals: "Self-pity?  Off with their heads!"
 
2014-02-07 08:05:27 PM
Sorry, wrong thread.
 
2014-02-07 08:06:35 PM

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?

I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.


What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.
 
2014-02-07 08:06:38 PM

Bith Set Me Up: Got another one:

How the 1% sees themselves:

[fourthdayuniverse.com image 700x530]

How everyone else sees them:

[static3.wikia.nocookie.net image 563x494]


One of the best Ferengi.

Also:
static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-02-07 08:06:38 PM

Captain Dan: Obviously deluded rich people: "We're being scapegoated by envious liberals."

Fark Liberals: "Self-pity?  Off with their heads!"


There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.
 
2014-02-07 08:06:49 PM
"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said

www-deadline-com.vimg.net 

    "Errr, Doc?  Thats not it!"
 
2014-02-07 08:10:56 PM

DirkValentine: What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.


Not at all - I think its good that people get a sense of what these jobs are like.

I'm an M&A attorney, so my weeks are highly variable. I do deals (i.e. companies buying and selling each other), so when a client comes to us and says "we want to buy/sell X", then the work gets very busy. 90 hour weeks very common. But if there's nothing happening? I sort of do nothing - get in the office at 10, leave at 5, watching Netflix during the day. So the work is binary - I'm either busy and the week is packed, or I do nothing. And part of the reason they pay me is that I can switch back and forth without going crazy - lots of people flame out of this job because the lifestyle isn't for them.

Also, the thing to remember about lawyers is that when you ask us how many hours we worked, we only tell you billable hours - so when I say 2200 hours, that means I billed 2200 hours. I was probably in the office closer to 2800 hours or so, hard to say (I don't keep track of the hours I don't bill).
 
2014-02-07 08:11:37 PM
"We can take every cent out of the economy and keep it."

"How?"


"Just be ruthless, loathsome sh*tbags."


"NONE OF THE  OTHER KIDS WILL BE NICE TO US BECAUSE WE'RE RUTHLESS, LOATHSOME S*TBAGS!"  *SNIFF*
 
2014-02-07 08:12:07 PM

T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.


Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.
 
2014-02-07 08:14:39 PM

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.

Not at all - I think its good that people get a sense of what these jobs are like.

I'm an M&A attorney, so my weeks are highly variable. I do deals (i.e. companies buying and selling each other), so when a client comes to us and says "we want to buy/sell X", then the work gets very busy. 90 hour weeks very common. But if there's nothing happening? I sort of do nothing - get in the office at 10, leave at 5, watching Netflix during the day. So the work is binary - I'm either busy and the week is packed, or I do nothing. And part of the reason they pay me is that I can switch back and forth without going crazy - lots of people flame out of this job because the lifestyle isn't for them.

Also, the thing to remember about lawyers is that when you ask us how many hours we worked, we only tell you billable hours - so when I say 2200 hours, that means I billed 2200 hours. I was probably in the office closer to 2800 hours or so, hard to say (I don't keep track of the hours I don't bill).


My point is this:

Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.
 
2014-02-07 08:15:28 PM

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


came here to say this
 
2014-02-07 08:16:55 PM
What amazed me about capitalists is that almost all of them seem to have absolutely no understand of how capitalism works.

The whole basis of capitalism is the reason people get a return on capital is that there's risk - if you own stock, you get a return since your investment may tank. If you buy debt, same deal. The people who are in the top 1% are there because they made good bets with their capital investments. That's how people make billions of dollars.

You want a system where people are rewarded for hard work? OK - you're a Marxist. Seriously, that's Marxist. "To each according to his labor" is a Marxist maxim, the transitionary phase from capitalism to communism.

I mean, this is basic shiat.
 
2014-02-07 08:17:30 PM
if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.
 
2014-02-07 08:19:01 PM

DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.


I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.
 
2014-02-07 08:19:38 PM
I don't think a single person, rich or poor, actually believes that hard work is sufficient for becoming/staying rich.  Most rich people only argue that it's necessary.
 
2014-02-07 08:21:17 PM
You can only shove the whole cake in your pants and run out of the party laughing so many times until the other kids stop inviting you back, you whiny, delusional, doltish pigs.
 
2014-02-07 08:22:06 PM

DirkValentine: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?

I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.

What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.


*chokes*

Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.
 
2014-02-07 08:23:18 PM
Intellect has no bearing on remuneration, wealth is no reflection of effort or skill and power is no reflection of ethics or capability and THAT - I S - the great American lesson.
 
2014-02-07 08:24:43 PM
These guys are about as oppressed as American Christians.
 
2014-02-07 08:24:50 PM
How the 1% sees themselves:

1.bp.blogspot.com

How everyone else sees them:

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-02-07 08:25:32 PM

Bith Set Me Up: First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.


So they're at that point where between income, payroll, state income, and all the extra shiat they pile on on the state level, that the 1% are at about 55-60% marginal income taxes, which means that they're between 120-150% of their take-home going to taxes.  Even with capital gains, they're at 50-60%.

And at this point, the BIG deal is "How high do we raise their taxes?".  Seriously, it's worse than smokers.  Obama just raised the capital gains rate from 15% to ~23.8% (You need to include the extra taxes from Obamacare) which then combines with CA's extra stuff to get you to ~37%.  (which from skimming Wiki, is pretty high.  Belgium's at 0% if you meet certain conditions, Canada's at 21.5%, Finland's at 32%, even Denmark's only at 42% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax).

And if you raise that, that means that they don't invest in my company (or any companies), which means that I don't have a job, no one in my industry has a job outside of the big incredibly dysfunctional corps, the odds of replacing the giant corporations (albeit with newer, different corporations doing exciting new things) go WAY down, the rate of technical innovation in the USA drops by a factor of 15, we lose our lead in technical development and become another Europe, and we get another dot-com crash.  Remember that REALLY nasty recession right at the beginning of Bush's term?  Yeah.

So in that world, the rich are merely rich instead of even richer, and I'm dirt-poor instead of merely broke with a chance of getting to well-off if I'm in the right place at the right time.  Oh, and you just killed ANY hope of richest dude turnover (or corporate turnover because every company was a start-up at some point).  Because the founders have 20%, and the VC's also have 20%, but they have 20% of 99 other companies that blew up in their faces.  So their rate of return is a lot less than the lucky founders, and the founders get to be richer than the VC's (and then become the next group of VC's).

Mind you, it really sucks to be uneducated in this world (since tech is getting increasingly good at replacing unskilled, poorly skilled, and just plain stupid people), and if you have a culture that doesn't value education you're completely farked, but that's been coming since freaking ENIAC.  And raising taxes to push even harder on the inequality string won't fix the problem*.

/Silicon Valley = Nerds + Rich People wanting and able to be richer + time.
//Though seriously, the pain of income taxes is NOT linear.  It's 1/(1-x). Going to 50 hurts less than going from 50 to 75.  (unless of course, the average return on investment is less than 2:1 at which point you're equally totally farked).

*There's actually a bunch of these, but the main ones are:
a) That smart/hard-working/lucky people are NOTABLY more productive and just do a better job on average, that the degree of this difference increases on the average as we shift from physical to knowledge work, and that because I can put my cool thing on the internet and ship it to a billion people, that the best (or at least most popular) product is going to win out and be used by a billion people turning the people behind it on every level into super-billionaires while everyone else gets screwed (or goes into a really tight job market and makes $150K/year plus stock or gets acquired for a few million).

a2) That because of this difference, unions are f*cked.  Seriously.  Google is NEVER going to unionize.  Software engineers worth hiring generally hate them because of their pro-seniority, pro-worst-worker.

a3) That because of this difference, income equality is f*cked.  (Rip out the $1.5 Trillion in welfare, combine it with Social Security, and turn it into a $15K/year GMI for everyone above the age of 21, and then stop farking biatching about the inequality.  The inequality is going to happen.  Letting it happen gets you cool toys on the low end, extra wealth on the high end, and higher incomes in the middle, and global cultural and technical dominance with the brain drain in your favor from the rest of the world that comes with both).

b) That increasingly cheap tech is killing entire industries and replacing them with entire new industries that by and large depend on employees being WAY smarter than the old industries (but pay accordingly), marginalizing an increasingly large subset of the population that either is unable to acquire or culturally prevented from acquiring a decent education.

c) That destroying the ability to acquire wealth by doing cool shiat (as opposed to being an African warlord and just stealing it) FARKS societal wealth long-term.  "At various times and places in history, whether you could accumulate a fortune by creating wealth has been turned on and off. Northern Italy in 800, off (warlords would steal it). Northern Italy in 1100, on. Central France in 1100, off (still feudal). England in 1800, on. England in 1974, off (98% tax on investment income). United States in 1974, on. We've even had a twin study: West Germany, on; East Germany, off. In every case, the creation of wealth seems to appear and disappear like the noise of a fan as you switch on and off the prospect of keeping it." And that won us the Cold War.  Because Reagan was spending 6% of GDP against 15-20% of Soviet GDP (keeping in mind that no one really knows what Soviet GDP or military spending actually were, I've heard of estimates as high as 40%, and the Politburo was probably less informed than most because of the whole "bad news = Gulag" thing (and since the CIA were reading the Politburo's mail, we were just as clueless)).  And you can't do that forever.

/Mind you, if you've got a no-loopholes way of taxing inheritances, go nuts.
//Even the Koch Brothers, whatever they may be doing now,  initially came from a guy doing cool shiat.
 
2014-02-07 08:25:55 PM

TopoGigo: DirkValentine: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?

I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.

What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.

*chokes*

Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.


*waits for the "oh, dear, see, you just have to get bootstrappy!" kneepad squad to get the poors pillory out*
 
2014-02-07 08:27:50 PM

TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.


It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.
 
2014-02-07 08:31:16 PM

Captain Dan: T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.

Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.


Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?
 
2014-02-07 08:32:14 PM
I got one, Bith Set Me Up

How the Rich see themselves:

static2.wikia.nocookie.net

How everybody else sees them:

www.buzzle.com
 
2014-02-07 08:32:44 PM

ongbok: Captain Dan: T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.

Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.

Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?


That's actually a bad example - the French Revolution was done by poor people who were being oppressed.

A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.
 
2014-02-07 08:33:55 PM
Yen Buddhists.... excess money and valuables are a drain on one's spiritual welfare and an active impediment on achieving dharma and oneness with the universe. Therefore, the monks make the world the selfless offer that they will undertake, at the risk of their own union with the godhood, to take away this impediment to other people achieving consciousness and the opening of the Third Eye. They accept the spiritual tarnish that comes with being one of the richest religious sects on the world so that you don't have to.
 
2014-02-07 08:35:43 PM
ongbok: Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?


That can't happen here cause exceptionalism and fungible and pancakes and hey, yah, cripes dere, sure, you betcha and Murka! and  freedom fries and free speech zones and free lawyers to defend your ass in front of a pack of vultures in dresses who are curious as to why you can't seem to come up wit a lousy couple of grand to pay GE's taxes.
 
2014-02-07 08:36:01 PM

Those millionaire's stretched and worn out bootstraps


show them to me

 
2014-02-07 08:37:06 PM

ongbok: Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?


If the French Revolutionaries had been well-fed to the point of obese, and had access to TV, porn, and marijuana, then France would still today have the Ancien Régime.
 
2014-02-07 08:38:01 PM

dopirt: Sorry, wrong thread.


No, it works.
 
2014-02-07 08:38:08 PM

DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.


The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.
 
2014-02-07 08:38:36 PM

Captain Dan: T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.

Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.


Right, because the widespread starvation in Kiev or Bangkok (or today, Sarajevo- good luck finding headlines on that in the US) is crushing. You've not done your history- revolutions are often started by frustrated middle or mercantile classes, who draw on desperate lower classes (and you think no one in the US feels desperate?) for manning the barricades.

Robespierre was a lawyer. Lenin came from a wealthy. middle-class family. Even Hitler needed the support of the Junkers.
 
2014-02-07 08:39:12 PM

Captain Dan: DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.

The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.


Kind of. There's a pretty big difference between "I lost the vote on what the taxes should be" and "I don't get to vote on what the taxes should be".
 
2014-02-07 08:39:54 PM
To me it's strange that the wealthy are so very concerned about socialism and taxes but if you look historically at wealth disparity, socialism has only gotten traction when 1% of the population have 99% of the assets. Otherwise people are pretty happy with their rich neighbors.
 
2014-02-07 08:43:03 PM

TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.


FWIW:

1) Taxes suck ass.  Depending on state, he's bringing home between $80-90K.  Some cities tack on an extra 2-3% because city is expensive.  After taxes, insurance, and 401K, if he's bringing home more than $70K, he's doing it wrong (Albeit, he has medical insurance and a retirement fund)
2) Big city.  Average rent in SF is $2875 for a 1 BR (AKA: $35K of that $70K.  God forbid you have kids, and need more than 1BR), and everything's 1.5-3x* more expensive because of it.
2b) You also get big city problems like traffic, farked-up mass transit (Interestingly, those 2 things are independent of each other), homeless dudes, slums being right there, etc, etc.

So you get $35K/year to throw around, which actually is probably worth half of that because of COL (though you see a lot of Porsches in the parking lots of outright *shiatty* apartments).

So $17K/year equivalent in discretionary income + sitting in a kind of janky apartment, and almost never being able to afford a decent house on your own.  That's what having a career gets you.  And even in SF, that's late-20's career**

/Note: I don't know where he is.  FWIW, Cleveland is paying about 80% of SF, while also letting you buy an OK house in an up-and-coming neighborhood for $40K.  Those are the people who make you cry.

*Don't ask how much eating out costs.  You'll cry.  I'm about to spend $30-40/person at an OK restaurant in downtown Mountain View.   The nice Burmese place where we had the company Christmas dinner was $100/person (though a lot of that was booze).
**Further note: I have seen exactly 2 software engineers older than 40 (and very few above 35).  So your career starts at 22, you become "experienced" in 5 years because the industry changes that fast doubling your initial salary in the process (which is probably 80% of your total salary increases), and then duck out to do your own thing or fall behind due to knowledge lacking (or get super-rich via startup and become a VC).
 
2014-02-07 08:44:46 PM
"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" [Tom Perkins] wrote.

I'll tell you what, Tom, If people come after the billionaires like the Nazis came after the Jews we'll come to help you!

...we'll first just have to fund the infrastructure to pave a way toward you and yours, manned by a well-schooled, working populace that isn't starving.
 
2014-02-07 08:46:11 PM

DamnYankees: Captain Dan: DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.

The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.

Kind of. There's a pretty big difference between "I lost the vote on what the taxes should be" and "I don't get to vote on what the taxes should be".


To be fair, noone else did either. In school I learned the colonies were oppressed and not given a vote on things.

As an adult I learned that "No Taxation without Representation!" was the equivelant of today's "Get the Government's hands off my Medicare!"

The colonies were heavily criticised for a revolution based on something that didn't exist for anyone, not just the colonies. Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.

Things like the Boston Massacre got the ball rolling, but the actual 'morals' and 'ethics' of the Revolutionary War were based on propaganda. Britain didn't ignore it, either. There were plenty of cartoons lampooning the American colonies as being hypocrits, "All men are created equal" while pointing out that the blacks at the time were still enslaved (literally).

It was a ploy for power, nothing more.
 
2014-02-07 08:48:00 PM

T-Servo: Right, because the widespread starvation in Kiev or Bangkok (or today, Sarajevo- good luck finding headlines on that in the US) is crushing.


What's happening in Bangkok is one of the most right-wing revolutions in world history.  It's the 1% rebelling against democracy, because they believe that they're overtaxed and that the rural poor are being over-subsidized.

Ukraine's is a civil war between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.  It's not comparable to any kind of left-wing rebellion.

You've not done your history- revolutions are often started by frustrated middle or mercantile classes, who draw on desperate lower classes (and you think no one in the US feels desperate?) for manning the barricades.

Robespierre was a lawyer. Lenin came from a wealthy. middle-class family. Even Hitler needed the support of the Junkers.


You're right that revolutions are almost always spearheaded by middle- or upper-class figures, but they depend on the dead bodies provided by the masses of starving, miserable poor people.  Russia in 1905 had that.  Germany in the 1920s had that.  America in 2013 doesn't have anything close to that.  Our biggest food problem is, by an order of magnitude, being overfed to the point of obesity.
 
2014-02-07 08:48:11 PM

meyerkev: And if you raise that, that means that they don't invest in my company (or any companies), which means that I don't have a job


Oh boy, people are still peddling trickle-down bullshiat. Investors don't create jobs. People with extra cash to spend on goods and services create jobs.
 
2014-02-07 08:48:55 PM

DamnYankees: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.


Right. I pay $550 in mortgage, and in 12 years, I'll own my 1890's, extensively remodeled, four bedroom house in a nice little village outright. That's a big benefit to living where I live. My wife is a teacher, and she gets paid a decent wage for our area. After all our bills, which include such luxuries as smartphones but no landline, high speed internet but no cable, car payments on two new cars--both of which together add up to $500/month, she has about $600 disposable income, and I have about $30. What the hell she spends her money on I don't know, but I've learned that not asking questions is far cheaper than a divorce. Still, we lead a fairly good life and don't have to worry about whether we can pay the electric bill or buy food. I have to rob Peter to buy extravagances like new pants or shoes, but the wife does no such thing.

What kills me, though, is trying to imagine life on straight minimum wage. In Ohio it's $7.95 this year, and there are very few minimum wage jobs that will give you forty hours these days. My job caps me at thirty. That means if both of us worked McJobs, we'd have a bring-home of about $440 a week. How in the hell does someone raise a family with that kind of income?
 
2014-02-07 08:49:47 PM

Weatherkiss: The colonies were heavily criticised for a revolution based on something that didn't exist for anyone, not just the colonies. Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.


Not sure I buy this. People in the UK may not have had perfect representation, but they had some representation. There was a House of Commons which held the power, and they did have MPs from each district. The US had zero representation in that body.

Democracy isn't binary, it's a sliding scale. So if we put the current US House of Representatives is 90% democratic (lop off 10% for gerrymandering and campaign finance issues), then the 1776 House of Commons was 40% democratic from the perspective of people who lived in England, and basically 0% democratic from the perspective of people in the US.

That's not nothing.
 
2014-02-07 08:57:15 PM
A very small segment of our population has access to far more resources than they would ever need in a hundred thousand lifetimes.

I would challenge that this current state of affairs isn't doing anyone, including the "1%" any good. For what use is mountains and mountains of money if it's logistically impossible for you to spend it all?

I actually think that most of these super rich people are mentally ill because their actions don't make any sense. If you have more than you could ever possibly need, then what you have becomes more or less worthless. Yet they don't act like this: If the mere mention (not action!) of phrases like "income redistribution" invokes feelings of terror, well, I don't see how any normal rational person would act this way. It's almost a self-defeating sort of behavioural pattern as it means that unless you have a feeling of 100% security and control, then despite how much you have, it will never be enough. I can't see how that's actually a pleasant way for anyone to live...
 
2014-02-07 08:58:03 PM

Captain Dan: The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.



*sigh*

Let's review.

Socialism works GREAT!
Capitalism works GREAT!
Communism works GREAT!

DANDY societal methodologies, all!

Now.

Who me ONE country actually practicing ANY of them as on the label, let alone one enlightened enough to realize that one, without the other two, is a mile wide corruption and oppression bolt hole.

It ain't 1774, people aren't doing business with actual wealth, because they don't have any.  There's no sweet, verdant fields of gold over the next horizon, just some Burger King signs.

We're all moved in.

And the cocksucker set stripped everything but the paint off the walls and they're working on that.

History is a lesson.

Not a cheap template you pound today's actions and methods that are making today's history, into.

When one fat kid eats the whole buffet, yeah, you get to give your family some styrofoam plates and sporks for dinner.  And it never turns out well for the fat kid.  That's the lesson.  People, no matter what size the carrot on the out-of-reach stick eventually weary of the horsesh*t and start braking sh*t.  Because there's no reason not to.

woody.typepad.com
 
2014-02-07 09:00:09 PM

meyerkev: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

FWIW:

1) Taxes suck ass.  Depending on state, he's bringing home between $80-90K.  Some cities tack on an extra 2-3% because city is expensive.  After taxes, insurance, and 401K, if he's bringing home more than $70K, he's doing it wrong (Albeit, he has medical insurance and a retirement fund)
2) Big city.  Average rent in SF is $2875 for a 1 BR (AKA: $35K of that $70K.  God forbid you have kids, and need more than 1BR), and everything's 1.5-3x* more expensive because of it.
2b) You also get big city problems like traffic, farked-up mass transit (Interestingly, those 2 things are independent of each other), homeless dudes, slums being right there, etc, etc.

So you get $35K/year to throw around, which actually is probably worth half of that because of COL (though you see a lot of Porsches in the parking lots of outright *shiatty* apartments).

So $17K/year equivalent in discretionary income + sitting in a kind of janky apartment, and almost never being able to afford a decent house on your own.  That's what having a career gets you.  And even in SF, that's late-20's career**

/Note: I don't know where he is.  FWIW, Cleveland is paying about 80% of SF, while also letting you buy an OK house in an up-and-coming neighborhood for $40K.  Those are the peop ...


Yeah, I know. I'd be happy if I could get $15/hr and a 40 hour work week. Oh, and not be treated like an interchangeable cog. With a $600-700 bring-home per week, plus what the wife makes, we'd be doing just damned fine, TYVM. I mean, as long as I don't plan on paying for the kid's college or retiring or anything stupid like that. The wife does get pretty good insurance, but her generous pension plan is already being stolen from her as we speak. I fully expect that by the time she retires--ten years later than she was eligible to when she started--her pension will be paid in cat food.

Her first year of teaching, the deal was that she could retire at 50% pay, average of the top three years pay, at 20 years service, and 100% at 30 years service. As of now, she can't retire at all until 28 years or something, and to get 100% average of the top five years, she has to work something like 40 years.
 
2014-02-07 09:01:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


Are you saying it was easy being shoved out of their mothers' vaginas?
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report