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 (24 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 09:02:17 PM
TwistedFark:


i.imgur.com


QFT.


See what happens when you step back far enough from the tree to see the forest fire?
 
2014-02-07 09:02:21 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


You're half-right. At the time (according to the wikipedia), only about 3% of Britain was able to vote. The whole "Virtual Representation" thing and what have you was a cover-up for political corruption. But my original point is that the situation with the American colonies was not unique for Britain, since 97% of the rest of Britain and its territories were not fairly represented either. This was a problem with Britain as a whole, not specifically the colonies.

Like Washington D.C., the colonists paid taxes despite not having direct representation in parliament, but still enjoyed protection by British troops.
 
2014-02-07 09:03:15 PM
fark these people.  fark the nameable very very rich.  And SUPER fark them if they just sit on their mountain of gold, the farkers.  THAT shiat is what is killing the American economy.  No one would begrudge them their wealth if they farkING WORKED!
 
2014-02-07 09:05:49 PM

Weatherkiss: You're half-right. At the time (according to the wikipedia), only about 3% of Britain was able to vote. The whole "Virtual Representation" thing and what have you was a cover-up for political corruption. But my original point is that the situation with the American colonies was not unique for Britain, since 97% of the rest of Britain and its territories were not fairly represented either. This was a problem with Britain as a whole, not specifically the colonies.


This is true, but it doesn't undermine the basis on which the US revolted. Quite the contrary, it's a pretty good sign they were ahead of their time and lead the charge on that kind of thing.
 
2014-02-07 09:08:30 PM
Kind of reminds me of some conversations I've had with a few conservatives sometime back.  Two different people, living in different states, separately used the same yacht construction company example in their arguments, so I can only guess they were trying to parrot something they heard Rush Limbaugh say, as I know they're both rabid listeners of his.  Anyhow, it went something like this:

They both claimed that America is the largest yacht constructing country in the world, and that it's fair that the owners of the companies that make the yachts get all the money because they built and run the companies, and that the workers who build the yachts get a "fair" pay from the owners for their work (trickle-down, yay).  If those workers were to unionize, the increased pay and benefits would destroy the company's bottom line and the owners would likely take their companies to a different country with cheaper labor, and America would lose it's apparently-vaunted status as the world's largest yacht builder, so unions are bad and reasons and therefore.

One of those two conservatives was my father, so now it's CSB time:

When I was young, I was obsessed with baseball, and when the players went on strike demanding more money, I became thoroughly disenchanted because I knew they were getting paid millions to play a game.  My father, the same one who said the above about yachts, explained to young-me that the ticket sales, consessions, and merchandise produce billions of dollars, and that if the players didn't get paid as much as they do, the owners would get ALL of it even though the players generate that revenue, and that wouldn't be fair, would it?  I know, crazy huh?  Apparently he's a wealth-redistributing commie when it comes to sports, but it doesn't apply to non-sport businesses, I guess.  That is, except the business where he works at, where he complains that the owner is a greedy asshole who doesn't pay him what he's worth.  To be fair to him, my dad is a genuis technician in a small company that repairs medical technology, and he is their biggest money-earner.  But he loses any sympathy I might have had by voting solidly republican.  Then I just want to shake him and remind him that he should be well-pleased with the trickle he receives from his holy and sacred Job Creator (tax cuts be upon him).
 
2014-02-07 09:09:22 PM

plewis: fark these people.  fark the nameable very very rich.  And SUPER fark them if they just sit on their mountain of gold, the farkers.  THAT shiat is what is killing the American economy.  No one would begrudge them their wealth if they farkING WORKED!


Fiat money, that is, federally licensed IOUs have one useful attribute.  One.  They move around.  They make an economy an accessible thing to the broad scope of the populace when they move freely.  Because if everybody plays along with the con, the con mostly works.  But that's ALL they're worth.  And when when a handzful of people use them to leverage more IOUs and, because we let them, actual wealth - and stuff it up their asses - the economy shuts off like a 20 year old dog on a euthanasia table.  Check your watch.
 
2014-02-07 09:09:52 PM

Captain Dan: 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.


Ok, aside from the fact that you can't even get your dates right on Russia and Germany, where were the piles of starving peasants in America 1776, Dublin 1916, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Iran 1979, Berlin 1989, or Kiev today?
 
2014-02-07 09:11:57 PM
I'm so heartbroken and guilty that I don't even feel like finishing this bowl of dirty-sock broth.
 
2014-02-07 09:12:01 PM

WraithSama: Apparently he's a wealth-redistributing commie when it comes to sports, but it doesn't apply to non-sport businesses, I guess.


Economies, and this will shock you,   A R E   wealth redistribution.  From whence to whither is what all the panty knotting is about.
 
2014-02-07 09:12:21 PM

DamnYankees: This is true, but it doesn't undermine the basis on which the US revolted. Quite the contrary, it's a pretty good sign they were ahead of their time and lead the charge on that kind of thing.


You could see it that way. I know I certainly do. It just gets muddled in American schools where we're led to believe that the colonies were some kind of unique situation while the rest of Britain was fairly represented and saw the colonies as their lapdog. The truth was quite the opposite, where the entirely of Britain was faced with government corruption from the top down and people in general were not fairly represented no matter what part of the Empire they were in (except for the nobility).

There's definate parallels with our current government (aside from Washington D.C. not being represented in congress), with 'appointed' officials being allowed to fark everyone over (whether a government offical or a corporation -- the line is hazy), and allowed to simply resign (with a nice retirement plan) if they get caught, only to be replaced with someone else who will do the same. Without the accountability of Congress, they're allowed to continue to push more power in the hands of the 1%, and as long as we keep voting them in, we want more of the same. And the line between big businesses and the government itself becomes even more blurred as they overlap each other in a gray area.
 
2014-02-07 09:12:47 PM

Captain Dan: 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.


Nobody in France had a refrigerator at that time so therefore and such as.
 
2014-02-07 09:13:14 PM

DamnYankees: 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.


The people who scream the loudest about the free market are the same ones who kill it with cartels and consolidation.
 
2014-02-07 09:13:59 PM

Weatherkiss: You could see it that way. I know I certainly do. It just gets muddled in American schools where we're led to believe that the colonies were some kind of unique situation while the rest of Britain was fairly represented and saw the colonies as their lapdog. The truth was quite the opposite, where the entirely of Britain was faced with government corruption from the top down and people in general were not fairly represented no matter what part of the Empire they were in (except for the nobility).


Fair enough.

It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.
 
2014-02-07 09:15:20 PM

DamnYankees: It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.


Because the US had no representation in the British government in return for the taxes levied on them.
 
2014-02-07 09:16:53 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: DamnYankees: It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.

Because the US had no representation in the British government in return for the taxes levied on them.


Yes, but as Weatherkiss pointed out, no one really had any representation anywhere. Lack of representation was hardly unique to the US, and it was hardly unique bad in 1776.
 
2014-02-07 09:18:21 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Because the US had no representation in the British government in return for the taxes levied on them.


The British, having neatly shoved just about all available wealth worldwide up their unwashed arses, knee deep in opium for tea trade, colonial gerrymandering and sugar slaves, thought it might a nice idea to have the serf class in their latest portfolio acquisition staffed, slaved and shipped home by white people who already spoke English.  Oopsie poo.
 
2014-02-07 09:18:55 PM

DamnYankees: It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.


Think it mainly has to do with the "enjoyment" of British protection in relation to taxes. Like I said, the Boston Massacre had a lot to do with it. Include the xenophobic nature against the 'natives', the government corruption and plenty of propaganda from Sam Adams and Benjamin Franklin and you have a revolution on your hands.

The people weren't enjoying the 'protection' Britain was giving them when they're killing colonists and the governor slaps them on the wrist as a result.

Kind of like pepper-spraying protesters at Berkley and the worst thing that happens is people resign and get 'relocated' elsewhere.
 
2014-02-07 09:21:50 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.


I clock in at 60/hr for my job. I get paid really well for the work I do. Company I work for is awesome and I love my work. My wife and I live modestly. We definitely don't hurt for anything. If we want something and it's ~$100, we can do that in a month without really thinking about it. At the same time, both cars are paid off, home loan isn't too bad, and student loans aren't too outrageous, but I've got to cover my own health insurance. If we had to afford two car payments, etc., we'd be hurting a bit.

That being said, I don't biatch about "the damn govt is taking my money!" because I know I have it good. I don't have to worry about where my next meal comes from. We can afford small niceties. I have very little sympathy for people that make more than I do and complain about the government taking all their money. Our household, on a single income, is in the top 10%. I look around, and I don't feel like I'm in the top 10%. It feels like I'm decidedly middle-class, but I know I'm actually in a place of privilege compared to the bottom 90%. I honestly have no idea how anyone with a household income of $50K can keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and a couple of used cars in the driveway. God forbid if they have kids and have to take care of daycare, clothing, diapers, etc. Pay for a kids college, completely out of the question for them. Those people are all seriously farked and will NEVER be able to retire because they have next to nothing that they can actually put away. We've got a serious crisis coming in 20-30 years.
 
2014-02-07 09:23:59 PM

Weatherkiss: Kind of like pepper-spraying protesters at Berkley and the worst thing that happens is people resign and get 'relocated' elsewhere.


And now you know the secret of history.  It's been a huge Ferengi fest of the acquisition waltz from the get go, and the technology and the costumes change, but the people and the methods almost never do.
 
2014-02-07 09:25:29 PM

bunner: Weatherkiss: Kind of like pepper-spraying protesters at Berkley and the worst thing that happens is people resign and get 'relocated' elsewhere.

And now you know the secret of history.  It's been a huge Ferengi fest of the acquisition waltz from the get go, and the technology and the costumes change, but the people and the methods almost never do.


Yeah. More or less. Sometimes people say, "Wait, we pay you taxes so you can beat the shiat out of us and kill us with no repercussions? Alright, time to go fark your shiat up."

Othertimes they say, "Meh. It wasn't my face getting pepper sprayed, they're just whining. It's essentially a food product. And they resigned/quit/whatever. Non-story."
 
2014-02-07 09:31:37 PM
Work smarter, not harder.
 
2014-02-07 09:34:02 PM
And of course, sometimes the costumes come full circle.

static1.wikia.nocookie.net
chicagomag.com
 
2014-02-07 09:36:13 PM

Delta1212: Work smarter, not harder.


Define that.  Precisely.  Vis a vis any sort of non-self directed occupation and it's potential remuneration.  I'll make popcorn.  (Pssst, that's a platitude.)
 
2014-02-07 09:41:29 PM
I weep for this country.

/earning 14 an hour
//highest income in my household until cousin in law finds job for his degree
///anyone hireing a BA in linguistics in Socal?
 
2014-02-07 09:42:50 PM

RockofAges: So yea, privilege is your health and how much money you have in the bank.


Which, oddly, tends to disappear up the ass of a health care CEO when one's health needs attention.
 
2014-02-07 09:44:28 PM

Summercat: I weep for this country.

/earning 14 an hour
//highest income in my household until cousin in law finds job for his degree
///anyone hireing a BA in linguistics in Socal?


Probably a slightly less well known college than the one he attended.  Academia has largely become an echo chamber, sad to say.
 
2014-02-07 09:45:10 PM

TwistedFark: 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.


They probably ARE mentally ill.
However, to play against your theory a bit... I think that for the ultra-rich money is no longer a means but an end itself, which makes their behavior less (but not entirely) unreasonable.
 
2014-02-07 09:47:30 PM

RockofAges: bunner: RockofAges: So yea, privilege is your health and how much money you have in the bank.

Which, oddly, tends to disappear up the ass of a health care CEO when one's health needs attention.

Not in eeebul socialist Canuckistan. I should know, since my parents are in retirement years and have been very well taken care of, and two family members suffer disability.


Ah, sorry.  I assumed you lived in the same third world sh*hole as I.
 
2014-02-07 09:49:56 PM

RockofAges: Summercat: I weep for this country.

/earning 14 an hour
//highest income in my household until cousin in law finds job for his degree
///anyone hireing a BA in linguistics in Socal?

After a while you might want to start thinking Korea for a year, I am in the future at some point. Hey, if we're going to outsource OUR jobs...


He has the degree. He married into a lower class family ...his family isnt happy about that.

Im just a dumb college dropout jumped up rentacop somehow doing fleet management work now. Not a damn clue what Im doing.

/buying a car in april
//going back for my aa in history in august.
 
2014-02-07 09:51:50 PM
kidgenius:
I clock in at 60/hr for my job. I get paid really well for the w ...

I agree with every word you said.  I'm only 30 and I'm already fretting about retirement.  I make 23/hr, but I live in a place with a low cost-of-living.  My wife is finishing up her 2nd bachelors degree (because the 1st couldn't land her a reasonable job in this economy), and we're thinking kids in the next year or two.  I have a 401k and I keep nudging up the contribution level, because the company doesn't match contributions, and because I'm scared I won't be able to retire when I want to.  I know people who work until they die, and I'm terrified of being in that position, no matter how far off it is.
 
2014-02-07 09:58:17 PM

SnakeLee: "They are frightened to death - frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them," Marcus said.  "In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration."

What a bunch of pussies



These people have small armies of CPAs and lawyers to make sure all of their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed.  If they're that frightened of the SEC, it's because of one of two reasons ...

a) They know they're doing something that fringes on illegal

b)  They're know they're doing something that is outright illegal.
 
2014-02-07 09:59:54 PM

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.


OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.
 
2014-02-07 10:04:44 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


I'll take the value a fruit picker brings any day over the value a stock trader or most middle managers brings, regardless of his alleged unique ability to cross leverage synergies across platforms.
 
2014-02-07 10:05:59 PM

meyerkev: 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).


You seem confused about how income tax works.  Let's take a guy making $250,000 salary:

His first $8,925 is taxed at 10% - $895 tax
His next $27,324 is taxed at 15% - $4,098 tax
His next $51,599 is taxed at 25% - $12,900 tax
His next $95,299 is taxed at 28% - $26,684 tax
His last $66,749 is taxed at 33% - $22,027 tax

His total income tax liability (before any deductions) is $66,604.

Let's add the federal payroll taxes in -

Social Security is capped at $113,700 for 2013, so at 6.2% that's $7,049

Medicare taxes aren't capped, so at 1.45% that's an additional $3,625

So, for someone making $250,000 the total federal tax liability (before any deductions) is $77,278

That comes out to a total tax rate of 30.9%, but again, that's before any deductions, so the actual tax collected would end up being considerably less.

That also doesn't take into account any state or municipality taxes, but those vary so much (if they even exist where you are, FL for example has no state income tax, and my city doesn't charge any tax either) that they're beyond the scope of this particular point.

For a 1%er their actual tax rate never gets close to 60%.  The top federal income tax bracket is 39.6%, Medicare tax is 1.45%, so that's only 41.05% on payroll income over $400,000 per year.  Capital gains taxes are even less, and those in the 1% who earn the majority of their income through capital gains end up paying an effective tax rate on total income of only around 20.6%.  The richest 400 Americans pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

While they're paying more tax in total dollar amounts, the wealthiest Americans pay a smaller percentage of their income in total taxation than their secretaries.
 
2014-02-07 10:08:00 PM

meyerkev: 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.


But compare that to somebody working 40 hours a week at a little over $8/hr - that'll get you $17K/year in TOTAL income. That's most of the jobs I've had, after graduating college.

/ now I'm being bootstrappy and working for myself. Still making tiny amounts of money, but doing what I like instead of crummy retail jobs
 
2014-02-07 10:09:19 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


This is all well and good, but you've just made our argument for us. They don't make money because they work hard. They make money because they 'add value'.

Those are 2 different things. The problem is, its laughably obvious that its not true that these people are making this money because they are adding value. They can't even make this argument with a straight face; you will never hear a CEO say their job is more valuable than that of brain surgeon. This is for two reasons. One, it's just laughably stupid and wrong. When someone like Dick Fuld keeps his millions depiste destroying the economy, its a ridiculous argument they know isn't true. Seconly, even when it is true (for example, Jeff Bezoz has a good argument), it doesn't actually explain anything. Rich people today make twice as much today as they did 30 years ago, as a share of national income. Have rich people doubled in value in 30 years? Not really.

The reason rich people are getting rich has fark-all to do with any actual effort on the part of those people. It's all structural.
 
2014-02-07 10:10:12 PM

InmanRoshi: bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.

I'll take the value a fruit picker brings any day over the value a stock trader or most middle managers brings, regardless of his alleged unique ability to cross leverage synergies across platforms.


Stock traders add no value.  Middle managers do if they directly impact production or delivery.  Interestingly enough doctors add no value.  they only make people back to were they were originally.  No actual gain.  If you are a banker or a person who employs "rent like" behavior you add no value.  The sooner people understand Adam Smith the better.
 
2014-02-07 10:10:32 PM

InmanRoshi: I'll take the value a fruit picker brings any day over the value a stock trader or most middle managers brings, regardless of his alleged unique ability to cross leverage synergies across platforms.


To be fair, the fruit pickers do rule the world. The working class does rule the world. The people doing dirty jobs for the rich people do inherit this planet and shape the world we live in.

The major issue is they don't feel appreciated enough, because there are rich people who manage 'the world' and the middle-men who go between them. And the middle-men don't take kindly to being eliminated and the rich people are afraid the working class will discover their illusion.

And they spend a lot of money to make sure that everyone is pacified and content with the way things are, even as they skirt the law more and more to gain more wealth they're afraid of losing, while screwing over the people who really do inherit the world.
 
2014-02-07 10:17:49 PM

RockofAges: bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.

If the fruit doesn't get picked, it farking rots on the trees or on the Earth, ya goddamn moron.

If the CEO stays home, nothing changes. It's a farking pyramid scheme, ya rube. MLM. Guess who sells product, takes the risk, and is the "sucker" in the pyramid? Guess which way the profits flow? Guess which scheme (capitalism / ponzi) uses basic carrot / stick psychology that works as effectively on an ass as it does an asshole?

This is what I call me slapping the shiat out of your mouth.


Um no.  The fruit picker wont pick if he does not get paid.  His picked fruit wont move if someone doesn't hire a truck.  The fruit cant be prepped if someone does not build and operate a processing plant.  It cant show up at your local store if someone does not own and operate distribution centers.  The store you bought that peach from would not buy from you or the fruit picker as you and he does not have the insurance and paperwork required.  The CEO stays home and the competition gets stronger.  Something tells me you have never met a CEO in your life.  Most put in more hours than your fruit picker.  They are A type neurotic people.
 
2014-02-07 10:19:21 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.


Lawyers are the henchmen of the 1%.
 
2014-02-07 10:23:11 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


Your middleman CEO may add value, but not tens of thousands of times more than the fruit picker. I agree that all work is not of equal value and thus "But I w-work so hard" is not going to cut it as an excuse.


Let's work it out from the other end.

What sort of person would benefit the most from any economic system? The kind of person who has figured out how to maximize the output they get from the system and minimize the input they need to add to the system to get their output. The smart work that they do is directed towards that; it is not directed towards growing the system. Basically, a king (or leach if you prefer).

What sort of person would benefit the least? Someone who's input to the system is maximized and who's output from the system is minimized. Basically, a slave.

Those are the two extremes. Most people, even millionaires, fall in the middle somewhere. Some who may fall far towards the king side also have the prescience of mind to add some input to the system to grow it.  Ford is the example that comes to mind for me. Ford paid his workers a minimum wage so that they'd have enough money to buy the cars he was making.

Now, if such people exist who excel at being extremely king-like ( or leach like ), over time they will amass ridiculous concentrations of money. They may even be investing it all the while taking money from the economy and putting it into tax havens. The economy will start to tank when the amount that they invest grows at a slower rate than the amount they are socking away.

They are not job creators; only the consumers who create demand can be. They are at best catalysts for job creation.  Do they ad value? Yes. Is it anywhere near the amount that they claim it is? _Absolutely Not_
 
2014-02-07 10:25:01 PM
Correction : The economy will start to tank when the amount that the economy grows due to investments is at a slower rate than the amount they are socking away.
 
2014-02-07 10:26:19 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Something tells me you have never met a CEO in your life.  Most put in more hours than your fruit picker.  They are A type neurotic people.


I've met more than my share, and while I'll agree that they trend towards Type-A personalities, they come off as more psychotic than neurotic.

There are some that certainly work hard, but there are plenty that seem to have an awful lot of free time to do anything but work and who basically coast by on the efforts of those underneath them.

I'm sure it can be a cerebral job at times, but it's not particularly hard work.  Given the option of being a CEO or fruit picker for the same salary, I'd take CEO every single time.
 
2014-02-07 10:36:31 PM

LectertheChef: 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.

Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.


I am not anywhere near rich, but I worked a lot harder when I made 20k a year than I do now at six figures.
 
2014-02-07 10:38:23 PM
My stupid opinion: $1Billion is enough money for any person to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and for their families and descendents for generations to come). Above $1Billion, tax rate should be 99%. It's arbitrary, of course, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
 
2014-02-07 10:40:24 PM
Just for fun:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-some commie
 
2014-02-07 10:43:20 PM

FailOut08: My stupid opinion: $1Billion is enough money for any person to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and for their families and descendents for generations to come). Above $1Billion, tax rate should be 99%. It's arbitrary, of course, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.


A maximum wage is indeed an interesting idea.
 
2014-02-07 10:44:21 PM

mab1823: FailOut08: My stupid opinion: $1Billion is enough money for any person to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and for their families and descendents for generations to come). Above $1Billion, tax rate should be 99%. It's arbitrary, of course, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.

A maximum wage is indeed an interesting idea.


Set it at 10% above my salary.
 
2014-02-07 10:45:10 PM

coyo: bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.

Your middleman CEO may add value, but not tens of thousands of times more than the fruit picker. I agree that all work is not of equal value and thus "But I w-work so hard" is not going to cut it as an excuse.


Let's work it out from the other end.

What sort of person would benefit the most from any economic system? The kind of person who has figured out how to maximize the output they get from the system and minimize the input they need to add to the system to get their output. The smart work that they do is directed towards that; it is not directed towards growing the system. Basically, a king (or leach if you prefer).

What sort of person would benefit the least? Someone who's input to the system is maximized and who's output from the system is minimized. Basically, a slave.

Those are the two extremes. Most people, even millionaires, fall in the middle somewhere. Some who may fall far towards the king side also have the prescience of mind to add some input to the system to grow it.  Ford is the example that comes to mind for me. Ford paid his workers a minimum wage ...


Ford was a bastard you cannot even imagine in today's world.  He never paid his workers so they could buy his car.  He paid them so they would not go elsewhere.  There was an extreme labor shortage then.  He did what he needed to NOT because he was a man of the people.  He killed lots of his workers while they tried to unionize.  I am not sure why Ford is spoken of so fondly by socialists as he was the polar opposite.  Other than than you are right.
 
2014-02-07 10:45:14 PM
I can't even muster enough of a fark to pretend like I'm having difficulty giving a single fark about these farks.

fark.
 
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