Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3851 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 6:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-07 06:10:50 PM  
Heads will roll.
 
2014-02-07 06:17:41 PM  
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.
 
2014-02-07 06:20:36 PM  
www.holyturf.com
 
2014-02-07 06:21:23 PM  
Aww, poor babies

cry me a farking river with your "oh woe is me" crap
 
2014-02-07 06:22:02 PM  
In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.
 
2014-02-07 06:26:52 PM  

DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.


in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer
 
2014-02-07 06:28:22 PM  

somedude210: DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.

in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer


I read that - couldn't get into it. The idea of a 47-point test (or whatever it was) struck me as bullshiat and was never really substantiated.
 
2014-02-07 06:33:23 PM  

DamnYankees: somedude210: DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.

in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer

I read that - couldn't get into it. The idea of a 47-point test (or whatever it was) struck me as bullshiat and was never really substantiated.


Really? He goes into quite a bit throughout the entire book
 
2014-02-07 06:35:32 PM  

somedude210: Really? He goes into quite a bit throughout the entire book


Yeah he talked about it a lot, but very informally and always with the attitude "could this list work? am I a psychopath? let me go test this on a crazy rich dude!" Just didn't work for me is all. I don't deny he's a good writer, but for me the book lacked a narrative thrust or thematic cohesion.
 
2014-02-07 06:37:41 PM  
So once the hyper-rich suck the rest of us dry how long do they think they can survive just selling stuff to each other?


somedude210: DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.

in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer


Loves me some Jon Ronson.  His piece about sneaking into Bohemian Grove with Alex Jones is GOLD.
 
2014-02-07 06:46:15 PM  
These people have forgotten what wealth is for.  It's only useful for you to use to enjoy more of the world on your own terms.

If you have to be shuttled from rich person haven to rich person haven in a bulletproof unmarked van with round the clock guards, congratulations.  You've worked really hard your entire life to get into a prison with slightly better food.
 
2014-02-07 06:53:36 PM  
www.zerohedge.com
\
 
2014-02-07 06:53:59 PM  

fusillade762: So once the hyper-rich suck the rest of us dry how long do they think they can survive just selling stuff to each other?


Some of them are already realizing it.
 
2014-02-07 06:54:44 PM  
static6.businessinsider.com
 
2014-02-07 06:54:59 PM  
wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves
 
2014-02-07 06:55:51 PM  
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-02-07 06:55:52 PM  
Man, what I wouldn't give for one of these:
storeonanimeonline.com
 
2014-02-07 06:58:03 PM  

StopLurkListen: [lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x515]


That is a truly, truly terrible piece of graphic design.
 
2014-02-07 06:58:15 PM  
Don't you just love how these assholes have been feasting off of the corpse of the former middle class for years, but yet constantly find the time to piss and moan about "oh woe is me, the plebs just don't understand why I had to suck away all their money and create a hereditary aristocractic dynasty for my heirs".

fark you and the solid gold palanquin you have your oiled up slaves carry you in on.
 
2014-02-07 07:01:25 PM  
img.fark.net
Me, I saw this and laughed my ass off. What do you think the charges would be?
 
2014-02-07 07:02:10 PM  

Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves


Farkers or the Wealthy?
 
2014-02-07 07:08:31 PM  
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 they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.
 
2014-02-07 07:09:53 PM  
Some days Jon Stewart has the easiest job in the world.
 
2014-02-07 07:12:47 PM  

Mjeck: Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves

Farkers or the Wealthy?


Yes.
 
2014-02-07 07:15:33 PM  

fusillade762: Loves me some Jon Ronson. His piece about sneaking into Bohemian Grove with Alex Jones is GOLD.


I watched something about that Brad Meltzer's DeCoded.
That was the first time I ever saw or heard of Alex Jones... that was enough to know they guy is a total loon.
 
2014-02-07 07:18:13 PM  
Time to sharpen up the old pitchfork, get the torches ready and dust off the gallows.
 
2014-02-07 07:19:29 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.


That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.
 
2014-02-07 07:22:00 PM  
A few thoughts:

It may be true that 'Anybody' could succeed at that level.  It is not at all true that 'everybody' can succeed at that level.  To quote a cracked article, you can put 12 alchoholic hobos in a room with a bottle of whiskey, and give each of them a knife.  Any one of them could have that bottle, but in the end, only one will have it.

Being successful at the level of someone who earns their way into the 1% (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) does require an extraordinary amount of hard work, vision, and drive.  However, it also requires a non trivial amount of luck.  It is also very possible to do all the hard work, have a relentless drive to succeed, and a great vision for what you want to accomplish, and still fail spectacularly.

It is ok to be rich and have great wealth, but at our current state of civilization, there is a limited amount of wealth / resources to go around.  The only reason that the 1%stay wealthy is because the 99% are not sufficiently desperate yet to kill the 1% and take their shiat.  If 99 people are hungry and 1 guy has all the food, the 99 people with no food are not going to quietly starve and let that 1 guy keep all the damn food.

END COMMUNICATION
 
2014-02-07 07:22:06 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.


Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.
 
2014-02-07 07:22:40 PM  

WraithSama: 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.

That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


NO, you see, rich people work 2000x times harder than even unwed mothers, and that's why CEO's make 2000x the amount you do.

Doesn't that sound reasonable, kemosabe?
 
2014-02-07 07:28:06 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.


In some alternate quantum universe. No f*cking way ever is it true in real life. The primary criteria of success are all either met or failed before most people are even old enough to develop a theory of mind.
 
2014-02-07 07:28:50 PM  

WraithSama: That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


I do actuall think there's a corrolation between salary and hard work to some extent. For example, doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. all work extremely long hours, and even when they aren't working they are always on call. There's no such thing as clocking out - your life is about being available 100% of the time. That is actually very hard work.

The problem is in thinking that that form of hard work somehow justifies all inequality. I'm a corporate lawyer, and I work pretty hard. Does that hard work justify my current salary? Maybe, maybe not. How about if we doubled the salary? Tripled it? Still worth it?

That's the issue. There's no appreciation that hard work does not mean "complete right to infinite wealth". So deploying hard work as some sort of panacaea is complete bullshiat.
 
2014-02-07 07:33:30 PM  
How the 1% sees themselves:

static4.businessinsider.com

How everyone else sees them:

blogs.suntimes.com
 
2014-02-07 07:36:31 PM  

ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork


Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.
 
2014-02-07 07:37:20 PM  

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


I've just been asked to leave the library. Jesus tapf*ckdancing Christ on a pogof*ckstick.
 
2014-02-07 07:38:05 PM  
Got another one:

How the 1% sees themselves:

fourthdayuniverse.com

How everyone else sees them:

static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-02-07 07:38:12 PM  
Either set them up as God or tax them. Most things are shades of gray but somethings aren't.
 
2014-02-07 07:38:21 PM  

Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves


Oh, fark off. You've seen the liberals.  They need to die first.
 
2014-02-07 07:42:16 PM  
"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
 
2014-02-07 07:42:31 PM  

ongbok: Time to sharpen up the old pitchfork, get the torches ready and dust off the gallows.


I can't decide who's nuttier, the pitchfork-guillotine crowd or the AR-.223 Water the Tree of Liberty guys.

How about a cage match?
 
2014-02-07 07:42:40 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-07 07:45:09 PM  
When Jeff Immelt pays the same effective tax rate I do I will start to believe that Obama and his misguided supporters are for the poor and middle class.  Until then I laugh at anyone who blames the GOP alone.
 
2014-02-07 07:48:59 PM  
Real estate investor Sam Zell echoed his fellow one percenter's lament earlier this week.

"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said, adding that the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" talkingpointsmemo.com="" livewire="" sam-zell-one-percent"="" target="_blank">
To be fair, he did work hard at trying to run the Chicago Tribune into the ground.
 
2014-02-07 07:49:43 PM  

Lord Zardoz:  is ok to be rich and have great wealth, but at our current state of civilization, there is a limited amount of wealth / resources to go around.  The only reason that the 1%stay wealthy is because the 99% are not sufficiently desperate yet to kill the 1% and take their shiat.  If 99 people are hungry and 1 guy has all the food, the 99 people with no food are not going to quietly starve and let that 1 guy keep all the damn food.


You're not paying attention. They share enough of it with the strongest next 10%, who share enough of that with the next 20%, leaving the bottom percentiles too weak to do anything about it.
 
2014-02-07 07:50:01 PM  

DamnYankees: WraithSama: That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.

I do actuall think there's a corrolation between salary and hard work to some extent. For example, doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. all work extremely long hours, and even when they aren't working they are always on call. There's no such thing as clocking out - your life is about being available 100% of the time. That is actually very hard work.

The problem is in thinking that that form of hard work somehow justifies all inequality. I'm a corporate lawyer, and I work pretty hard. Does that hard work justify my current salary? Maybe, maybe not. How about if we doubled the salary? Tripled it? Still worth it?

That's the issue. There's no appreciation that hard work does not mean "complete right to infinite wealth". So deploying hard work as some sort of panacaea is complete bullshiat.


I know ALOT of lawyers.

What is your salary and hours?
 
2014-02-07 07:50:32 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: 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 they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.


What needs fixing is your sense of humor.
 
2014-02-07 07:52:09 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

I love paranoid rich white people.
 
2014-02-07 07:55:02 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


Just because nobody called them on their culture of unimaginable greed or filed charges for recklessly abusing the system until recently doesn't mean it wasn't always wrong. And I agree with you: what a bunch of vaginas.
 
2014-02-07 07:56:35 PM  

DamnYankees: Heads will roll.


And how do you expect this to happen without the factories to make the guillotines?  The workers to sharpen the blades?  The children to take the heads away?  EVEN WHEN YOU WANT TO KILL ME, YOU NEED ME.  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
 
2014-02-07 07:56:42 PM  
The 1% do not work harder. In my almost 25 years in business the percentage of CEOs who actually work to begin with is maybe 30%, and those that actually work hard around 10%. I've seen more CEOs that have hurt their company with their idiocy than helped it. I'm in a C level position now, and I do not work nearly as hard as I did early in my career. Do I stress more because I have huge responsibilities? Yes, absolutely. Do I work harder? Hardly. The hardest I've ever worked was when I was a mid level employee who had to pick up the slack for my utterly incompetent manager.
 
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?
 
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.
 
2014-02-07 10:47:08 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,
 
2014-02-07 10:49:10 PM  

jst3p: 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.


Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.
 
2014-02-07 10:53:14 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: jst3p: 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.

Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.


That's kind of the point. The wealthy telling us how hard they work is falling on deaf ears, they should try a new tune. Or just shut up and let those in congress on both sides of the aisle continue to carry their water.

"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said, adding that the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

EABOD (Zell, not you)
 
2014-02-07 10:54:14 PM  

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

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.


Well, I stand corrected. I knew he was an asshole with some sort of dealings with the Nazi regime. Now you are making me wonder if the upper crust has a conscience among them.
 
2014-02-07 10:56:17 PM  
These people are just trying to talk themselves into a bullet. I understand that life gets boring when you're so rich but inviting your own murder isn't that bright.
 
2014-02-07 10:56:38 PM  

DamnYankees: Heads will roll.


You know what? The guillotine is a bit too old-fashioned and inefficient to deal with today's type of plutocrats.

Time for us to bring out the wood-chippers!!!

Charles Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

David Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

Tom Perkins. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!
 
2014-02-07 10:58:13 PM  

parasol: DamnYankees: 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.

I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,


You have to move through third to get to home, so I believe the expression you're looking for is 'born on third base and thinks he hit a triple'.

How much stress is there at the top executive positions?  There may be some, but it isn't the same type of stress that someone working at barely above (or below) the subsistence level faces.  Unless they're completely irresponsible with their money no CEO has to worry about making their next mortgage payment, whether or not they can put off replacing their bald tires for another month until money frees up, or being able to put food on the table for their kids every night.

They also don't have to worry about becoming homeless should they lose their job - if they fark up they'll get a golden parachute and move onto the next highly paid executive position before the money ever gets tight.

As far as workplace stress goes, there are plenty of jobs that pay far less that come with much more stress, like teaching, nursing, or even commissioned sales.
 
2014-02-07 11:02:12 PM  
We're here to make life easier on ourselves and each other, because we're smart enough to.  We are not, according to history, honest enough to.  Because every time we come up with something that could make life easier, longer and better for everybody, we put up and admission turnstile and take the one thing we demand of each other, our little dime store god, money, home in droves for whatever it is we make better.  And your marvelous new idea sits on a high shelf and does nothing.  And that's the lie of corporate capitalism.

Money works two ways and two ways only.


It either flows freely where value and remuneration reflect skill and effort and it goes to where it's needed most, because that's what its for, or, It doesn't work at all.


Skill and effort, by the way, aren't measured in conniving chops or getting your ass out of bed at 10:00 to have your broker move another 20 bn to Upmyassistan.  It's measured in how much better the world is when you hang up the phone.  Stop pretending that the dump gutted, gold  festooned, drawn butter dribbling fat ass you see in the mirror is immortal and maybe they wont install a urinal and a dance floor on your three acre marble tomb.  Cause you're the problem, thief man.  And you are, at the end of the day, by any worthwhile metric, useless to the world.
 
2014-02-07 11:06:46 PM  
Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.
 
2014-02-07 11:10:47 PM  

gaspode: Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.


Apparently occasionally having to take a phone call on the golf course or change your plans to have a Town Car or private jet pick you up and take you to a well-catered board meeting is now considered working hard.
 
2014-02-07 11:19:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: parasol: DamnYankees: 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.

I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,

You have to move through third to ...


Yes, t/y "born on third" (sorry, I'm 4 days into a broken wrist and on exciting new meds)

The 1% just no longer understand the current economic division - and that is dangerous

A loss on the market, for example, isn't the same as losing your housing - and insisting it is because you just "work harder" is an exquisitely tone-deaf justification.
 
2014-02-07 11:21:27 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.


This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.
 
2014-02-07 11:25:04 PM  

meyerkev: 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.


At some point, one of three things WILL happen: (1) We concede our position as the dominant species and accept being our machines' (very, very well looked after) pets. (2) We attempt to secure existing society by limiting machine intelligence by legislative fiat. (3) We merge with the machines.

Tip before placing a bet: mind-machine interface is already a very active field of research...
 
2014-02-07 11:25:33 PM  

WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.


Truly, the reason britney spears is anything to think about is because of centralized control of media distribution, and we've all seen the lengths the media cartels go to to snuff out competition, distort the market, and use ultra fine print legal agreements to swindle 99.9% of the talent they touch.

not a good example of hard work.
 
2014-02-07 11:26:11 PM  
(pardon me, i meant, honest work. I don't really care how hard someone works at a dishonest outcome)
 
2014-02-07 11:31:48 PM  

WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.


Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)
 
2014-02-07 11:51:02 PM  

parasol: WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.  Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.

Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)


You vote with your dollars, just like with entertainers.
 
2014-02-08 12:01:43 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


Probably a boiling frog.
 
2014-02-08 12:08:35 AM  

jst3p: parasol: WraithSama: bigsteve3OOO: Do you add more value now or then?  That is the issue.  When you made 20K i would assume that you added ~150K in value.  Now you add ~1.5m in my guess.  The hardness of the labor has zero to do with the value added or the salary.   Britney Spears adds lots of value as an entertainer and is compensated correctly for that.

This is the most absurd post I've read on Fark all day.  It's pretentious, makes assumptions about the value of other people they don't know based on absolutely nothing (people not being remunerated their worth, either too high or too low, is the point of this entire thread), and claims that Britney Spears adds value to anything.

Britney Spears? really?

I've added to the bank accounts of quite a few entertainers and sports figures via ticket purchases - but, much like corporate CEO's their compensation-to-value or, better, indispensable-to-replacement value is as skewed as an empty teeter-totter.

The public can chose what performers are worthwhile - I don't recall having a vote on who runs the incestuous corporate industry (even via stock holdings)

You vote with your dollars, just like with entertainers.


Yes
So do others (see bolded, above)
 
2014-02-08 12:40:00 AM  
Poor Steve Wynn.  He should spend more time at his casinos in Macau.  He'll be safe there.
 
2014-02-08 12:59:50 AM  

WraithSama: 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.

That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


This! I admonish those among us, those who truly admit to the justness of sui generis, to overthrow the shackles oif Saint 666, and to TAX THE RICH FECKS (corporations particularly)!!!
 
2014-02-08 01:35:25 AM  
not going to be fixed
as long as there is a public tendancy to worship the powerful
 
2014-02-08 01:45:35 AM  

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.


They work more, not harder. Their cubicle drones only work 40 hours a week because they work hard.
 
2014-02-08 01:54:10 AM  

DamnYankees: 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.


You would do well to read the pamphlets of Edmund Burke. I'm a GA for a professor whose current interest/research is on 3 of Burke's pamphlets (Speech on American Taxation, Speech on Conciliation with America, and  Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol) and the contemporary responses, so obviously I'm getting a kick out of your back and forth with Weatherkiss. The explanation that Burke put forward is that while the British Crown/Parliament had always had and exercised the right to control and tax the colonies, they had always done so in an unobtrusive manner. That is, the taxes had been collected in England rather than in the colonies, whereas the Stamp Act etc changed the point of collection to the colonies. While Parliament was not actually exercising a new right, they were exercising an old right in a new manner. He urged Parliament to stop this new and alarming (for the colonists) method of taxation in favor of the old system (Burke is sometimes called the father of conservatism as his political philosophy was to carefully try new things and conserve what worked best by test).

As to the actual burden of the various tax acts, Burke makes a fairly sophisticated and surprisingly economically sound argument. He says that the tax was laid on a few items such as printers colors and the like which were good (low elasticity of demand coupled with reasonable level of consumption or British monopolies) and some items such as tea which were bad (non-necessity therefore higher elasticity). These various taxes were repealed piecemeal (Burke didn't approve), but they left the tea tax rather than one of the "good" taxes. They left the tea tax as something of a proof of concept that they could tax the colonists directly (there was a preamble to the act which stated the right of Parliament to tax the colonies). The actual amount of the tax was 25% of the original (1s/lb reduced to 3p/lb). Moreover, part of the act allowed the East India Trading Company to sell directly to the colonists (originally EITC ships had to go to England first to pay the tariff) which further lowered the price. Unfortunately for the Empire, by collecting it in the colonies it made it more visible and, therefore, more odious.

/Side note to Weatherkiss' point:  Burke represented two different rotten/pocket seats in Parliament where a wealthy patron controlled the electors
 
2014-02-08 02:06:00 AM  

bertor_vidas: The actual amount of the tax was 25% of the original (1s/lb reduced to 3p/lb).


To clarify, the tea tax existed before the various and sundry tax acts we learn about in American grade school. It was simply collected in England. When tea was added as one of the items in the Townshend Acts, they removed the tax on tea entering/leaving Britain (1 shilling per pound at the time) and instead levied a tax on tea entering American ports (3 pence per pound, or 1/4 the original amount).
 
2014-02-08 02:13:49 AM  

Old enough to know better: [www.dimensionsinfo.com image 391x512]

Here, let me play a song to ease their suffering.


Something from the first Metallica album?
 
2014-02-08 02:34:28 AM  

meyerkev: 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%.


There's some serious omissions in your statement. The capital gains rate did not go from 15% to 24.8%.

Capital gains taxes are progressive like income tax brackets.

0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket (which starts at $432,201 of adjusted income, i.e. after deductions)

There's an additional 3.8% tax from the ACA on income over 200k (250k for families, adjusted income).

CA's new tax brackets higher are also for people making large incomes, starting at a quarter million dollars.

The ~37% number you mention is for capital gains for individual making making more than half a million dollars a year or for families making more than a million dollars (again, adjusted income).
 
2014-02-08 02:35:17 AM  

bertor_vidas: DamnYankees: 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.

You would do well to read the pamphlets of Edmund Burke. I'm a GA for a professor whose current interest/research is on 3 of Burke's pamphlets (Speech on American Taxation, Speech on Conciliation with America, and  Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol) and the contemporary responses, so obviously I'm getting a kick out of your back and forth with Weatherkiss. The explanation that Burke put forward is that while the British Crown/Parliament had always had and exercised the right to control and tax the colonies, they had always done so in an unobtrusive manner. That is, the taxes had been collected in England rather than in the colonies, whereas the Stamp Act etc changed the point of collection to the colonies. While Parliament was not actually exercising a new right, they were exercising an old right in a new manner. He urged Parliament to stop this new and alarming (for the colonists) method of taxation in favor of the old system (Burke is sometimes called the father of conservatism as his political philosophy was to carefully try new things and conserve what worked best by test).

As to the actual burden of the various tax acts, Burke makes a fairly sophisticated and surprisingly economically so ...


Well you know more about the topic than me. I just understood a few basic points that differed greatly from public school history.

Namely that the thing with the colonies was not unique, that the entire parliamentary system was corrupt in Britain. So at the time the 'general public' of Britain didn't know what was up the Americans' ass because they were being treated the same way everyone else was (who wasn't nobility).

The particulars of the Stamp Act I'm not familiar with, but I understood that the taxes in America were actually fairly reasonable (and even lower than elsewhere in the British Empire), but that it was used as a rally cry and a propaganda tool for the Patriots to dissent from the rest of the Empire because of the 'alarming' way the taxes were being handled. What you said seems to mesh with what I've learned. I'm guessing the normal working Joe in New England isn't going to be familiar with the rights that Parliament had at the time, so he wouldn't know the difference between a "new" tax (or way of collecting taxes) and an "old" way of collecting taxes that was being used again.

And I'm also going to guess that Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, etc., used that to their advantage to stir up the revolution.

It was my understanding that the Boston Massacre, the corrupt government, and in particular the Townshend Acts (like the Quartering Act) that generated the friction needed to set the tone for the revolution.

The Stamp Act was a visible sign of British rule that needed to be abolished, but as a reason alone it didn't have much merit, because the taxes were actually fairly reasonable (they were used to pay the salaries of the government officials in the colonies themselves, etc.), but was one of the convenient scapegoats to paint a more hostile picture of the crown. As a 'visible' sign of the crown's power it was too tempting of a target for the Patriots to ignore, but as far as slights against the colonies go, from what I read it was very very minor once you get past the jingoistic bluster.
 
2014-02-08 02:36:43 AM  
Wow. Just wow.

The article, the apologists... I just can't process it.

The pathological obsession with exponential wealth is a horrifying enough prospect to deal with without the 'woe-is-us' bullshiat.

Jump, you farkers.
 
2014-02-08 03:03:27 AM  
I used to own a business - a motorcycle dealership.  Okay it was a fun industry, but the hours were insane - 6-7 days a week, 8-10 hour days, and I didn't get paid until everyone else got paid, so I made about $50k a year (plus the business paid nearly all my travel and lifestyle bills).  I shut that down in 2009 when it was clear this wasn't a normal recession.  The stress before that was pretty awful, keeping it running and then shutting it down.

Now I work in real estate, and made $241k in 2013, it says here, and will fairly easily continue to do so.  I work from home, have maybe 1 site visit or meeting a week at best, and put in maybe 15 hours a week total.  I sleep late, get lots of down time, and get to set my own schedules.

I worked exceptionally hard at the dealership and it paid squat.  Granted, I did work exceptionally hard getting the real estate thing going, but now it's on cruise control.  Point is, there is zero connection between work performed and wages earned.  It's all what you do, where and when.  Not how hard you work.

The extra fun part is, due to legit tax rules (the ones these aristocrats are complaining about) I don't have to pay anything but modest payroll taxes (on a stated personal income of $35k), because I'm carrying a large tax loss from the last few years of the dealership.  Ooh, I hate tax laws to pieces!
 
2014-02-08 03:05:26 AM  

DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.


I'll second this. It's a good read that offers fair criticticisms of the status quo.
 
2014-02-08 03:09:43 AM  

kidgenius: 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 ...


::waves:: 

 Hi! That's us over here. And a few of our friends. I've picked up some tips over the years and thought I'd jot a few down to give you an idea of it all. 

 You're right. Keeping food on the table is a challenge, especially even sort of healthy food. Don't be shy about food stamps (or free school meals) if you can get them, and if you can't, Costco is your friend. Plan meals like crazy, hit manager/sale items always. If you live in an area where hunting is an option, don't be shy about exercising your predator rights. A couple of bucks for a tag can get a lot of quality organic meat. Butcher it yourself. 

 If you have the option, have chickens and let them roam your garden. Their poop is good fertilizer and they eat the bugs off your plants. (Make sure they don't eat your plants though.) Eggs are tasty and can be sold too. Fruit trees are also good, if you have neighbors who don't pick theirs, ask to pick it in exchange for cleaning up the rotting fruit on the ground. Pick berries on public land and freeze them.

 As far as kids go, that I did figure out. There's a couple ways to do it for the secondary income earner (usually mom). First, you can work for your school district. This ensures you're off when the kids are and you don't really need to pay for daycare. Saves you snow day panic as well. Bus driving lines up pretty well with the hours and even gives you time in the middle of the day to catch up on house work. Second, work online. Lot's more places outsourcing IT, transcription, Customer service these days and you can actually find legit work. Whatever you do, start up a secondary source of income as soon as possible. Whether it's making crafts/jewelry to sell online, or running a blog with ads. Do *something* to get some residual income coming in. Ideally, an online business of sorts that you can eventually automate to generate income. (There's lots of options there, it depends on your passion/patience.). You'll keep your head above water with job 1, but you're chance to actually move ahead is with job 2. Plan accordingly. 

 Also, get a jeep with a 4.0 inline 6. Yes, like any car they eventually break down, but it is one of the easiest cars for a newbie to fix and those engines can take a helluva lot of abuse before they quit. Hit up forums if you need help, lots of folks willing to help you troubleshoot. Remember a  mechanic is $100/hr. That's generally worth taking a Saturday or even a weekend to fix something yourself. Gas mileage can be rough, so if you have a long way to travel consider getting a smaller car, just make sure the engine bay is nice and roomy for working in. (If you're traveling 40 minutes for a min/low wage part time job, you're either doing this wrong, or you have one rough local economy). But if you need four wheel drive where you live, jeeps are pretty handy. 

 Buy vitamins, protein powder, and meal replacement bars in bulk/Costco. Balance "feeling full" with crappy food (like ramen with egg) to "feeling hungry with healthier food" using vitamins and these. Put protein powder in smoothies to help make you feel full for a while. This will slow your rate of decline with your health. And since losing your health means losing energy to do the 5 million things that need to get done in a day, you minimize this as much as possible.

 And the last one...don't pinch pennies to the point where it makes it more expensive. Case in point, don't buy a cheap product that you'll need to replace soon because it's a piece of crap. Save up for something that will last a bit. You'll save money in the long run.

/good luck everyone!
 
2014-02-08 03:33:00 AM  

BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.


Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.
 
2014-02-08 03:42:08 AM  

jso2897: BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.

Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.


We don't have to go it alone as Americans. People are pissed off about wealth inequality around the world. This is a globally corrupt system of capitalism that's only working for a few people on the planet.
 
2014-02-08 04:15:05 AM  

jso2897: I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.


We don't have the resources to fix it. It would take massive amounts of re-education and anti-propaganda. We simply can't compete against a media empire that keeps us divided and stupid.
 
2014-02-08 04:41:38 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: jso2897: I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.

We don't have the resources to fix it. It would take massive amounts of re-education and anti-propaganda. We simply can't compete against a media empire that keeps us divided and stupid.


I hope you are wrong, but I can only make one prediction I am sure of - this cannot be sustained, and will not be for much longer. It's going to end - what remains to be seen is whether it ends well, badly - or very, very, very badly.
 
2014-02-08 04:45:32 AM  

MayoSlather: jso2897: BMulligan: ongbok: Time to sharpen up the gold pitchfork

Please, let's show a little respect for our betters.

Actually, I think it's high time my "betters" learned a little respect for regular people like me - one way, or another.
Being a gentle, and reasonable man, who harbors no ill will towards anyone, I would much prefer to do it the easy way - but it's not my choice.
I believe that we Americans are better - I do believe that, as a people, we still embrace democracy, even though some interests don't.
I don't think we will resort to the pitchforks and guillotines, and I am proud of that. Bloody revolutions are for stupid peasants ruled by invulnerable tyrants - and we are not that.We can fix America without blood and fire, I do believe.

But I could be wrong.

We don't have to go it alone as Americans. People are pissed off about wealth inequality around the world. This is a globally corrupt system of capitalism that's only working for a few people on the planet.


I hope you are right - the thing about capitalism - it never should have become a "system" - it's a great way to make money, and obtain material progress, and God bless it - but it's not a social system you can run a civilized society by. Laissez Faire Capitalism is simply the law of the jungle with cops and jails to protect to apex predators.
 
2014-02-08 04:55:53 AM  

Mike_LowELL: DamnYankees: Heads will roll.

And how do you expect this to happen without the factories to make the guillotines?  The workers to sharpen the blades?  The children to take the heads away?  EVEN WHEN YOU WANT TO KILL ME, YOU NEED ME.  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.


"We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sold us." -- Lenin, allegedly
 
2014-02-08 07:25:54 AM  

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.


The super rich aren't doctors, or lawyers, or anything else that is productive to society. The super-rich are mostly bankers.
 
2014-02-08 07:30:46 AM  
"The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they are holding too much money," he added. "You know, we haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody is afraid of the government and there is no need soft-pedaling it. It is the truth. It is the truth."

They are scoffing it and calling it "socialism", but that doesn't obfuscate the fact that it is true. The whole purpose of the "supply side economic theory" was rather than the government to redistribute the wealth, that taxes would be cut and private industry would redistribute it. Theory being they knew better how to do it and the lower taxes would lead to massive hiring an economic growth.

Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.

Heck it's happening right now. Look at how Christmas profits have been going down year after year. It's because each year the working class can afford less and less. It's not just the "poor" families. Now it is families who are thought of as middle class and fueled the Christmas buying of the past. Now Christmas celebration is being able to afford to buy the food for Christmas dinner and still pay the regular bills like utilities and rent/mortgages.
 
2014-02-08 07:31:00 AM  

Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves


And then....

If you think that anybody would be better off, other than those who take over after "the evil rich" are dead (and you won't be one of them), you're kidding yourself.
 
2014-02-08 07:41:59 AM  

DrPainMD: Jackson Herring: wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves

And then....

If you think that anybody would be better off, other than those who take over after "the evil rich" are dead (and you won't be one of them), you're kidding yourself.


That's the fundamental problem with humanity: the sociopaths always wind up in charge.
 
2014-02-08 07:51:02 AM  

heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.


The scary thing is, what exactly are they going to do with it? About the only thing they don't own is complete armies.
 
2014-02-08 08:00:52 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.

The scary thing is, what exactly are they going to do with it? About the only thing they don't own is complete armies.


I really think they are caught up in the "whoever dies with the most toys win" mentality.  The irony is the more money they hoard, the less it will be worth as the economy shrinks.
 
2014-02-08 08:28:13 AM  

heavymetal: Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.


Yeah well, a lot of those people are jewish, so you're a nazi for pointing this out.
 
2014-02-08 09:12:41 AM  

Weatherkiss: Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.


Apparently not including English subjects circa 1688 or 1642 or 1381.

/not sure if 1215 was technically a revolt
 
2014-02-08 10:59:19 AM  
Weatherkiss: tl;dr.

To be fair, I probably wrote way more than you needed or wanted, and that isn't even all I could write on the subject. I could also write similarly lengthy pieces explaining why the British political system was and is, as you put it, "corrupt" (short answer: the Magna Carta and electoral system were designed to increase and insure the power of the nobility). The rottenness of the British electoral system, of course, explains the issues in our own as we inherited it from them (short version: waiving land requirements did not improve the system, only shifted the balance of power from the landed to the wealthy). The obvious response to this is calls for electoral reform which fails to explain why the Lib-Dems asked the Tories for an Alternative Vote referendum rather than for some form of Proportional Representation (short version: AV is not much more PR than Weeners the Post but would create a permanent hung government, requiring a permanent L-D/C or L-D/L coalition to create a governing majority). While I would rather enjoy discussing all of these topics, they are only tangentially related to the article. I should probably mention that I am not an English-, Scots-, Welsh-, or Irishman; someone from the UK might likely have a different opinion and interpretation.
 
2014-02-08 07:07:48 PM  
We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?
 
2014-02-08 07:23:22 PM  
What a "hard-worker" might look like in the 21st century:
Factory worker.....
img.fark.net
Warehouse worker.....
img.fark.net
Truck driver......
img.fark.net
Store clerk.......
img.fark.net
I think I may have found the problem.
 
2014-02-08 07:29:02 PM  

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?


minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..
 
2014-02-08 07:30:47 PM  
(of course, the powers that be are terrified of unrestrained innovation - you can't maintain obscene Pharaoh-squared wealth if the system changes.. and THAT is why the current system enslaves you against threat of starvation - you have no time to change anything for the better)
 
2014-02-08 07:32:03 PM  

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.


We witnessed the fall of capitalism in the early-to-mid 1900s. What we're witnessing now is the fall of crony capitalism.
 
2014-02-08 07:40:04 PM  
sobriquet by any other name:

minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..


I suppose the question then is can we make that happen without seeing an exodus of wealth in this country? Can wee do it without vastly increasing government power? Telling the wealthy that they have to support all the poor people, without making the poor people doing anything to earn it will be politically difficult (likely impossible). It isn't that it doesn't make sense, but, can we find a way to do this without the violence, government power, and corruption that often comes with this kind of transition of wealth and power.
 
2014-02-08 08:20:35 PM  

Sammichless: sobriquet by any other name:

minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..

I suppose the question then is can we make that happen without seeing an exodus of wealth in this country? Can wee do it without vastly increasing government power? Telling the wealthy that they have to support all the poor people, without making the poor people doing anything to earn it will be politically difficult (likely impossible). It isn't that it doesn't make sense, but, can we find a way to do this without the violence, government power, and corruption that often comes with this kind of transition of wealth and power.


when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.
 
2014-02-08 08:32:42 PM  
    It occurs to me, in thinking about the last post, that'd i'd be ALL about a "living benefit" setup so that after you've worked enough hours (like one works a certain amount to get social security benefits) one would receive a relatively smaller benefit, and only for life necessities, that starts when you turn 30 and always lasts in proportion to taxable time you've worked. If you've worked 10 years in your life, you have at least 10 years where your basic needs would be met.

    Imaging the innovation if a smart, yet underpaid, engineer could quit that job to work on their own without becoming totally homeless by exploiting 6 years by 30.. imagine the extra opportunities for time for education, later in life...  I am a dreamer, i guess.
 
2014-02-08 09:09:28 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.


Right now, somebody owns those resources, Somebody owns those factory robots, etc. Right now, they can use these things however they want to, and if they choose to use them to produce things..... then they own the things they produce as well.

Transitioning to an economy that we all own makes sense, but, doing so means taking away peoples property and rights. That is a really messy, typically bloody, dangerous thing to do. It generally comes with far reaching consequences that weren't intended. It also stifles innovation greatly, as opposed to the renaissance some people expect to come with it.

/I'm not sure what I'm arguing for...... I don't know what a good answer to our economic problems would be.
 
2014-02-08 09:13:35 PM  

Sammichless: sobriquet by any other name: when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.

Right now, somebody owns those resources, Somebody owns those factory robots, etc. Right now, they can use these things however they want to, and if they choose to use them to produce things.. ...


You have to presume that a anyone can own a nation's resources outright before that makes sense... taxes are the most visible and necessary manifestation of that contract.

recent attempts to cut taxes on the 0.01% are mostly to complete the transfer of ownership from national resources to their own pocket. I find that offensive, and contrary to the needs of a working economic future.
 
2014-02-08 11:56:25 PM  
The 1% would work harder as fertilizer than they do now. They are an obscene relic of an era in human progress that has since died. And if their wealth were zeroed out, no one would notice.
 
2014-02-09 07:40:25 AM  

TV's Vinnie: DamnYankees: Heads will roll.

You know what? The guillotine is a bit too old-fashioned and inefficient to deal with today's type of plutocrats.

Time for us to bring out the wood-chippers!!!

Charles Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

David Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

Tom Perkins. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!


Feet first for maximum enjoyment by all.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report