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.

(CNBC)   CEO of luxury company tells Americans to quit biatching about being poor because they're probably wealthy compared to people in India   (cnbc.com) divider line 279
    More: Dumbass, Squawk Box  
•       •       •

5940 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2014 at 9:04 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 11:22:53 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: It wasn't about moving money, it was about creating jobs.


It was about moving money around. The idea behind it first suggested building pyramids, for the sake of making work. The concept ignores cost.
 
2014-02-12 11:23:59 PM

SmithHiller: $220 for the top LOL

[media.nicolemiller.com image 355x551]
This top is made from silk with mini mirror detail down the front and at the hem. Leave this shirt untucked for a relaxed and casual look, or tuck it in with shorts or a skirt for a more formal outfit.
IMPORTED


This is the best post in the thread, and I am jealous. God DAMMIT
 
2014-02-12 11:26:30 PM

MFAWG: I remember hearing Newt Gingrich say in the early fall of 2008 as it was all falling apart that America should be more like China, India, and Northern Ireland going forward into the 21st Century, so I'm not real surprised.


To be fair, we are trying. Take for instance the Boston bombing. Reminds me greatly of Ireland in the 80s.
 
2014-02-12 11:27:52 PM
FTFA: "We've got a country that the poverty level is wealth in 99 percent of the rest of the world," he said. "So we're talking about woe is me, woe is us, woe is this." He added that "the guy that's making, oh my God, he's making $35,000 a year, why don't we try that out in India or some countries we can't even name. China, anyplace, the guy is wealthy."

I love how this statement ignores the fact that the guy making $35 million a year is wealthier than all the poor in India, China and the U.S. combined.
 
2014-02-12 11:28:32 PM

Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: jso2897: Well, this is what I call "True Bullshiat" - technically, it's true - but in it's intended meaning, it's bullshiat.

I guess in a sense it's a somewhat poetic argument, since it means that nobody but the lowest man on the totem pole can complain about anything. Which if the 1% were logically consistent, would mean that they wouldn't complain about marginal increases to their tax rates because somebody else has it worse. Since they aren't, they compare themselves to Jews during the Holocaust, but I dream of the day on which they shut up because some kid in Ghana is eating dirt for lunch.

Well put. It's thinking that would tell a guy that comes into the emergency room with a compound fracture to stop his bellyaching because someone else has flesh eating bacteria.

Oddly enough, such an attitude will help one get through 99% of life.

How plucky of you. You sir, are my inspiration. A pristine enlightened individual in a world full of whiners.

You are right.  It's better to just wine until someone give you more of their money so you don't rob them.


It's better to write coherent sentences than spew nonsense with grammar equivalent to a first grader.
 
2014-02-12 11:29:30 PM

RanDomino: That Guy Jeff
He's not wrong. Americans are wealthy as fark compared to the rest of the world. Even our people as fat as hell.

is this where I get to point out that obesity correlates to poverty, because people who can't afford to eat good food or spend time and energy cooking end up eating cheap crap that kills them?


What poor people may look like:
i.imgur.com

What relatively rich people who have the luxury of sitting on their fat arses all day and are too lazy to cook properly look like:
i.imgur.com

It's incredibly easy to stay thin while poor. I know this from first hand experience; I've never been thinner than when I was poor. Not "eat McDonalds every day" poor, cause you're spending more in a day on a big mac than most people make in a day. We're talking "this bag of rice has to last me until next friday" poor. And that's while sharing a one bedroom apartment with 3 other people, and it's STILL a lot better off than most people on this planet.
 
2014-02-12 11:30:34 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: A better response is to point out that, if these mega-rich assholes lived in a place like Cuba, the government could imprison them and confiscate all their worldly belongings, so they shouldn't biatch about the absurdly low taxes they pay in the U.S. Don't let these pricks define the argument.


While one could also argue that a properly motivated despotic country (like Russia, China, Vietnam, or Mexico) can represent the highest in business friendliness.  Critics can be disappeared with the safe excuse of being "subversive".
 
2014-02-12 11:34:51 PM

MayoSlather: ...Essentially our productive powers are not reflected in the well being of the common man.

The rich have rigged the rules so that wealth distribution is tied directly to what makes them the most money, not what is best for increasing the quality of life in the world, and that's why wealth inequality is a problem and why capitalism in its current state needs to be addressed.


I have never (and probably will never) understood how our society reached a point where the end-all/be-all of civilization was the enabling of commerce. How is business more important than humanity? Shouldn't the purpose of society be the advancement of humanity? Why do we continue to curtail benefits for people to enable greater advances in commerce? So much is done under the guise of improving our lives when what needs to be done are the things that improve us as a people.
 
2014-02-12 11:36:35 PM

geek_mars: FTFA: "We've got a country that the poverty level is wealth in 99 percent of the rest of the world," he said. "So we're talking about woe is me, woe is us, woe is this." He added that "the guy that's making, oh my God, he's making $35,000 a year, why don't we try that out in India or some countries we can't even name. China, anyplace, the guy is wealthy."

I love how this statement ignores the fact that the guy making $35 million a year is wealthier than all the poor in India, China and the U.S. combined.


You aren't very good at math. There's 2.2 million people in US making minimum wage. They alone come to ~$34,320,000,000 a year in income, about 980x as much as you said for ALL the poor in three different countries. You are incredibly bad at estimating numbers.

You want to know what that $35 million a year DOES have more of than all the poor in America? A tax bill. He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.
 
2014-02-12 11:38:08 PM

That Guy Jeff: RanDomino: That Guy Jeff
He's not wrong. Americans are wealthy as fark compared to the rest of the world. Even our people as fat as hell.

is this where I get to point out that obesity correlates to poverty, because people who can't afford to eat good food or spend time and energy cooking end up eating cheap crap that kills them?

What poor people may look like:
[i.imgur.com image 702x463]

What relatively rich people who have the luxury of sitting on their fat arses all day and are too lazy to cook properly look like:
[i.imgur.com image 375x500]

It's incredibly easy to stay thin while poor. I know this from first hand experience; I've never been thinner than when I was poor. Not "eat McDonalds every day" poor, cause you're spending more in a day on a big mac than most people make in a day. We're talking "this bag of rice has to last me until next friday" poor. And that's while sharing a one bedroom apartment with 3 other people, and it's STILL a lot better off than most people on this planet.


Account created 4 weeks ago.  I wonder whose alt you are.
 
2014-02-12 11:39:47 PM

That Guy Jeff: He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.


He should pick one poor person and give him or her all of his money. Then he'll have the luxury of paying no taxes and they'll be saddled with the burden of paying a lot of taxes.
 
2014-02-12 11:49:21 PM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: True, but humanity isn't a zero-sum game

wat

since humanity's flaws are greed

again: wat

underprivileged

I reject the term as loaded

I think we can manage to give to the poor enough such that they aren't as poor as in third world countries.

The poor in this country are lightyears apart from real poverty elsewhere, and you farking know it. The poor in this country make India's middle class look positively humble.


The poor in this country are working themselves to the bone, often more than one job, with few to no benefits, at the expense of their families and their health, in order to get by.  You say they have a refrigerator?  Swell!  But they barely have the time to cook nutritious food, and often live in supermarket wastelands where they can't buy produce.  They come home too tired to spend adequate time with their kids.  They get no time off a year.  If they EVER spend money on televisions or phones, it's because they're frantically trying to buy off peace of mind, as fragile as that is, in the way they've been trained to do: by consuming.  But it doesn't make anybody happy.

But you KNOW This.  You pretend because they don't have festering wounds they're doing awesome.  fark you.
 
2014-02-12 11:51:10 PM

Shryke: RanDomino: The New Deal, which created the middle-class,

By the way, the very notion that the government created the middle class is pure socialist bullshiat. Just wanted to add that, slick. The government doesn't create wealth. The people do.


Ours is a government of the people, my friend.
 
2014-02-12 11:52:58 PM

That Guy Jeff: geek_mars: FTFA: "We've got a country that the poverty level is wealth in 99 percent of the rest of the world," he said. "So we're talking about woe is me, woe is us, woe is this." He added that "the guy that's making, oh my God, he's making $35,000 a year, why don't we try that out in India or some countries we can't even name. China, anyplace, the guy is wealthy."

I love how this statement ignores the fact that the guy making $35 million a year is wealthier than all the poor in India, China and the U.S. combined.

You aren't very good at math. There's 2.2 million people in US making minimum wage. They alone come to ~$34,320,000,000 a year in income, about 980x as much as you said for ALL the poor in three different countries. You are incredibly bad at estimating numbers.

You want to know what that $35 million a year DOES have more of than all the poor in America? A tax bill. He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.


Yes there are, and there are lots of poor people who don't make shiat. I'll grant that my statement is a deliberate exaggeration, but spare me the sorrowful tale of the tax bill of a guy making $35 million a year being more than the bottom 30% will pay in a lifetime. The same guy makes more in a year than any of the bottom 30% will make in a lifetime.

Any ultra-rich person biatching about the poor can eat a bag of dicks and choke to death on them as far as I'm concerned.
From the Census Bureau:
In 2012, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.5 million people in poverty.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Also, in your earlier post with the pics of starving children and the woman on a hoverround, no one who advocates for the poor has this woman in mind. Most advocates for the poor are more concerned with the person who will buy her shoes from the Salvation Army store after she's worn them out.

On a personal note: If you're going to be a condescending prick about my math skills, the least you could do is provide a citation for your own numbers.
 
2014-02-12 11:55:05 PM

cwolf20: It's ok.  Mr. Prezzy signed an executive order to increase minimum wage so prices will increase on food etc, leaving us in the same boat we were in.  But that's all good for the government, because the higher the check amount the more taxes coming out. 

Ah working at a payroll company.


So, if for instance the minimum wage in your state is $8 and Obama says $10.10.  But you make $18, shouldn't you automatically get a 25% increase like the minimum wage persons???

/farking the lower middle income persons
 
2014-02-12 11:55:31 PM

That Guy Jeff: You want to know what that $35 million a year DOES have more of than all the poor in America? A tax bill. He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.


And if that money was more evenly distributed people would have a better quality of life and pay more taxes than that one rich guy because the money would actually be spent in the economy.

That guy can still be rich compared with everyone else...say the richest are worth 5-10mill at the most. That's still rich. What are they going to do with more money? The law of declining marginal utility says nothing all that important to them.
 
2014-02-12 11:55:34 PM
Okay.

Then I don't want to hear any whining about how much he and other wealthy people pay in taxes here because the wealthy in Norway and Sweden pay a much bigger portion in taxes out of their wealth there.
 
2014-02-12 11:56:39 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: lostcat: This myth that poor Americans are richer than the average people in other countries has to be dispelled.

There are new millionaires popping up all over the world, in places that we like to think of as poor or developing nations. It's because the economy is shifting away from the West and towards the eastern hemisphere. People are becoming rich on real estate deals, construction, and manufacturing.

Go visit SE Asia and look at the construction projects taking place there. They can't build skyscrapers fast enough in Ho Chi Minh City.

There are still plenty of poor people all over the world, but the quality of life in the US for anyone below poverty level is getting worse. The US is expensive. Child care, health care, food and other costs are high, compared with countries like India and Thailand.

This mentality that our poor are better off than the poor in other countries is just wrong.

I get your point, but you're wrong. The level of poverty you'll see in places like India and Africa is just soul-crushing to witness. People live in conditions that would never be tolerated in the U.S., and you regularly see people with diseases that don't even exist here. I certainly don't want to trivialize the plight of impoverished Americans, but to say they're just as bad off as people in certain other countries is just plain incorrect, and if you argue otherwise, you'll just play into the hands of conservatives who want to use that reality to excuse poverty in America.

A better response is to point out that, if these mega-rich assholes lived in a place like Cuba, the government could imprison them and confiscate all their worldly belongings, so they shouldn't biatch about the absurdly low taxes they pay in the U.S. Don't let these pricks define the argument.


Have you ever worked in a homeless shelter? Meals on wheels? Maybe spent a few weeks in the Ozarks digging outhouses?

Soul-crushing poverty exists here as well as over-seas. It may not be as prevalent or visible, but it is here, and not making $30,000/year either.

That said, I like your reframing of the issue. The 1% should be grateful for the system that keeps the poor from revolting. Really, they should be happy to provide TVs and x-boxes and whatever else to keep the 99% from rising up and taking what the 1% have.
 
2014-02-12 11:57:16 PM

RanDomino: Cagey B
Someone should

Cerebral Ballsy
they should be

blacksharpiemarker
Strip him and his family of all their wealth and throw them into the street.

The One True TheDavid
how about finding a way

People, if you want these things to happen, you're going to have to organize. I'm sorry. Nobody's going to do it for you.
If you're not willing to organize, you're being about as useful as a Dilbert strip.


I've organized, I've Occupied, I've petitioned and the reason I'm here Dilberting today is I've sprained my knee. Don't assume none of us have gotten involved, we might have done just that. This country can only move so fast, the tea partners and Faux News old timers are trying to pull us back in time with all they've got.
 
2014-02-13 12:01:19 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: That Guy Jeff: He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.

He should pick one poor person and give him or her all of his money. Then he'll have the luxury of paying no taxes and they'll be saddled with the burden of paying a lot of taxes.


Why would he want the "luxury" of paying no taxes? I haven't seen any rich people calling for paying no taxes. All I've seen are rich people calling for 1) not having their resources they've accumulated taken from them and given to others and 2) not to pay unfairly more than most people do. Neither of those positions seem unreasonable; no one would like a mob busting into their house and taking their stuff, and for a group that pays almost no taxes to tell a group that pays A LOT of taxes that they "aren't paying enough" is just plain ludicrous.


The base fact remains that the rich already pay a lot more income taxes than you. They pay a lot more salaries than you. They fund a lot more business loans than you. They pay a lot more to charity than you. By orders of magnitude. You might be all "well percentage-wise this middle class guy pays more than this 1%" but percentages don't buy schools, don't pave roads, and don't fund cancer research. You would also be cherry picking an example, because on average the wealthy also pay a higher tax rate than the people who are less wealthy. It's ridiculous to see people who don't pay income tax biatch and whine about how someone's not pulling their weight. Yeah, someone's not pulling their weight: the YOU GUYS.

All this "rich hating" is so weird to me, especially this nonsense with the "1%". All measures of achievement have outliers. Micheal Phelps is the 1% for swimming medals. Joey Chesnut is the 1% for hot dog eating. And Warren Buffet is the 1% for money making. There no good reason why a graph of  "wealth acquisition" shouldn't look like a graph of any other measure of achievement. Yes, a select few do astronomically better than the majority. That's not news.
 
2014-02-13 12:07:54 AM

Nemo's Brother: The One True TheDavid: By the way, people used to think that the Third World poor would one day be up to the First World's poverty line; instead it seems like the trend goes the other way, that it won't be long before the USA is a Third World country.

Only leftists with no understanding of economics or scarcity thought that way.


Resources aren't scarce; we have plenty of resources to feed, clothe, educate and medically treat every single human on this planet.

We simply choose to hoard wealth and resources rather than distribute it evenly.
 
2014-02-13 12:08:28 AM

That Guy Jeff: All this "rich hating" is so weird to me, especially this nonsense with the "1%". All measures of achievement have outliers. Micheal Phelps is the 1% for swimming medals. Joey Chesnut is the 1% for hot dog eating. And Warren Buffet is the 1% for money making. There no good reason why a graph of "wealth acquisition" shouldn't look like a graph of any other measure of achievement. Yes, a select few do astronomically better than the majority. That's not news.


I don't hate people for being rich.  I hate people who think that being rich gives them a divine right to shiat all over everyone else.  I hate people who think because they have money, they have a right to everyone else's money.  I hate people who are so empty inside that even after accumulating more wealth than they know what to do with, they ravenous clutch for more just so that they can say they have the biggest yacht or the most rooms in their mansions.  I hate people who came from nothing and then when they succeed, they try to pull the ladder up behind them, all while mocking the people they left behind for not being good enough.  There are plenty of rich people in this country who aren't complete douchebags.  They aren't the problem.  It's the guys who think it's perfectly ok to recklessly gamble with my 401K if it means they get a few extra million a year.
 
2014-02-13 12:09:30 AM

That Guy Jeff: I haven't seen any rich people calling for paying no taxes.


I have. Newt Gingrich proposed reducing the capital gains tax to zero. The lower capital gains rate is a luxury of those who have the money to invest, namely the rich.

That Guy Jeff: for a group that pays almost no taxes to tell a group that pays A LOT of taxes that they "aren't paying enough" is just plain ludicrous.


Relative to their income, no it isn't. You want the poor and lower class to pay income taxes, okay, then they'll need some income.

That Guy Jeff: The base fact remains that the rich already pay a lot more income taxes than you.


Right. Because they make all the money. Not sure what you don't get about this. You want the lower classes to pay more in taxes, then put an end to the rich mooching up all the income.

That Guy Jeff: There no good reason why a graph of  "wealth acquisition" shouldn't look like a graph of any other measure of achievement.


Sure there is. An economy 70% reliant on consumer spending won't do very well when those consumers have no money to spend. That's what's happening now. The middle class can't afford to spend on anything beyond necessities. This may be okay with you, and that's fine, but then you don't get to complain about how crappy this economy is.
 
2014-02-13 12:11:52 AM

MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: You want to know what that $35 million a year DOES have more of than all the poor in America? A tax bill. He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.

And if that money was more evenly distributed people would have a better quality of life and pay more taxes than that one rich guy because the money would actually be spent in the economy.

That guy can still be rich compared with everyone else...say the richest are worth 5-10mill at the most. That's still rich. What are they going to do with more money? The law of declining marginal utility says nothing all that important to them.


OK, let's imagine that there's a certain amount of money that they really don't need to make more than. So what? If you bake more cupcakes than you can eat, does that mean I get to take some from you? Why does "personal property" stop being a thing at some level? What right does anyone have to anyone else's resources?

I figured out a long time ago what the difference between me and a lot of... lefter leaning people on the internet is. They are "ends justify the means" types of people, and I am not. For people like you, it's OK if you steal from people as long as it's for a good cause. Or, what you think is a good cause, to be a little more precise. I don't subscribe to "ends justify the means". I don't care how many people you think you can help, if you have to take from someone to do it it's wrong. If you came to me and said "I've found the cure for cancer, but we have to sacrifice orphans to make the medicine", I would decline to participate in your program. :) However, it is a perfectly valid way of looking at the world. There's nothing universal that says it's one way or another, and morality is fabrication of hairless apes scampering around on a space rock. So I'm not going to hate you for your opinion or anything, but I do enjoy arguing about it, and I do find it immoral to take the resources of another person against their will. I don't care if you're taking physical possessions (theft), taking time (kidnapping), taking labor (slavery), or taking all future time and labor (murder), it's wrong. Someone put their labor into making that money. Whether or not they were more productive or successful than you in doing so is irrelevant, it's as much there's as anything you make is yours.
 
2014-02-13 12:18:18 AM

RanDomino: kitsuneymg
4) There is no forth world. By definition, everyone not in 1st or 2nd is 3rd.

uh, no, using "fourth world" to describe marginalized indigenous populations is not something he's making up.


randomino, you are making a public fool of yourself.

there is no fourth world. kitsuneymg is right. the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd refer specifically to NATO, Warsaw and NAM.

NAM were the non aligned movement countries, and this 1,2,3 world was invented by Nehru in the context of NAM.

It has no economic meaning whatsoever.
 
2014-02-13 12:21:13 AM

That Guy Jeff: RanDomino: That Guy Jeff
He's not wrong. Americans are wealthy as fark compared to the rest of the world. Even our people as fat as hell.

is this where I get to point out that obesity correlates to poverty, because people who can't afford to eat good food or spend time and energy cooking end up eating cheap crap that kills them?

What poor people may look like:


What relatively rich people who have the luxury of sitting on their fat arses all day and are too lazy to cook properly look like:


It's incredibly easy to stay thin while poor. I know this from first hand experience; I've never been thinner than when I was poor. Not "eat McDonalds every day" poor, cause you're spending more in a day on a big mac than most people make in a day. We're talking "this bag of rice has to last me until next friday" poor. And that's while sharing a one bedroom apartment with 3 other people, and it's STILL a lot better off than most people on this planet.


This "you're not poor because someone else is poorer than you" is a brilliant piece of f*cked up logic.

What does it matter if there's a guy over there who's poorer? How does that ease the pain of this person's not-quite-as-poor poverty? It doesn't, and fighting over what the "true" definition of poverty is while that fat jerk makes $35,000,000 a year is truly idiotic.

Keep swallowing that delicious 1%er Kool-Aid.
 
2014-02-13 12:25:01 AM

That Guy Jeff: Why would he want the "luxury" of paying no taxes? I haven't seen any rich people calling for paying no taxes. All I've seen are rich people calling for 1) not having their resources they've accumulated taken from them and given to others and 2) not to pay unfairly more than most people do. Neither of those positions seem unreasonable; no one would like a mob busting into their house and taking their stuff, and for a group that pays almost no taxes to tell a group that pays A LOT of taxes that they "aren't paying enough" is just plain ludicrous.


That's a convenient argument considering the working class does 99% of the labor that makes the economy function while the rich use leverage to take the majority of the gains from their productivity. Who is wanting to steal from who here?

The working class deserves to be paid a living wage for their efforts, not to be taken advantage of. You will inevitably make some facile counter argument regarding the working class' ability to get another job or start their own business, but that's not reality. There aren't enough jobs out there and most have to settle for what they can get, and people need to work together in a society for it to function efficiently. It's functionally untenable for a large % of people to be business owners or in the investor class.

That Guy Jeff: All this "rich hating" is so weird to me, especially this nonsense with the "1%". All measures of achievement have outliers. Micheal Phelps is the 1% for swimming medals. Joey Chesnut is the 1% for hot dog eating. And Warren Buffet is the 1% for money making. There no good reason why a graph of  "wealth acquisition" shouldn't look like a graph of any other measure of achievement. Yes, a select few do astronomically better than the majority. That's not news.


Funny you should bring up a sports analogy. Let's take Michael Jordan arguably the greatest athlete of all time, as good as Jordan was he would have never won without talented people around him. They could not pay Jordan the entire salary cap, put a bunch of scrubs around him, and expect to win. He needed Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Grant, Kerr, Harper to win all those championships. Jordan made more money, but those other guys were rich too.

The rich can still be rich, but they can't be so rich that it discounts the value of everyone else.
 
2014-02-13 12:27:10 AM

That Guy Jeff: MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: You want to know what that $35 million a year DOES have more of than all the poor in America? A tax bill. He pays more taxes in a year that the bottom 30% or so will pay in their lifetimes.

And if that money was more evenly distributed people would have a better quality of life and pay more taxes than that one rich guy because the money would actually be spent in the economy.

That guy can still be rich compared with everyone else...say the richest are worth 5-10mill at the most. That's still rich. What are they going to do with more money? The law of declining marginal utility says nothing all that important to them.

OK, let's imagine that there's a certain amount of money that they really don't need to make more than. So what? If you bake more cupcakes than you can eat, does that mean I get to take some from you? Why does "personal property" stop being a thing at some level? What right does anyone have to anyone else's resources?

I figured out a long time ago what the difference between me and a lot of... lefter leaning people on the internet is. They are "ends justify the means" types of people, and I am not. For people like you, it's OK if you steal from people as long as it's for a good cause. Or, what you think is a good cause, to be a little more precise. I don't subscribe to "ends justify the means". I don't care how many people you think you can help, if you have to take from someone to do it it's wrong. If you came to me and said "I've found the cure for cancer, but we have to sacrifice orphans to make the medicine", I would decline to participate in your program. :) However, it is a perfectly valid way of looking at the world. There's nothing universal that says it's one way or another, and morality is fabrication of hairless apes scampering around on a space rock. So I'm not going to hate you for your opinion or anything, but I do enjoy arguing about it, and I do find it immoral to take the resources of another person against their will. I don't care if you're taking physical possessions (theft), taking time (kidnapping), taking labor (slavery), or taking all future time and labor (murder), it's wrong. Someone put their labor into making that money. Whether or not they were more productive or successful than you in doing so is irrelevant, it's as much there's as anything you make is yours.


A lot of people who are putting their labor into making that money aren't being proportionally compensated. The guy in the article owns a company that provides luxury goods, but he doesn't make them. He hires people to do that. Without them, he cannot make enough product to reach the level of wealth he has. He pays them for their work, but somehow, the revenues that come from sales of the  product that comes from their work makes him rich and keeps them poor.
Granted, the workers agree to take the job for the pay offered, but if the combined efforts of all the workers (from the guy who cuts fabric to the CEO) = 100%, how much of that percentage should go to the CEO and how much should be divided amongst the workers? Don't answer that. Consider it academic.
The problem, and the reason for the "rich hate" is that the guy who's taking in the bulk of the profits and is compensated something like 200:1 against his average employee wage (more for 3rd world workers) is telling poor people to quit biatching because things are worse in poorer nations.

And before you say anything about my numbers:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/ceo-pay-ratio s/
 
2014-02-13 12:27:45 AM
Dusk-You-n-Me: That Guy Jeff: I haven't seen any rich people calling for paying no taxes.

I have. Newt Gingrich proposed reducing the capital gains tax to zero. The lower capital gains rate is a luxury of those who have the money to invest, namely the rich.


No capital gains tax != no taxes.


That Guy Jeff: The base fact remains that the rich already pay a lot more income taxes than you.

Right. Because they make all the money. Not sure what you don't get about this. You want the lower classes to pay more in taxes, then put an end to the rich mooching up all the income.


Where did you get the weird idea that there is only a set amount of wealth? That's insane. If a rich dude makes a dollar it doesn't mean a poor dude lost a dollar. The poor dude is perfectly free to make as much as he wants. Heck, if he does a really good job and becomes rich, it's not like some rich guy drops out of the pool.

That Guy Jeff: There no good reason why a graph of  "wealth acquisition" shouldn't look like a graph of any other measure of achievement.

Sure there is. An economy 70% reliant on consumer spending won't do very well when those consumers have no money to spend. That's what's happening now. The middle class can't afford to spend on anything beyond necessities. This may be okay with you, and that's fine, but then you don't get to complain about how crappy this economy is.


You make so many weird assumptions. First of all, I am middle class and I spend money on plenty of things that are non-essential. Irresponsibly so, unfortunately. So I'm not sure where you're getting this picture of the world from. You see, in the world I live in, I've upped my income every single year of my working life, from FAR below the poverty line on up to firmly middle class, almost upper middle class depending on what figures I use. When I look around my job, I see a whole bunch of other middle class peeps, and a couple very rich fellas who grew that company from literally nothing to the place that literally made my job. When I'm out and about, I see everyone on $600 handheld computers. I see restaurants that are packed on Friday night. I see tons of cars on the roads. I'm not sure where you are, what world you're living in, but I just plain don't live in that world. Even when I was poor, I worked jobs where I provided services for people a lot better off than I was.

Oh, a little side note about that, I can still remember when I was working at CompUSA way back in the day, and I would see people who's computer stopped working for whatever reason, and they would come in and just buy another one. It was weird and a huge revelation I had when I realized not everyone has to shop for computer parts at goodwill. When I realized that most people aren't completely screwed if their car breaks down. That there's whole big group of people who can just drop a couple hundred couple when they need to. It actually made me pretty determined to be part of that group. And now I am.

Anyhow, where was I... ah yes, this world you live in where the middle class can't buy anything but essentials? Pretty sure it doesn't actually exist. Maybe the poor can't buy anything, but judging by Apple's stock price, the middle class are doing just fine.
 
2014-02-13 12:30:24 AM

oukewldave: Do 25% of workers really make $91k+ a year?  I'm grossly underpaid.


No... thats somebody playing the numbers game and using gross household income.  As in, total income from all people living in the same house.
 
2014-02-13 12:35:32 AM

MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: Why would he want the "luxury" of paying no taxes? I haven't seen any rich people calling for paying no taxes. All I've seen are rich people calling for 1) not having their resources they've accumulated taken from them and given to others and 2) not to pay unfairly more than most people do. Neither of those positions seem unreasonable; no one would like a mob busting into their house and taking their stuff, and for a group that pays almost no taxes to tell a group that pays A LOT of taxes that they "aren't paying enough" is just plain ludicrous.


There's a big difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy" people.

/Look at Dennis Rodman for instance.  He's probably still "rich".
 
2014-02-13 12:37:53 AM

MayoSlather: The working class deserves to be paid a living wage for their efforts,


Everyone deserves EXACTLY as much as they agreed to work for. Not a penny less, not a penny more. My internet service provide deserves exactly how much I said I would pay them a month, if I hired someone to cut my grass they would deserve exactly how much they agreed to be payed, and if I payed someone to flip burgers they would deserves exactly how much they agreed to be paid. If someone isn't getting the money they deserve, that's already criminal and there are ways of remedying that. This weird concept of "agreeing to work for x but thinking they really owe you x++" is incredibly... unscrupulous.

MayoSlather: You will inevitably make some facile counter argument regarding the working class' ability to get another job or start their own business, but that's not reality.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-has nt -changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e8 45db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

BTW, I was incredibly poor at the start of my life, and now I am not. So.... first hand experience with you being wrong. :)

geek_mars: He pays them for their work, but somehow, the revenues that come from sales of the  product that comes from their work makes him rich and keeps them poor.


Exactly. He pays them for their work. He says "I'll give you this much money to do this" and they say "OK!". That's all there is to it. They don't deserve any more of it. If I hire a dude to landscape my house so I can sell it, is the dude who landscaped my house "entitled" to a cut of the proceeds from the sale? Not at all, he's entitled to what he agreed to do the landscaping for, and not a penny more.
 
2014-02-13 12:44:49 AM

That Guy Jeff: No capital gains tax != no taxes.


Right. But 40% of the taxes the wealthy pay are in capital gains. So cutting the capital gains tax to zero wipes out 40% of their tax bill. This is not true for the middle and lower class. That's why this cut would almost entirely benefit the rich.

That Guy Jeff: If a rich dude makes a dollar it doesn't mean a poor dude lost a dollar.


Well that all depends. If as someone else mentioned, the CEO is making 200:1 more than his average worker, that's money that could be going to that average worker. You may not agree that 200:1 is too high, but you can't deny that money could be going to the worker. In this regard, it is zero-sum. I mean is there no upper bound for you? 300:1? 1000:1? Or the other way, a lower bound for the worker. Why even have a minimum wage? Why pay workers at all, really? Why not $1/hour? $0.25/hour? That's just the market being the market, right?

That Guy Jeff: First of all, I am middle class


Great, but your anecdotes aren't data, so you can stop using them.

You may think it's fine, correct even, that 95% of the income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%. Ninety-five percent. So what, we just keep going like this? A very small percentage of the population making all the gains? You don't see a problem with that? Because most economists do, and they blame it, at least in part, for the current state of our economy.
 
2014-02-13 12:48:16 AM

That Guy Jeff: Everyone deserves EXACTLY as much as they agreed to work for. Not a penny less, not a penny more.


I've heard this before from libertarian types and it's silly. In the real world leverage exists and often times it's wildly disproportional. Like say when someone needs to eat they'll literally accept any wage offered.

That Guy Jeff: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-has nt -changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e8 45db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

BTW, I was incredibly poor at the start of my life, and now I am not. So.... first hand experience with you being wrong. :)


Your anecdote, is just that.

And FTA you gave:

"Lawrence F. Katz, a Harvard economist and mobility scholar who was not one of the paper's authors but has reviewed the findings. "What's really changed is the consequences of it. Because there's so much inequality, people born near the bottom tend to stay near the bottom, and that's much more consequential than it was 50 years ago.""
 
2014-02-13 12:53:07 AM

That Guy Jeff: geek_mars: He pays them for their work, but somehow, the revenues that come from sales of the  product that comes from their work makes him rich and keeps them poor.

Exactly. He pays them for their work. He says "I'll give you this much money to do this" and they say "OK!". That's all there is to it. They don't deserve any more of it. If I hire a dude to landscape my house so I can sell it, is the dude who landscaped my house "entitled" to a cut of the proceeds from the sale? Not at all, he's entitled to what he agreed to do the landscaping for, and not a penny more.


Sometimes they say, "Ok, this, combined with the paltry salary from my other job (or two) will allow me to feed my family," and they take the job, work their fingers to the bone and spend their days eking out the barest of existences creating the products that make this guy all his money. He could pay them a living wage and still accumulate mass sums of wealth.
 
2014-02-13 12:56:59 AM

That Guy Jeff: OK, let's imagine that there's a certain amount of money that they really don't need to make more than. So what? If you bake more cupcakes than you can eat, does that mean I get to take some from you? Why does "personal property" stop being a thing at some level? What right does anyone have to anyone else's resources?


Because it's simply small minded, narcissistic, and puerile. You're arguing that we should have a sandbox mentality where the big fat kid walks up to everyone else, takes their toys and says "That's mine, that's mine, that's mine."

That Guy Jeff: I figured out a long time ago what the difference between me and a lot of... lefter leaning people on the internet is. They are "ends justify the means" types of people, and I am not. For people like you, it's OK if you steal from people as long as it's for a good cause. Or, what you think is a good cause, to be a little more precise. I don't subscribe to "ends justify the means". I don't care how many people you think you can help, if you have to take from someone to do it it's wrong. If you came to me and said "I've found the cure for cancer, but we have to sacrifice orphans to make the medicine", I would decline to participate in your program. :) However, it is a perfectly valid way of looking at the world. There's nothing universal that says it's one way or another, and morality is fabrication of hairless apes scampering around on a space rock. So I'm not going to hate you for your opinion or anything, but I do enjoy arguing about it, and I do find it immoral to take the resources of another person against their will. I don't care if you're taking physical possessions (theft), taking time (kidnapping), taking labor (slavery), or taking all future time and labor (murder), it's wrong. Someone put their labor into making that money. Whether or not they were more productive or successful than you in doing so is irrelevant, it's as much there's as anything you make is yours.


You're arguing that we're advocating theft out of some envious disposition, or that it's theft at all. From your point of view the only ethical stance to be had is one that protects the wealthy. The ethics of a CEO that takes the lion's share of profits for himself while paying others the minimum he can pay is dubious at best. Dickens wrote some pretty good literature that described just this.

What we're arguing for here is a functioning society with a happier healthier populace. I'm sorry if limiting people's ability to hoard resources they'll never use for the betterment of others in need seems like theft, but if that's what you want to call it to make it seem like some great injustice then so be it.
 
2014-02-13 12:59:43 AM

MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: Everyone deserves EXACTLY as much as they agreed to work for. Not a penny less, not a penny more.

I've heard this before from libertarian types and it's silly. In the real world leverage exists and often times it's wildly disproportional. Like say when someone needs to eat they'll literally accept any wage offered.



Someone posted this question above:
If I hire a dude to landscape my house so I can sell it, is the dude who landscaped my house "entitled" to a cut of the proceeds from the sale?

So basically, you are saying that because of "leverage", that landscaper dude (who may be starving and agreed to work for $1/hr) is entitled to a cut of the house sale price(which may be $10 million) and the ratio between what the landscaper is paid and what his labor helps sell (10 million) is 10,000,000:1

Don't weasel out of this: Are starving landscapers entitled to a cut of the product their labor produces ?
 
2014-02-13 01:07:02 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Right. But 40% of the taxes the wealthy pay are in capital gains. So cutting the capital gains tax to zero wipes out 40% of their tax bill. This is not true for the middle and lower class. That's why this cut would almost entirely benefit the rich


Well, tax wise, yeah. I think the logic behind capital gains is that your taking money from people for investing, which discourages investment. I don't know if that's how it works out or not, but I'm definitely a fan of simplifying taxes. Either way, income tax alone makes the rich leaps and bounds ahead of the poor in terms of paying taxes.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Well that all depends. If as someone else mentioned, the CEO is making 200:1 more than his average worker, that's money that could be going to that average worker. You may not agree that 200:1 is too high, but you can't deny that money could be going to the worker. In this regard, it is zero-sum. I mean is there no upper bound for you? 300:1? 1000:1? Or the other way, a lower bound for the worker. Why even have a minimum wage? Why pay workers at all, really? Why not $1/hour? $0.25/hour? That's just the market being the market, right?


That's just silly. No one is going to work for free, except interns I guess, but they are really working for work experience. People work for whatever they feel their time and skill is worth. Frankly, flipping a burger isn't worth a "living wage". Hell, it's not even worth the current minimum wage. I don't pay more for things than they are worth (so I don't own apple products, ZING!) so I don't expect anyone else to either. If your labor is worth $10 an hour, that's what it should cost. If that's not enough to support you, make your labor worth more. That's what I did. My labor was practically worthless, and I got paid appropriately for it. So I decided to become worth more, and I did, and now I am. :)  It was fun, this last job I got I actually negotiated on the salary! Such a rush, the "do I ask too high and risk not getting the job, or ask too low and get less than I could?!?!" I liked it. I love this world I worked my way into.

MayoSlather: I've heard this before from libertarian types and it's silly. In the real world leverage exists and often times it's wildly disproportional. Like say when someone needs to eat they'll literally accept any wage offered.


OK, let's try it from the other side: why should flipping a burger be worth any more than it is? Would you prefer if people with burger joints refused to hire anyone that has a family to support? "Marrieds need not apply"? Teenagers looking for extra spending cash and bored retirees should be working those jobs. If someone else CHOOSES to take one of those jobs, they aren't entitled to more. Regardless *who's* flipping the burger, that flipping is only worth so much an hour, and it's not a lot. Frankly, if it becomes too expensive to use people for the job I hope they just replace them with robots. More job opportunities for people who's labor is worth something (robot technicians).
 
2014-02-13 01:09:48 AM

pstudent12: If I hire a dude to landscape my house so I can sell it, is the dude who landscaped my house "entitled" to a cut of the proceeds from the sale?

So basically, you are saying that because of "leverage", that landscaper dude (who may be starving and agreed to work for $1/hr) is entitled to a cut of the house sale price(which may be $10 million) and the ratio between what the landscaper is paid and what his labor helps sell (10 million) is 10,000,000:1

Don't weasel out of this: Are starving landscapers entitled to a cut of the product their labor produces ?


Your argument doesn't make any sense. What that landscaper is entitled to is a fair wage - not profits from something that he did not have any part in or investment in.

Unfortunately for that, often times that landscaper is not paid fairly, or what he is worth. And if he "happens" to be undocumented, then he better take what is offered, otherwise someone will be calling INS.
 
2014-02-13 01:11:36 AM

That Guy Jeff: That's just silly. No one is going to work for free, except interns I guess, but they are really working for work experience. People work for whatever they feel their time and skill is worth. Frankly, flipping a burger isn't worth a "living wage". Hell, it's not even worth the current minimum wage. I don't pay more for things than they are worth (so I don't own apple products, ZING!) so I don't expect anyone else to either. If your labor is worth $10 an hour, that's what it should cost. If that's not enough to support you, make your labor worth more. That's what I did. My labor was practically worthless, and I got paid appropriately for it. So I decided to become worth more, and I did, and now I am. :)  It was fun, this last job I got I actually negotiated on the salary! Such a rush, the "do I ask too high and risk not getting the job, or ask too low and get less than I could?!?!" I liked it. I love this world I worked my way into.


So exactly what do you do, I'm curious? All your statement boils down to is narcissistic gloating about how you have more than someone else, so FARK them for complaining in the first place.
 
2014-02-13 01:12:33 AM

That Guy Jeff: morality is fabrication of hairless apes scampering around on a space rock.


This is called moral relativism, and it's mostly wrong. There are morals that are innate and key to our survival as a species, and there are also very consistent things that cause suffering and joy in all people.

The wealthy you're defending are not abiding by these morals. They don't care about preserving the planet, they don't care about the quality of life of others, all they care about is any excuse to take more for themselves. There are psychological terms for these kinds of folk and they're called psychopaths, narcissists, and sociopaths.
 
2014-02-13 01:15:45 AM

geek_mars: Sometimes they say, "Ok, this, combined with the paltry salary from my other job (or two) will allow me to feed my family," and they take the job, work their fingers to the bone and spend their days eking out the barest of existences creating the products that make this guy all his money. He could pay them a living wage and still accumulate mass sums of wealth.


When I pay for things, I don't consider the well being of the person I'm buying them from. I don't know if you do, but that seems odd. I've never seen anyone walk up to the grocery cashier or thrift shop cashier or garage sale patron and say "Excuse me, you appear to need more money. Could I pay you double what this is worth so that you're better off?" I suppose it could happen, but usually doesn't. Everyone looks for the best bang for their buck and I can hardly fault them for doing so

.

MayoSlather: From your point of view the only ethical stance to be had is one that protects the wealthy.


No, I want all people protected from theft. You input your labor, your skills, your time. You get out resources, usually in the common form of "money". That money is yours. I don't care if it's $10 or $10,000,000, the only way that money should leave your hands is you voluntarily agreeing to part with it. If someone walks up and says "give me that money or else", it's morally wrong. At least to me. See, you think it's OK if the guy taking the money is going to use it for something you think is going to create a " functioning society with a happier healthier populace ". But I don't care how good the expected (but not guaranteed) outcome is. It's still wrong to walk up to someone and say "give me that money or else". That's the difference; I don't think the ends justify the means. It's OK that we differ on this, just know that I'm going to vote, petition, and fight tooth and nail to prevent the concept "personal property" from being meaningless. And, as it turns out, the people who agree that personal property is meaningful tend to have more of it expend defending it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for your side "winning" anytime soon. :)
 
2014-02-13 01:15:45 AM
That Guy Jeff: OK, let's try it from the other side: why should flipping a burger be worth any more than it is? Would you prefer if people with burger joints refused to hire anyone that has a family to support? "Marrieds need not apply"? Teenagers looking for extra spending cash and bored retirees should be working those jobs. If someone else CHOOSES to take one of those jobs, they aren't entitled to more. Regardless *who's* flipping the burger, that flipping is only worth so much an hour, and it's not a lot. Frankly, if it becomes too expensive to use people for the job I hope they just replace them with robots. More job opportunities for people who's labor is worth something (robot technicians).

How many billions are unflipped burgers worth?

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders - shareholders, customers, and employees - instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.
According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits.
If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).
If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.
Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.
Big Macs would still cost the same as they do today (billions and billions would still be served!)
McDonald's managers would still take home their impressive salaries.

source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-could-double-wages-for-empl oy ees-and-make-less-money-2013-7
 
2014-02-13 01:17:14 AM

That Guy Jeff: Either way, income tax alone makes the rich leaps and bounds ahead of the poor in terms of paying taxes.


Because their income is leaps and bounds ahead of the poor. Which brings us back to my original point. Don't treat not paying taxes as a luxury of the poor and paying a lot of taxes as a burden of the rich. As if the poor person wouldn't swap places in a second, and the rich person wouldn't choose to die first.

That Guy Jeff: People work for whatever they feel their time and skill is worth. Frankly, flipping a burger isn't worth a "living wage".


Because you say so? Well I say different. As do a majority of Americans. You may be okay with subsidizing corporate profits with your tax dollars, I am not.
 
2014-02-13 01:19:15 AM

That Guy Jeff: geek_mars: Sometimes they say, "Ok, this, combined with the paltry salary from my other job (or two) will allow me to feed my family," and they take the job, work their fingers to the bone and spend their days eking out the barest of existences creating the products that make this guy all his money. He could pay them a living wage and still accumulate mass sums of wealth.

When I pay for things, I don't consider the well being of the person I'm buying them from. I don't know if you do, but that seems odd. I've never seen anyone walk up to the grocery cashier or thrift shop cashier or garage sale patron and say "Excuse me, you appear to need more money. Could I pay you double what this is worth so that you're better off?" I suppose it could happen, but usually doesn't. Everyone looks for the best bang for their buck and I can hardly fault them for doing so


I'm guessing from this statement you're not a big tipper, despite the fact that restaurant servers make $2.00-$3.00/hr, and haven't seen much of an increase in that rate since the 90's.
Also, addressing the cashier at the store doesn't address the systemic problem. I'd gladly pay an extra few cents per item if it meant every cashier in that store could earn a living wage.
 
2014-02-13 01:19:37 AM

The One True TheDavid: By the way, people used to think that the Third World poor would one day be up to the First World's poverty line; instead it seems like the trend goes the other way, that it won't be long before the USA is a Third World country.


Many parts of the US are already 3rd world.
 
2014-02-13 01:20:21 AM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: True, but humanity isn't a zero-sum game

wat

since humanity's flaws are greed

again: wat

underprivileged

I reject the term as loaded

I think we can manage to give to the poor enough such that they aren't as poor as in third world countries.

The poor in this country are lightyears apart from real poverty elsewhere, and you farking know it. The poor in this country make India's middle class look positively humble.


you are a goddamned idiot
 
2014-02-13 01:20:21 AM

oukewldave: Do 25% of workers really make $91k+ a year?  I'm grossly underpaid.


Household income, possibly.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/09/ 2 9/what-is-your-us-income-percentile-ranking-n1712430/page/full
 
2014-02-13 01:26:40 AM

ski9600: cwolf20


Depends on the company. Mine has not increased to keep up.
 
2014-02-13 01:27:47 AM

ski9600: cwolf20: It's ok.  Mr. Prezzy signed an executive order to increase minimum wage so prices will increase on food etc, leaving us in the same boat we were in.  But that's all good for the government, because the higher the check amount the more taxes coming out. 

Ah working at a payroll company.

So, if for instance the minimum wage in your state is $8 and Obama says $10.10.  But you make $18, shouldn't you automatically get a 25% increase like the minimum wage persons???

/farking the lower middle income persons


And I don't make above 10 an hour
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report