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  
•       •       •

5941 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2014 at 9:04 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-12 08:03:35 PM
ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.
 
2014-02-12 08:06:20 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 08:07:14 PM
I always thought it was only a matter of time before people start breaking out the torches and pitchforks because of rich people saying stupid crap like this.
But it hasn't happened yet, and now I'm wondering if it will happen at all. Maybe the American people really have bought into the idea that wealth = worth?
 
2014-02-12 08:10:18 PM
I'll be he thinks the poor should eat cake, too.
 
2014-02-12 08:12:54 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-12 08:14:08 PM
Hey you farker

We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation
 
2014-02-12 08:16:52 PM

cman: Hey you farker

We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation


I believe we are supposed to grovel before our rich overlords and beg forgiveness for being born poor.  then we'll get to live in heaven and f*ck Virginians.  er...virgos.  um...vegans?  something anyways.  I dunno.  I can't keep track of everyone's afterlives anymore.
 
2014-02-12 08:23:13 PM
Terrible logic from this CEO. Claiming our poor are wealthy as compared to 99% of the rest of humanity leaves out other First World countries like Japan, Canada, Iceland, France, Germany, and even Second World countries.  The dumbass is lumping our poor with the Third World, forgetting about our own Fourth World populations.

/He's not been to any remote American Indian reservations like Pine Ridge obviously.
 
2014-02-12 08:24:15 PM

cman: Hey you farker

We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation


You're kidding, right? He seems to have an over-inflated opinion about himself.
 
2014-02-12 08:25:35 PM

Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.


Did you know that some of them EVEN have PS2 and Xboxes?

PINOS, all of them.
 
2014-02-12 08:42:18 PM
I wonder if that's true once you factor in debt
 
2014-02-12 08:47:54 PM
I'm trying to do my part to make sure poor people can't afford refrigerators.

But I'm only one man.
 
2014-02-12 08:54:25 PM
Cool, asshole, trade me salaries 1 year, let's see how well you do, savings untouched.
 
2014-02-12 09:06:29 PM
So are we now holding our standards to a third world country? What ever happened to the American Exceptionalism that they kept screaming about last election?
 
2014-02-12 09:06:37 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-12 09:07:33 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 09:07:34 PM
Someone should take this asshole and force him to live on $35,000 a year. Give him a kid or two to take care of into the bargain. See how well he does maintaining any reasonable standard of living while planning for future expenses. See how his retirement scenarios look. See how much access his kids have to extracurricular activities and higher education. Place him in New York or LA for a real good look at how how stupid it is to pretend $35,000 is the same everywhere.

That would certainly be a lot nicer outcome for him than he deserves, anyway.
 
2014-02-12 09:12:10 PM
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
Napoleon Bonaparte

Religion is going out of style
 
2014-02-12 09:12:26 PM
It's easier to understand when you realize that he hates you.
 
2014-02-12 09:12:44 PM
So what he is saying is to work in the US but live in India.
 
2014-02-12 09:14:26 PM
Shut up and eat your cake, ya filthy peasants.
 
2014-02-12 09:14:46 PM

Deep Contact: So what he is saying is to work in the US but live in India.


Well, you only work a few hundred hours out of a year, right?
 
2014-02-12 09:15:00 PM
Shall I get the torches and the pitchforks?

/ do these people not realize what happens to rich, entitled people; who tell the 99% that they should eat cake?
 
2014-02-12 09:15:01 PM
By that metric, their shareholders should STFU because as poor as their stock is performing, it's better than WorldCom and Enron.
 
2014-02-12 09:15:16 PM
Hey, poor!  You don't have to be poor any more!

Jesus is here!
 
2014-02-12 09:16:03 PM

RedPhoenix122: Cool, asshole, trade me salaries 1 year, let's see how well you do, savings untouched.


Hell, this guy could probably buy off 30 of his employees so they'd never have to work again in their lives, and still have enough annual income left over so that he wouldn't have to dig into his Cayman accounts at all for his new annual yacht.
 
2014-02-12 09:16:13 PM
That would be an excellent argument if, you know... WE LIVED IN INDIA.
 
2014-02-12 09:16:47 PM
Google for foxconn dormitories. This is what the gutting of the middle class will bring about after the shanty town slums take over the urban peripheral. Of particular note is this Atlantic article that shows the engineers dorm. What would get you a high end lifestyle in the US gets you a four bed dorm room.This is what they are talking about when they discuss abolishing the minimum wage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/inside-foxc on n-3-some-dormitories/263900/
 
2014-02-12 09:16:57 PM
Remember this feeling. It's when you realized that the days of the Ancien Regime were numbered.
 
2014-02-12 09:17:47 PM
I can't get enough of the Elitist CEO videos that keep popping up everywhere.  I'm saving them for the revolution.

I think every time one of these jerks opens their facehole, they should be sentenced to work for two weeks in a soup kitchen handing out food to the poor so they can see just what kind of people are on the bottom.  Single parents, mentally ill, addicts, people bankrupted by health costs, handicapped and alone.. not everyone is "lazy" and "entitled".  That's a strawman they use to feel justified in hoarding wealth and pocketing politicians to keep corporate tax rates low.
 
2014-02-12 09:18:07 PM

Glitchwerks: Hey, poor!  You don't have to be poor any more!

Jesus is here!


Give me a dollah, oh risen one.
 
2014-02-12 09:18:59 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 09:19:02 PM

Glitchwerks: Hey, poor!  You don't have to be poor any more!

Jesus is here!


Excellent reference.
 
2014-02-12 09:19:16 PM
So this asshole has all of us to thank for his undeserved lifestyle and then he has the courage to blame the poor?

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

The rich are the true burden on society. Free loaders who survive on our collective effort and contribute nothing in comparison to their perceived value.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-12 09:19:23 PM
BWAHAHAHAHA, what a farking TOOL!
 
2014-02-12 09:19:33 PM

ImpendingCynic: By that metric, their shareholders should STFU because as poor as their stock is performing, it's better than WorldCom and Enron.


largely, who do you those shareholders are? Hint, it isn't you are me.
 
2014-02-12 09:19:41 PM

Via Infinito: Maybe the American people really have bought into the idea that wealth = worth?



So long as they understand that income =/= wealth.  Weird how the two have become conflated.


Anyway, compared to my depression era grandparents, who struggled mightily early on, I do feel like I live a pretty cushy life.

Well, compared to my maternal grandparents, that is.

Fathers parents were from old land money and their memories of the depression years were mostly of the awesome parties.
 
2014-02-12 09:19:44 PM

Rapmaster2000: It's easier to understand when you realize that he hates you.


If he gave any thought at all to the rest of us, you'd probably be right.
 
2014-02-12 09:20:55 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.


You don't know what you're talking about.
 
2014-02-12 09:21:32 PM

cman: We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation


LOL.  You think that you have anything to do with my wealth?  If I rounded up all the workers in my factories and threw them into a bottomless pit, and personally ran the factories, I could double the output of my goods.  I am not only the best businessman who has ever lived, but the best worker.  But I don't waste my time doing things that I can put poor people to work doing.  I have very important things to do.  There are people on internet message boards who are flat-out wrong, and they need to be told this.  That is why you are poor and I am a billionaire who posts on the internet, calling people out on their lies.
 
2014-02-12 09:21:32 PM
I use that line of reasoning to get through my day. E.g., I might have crappy teeth, bipolar disorder and a collapsing spine, but at least all four limbs work and I don't have cancer. And especially in Lexington KY's recent cold snap I've thought many times "at least I'm not stuck being homeless in the cold when it feels like -8." But SSI won't pay me if I move to a village in India, and it's got to suck being a sickly old fool when you don't speak the language. So rather than reducing me to India's poverty levels, how about finding a way to bring them up to mine?
 
2014-02-12 09:22:17 PM

Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.


Worse. The american poor is ONLY better off than the Indian poor because of infrastructure and safety nets. These are things the right constantly speaks of eliminating (well, privatizing in the former case).

Then you have someone equally starving but now worse off because they are trapped in a country that has no place in the system for them. 3rd world areas have a place for poor people. A sucky place, but a place nonetheless.

We would have millions with no house money or chance at a job, but being homeless is often illegal, and there is no rural frontier to legally act as a pressure release valve.


Kind of like how the poorest haitians did the best in the earthquake, the poorest nations actually have a somewhat survivable poverty state. We have either a safety net, or be a thief.
 
2014-02-12 09:22:41 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.


Yep, that'll happen.
 
2014-02-12 09:22:56 PM
Do 25% of workers really make $91k+ a year?  I'm grossly underpaid.
 
2014-02-12 09:23:08 PM
The funniest part is the guy from Skeeter Holler living in a double-wide reading this article, leaning back to survey his Smokey and the Bandit commemorative plates, his Dale Jr. tire and his complete VHS collection of the Jeff Foxworthy show and thinking "He's raiht. It's tough being on top the heap."
 
2014-02-12 09:23:36 PM
Poor Poor Pitiful you guys biatching about being poor and throwing money at Drew
 
2014-02-12 09:24:37 PM
Wow, American poors are a mouthy, entitled bunch.
 
2014-02-12 09:27:26 PM
I hate po' folks. Makes my life so much easier to live that way. Bring me a Bud Light Jeeves.....
 
2014-02-12 09:28:58 PM

Mike_LowELL: cman: We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation

LOL.  You think that you have anything to do with my wealth?  If I rounded up all the workers in my factories and threw them into a bottomless pit, and personally ran the factories, I could double the output of my goods.  I am not only the best businessman who has ever lived, but the best worker.  But I don't waste my time doing things that I can put poor people to work doing.  I have very important things to do.  There are people on internet message boards who are flat-out wrong, and they need to be told this.  That is why you are poor and I am a billionaire who posts on the internet, calling people out on their lies.


I love you.
 
2014-02-12 09:31:16 PM

yakmans_dad: 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.

You don't know what you're talking about.


Tax part yes.  The 7.25 an hour check has an increase in taxes compared to the previous minimum wage level.
 
2014-02-12 09:31:23 PM

Via Infinito: I always thought it was only a matter of time before people start breaking out the torches and pitchforks because of rich people saying stupid crap like this.
But it hasn't happened yet, and now I'm wondering if it will happen at all. Maybe the American people really have bought into the idea that wealth = worth?


The pitchforks and torches are too expensive to buy.
 
2014-02-12 09:31:37 PM

s1ugg0: I love you.


I am glad that someone gets it.  I am tired of hearing poor people complain that we are rubbing it in their faces.  It is rude.
 
2014-02-12 09:32:05 PM

Smackledorfer: Worse. The american poor is ONLY better off than the Indian poor because of infrastructure and safety nets. These are things the right constantly speaks of eliminating (well, privatizing in the former case).

Then you have someone equally starving but now worse off because they are trapped in a country that has no place in the system for them. 3rd world areas have a place for poor people. A sucky place, but a place nonetheless.


Then imagine that person with an arsenal of legally protected firearms.
 
2014-02-12 09:32:42 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 09:33:54 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 09:34:28 PM

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


Man, have you been to these places? The just grinding poverty of people in a lot of the third world nations is real. I don't want to minimize the plight of the poor in US, because a lot of people have it really bad. But I've never seen an elevated freeway in the US that had miles of homes built out of scraps of drywall and sheet metal and whatever they could scrap together built under it. I've never seen a person in the US wash their clothes, bath, and take drinking water from a river near their house. There are a lot of people that being poor in the US would be a step up.

Which, to reiterate, in no way justifies people like this douchebag because we're rich enough as a country that we should be able to do so much better. If poor Americans should be grateful that they're better off than poor people in other areas of the world, he should be grateful that he's richer than poor people. And he'll still be rich if we had a $15/hr minimum wage and single-payer health insurance.
 
2014-02-12 09:34:39 PM
I wish he would have compared us to Switzerland. Cashiers make like $60k/year in Zurich.
 
2014-02-12 09:34:45 PM

cwolf20: yakmans_dad: 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.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Tax part yes.  The 7.25 an hour check has an increase in taxes compared to the previous minimum wage level.


And I also know that unless a company specifies in contract that it will increase wages of those making above minimum to match the wage increase, they aren't required to.  I know mine which hasn't even gone above 10 an hour yet hasn't changed one bit through 2 of them.

Then there's, oh let's see, gas is increased in price. I enjoyed 1.25 a gallon in the 1995-97 time frame.

Milk used to be cheaper.

I used to buy more for 100 than I can now.

Fun times.
 
2014-02-12 09:36:27 PM

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.


No, it's not. People here, the vast majority, have housing that is more than a tarp across two pallets. If you are in the US or Canada, you're a 1%er, biatching about the 1/100th%. Look at the global distribution of wealth, ffs. Yeah, it's fleeing the US for Asia, but the vast majority of it is still here, if not for long.

The mentality that just because our poor are better off means they should STFU is what is wrong.
 
2014-02-12 09:36:33 PM
And he should know, right? He pays those kids like $0.10 to make a dress he sells for $400!
 
2014-02-12 09:37:18 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

+

i.telegraph.co.uk


=

global.fncstatic.com
 
2014-02-12 09:37:44 PM
Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.
 
2014-02-12 09:38:17 PM
Wow, I agree with that sentiment completely. I'm very surprised others here disagree. I mean, I could be paralyzed and living on maggots for food. I have it great no matter what my situation if I have a job in the US....
 
2014-02-12 09:38:28 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: [upload.wikimedia.org image 828x643]

+

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x411]

=

[global.fncstatic.com image 660x371]


That is delicious looking cake.
 
2014-02-12 09:38:31 PM

RedPhoenix122: Cool, asshole, trade me salaries 1 year, let's see how well you do, savings untouched.


And they get to move to a new city with no contacts. Here's a slum of an apartment, a beater car, and not quite enough money to drive it back.

Also, the beater car is uninspected and has no speedometer. Can you do the Goimir Challange?
 
2014-02-12 09:45:14 PM
Somebody needs to remind these guys about what happened to about 90% of America's great fortunes in The Depression - it wasn't just the working class and the bourgoise who took it in the rump.
And the disparity and maldisribution of wealth is verging on the numbers we had when we slid into that depression - and if it happens again, it's going to be worse than last time - and that's just the economics - there will be social upheaval too, and we don't know how bad. These people are walking on very thin ice, and at this point only the cream of the crop - the Gates and Buffets - seem to realize it.
 
2014-02-12 09:47:05 PM
Well then if the poor have it so well then surely he won't mind having much less. After all if people are just belly aching and actually living lives of comfort then it really doesn't matter if you're one of them.
 
2014-02-12 09:47:16 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.


10 to 1 THESE people aren't poor, they are guilty feeling gotta go to Starbucks for my coffee and sit around the table with my $1600 MacBook wondering why these damn OTHER people with money don't do a damn thing to fix these poor folks problems. Then finish up their  wonderments with visions of hateful Repubs like GWB and Sarah in their brains! But STILL no involvement on their part to help!
/I ain't helpin'
//STILL hate po' folks...
///and STILL waitin' for Jeeves to bring me that BL!!!
 
2014-02-12 09:48:42 PM

yakmans_dad: 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.

You don't know what you're talking about.


Neither do you - he writes at about a fourth grade level, and any claim on your part to have divined any meaning from that word salad is self deluded.
 
2014-02-12 09:49:10 PM

ongbok: So are we now holding our standards to a third world country? What ever happened to the American Exceptionalism that they kept screaming about last election?


We want our poor to be Exceptionally poor.
 
2014-02-12 09:49:57 PM
Conservatives are relentless in trying to change the definition of poverty from an income based standard to one based on where people spend their money. Whether they spend it on hookers or dump it in the collection plate, they'll still be  poor.
 
2014-02-12 09:50:47 PM

ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.


Well, this is what I call "True Bullshiat" - technically, it's true - but in it's intended meaning, it's bullshiat.
 
2014-02-12 09:51:12 PM
real_headhoncho:

The pitchforks and torches are too expensive to buy.

BUY? Torches you make with sticks, rags and soybean oil, pitchforks you loot from Home Depot.

I'd rather buy a Hi-Point carbine and a Mosin Nagant, but I'm weird. And when price is not a factor I'm open to suggestions. (But no ASSAULT RIFLES firing .22LR, okay?!?)

By the way, here are links to Chuck Hawk's recoil tables for  rifles, shotguns and handguns. Just in case, you know.
 
2014-02-12 09:51:40 PM

ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.


There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.
 
2014-02-12 09:52:50 PM
I'm sick to death of this "Poor Americans have it better than the rest of the world so stop complaining" bullshiat. We're the richest country in the world. Our poor people SHOULD have it better than the rest of the world.
 
2014-02-12 09:53:13 PM
To be fair, his actual taxable income was probably $35k last year, and HE's not having any difficulties making ends meet.
 
2014-02-12 09:53:13 PM
Did he argue that American poors are obese, thereby conflating crappy corn-syrup based foods with affluence?
 
2014-02-12 09:54:59 PM

blacksho89: 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.

No, it's not. People here, the vast majority, have housing that is more than a tarp across two pallets. If you are in the US or Canada, you're a 1%er, biatching about the 1/100th%. Look at the global distribution of wealth, ffs. Yeah, it's fleeing the US for Asia, but the vast majority of it is still here, if not for long.

The mentality that just because our poor are better off means they should STFU is what is wrong.


Once again: this is only due to our safety nets and welfare, which the zomg refrigerator crowd wants to eliminate. Those are paid for by taxing the middle and above, which those same folks want to cut.

Or borrowing, which they want to eliminate.
 
2014-02-12 09:56:32 PM

MayoSlather: ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.

There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.


People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!
 
2014-02-12 09:59:12 PM

Via Infinito: I always thought it was only a matter of time before people start breaking out the torches and pitchforks because of rich people saying stupid crap like this.
But it hasn't happened yet, and now I'm wondering if it will happen at all. Maybe the American people really have bought into the idea that wealth = worth?


When much of the country starts looking like Detroit and people can't find food, shelter, or enough clean water?

Yeah, then it'll happen. People are too comfortable right now.
 
2014-02-12 09:59:17 PM

Barnabus_Duke: People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!


And when those choices are food and medication/healthcare that are essential to their survival? How many people go into crippling debt each year because of their medical expenses, OR because of predatory lending practices.

But yeah. They're all poor because they buy shiny rims and hydraulics for their caddies.

/facepalm
 
2014-02-12 09:59:56 PM

Goimir: RedPhoenix122: Cool, asshole, trade me salaries 1 year, let's see how well you do, savings untouched.

And they get to move to a new city with no contacts. Here's a slum of an apartment, a beater car, and not quite enough money to drive it back.

Also, the beater car is uninspected and has no speedometer. Can you do the Goimir Challange?


Any temporary challenge is easy enough. It is the lack of hope and the crushing odds that make poverty suck. It isn't one year of long hours and a tightened belt.

A strong enough safety net so that failed attempts to climb out of poverty don't result in sliding all the way back down could fix that. Don't know how we would accomplish that. Cheaper education and healthcare are good starts.
 
2014-02-12 10:02:15 PM

hardinparamedic: And when those choices are food and medication/healthcare that are essential to their survival? How many people go into crippling debt each year because of their medical expenses, OR because of predatory lending practices.


Or the insanely competitive job market place that means you now are competing against someone with a 4 year degree, if not a grad degree, for positions that used to be filled with people fresh out of high school, virtually requiring you to have a degree if you want to do anything but say "do you want fries with that?" for the rest of your life.
 
2014-02-12 10:02:26 PM
Well, lets take away everything he has, give him 35k a year and plop him down in the middle of Manhattan and see how special and rich he feels.

Of course 35k is great in India.  A house costs like 20K, maybe 25k if you get electricity and running water. (yes, I made that up)
 
2014-02-12 10:03:30 PM

Barnabus_Duke: MayoSlather: ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.

There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!


If you make ten bucks an hour and don't have health insurance (and yes if you live in a red state then there's still a good chance you don't have adequate coverage) it's pretty much a given you're going to be in debt.

You think it's about choices, but almost no one is that prudent with that salary.
 
2014-02-12 10:05:00 PM

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


Fair enough.

MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.


And I've lived some of what you're describing with my own years.  Whether one's being better off than that Bangladeshi has meaning is up to the individual, I guess.  It should have some meaning.  Just not in the national discussion of income inequality and the maldistribution of wealth.
 
2014-02-12 10:05:03 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:05:03 PM

Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.


If they should quit biatching, how much more should people with his wealth stfu about others?
 
2014-02-12 10:05:14 PM

Barnabus_Duke: MayoSlather: ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.

There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!


You've got to be farking kidding me.
 
2014-02-12 10:07:15 PM

iheartscotch: Shall I get the torches and the pitchforks?

/ do these people not realize what happens to rich, entitled people; who tell the 99% that they should eat cake?


Nothing. Nothing happens to them. There will be no guillotines, no uprising of the poor, and no Wall Street bankers lined up against a wall. It's just not going to happen, so you might as well stop fantasizing about it. The rich figured out a long time ago that they don't have to worry about fighting us as long as they keep us busy fighting each other. Even if you were able to rouse a large group of poor people to revolt, there would be an even larger group of brave patriots there to fight you and defend their wealthy masters in the hopes that they might get a few table scraps in thanks. Nothing is going to change. The wealth and power are going to continue to become ever more consolidated in the hands of the few elite, and less and less will be left for the rest of us. The rich will continue to live their lives of luxury in their segregated communities while the poor people fight to the death in a gutter over a half-eaten rat carcass. There will be no French-style revolution in America in my lifetime, if ever. We go down with a whimper rather than a bang.
 
2014-02-12 10:08:11 PM

hardinparamedic: Barnabus_Duke: People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!

And when those choices are food and medication/healthcare that are essential to their survival? How many people go into crippling debt each year because of their medical expenses, OR because of predatory lending practices.

But yeah. They're all poor because they buy shiny rims and hydraulics for their caddies.

/facepalm


To add to your post:
3/5 bankruptcies in 2013 were from medical costs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
 
2014-02-12 10:10:15 PM
I'm sure the attitude has always been this way. It's just that it's never been this out in the open. They would think letting us eat cake would be taking it too easy on us.
 
2014-02-12 10:10:34 PM

jso2897: yakmans_dad: 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.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Neither do you - he writes at about a fourth grade level, and any claim on your part to have divined any meaning from that word salad is self deluded.


Well put.
 
2014-02-12 10:10:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.

Did you know that some of them EVEN have PS2 and Xboxes?

PINOS, all of them.


They are outdated XBox360s not XBoxOnes.  What a clown argument.  I wipe my ass with an XBox360 every morning just for spite.
 
2014-02-12 10:11:30 PM

Smackledorfer: hardinparamedic: Barnabus_Duke: People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!

And when those choices are food and medication/healthcare that are essential to their survival? How many people go into crippling debt each year because of their medical expenses, OR because of predatory lending practices.

But yeah. They're all poor because they buy shiny rims and hydraulics for their caddies.

/facepalm

To add to your post:
3/5 bankruptcies in 2013 were from medical costs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148


People chose to live rather than not go into debt?!!!! Clearly the poors made their beds.
 
2014-02-12 10:11:46 PM
Which is why Occupy Wall Street and any sort of action against the US corporate/banking machine fails. As long as most people have an SUV in the driveway, a 42" TV and are doing better than the brown people they'll turn a blind eye to the robber barons.
 
2014-02-12 10:12:36 PM
The answer to accusations of vast income inequality is not "butbut you could be even poorer and less equal!" We're an amazing country in many respects, but it does not respect the ideas of our Founding Fathers to shrug off societal issues as "meh, could be worse".
 
2014-02-12 10:13:57 PM
If this guy were from "some countries we can't even name" he'd either be poor with the rest of us (not a lot of sequined gowns being sold in whatever those countries are named) or he'd need to travel in a bullet-proof vehicle with armed security everywhere he went for fear of abduction and/or murder.

What's ironic to me is how people who make $35,000.00 annually are more thankful for what they have. Thanksgiving at this guy's place must be a ton of fun. I can see him at the table, "It's hard to be thankful for all that I have when there are so-called 'poors' out there whining that my dinette set cost more than their house. If they were in India their dinette could be that much better than everyone else's, too."
 
2014-02-12 10:14:40 PM
We need to start measuring success by a new metric other than sheer dollars, and that's happiness. People are not happy here with this style of living. Even with our refrigerators, A/C, and an Xbox. This model of life we've made is shiatty and agrarian lifestyles show greater levels of happiness.

Even with that being said given the level of productivity increases we've seen there shouldn't be an American out there who is wanting for anything, and that right there says there's a real problem with the distribution of wealth. If the richest country on the planet isn't even that wealthy then we've got a real global problem here.
 
2014-02-12 10:16:38 PM

Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.


What, precisely, do you feel they are entitled to, simply for living? Electricity? Groceries? I know you think healthcare should be free; what else? How can we best build your work-free utopia?
 
2014-02-12 10:17:50 PM

Barnabus_Duke: 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.

10 to 1 THESE people aren't poor, they are guilty feeling gotta go to Starbucks for my coffee and sit around the table with my $1600 MacBook wondering why these damn OTHER people with money don't do a damn thing to fix these poor folks problems.


Actually I manage to be Third World wealthy on $721 a month SSI and $153 a month in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps), this computer I'm using was obsolete 10 years ago, and it's been months since I've bought a cup of coffee anywhere.

I don't drink in bars either: for what one good outside drunk would cost me I can get drunk at home on cheap vodka every night for a week. And instead of eating out I'm learning to cook, or at least getting used to the so-called cooking I can manage. (Slow cookers are great by the way: it's hard to ruin anything or set the place on fire.)

Naturally I'm a communist and an internationalist as well. It's not only America's rich who should be deprived of their heads.

But anyway.
 
2014-02-12 10:18:24 PM

MayoSlather: We need to start measuring success by a new metric other than sheer dollars, and that's happiness. People are not happy here with this style of living. Even with our refrigerators, A/C, and an Xbox. This model of life we've made is shiatty and agrarian lifestyles show greater levels of happiness.


I think it was Sarkozy from France a few years ago that proposed an alternative to GDP which was something like Gross Happiness Product. He was summarily laughed out of the room because the goods and services a nation produces are clearly more important than whether or not that nation has content citizens.
 
2014-02-12 10:18:45 PM
His example 'poor person' wage is more than double what someone working full time for minimum wage makes in a year.
 
2014-02-12 10:20:08 PM

MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.


Tell them you will write off their lifetime of debt if they go live on a dirt floor in Bangladesh for 5 years and see how many takers you get.
 
2014-02-12 10:20:49 PM

Bane of Broone: Smackledorfer: hardinparamedic: Barnabus_Duke: People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!

And when those choices are food and medication/healthcare that are essential to their survival? How many people go into crippling debt each year because of their medical expenses, OR because of predatory lending practices.

But yeah. They're all poor because they buy shiny rims and hydraulics for their caddies.

/facepalm

To add to your post:
3/5 bankruptcies in 2013 were from medical costs.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

People chose to live rather than not go into debt?!!!! Clearly the poors made their beds.


I say let em crash!
 
2014-02-12 10:21:19 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:25:09 PM
This is a "yes and no" thing - poor people in the US have stuff, and rarely starve. But they also very rarely own land, while many of the "dirt poor" elsewhere at least own the dirt (like the hypothetical Chinese farmer). There are many types of poverty.

On thing is certain; no matter where you live, being poor sucks.
 
2014-02-12 10:25:12 PM

Barnabus_Duke: MayoSlather: ChildOfBhaal: Simply put, those of you doubting this jerk's math are wrong, even if we allow for cost-of-living differences.  And it is a good and humbling thing to keep in mind how we won the birth lottery.  But Konheim's not saying this to urge you to donate to Oxfam.  He's saying it to attack the inequality-related message Democrats intend to use this fall.  The relative wealth, by global standards, of our poor shouldn't have anything to do with domestic public policy, though.  So, by all means, attack this dog turd.  But don't attack the truth, too.

There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!


You're right, everyone who ends up in debt made that choice.  "Seriously, I decided to get cancer, I mean why wouldn't I?"
 
2014-02-12 10:26:14 PM
Idiots like this guy need to STFU when it comes to talking about the poor as they always end up saying something that makes them look stupid.
 
2014-02-12 10:26:59 PM

Shryke: Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.

What, precisely, do you feel they are entitled to, simply for living? Electricity? Groceries? I know you think healthcare should be free; what else? How can we best build your work-free utopia?


While we await his response, I would ask the same of you.

In a world of automation, with a very real possibility of permanently growing unemployment paired with cheaper energy and increasingly plentiful food, what do you think the unneeded human beings are entitled to?

Or is your solution something like an ever increasing wage gap and free market scraps plus more personal servants to the wealthy?


I am genuinely curious.
 
2014-02-12 10:28:27 PM

grimlock1972: Idiots like this guy need to STFU when it comes to talking about the poor as they always end up saying something that makes them look stupid.


Nah, let 'em talk. It's better for the complaining poors to know exactly how their job creators feel about them.
 
2014-02-12 10:28:43 PM
seems worth pointing out that although 99% of poor people HAVE refrigerators they do not own them, same goes for cell phones, cars, and pretty much everything
 
2014-02-12 10:28:56 PM

ChildOfBhaal: jso2897: Well, this is what I call "True Bullshiat" - technically, it's true - but in it's intended meaning, it's bullshiat.

Fair enough.

MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

And I've lived some of what you're describing with my own years.  Whether one's being better off than that Bangladeshi has meaning is up to the individual, I guess.  It should have some meaning.  Just not in the national discussion of income inequality and the maldistribution of wealth.


You seriously think it's debatable on whether or not it's the same to be poor in America rather than Bangledesh?  And on your second point, for the last 30 years we've had wealth distribution from the poor and middle class up to the top, but as soon as people complain about that it's "class warfare".

Oh, and tell me about your years in poverty, I'm sure it's equatable to living on 30 dollars a month working in dangerous working conditions.
 
2014-02-12 10:29:05 PM

Smackledorfer: Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme. lovely. just lovely.

Worse. The american poor is ONLY better off than the Indian poor because of infrastructure and safety nets.


Don't forget that the poor in the USA comprise "the global aristocracy of labor" (or of unemployment, increasingly) because the USA's ruling class has long been quite adept at ripping off the people in the so-called Third World.

When the Nazis sent the "subhumans" off to the death camps they loaded up their stuff on trains and passed it out back in the Homeland. Naturally the Hitlerites enjoyed high ratings till they actually lost the war.

If the American poor were to stop profiting from ripping off the Third World heads would surely roll. This is why the US' ruling class should be hard at work reinforcing our safety nets: if Americans ever have to go without indoor plumbing, TV and cell phones the 1% will be in trouble.

USA! USA! USA!
 
2014-02-12 10:29:57 PM

The One True TheDavid: real_headhoncho:

The pitchforks and torches are too expensive to buy.

BUY? Torches you make with sticks, rags and soybean oil, pitchforks you loot from Home Depot.

I'd rather buy a Hi-Point carbine and a Mosin Nagant, but I'm weird. And when price is not a factor I'm open to suggestions. (But no ASSAULT RIFLES firing .22LR, okay?!?)

By the way, here are links to Chuck Hawk's recoil tables for  rifles, shotguns and handguns. Just in case, you know.


No shiat. Pitchforks and torches? This is America! Real Americans will be using high power rifles and fertilizer bombs.

Or we could just organize and elect people that aren't sucking rich cawk.
 
2014-02-12 10:30:13 PM

Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

Tell them you will write off their lifetime of debt if they go live on a dirt floor in Bangladesh for 5 years and see how many takers you get.


Well then, next time you complain about anything just think to yourself I could be living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh and stfu. I'm sure that will provide adequate comfort.
 
2014-02-12 10:31:45 PM

iheartscotch: / do these people not realize what happens to rich, entitled people; who tell the 99% that they should eat cake?


American showers them with power, money, influence, more money, privilege, immunity from the law, even more money, adulation, worship and still more money. And guest appearances on FOX
 
2014-02-12 10:32:41 PM

RanDomino: 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.


zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2014-02-12 10:32:43 PM

albatros183: seems worth pointing out that although 99% of poor people HAVE refrigerators they do not own them, same goes for cell phones, cars, and pretty much everything


They own their obamaphones.
 
2014-02-12 10:33:33 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:35:07 PM
Can't we just set a date for the next American Revolution?  Not that it will happen, but it will give a lot of people something to look forward too and the rich will plow a ton of money into the economy preparing for it, so why not just set a nice future date, maybe a Wednesday?
 
2014-02-12 10:37:26 PM
Please be doing the necessary in farking yourself sideways with a rake.
 
2014-02-12 10:38:22 PM

Smackledorfer: what do you think the unneeded human beings are entitled to?


Nothing. Nor the "needed" human beings. No one is entitled to a thing.
 
2014-02-12 10:39:10 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: MayoSlather: We need to start measuring success by a new metric other than sheer dollars, and that's happiness. People are not happy here with this style of living. Even with our refrigerators, A/C, and an Xbox. This model of life we've made is shiatty and agrarian lifestyles show greater levels of happiness.

I think it was Sarkozy from France a few years ago that proposed an alternative to GDP which was something like Gross Happiness Product. He was summarily laughed out of the room because the goods and services a nation produces are clearly more important than whether or not that nation has content citizens.


A good metric would be the percentage of your population taking SSRI; Prozac-class of antidepressants.

For the  http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com index, it was made-up,not by France but by the country of Bhutan.
 
2014-02-12 10:39:25 PM

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.


True, but it isn't enough by itself. Or are your ambitions so low that you are satisfied with 'could be worse'?

If not, why is that a valid response to the societal complaints of others?

The rich get richer as the poor get poorer, and your solution is 'shut up poors, you could be even more poor!'? How silly.
 
2014-02-12 10:40:36 PM

MayoSlather: Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

Tell them you will write off their lifetime of debt if they go live on a dirt floor in Bangladesh for 5 years and see how many takers you get.

Well then, next time you complain about anything just think to yourself I could be living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh and stfu. I'm sure that will provide adequate comfort.


"things could be worse" does work.  For instance, i saw a guy at Taco Bell in a wheelchair.  He had two nubs for legs.  So, no, I doubt I am going to biatch about how much my evil cable company is bending me over while they profiteer off my back.
 
2014-02-12 10:41:48 PM

iheartscotch: Shall I get the torches and the pitchforks?

/ do these people not realize what happens to rich, entitled people; who tell the 99% that they should eat cake?


Yeah, some of the aristocracy ended up losing their heads but a majority of the people who fell to the guillotine were poor people when the Reign of Terror got out of hand. Robispierre also lost his head.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_ of_Terror
 
2014-02-12 10:42:23 PM

Shryke: Smackledorfer: what do you think the unneeded human beings are entitled to?

Nothing. Nor the "needed" human beings. No one is entitled to a thing.


True, but humanity isn't a zero-sum game, since humanity's flaws are greed it makes sense to have a lower bound safety net such that the underpriviliged do not suffer.  Since we happen to be the richest country in the world, I think we can manage to give to the poor enough such that they aren't as poor as in third world countries.
 
2014-02-12 10:42:58 PM

Shryke: Smackledorfer: what do you think the unneeded human beings are entitled to?

Nothing. Nor the "needed" human beings. No one is entitled to a thing.


That was a weaselly response.

I want to see you say it: "in a world with heavy automation and no need for labor, people should starve regardless of how much food there is".

Or are you just playing obfuscatory games with "entitled"?
 
2014-02-12 10:43:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, what would be the ramifications if, say on one day, there was a mass assassination of rich people?
 
2014-02-12 10:43:29 PM

debug: Well, lets take away everything he has, give him 35k a year and plop him down in the middle of Manhattan and see how special and rich he feels.

Of course 35k is great in India.  A house costs like 20K, maybe 25k if you get electricity and running water. (yes, I made that up)


yes you did make that up. food and housing is relatively more expensive in say, hyderabad
 
2014-02-12 10:43:35 PM

Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: Nutsac_Jim: MayoSlather: There are Americans in dismal states of poverty, I've seen it with my own eyes. There are Americans in their twenties with a lifetime of debt, and Americans stressed about being able to pay rent each month. Telling them they're better off than some guy living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh really is meaningless.

Tell them you will write off their lifetime of debt if they go live on a dirt floor in Bangladesh for 5 years and see how many takers you get.

Well then, next time you complain about anything just think to yourself I could be living on a dirt floor in Bangladesh and stfu. I'm sure that will provide adequate comfort.

"things could be worse" does work.  For instance, i saw a guy at Taco Bell in a wheelchair.  He had two nubs for legs.  So, no, I doubt I am going to biatch about how much my evil cable company is bending me over while they profiteer off my back.


You just did.
 
2014-02-12 10:44:53 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: MayoSlather: We need to start measuring success by a new metric other than sheer dollars, and that's happiness. People are not happy here with this style of living. Even with our refrigerators, A/C, and an Xbox. This model of life we've made is shiatty and agrarian lifestyles show greater levels of happiness.

I think it was Sarkozy from France a few years ago that proposed an alternative to GDP which was something like Gross Happiness Product. He was summarily laughed out of the room because the goods and services a nation produces are clearly more important than whether or not that nation has content citizens.


Well there's a correlation there to an extent, but it's not nearly as strong of one as hardcore capitalists would lead you to believe. The modern lifestyle that directly correlates happiness to increased material wealth is misery laden.

The rich aren't even happy themselves. They are people that use their wealth and status to pacify themselves. I mean truly happy people don't go on TV to tell poor people to stop whining.
 
2014-02-12 10:46:02 PM
It's rarely uttered and quickly dismissed, but every now and then someone will make the suggestion that the government should indeed attempt to provide a utopian society in order to comply with the most basic tenets upon which this nation was founded. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

If "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, and the Constitution was written to form a government that would allow the people to secure their inalienable rights, then it must be asked what is needed to secure those basic rights and is it the responsibility of the government to ensure that citizens have them, or are at least able to secure them.
Life requires food, shelter, clothing (debatable, but preferable), healthcare and freedom from threats. The argument could be made that the government has a mandate to feed, clothe, house, care for and protect its citizens.
Liberty requires freedom from tyranny, oppression and omission. With this in mind, it could be argued that the government needs to ensure not only equal opportunity in areas of education, legal representation, employment and commerce, but also equal placement.
The pursuit of happiness is a bit more vague, but people who are pursuing their next meal, a place to live, medical treatment, blankets, etc. are pursuing life and cannot pursue happiness until the basic necessities of life are obtained.

Currently, the government does some of that and complaints come from both sides as to whether what's currently done is too much or not enough.
 
2014-02-12 10:46:14 PM

Smackledorfer: 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.

True, but it isn't enough by itself. Or are your ambitions so low that you are satisfied with 'could be worse'?


 Yes, that is it.  I have no ambition because my attitude is to quit crying it could be worse.
 
2014-02-12 10:46:32 PM

Weaver95: ah yes, the ever popular 'they have cell phones and a refrigerator, they should be happy' meme.  lovely.  just lovely.


yep
 
2014-02-12 10:47:35 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:48:41 PM

Via Infinito: I always thought it was only a matter of time before people start breaking out the torches and pitchforks because of rich people saying stupid crap like this.
But it hasn't happened yet, and now I'm wondering if it will happen at all. Maybe the American people really have bought into the idea that wealth = worth?


Or Americans are too tired from being overworked to say much.
 
2014-02-12 10:48:43 PM

Smackledorfer: The rich get richer as the poor get poorer, and your solution is 'shut up poors, you could be even more poor!'? How silly.


Better:  "Keep crying louder until mommy pulls over for ice cream"
 
2014-02-12 10:48:48 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:50:52 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: You seriously think it's debatable on whether or not it's the same to be poor in America rather than Bangledesh?  And on your second point, for the last 30 years we've had wealth distribution from the poor and middle class up to the top, but as soon as people complain about that it's "class warfare".

Oh, and tell me about your years in poverty, I'm sure it's equatable to living on 30 dollars a month working in dangerous working conditions.


Your first sentence: No, I don't.  And I don't know why you are attributing this view to me.

Your second sentence:  I think you left some words out or recast the sentence in the middle or something.  But I basically get what you mean.  Since the seventies, income inequality has skyrocketed.  Which, you know, I referenced.  And not to call anything "class warfare."  Again, I don't know why you're attributing these views to me.

Your third sentence:  I'm not sure that I want to get into my personal history.  I rather doubt that you want that either.  And it would idiotic to equate my lifestyle to that of a person working in a Third World sweatshop.  Which was, you know, more or less my original point.

Go back and re-read the entire exchange that set you off, including the portions I previously deleted for brevity.  It starts at comment #62.  After you've done all that, let's try this again...
 
2014-02-12 10:51:27 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 10:51:37 PM

real_headhoncho: Just out of curiosity, what would be the ramifications if, say on one day, there was a mass assassination of rich people?


I think the TSA would crack down on water bottles and feel up a lot more cute women trying to board planes.
 
2014-02-12 10:51:46 PM

Shryke: Smackledorfer: what do you think the unneeded human beings are entitled to?

Nothing. Nor the "needed" human beings. No one is entitled to a thing.


True - and that extends to the law of possession - the mere fact that someone happens to have possession of something does not mean they rightfully own it, or are entitled to it, either.
Like you say - nobody is entitled to anything, and ultimately we will decide as a tribe who has what - we already do, we're just making the wrong decisions for the majority of the tribe.
If you want the law of the jungle - that can be arranged, but you might not have the substance to win at that game.
Be very careful what you wish for - you might get it.
 
2014-02-12 10:51:46 PM

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.


care to enlighten us, professor?
 
2014-02-12 10:51:52 PM

Fano: debug: Well, lets take away everything he has, give him 35k a year and plop him down in the middle of Manhattan and see how special and rich he feels.

Of course 35k is great in India.  A house costs like 20K, maybe 25k if you get electricity and running water. (yes, I made that up)

yes you did make that up. food and housing is relatively more expensive in say, hyderabad


More expensive than where?  Manhattan?
 
2014-02-12 10:52:45 PM

Smackledorfer: That was a weaselly response.


Are you farking kidding? That was as brutally honest as I could answer. You ASKED what I felt people were entitled to, I answered: NOTHING. HOW is that WEASELY?????? Asshole.

I want to see you say it: "in a world with heavy automation and no need for labor, people should starve regardless of how much food there is".

You fool. We are the most automated country there is, and yet we eradicated starvation long ago. You support the foolish notion ("buggy whip economics") that our economy should rely on physical labor. Why not advocate removing all automation? That includes all machines. Answer me that.
 
2014-02-12 10:53:37 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.


My point was that dismissing America's poor's troubles merely because they aren't as poor as others in third world countries is cruel when you're the richest nation on earth.  It goes hand in hand with the complaints that people in poverty are poor because they don't work hard enough, implying that everyone was born on an equal footing.

I'll concede that the zero-sum game made no sense, but greed is a flaw in us humans, it's why certain forms of government (Communism for example) simply do not work in practice.
 
2014-02-12 10:53:57 PM

jso2897: If you want the law of the jungle


A typical strawman. Try again please. Private property rights are not "law of the jungle". Wealth redistribution is not "enlightened".
 
2014-02-12 10:54:04 PM

geek_mars: If this guy were from "some countries we can't even name" he'd either be poor with the rest of us (not a lot of sequined gowns being sold in whatever those countries are named) or he'd need to travel in a bullet-proof vehicle with armed security everywhere he went for fear of abduction and/or murder.

What's ironic to me is how people who make $35,000.00 annually are more thankful for what they have. Thanksgiving at this guy's place must be a ton of fun. I can see him at the table, "It's hard to be thankful for all that I have when there are so-called 'poors' out there whining that my dinette set cost more than their house. If they were in India their dinette could be that much better than everyone else's, too."


I imagine it goes something like this...There are starving kids in China that would be happy to have what you have. Clean your plate.
 
2014-02-12 10:54:35 PM

Bucky Katt: 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.

care to enlighten us, professor?


He has only recently started spelling the word "economics" correctly.
Baby steps.
 
2014-02-12 10:56:00 PM

ChildOfBhaal: Almost Everybody Poops: You seriously think it's debatable on whether or not it's the same to be poor in America rather than Bangledesh?  And on your second point, for the last 30 years we've had wealth distribution from the poor and middle class up to the top, but as soon as people complain about that it's "class warfare".

Oh, and tell me about your years in poverty, I'm sure it's equatable to living on 30 dollars a month working in dangerous working conditions.

Your first sentence: No, I don't.  And I don't know why you are attributing this view to me.

Your second sentence:  I think you left some words out or recast the sentence in the middle or something.  But I basically get what you mean.  Since the seventies, income inequality has skyrocketed.  Which, you know, I referenced.  And not to call anything "class warfare."  Again, I don't know why you're attributing these views to me.

Your third sentence:  I'm not sure that I want to get into my personal history.  I rather doubt that you want that either.  And it would idiotic to equate my lifestyle to that of a person working in a Third World sweatshop.  Which was, you know, more or less my original point.

Go back and re-read the entire exchange that set you off, including the portions I previously deleted for brevity.  It starts at comment #62.  After you've done all that, let's try this again...


I skimmed the thread and your comment stood out, so I'll reread it in detail and apologize for jumping to conclusions.
 
2014-02-12 10:56:22 PM

debug: Fano: debug: Well, lets take away everything he has, give him 35k a year and plop him down in the middle of Manhattan and see how special and rich he feels.

Of course 35k is great in India.  A house costs like 20K, maybe 25k if you get electricity and running water. (yes, I made that up)

yes you did make that up. food and housing is relatively more expensive in say, hyderabad

More expensive than where?  Manhattan?


relative to the salary you would be making there. food takes up a bigger proportion of an indian household's budget.
 
2014-02-12 10:56:25 PM

AirForceVet: Terrible logic from this CEO. Claiming our poor are wealthy as compared to 99% of the rest of humanity leaves out other First World countries like Japan, Canada, Iceland, France, Germany, and even Second World countries.  The dumbass is lumping our poor with the Third World, forgetting about our own Fourth World populations.

/He's not been to any remote American Indian reservations like Pine Ridge obviously.


Come on. You claim to be ex military, you should at least know the terms right.

1) NATO is first world
2) Russia (and ex-soviet territories, I guess), China, and Cuba are second world
3) Everyone else is third world
4) There is no forth world. By definition, everyone not in 1st or 2nd is 3rd.

/Wouldn't be so bad if you weren't also in Huntsville
//https://xkcd.com/386/
///slashies
 
2014-02-12 10:56:34 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: but greed is a flaw in us humans


Greed, as you so put it, is one of your primary evolutionary traits. You happen to enjoy an environment that is so safe and wealthy that you rarely need to concern yourself with it; however, were that bubble to pop, you would instantly revert to normal. Greed is always there. It's healthy, it's honest, and like everything else, it can be taken to far.
 
2014-02-12 10:56:48 PM

Shryke: jso2897: If you want the law of the jungle

A typical strawman. Try again please. Private property rights are not "law of the jungle". Wealth redistribution is not "enlightened".


I didn't say that either was either. Do you want to talk to me, or to this guy?
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-12 10:57:24 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Smackledorfer: 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.

True, but it isn't enough by itself. Or are your ambitions so low that you are satisfied with 'could be worse'?

 Yes, that is it.  I have no ambition because my attitude is to quit crying it could be worse.


You missed (deliberately?) the point.


You dismiss all complaints of wealth inequality by pretending that 'quit cryin' covers them all. But unless you are a zero ambition loser of some kind, you clearly aren't operating solely under the premise that 'where I am is fine because over there is worse' which is what you expect from the american poor.

I wasn't insulting your motivations, I was highlighting how ridiculous your summary of theirs is by applying it to you.


Wealth inequality still matters regardless how poor others are. Air quality too. Education quality.


Or perhaps you are ok with pollution in our country because china sucks, so environmentalists should stop cryin?

That would be ridiculous, yet you say the same thing about the wealth gap and expect us to accept it.
 
2014-02-12 10:57:46 PM

Mike_LowELL: cman: We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation

LOL.  You think that you have anything to do with my wealth?  If I rounded up all the workers in my factories and threw them into a bottomless pit, and personally ran the factories, I could double the output of my goods.  I am not only the best businessman who has ever lived, but the best worker.  But I don't waste my time doing things that I can put poor people to work doing.  I have very important things to do.  There are people on internet message boards who are flat-out wrong, and they need to be told this.  That is why you are poor and I am a billionaire who posts on the internet, calling people out on their lies.


It's.......beautiful
 
2014-02-12 10:57:48 PM
99% of the 1% are just assholes.
 
2014-02-12 10:57:56 PM
Finally, a pro-gun argument I can support. Rather than an inefficient guillotine (in terms of mass production), we can look forward to the day when 280 million firearms start lining these entitled farks up in rows.
 
2014-02-12 10:58:10 PM

jso2897: I didn't say that either was either.


Then why did you accuse me of wanting it?
 
2014-02-12 11:00:21 PM
If no one is entitled to anything, then no one is entitled to anything. No exceptions - even for the "property right".
It's a human invention, like any other "right".
 
2014-02-12 11:00:45 PM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: but greed is a flaw in us humans

Greed, as you so put it, is one of your primary evolutionary traits. You happen to enjoy an environment that is so safe and wealthy that you rarely need to concern yourself with it; however, were that bubble to pop, you would instantly revert to normal. Greed is always there. It's healthy, it's honest, and like everything else, it can be taken to far.


Exactly, which is why external forces (e.g. welfare, minimum wage, etc.) need to exist in order to balance that greed.  Specifically, in a capitalist society, wealth will flow to the top (as we've seen for the past 30 years).  Which is why it's been disgusting in the past few weeks to see billionaires lament on how they have been attacked by the left, when they've seen the vast majority of growth in wealth.
 
2014-02-12 11:00:57 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 11:01:22 PM

Shryke: jso2897: I didn't say that either was either.

Then why did you accuse me of wanting it?


I didn't. You can't read English any better than you write it.
 
2014-02-12 11:01:28 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.


Again: our poor are only lightyears ahead because of the 'entitlement' programs that you say people aren't entitled to.

By your own words and calling out of weaver about entitlements I would think you WANT our poor to be just like the "real poverty" you speak of.

But that cannot be right. That is cartoon-level evil.
 
2014-02-12 11:02:59 PM
jso2897
Somebody needs to remind these guys about what happened to about 90% of America's great fortunes in The Depression - it wasn't just the working class and the bourgoise who took it in the rump.

Wealth stratification decreased during the great depression, but it's been increasing for the last several years.


Barnabus_Duke
People go INTO debt, it doesn't just appear from out of nowhere. Yes, sometimes shiat happens, but CHOICES people!!! Choose wisely and take some farking responsibility!!!!!!

There is no such thing as "choice" under a fundamentally coercive system.


Nemo's Brother
Only leftists with no understanding of economics or scarcity thought that way.

It's precisely the argument made by pro-globalization Neoliberals in pushing things like NAFTA and trade deals with China and other places that have no problems with child labor, sweatshops, or dumping toxic waste directly into the nearest river, and which was opposed by leftists. It is not physically possible for you to me more wrong.
 
2014-02-12 11:03:22 PM
Boring troll is boring. Goodnite, all! :D
 
2014-02-12 11:03:49 PM

jake_lex: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x464]


Courtesy of Mr. "Blackwhite" Stossel?
 
2014-02-12 11:04:12 PM

jso2897: Boring troll is boring. Goodnite, all! :D


o/
 
2014-02-12 11:04:16 PM
He's not wrong. Americans are wealthy as fark compared to the rest of the world. Even our people as fat as hell.
 
2014-02-12 11:05:01 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 11:05:26 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Specifically, in a capitalist society, wealth will flow to the top (as we've seen for the past 30 years).


This is a highly inaccurate observation.

The entirety of the US population has enjoyed massive gains in overall lifestyle.  What Krugman and others seem to think can continue forever is the entitlement state - pensions, healthcare, etc. It can't; it never could, and never will. The model relied on laughably bad math and a post ww2 economic bubble resulting from the US possessing the old standing major industrial base on the planet.

That aside; I am not rejecting the notion of a safety net. I am rejecting what most of the left consider "minimum acceptable living conditions".
 
2014-02-12 11:07:15 PM
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.
 
2014-02-12 11:07:27 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.


That's not even remotely true.

The poorest in this country are homeless.  They don't even have the option of building their own shack, it's a building code violation.  They don't always have food.  Any healthcare is minimal.  The only people in the world who are worse off are dying of starvation because of a famine.
 
2014-02-12 11:08:37 PM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: Specifically, in a capitalist society, wealth will flow to the top (as we've seen for the past 30 years).

This is a highly inaccurate observation.

The entirety of the US population has enjoyed massive gains in overall lifestyle.  What Krugman and others seem to think can continue forever is the entitlement state - pensions, healthcare, etc. It can't; it never could, and never will. The model relied on laughably bad math and a post ww2 economic bubble resulting from the US possessing the old standing major industrial base on the planet.

That aside; I am not rejecting the notion of a safety net. I am rejecting what most of the left consider "minimum acceptable living conditions".


Just finish whacking and cum already.

Erections lasting longer than four hours are dangerous.
 
2014-02-12 11:08:57 PM

Shryke: Smackledorfer: That was a weaselly response.

Are you farking kidding? That was as brutally honest as I could answer. You ASKED what I felt people were entitled to, I answered: NOTHING. HOW is that WEASELY?????? Asshole.

I want to see you say it: "in a world with heavy automation and no need for labor, people should starve regardless of how much food there is".

You fool. We are the most automated country there is, and yet we eradicated starvation long ago. You support the foolish notion ("buggy whip economics") that our economy should rely on physical labor. Why not advocate removing all automation? That includes all machines. Answer me that.


Yes we are such a country. And as a society, no thanks to people like you, we have decided that those not needed for labor or not needed enough to command a living wage, hare entitled to various levels of aid.

You don't get to have this both ways, insisting no one is entitled to anything and then pointing to a country with welfare programs to prove poverty isn't a concern. That is ridiculous.

As for buggy whip labor, you are way out in strawman territory. Not once have I called for a reduction in automation.
 
2014-02-12 11:09:02 PM

Smackledorfer: ur poor are only lightyears ahead because of the 'entitlement' programs that you say people aren't entitled to.


Bullshiat. Our poor are where they are because our capitalist system produces so much wealth.  To wit: there are MANY other governments out there that provide MUCH more, percentage-wise, hand-outs to their poor. Nonetheless their poor are in worse shape - and for real socialist countries outside of OPEC, they are in MUCH worse shape.

This is what continually confounds me with your side of the argument: you somehow think, despite all evidence before you, that wealth redistribution is somehow responsible for our nation's wealth. This mathematically cannot be. Yet you firmly believe it. Baffling.
 
2014-02-12 11:09:16 PM
These guys are really brave from behind the protection of their corporate mercenary armies.
 
2014-02-12 11:09:41 PM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: Specifically, in a capitalist society, wealth will flow to the top (as we've seen for the past 30 years).

This is a highly inaccurate observation.

The entirety of the US population has enjoyed massive gains in overall lifestyle.  What Krugman and others seem to think can continue forever is the entitlement state - pensions, healthcare, etc. It can't; it never could, and never will. The model relied on laughably bad math and a post ww2 economic bubble resulting from the US possessing the old standing major industrial base on the planet.

That aside; I am not rejecting the notion of a safety net. I am rejecting what most of the left consider "minimum acceptable living conditions".


Well, let's ignore the fact that the median income has remained stagnant over the past 30 years and focus on this statement:

Shryke: minimum acceptable living conditions


What do you believe they should be?
 
2014-02-12 11:10:05 PM

Tio_Holtzmann: Mike_LowELL: cman: We are the ones who keep you rich. Show us some appreciation

LOL.  You think that you have anything to do with my wealth?  If I rounded up all the workers in my factories and threw them into a bottomless pit, and personally ran the factories, I could double the output of my goods.  I am not only the best businessman who has ever lived, but the best worker.  But I don't waste my time doing things that I can put poor people to work doing.  I have very important things to do.  There are people on internet message boards who are flat-out wrong, and they need to be told this.  That is why you are poor and I am a billionaire who posts on the internet, calling people out on their lies.

It's.......beautiful


Theu should have sent a poet.
 
2014-02-12 11:10:18 PM

jso2897: I didn't.


jso2897: If you want the law of the jungle - that can be arranged, but you might not have the substance to win at that game.
Be very careful what you wish for - you might get it.


Are you farking kidding?
 
2014-02-12 11:10:19 PM

Farxist Marxist: Finally, a pro-gun argument I can support. Rather than an inefficient guillotine (in terms of mass production), we can look forward to the day when 280 million firearms start lining these entitled farks up in rows.


Just remember what happens when the purges begin...
 
2014-02-12 11:10:37 PM
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?


Shryke
post ww2 economic bubble resulting from the US possessing the old standing major industrial base on the planet.

Is that supposed to be "only"?
 
2014-02-12 11:11:04 PM

DarkVader: That's not even remotely true.


It's entirely true.
 
2014-02-12 11:11:40 PM

RanDomino: Is that supposed to be "only"?


Yes, pardon.
 
2014-02-12 11:11:56 PM
On the Relevancy Scale, I give myself a 3/10:

http://youtu.be/lXw-funTZwI

/good background music while reading comments tho
 
2014-02-12 11:13:10 PM
Wow, the onepercenters have been on a roll lately.  They can't pour enough salt into the wound.

I'm thinking that any day now, one of them will go just a bit too far over the top and oh, snap.

Pitchforks.  Pitchforks everywhere.
 
2014-02-12 11:13:29 PM

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.


If I understand correctly, the whole world is getting, including some animals, even in countries with very low exposure to the standard things we blame american tubbyness on, or animals whose environment shouldn't be making them bigger.

None of which excuses me my belly :).
 
2014-02-12 11:13:34 PM
Shryke
you somehow think, despite all evidence before you, that wealth redistribution is somehow responsible for our nation's wealth.

The New Deal, which created the middle-class, happened in the 1930s. Before the US had the old standing major industrial base on the planet. Curious.
 
2014-02-12 11:14:17 PM

Smackledorfer: we have decided that those not needed for labor


YOU HAVE A POOR DEFINITION OF LABOR. Why can't you grasp that? Shall we bring back seamstresses? Hand-washing? What else?

Not once have I called for a reduction in automation.

You are describing automation as the key factor in obsoleting our labor pool, are you not?
 
2014-02-12 11:14:52 PM

RanDomino: which created the middle-class


Hahahahahahaha, that's awesome. Tell me how.
 
2014-02-12 11:16:14 PM

Shryke: DarkVader: That's not even remotely true.

It's entirely true.


Wow.  You're an idiot.
 
2014-02-12 11:16:56 PM

Shryke: RanDomino: which created the middle-class

Hahahahahahaha, that's awesome. Tell me how.


It didn't create the middle class, but it certainly helped us get out of the Great Depression.
 
2014-02-12 11:17:01 PM

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.
 
2014-02-12 11:18:22 PM

DarkVader: Wow. You're an idiot.


Ouchie! Ad hom wins again!

Boring.
 
2014-02-12 11:19:55 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: It didn't create the middle class, but it certainly helped us get out of the Great Depression.


I don't agree. Moving money around on a table, or printing from nothing, does not increase wealth. It can't.
 
2014-02-12 11:21:33 PM

Shryke: Almost Everybody Poops: It didn't create the middle class, but it certainly helped us get out of the Great Depression.

I don't agree. Moving money around on a table, or printing from nothing, does not increase wealth. It can't.


It wasn't about moving money, it was about creating jobs.  Anyway, I'm going to bed, goodnight!
 
2014-02-12 11:21:43 PM
$220 for the top LOL

media.nicolemiller.com
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
 
2014-02-12 11:21:45 PM

geek_mars:

If "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, and the Constitution was written to form a government that would allow the people to secure their inalienable rights, then it must be asked what is needed to secure those basic rights and is it the responsibility of the government to ensure that citizens have them, or are at least able to secure them.
Life requires food, shelter, clothing (debatable, but preferable), healthcare and freedom from threats. The argument could be made that the government has a mandate to feed, clothe, house, care for and protect its citizens.



The pursuit of happiness is to mean that government provides a platform that allows people to be happy, but the government cannot make people happy obviously. And when this generation isn't as content as the last, it's time to start asking questions about the economic structures that have led us here.

Utopia is impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for better, and the current structure of government and capitalism can be improved upon. To say that we've arrived at perfection and any thoughts of better are naively utopian is an excuse to settle for the status quo and is likely an argument posed by those who the current framework has worked best.

There currently a disconnect between our ability to produce and the wealth of the average man in the world. For America we can produce so much that factories don't run anywhere close to capacity and we intentionally create disposable shiat just so we can make more of it for the sole purpose of creating capital. 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.

Furthermore, when it comes to government it's merely become a pawn in the capitalist scheme. Legislature must be based on reason and scientific fact using life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(and I'd say the all men are created equal part is important too) as its overriding philosophy to base this reason upon. There must be integrity and adaptability built into that decision making and a logical process for all laws passed.

This isn't unreasonable. It's not utopian, and there will still be problems, but it is step forward for us.
 
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
 
2014-02-13 01:35:52 AM
Robespierre was right... stop whining, start solving the problem
 
2014-02-13 01:36:13 AM

That Guy Jeff: 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. :)


Again, you're dismissing the fact that leverage exists. It's not stealing from anyone, it's paying people a living wage for their work instead of taking all the profits simply because you're in a position to do so.

The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves. This is simply sophisticated thievery. However you think it's theft when people who are exploited for their efforts get a much bigger slice of that pie that they made themselves.

Your logic is twisted.
 
2014-02-13 01:41:57 AM

geek_mars: 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 wo ...


Yeah, but why would they? If you can pay $4.7 billion for something, why pay $9.4 billion for it? Nobody pays more than they have to, for anything.

MayoSlather: 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.


Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.

And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Because you say so? Well I say different. As do a majority of Americans


How much effort, skill, and time does it take to flip a burger? You can make it worth whatever amount you want, just increase everything above it by a proportional amount.

geek_mars: I'm guessing from this statement you're not a big tipper


I'm actually a really good tipper or at least I used to be. I haven't changed the percentage, but somewhere along the line someone decided to change the definitions of what's a good tip and what's not. I usually figure out 20% and round up to the nearest number that makes sense. But it's not based on the financial need of the waitress. Damned if I even know what her financial situation is. It's "was the service good?" if yes, give this amount. If not, give less.

geek_mars: I'd gladly pay an extra few cents per item if it meant every cashier in that store could earn a living wage


So, when you buy something off Craigslist, do you call up the guy and say "Hey, I see your ad said you were selling it cause you hit rough times. So I'll pay your double what you're asking!". You don't. People find bargains. People look for low prices, they clip coupons, they join discount clubs, they check deal websites. Whether your paying someone for a camera, a hamburger, or an hour of data entry doesn't matter. You try and get the best price you can. And I just don't see anything wrong with that.
 
2014-02-13 01:48:45 AM

That Guy Jeff: Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.

And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.


Hey, we found Gordon Gekko's fark name, everyone.
 
2014-02-13 01:54:28 AM

MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: 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. :)

Again, you're dismissing the fact that leverage exists. It's not stealing from anyone, it's paying people a living wage for their work instead of taking all the profits simply because you're in a position to do so.

The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves. This is simply sophisticated thievery. However you think it's theft when people who are exploited for their efforts get a much bigger slice of that pie that they made themselves.

Your logic is twisted.


Haha, yeah. I remember when CompUSA sent their knights to drag me away from home at swordpoint to work for them. Seriously tough: OK, leverage exists. I'm buying a house, the old owner is in a hurry to sell it because he's moving out of country. I... still try to get the best price on the house. I'm buying a car, the salesman makes an unreasonable offer, I walk out and wait for them to call me with a better offer when they need the sales numbers. Hell, I had leverage getting my current job. I'm a fairly rare skillset around here, so I negotiated my salary up. Was that wrong? Was it "stealing" for me to try and get them to agree to pay me what was in MY best interests instead of THEIRS? There's nothing wrong with leverage, and there's nothing wrong with trying to get the best deal you can. As long as no one is forced by anyone to do anything, I'm perfectly OK with whatever they are doing.

And that's really the key. Keep everything voluntary. Let people decide for themselves what they are and aren't going to do. If someone wants to take a job for $5 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to negotiate for a job making $60 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to offer your $50 stereo on ebay for $20, if you want to offer you $50 stereo for $100, if you want to offer your body for $100 an hour, if you want to get an abortion, if you want to smoke pot, if you want to cut of your own arms off, if you want to dress in a chicken suit and try to cross the Alps while yodeling, WHATEVER, I don't care as long as it's your choice.

Now, by all means, if this really turns into a feudal system and men with swords (or, I guess guns now) show up and FORCE you to work for McDonalds for minimum wage then something HAS to change. That's effing wrong, and I will not tolerate it at all. But that's not happening.
 
2014-02-13 02:07:13 AM

That Guy Jeff: Haha. I believe the "innate morals" of all living things is "kill anything that threatens me or run away from it", "eat as much as I can", and "fark like rabbits". Anything greater than "survival of the fittest" is something we made up. This hippy/religious 'universal morality' shtick is completely unsupported.


Well there's plenty of academic papers published on the matter, and the philosophers of the Enlightenment delved heavily into this subject, their thoughts regarding fundamental morality are groovy ideas which this country was founded upon...I mean if that's hippie bullshiat then OK. It's hippie bullshiat I'm happy to believe in.

It's not religion by the way. Religion is based on a doctrine, which has no reasoned explanation other than them believing it to be the thoughts of a deity.


That Guy Jeff: And actually, the more wealth we create as a species the better our species is doing. Look at huge surge of wealth in the last 200 years. Food shortages are plummeting. Average lifespans are skyrocketing. In 1820 70% of the world lived on less than a dollar a day, now the number is down to 20%. The more wealth is created, the better we do as a species. This modern "make money" attitude and the industrial revolution it brought have propelled our species to new heights.


That's called technology not wealth, it's time capitalists stop taking credit for people a lot smarter than them.
 
2014-02-13 02:11:45 AM
That Guy Jeff:  I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments.  Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft").  They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen).  Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).
 
2014-02-13 02:13:32 AM

ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff:  I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments.  Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft").  They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen).  Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).


Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?
 
2014-02-13 02:41:13 AM

That Guy Jeff: And that's really the key. Keep everything voluntary. Let people decide for themselves what they are and aren't going to do. If someone wants to take a job for $5 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to negotiate for a job making $60 an hour, whatever, your life. If you want to offer your $50 stereo on ebay for $20, if you want to offer you $50 stereo for $100, if you want to offer your body for $100 an hour, if you want to get an abortion, if you want to smoke pot, if you want to cut of your own arms off, if you want to dress in a chicken suit and try to cross the Alps while yodeling, WHATEVER, I don't care as long as it's your choice.

Now, by all means, if this really turns into a feudal system and men with swords (or, I guess guns now) show up and FORCE you to work for McDonalds for minimum wage then something HAS to change. That's effing wrong, and I will not tolerate it at all. But that's not happening.


I don't understand why leverage is such a hard thing to understand. I know it destroys every naive libertarian idea you have, but it's simply a reality. A reality that must be managed by a government so we can maintain our hippie value system of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
2014-02-13 03:04:34 AM

That Guy Jeff: ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff:  I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments.  Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft").  They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen).  Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?


Well, I was more trying to translate between you and your interlocutors/re-focus on the central issue (which you've just posed)/shake the jar with the bugs in it.  It's pretty late here.  But I'll take a stab at it.  The state brings a good deal more moral authority to the table, for starters.  However one feels about the government, one must concede that it does more good works (the military and the interstates, at least, right?) and employs more benevolent rhetoric than a bandit does (Robin Hood possibly excepted).

The state also conferred the property rights that you hold so dear.  Before we came up with the notion of the polity, your property consisted of whatever you could pile within range of your spear.  It was only after some sort of legal system was put in place that property consisted of anything more than mere possession of an object or that theft became a concept.  If the state conferred property rights, I'd say that it's somewhat more justified in partially dispelling those rights than some churlish footpad.

Finally, the state, unlike the desperado, acts under color of law.  The same tax code that you feel coerces you also constrains the governments actions.  There are significant restrictions on the time and manner in which the state can seize your property, as well as on the amount of property that can be seized.  The state, unlike the brigand, will afford you due process when it seizes your property.

I don't think we're going to convince one another.  But that's my 3 a.m. effort.
 
2014-02-13 03:53:14 AM

That Guy Jeff: How much effort, skill, and time does it take to flip a burger?


How much of your tax dollars, in billions, do you enjoy spending to subsidize corporate profits?
 
2014-02-13 04:11:57 AM

That Guy Jeff: ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff:  I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments.  Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft").  They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen).  Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

Alright. What gives the state the ability to take resources from you but not highwaymen?


Wow. Just wow.
 
2014-02-13 04:13:30 AM
1/13/2014.

And jeffy goes on ignore.
 
2014-02-13 06:39:38 AM

Smackledorfer: Goimir: RedPhoenix122: Cool, asshole, trade me salaries 1 year, let's see how well you do, savings untouched.

And they get to move to a new city with no contacts. Here's a slum of an apartment, a beater car, and not quite enough money to drive it back.

Also, the beater car is uninspected and has no speedometer. Can you do the Goimir Challange?

Any temporary challenge is easy enough. It is the lack of hope and the crushing odds that make poverty suck. It isn't one year of long hours and a tightened belt.



Its also the lack of guilt. American society is unique in the sense that the poor are made to feel guilty about being poor. Even the working poor.
 
2014-02-13 07:26:45 AM
I did a quick 5 minute googling of Bud Konheim... and he appears to be a relatively good guy. Articles talk about his business savvy and also about how he treats his employees more than fairly, using nice employment packages to give them stake in the company (use the carrot, not the stick).

But he's old. He's been in the fashion industry for over 50 years now. Maybe his head is now mush. It happens I guess.
 
2014-02-13 07:43:18 AM

Glitchwerks: Hey, poor!  You don't have to be poor any more!

Jesus is here!


Don't tell the devil!
 
2014-02-13 08:29:57 AM

geek_mars: 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.


"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "
 
2014-02-13 09:13:23 AM
AMERICA!

We're not as poor as Swaziland!

We're not as repressed as China!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
2014-02-13 10:57:00 AM

Fano: geek_mars: 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.

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "


Need and greed are what makes us human? No. These are traits all animals have.. These are the basest animal instincts, the very opposite of "humanity". Off the top of my head I can think some traits that apply to humans only:

Music
Regret
Poetry
Philosophy
Abstract thought
Dreams/ aspirations
Scientific curiosity
Reflection on ourselves and a desire for personal growth

So who wrote that tripe crap that need and greed unite us in our humanity? I'd say that person has failed as a human being.
 
2014-02-13 11:15:05 AM
Shryke
By the way, the very notion that the government created the middle class is pure socialist bullshiat.

Before the New Deal- no middle class. After the New Deal- large middle class.
You can't hide behind WWII because WWI also blew up Europe's economy but that didn't result in a middle-class in the 1920s.

The government doesn't create wealth. The people do.

Who said anything about wealth creation? If you have all the money paid out in income and wages distributed so that the top 5% gets 80% and the bottom 95% gets 20%, you have no middle-class. If it's instead distributed so that the top 5% gets 25%, the middle 75% gets 70%, and the bottom 20% gets 5%, you have a large and viable middle-class.


That Guy Jeff
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.

Okay, America Poor.


geek_mars
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.

Classical Liberalism declared that property rights = human rights, which actually was an improvement over the previous system of despotic State and feudal control over property. Of course, now that the system which it was a reaction to is completely gone, we've outgrown the need for it... sadly, many still cling to it out of varying combinations of personal greed and a misplaced sense of propriety.


Hickory-smoked
Ours is a government of the people, my friend.

Okay let's not go that far


That Guy Jeff
no one would like a mob busting into their house and taking their stuff

It's kind of amazing how this idea that the financial assets of billionaires being exactly the same as some working stiff's personal house keeps getting thrown out there. No, they are not the same.

Why does "personal property" stop being a thing at some level?

When you're not personally involved in it. If you own a factory but don't work at it or even really have anything to do with its production process, it's not your "personal" property.

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".

Don't think that the principles and rules that create, govern, and perpetuate capitalism are laws of nature. They're human-created. If we don't like how it's turning out, we have the right and even the duty to change those laws. Capitalism is a means- don't pretend it's anything else.

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.

Did you use your bootstraps?

Everyone deserves EXACTLY as much as they agreed to work for.

Hi there, welcome to how the economy actually works these days: You work for what you will get, because 100 people apply to every job opening. That $20/hr factory job is now $10. If you don't like it, maybe the gas station is hiring.
And that's if you're lucky enough to be in a rich Western country. Elsewhere, your options are work in a sweatshop or take part in organized crime (a category which includes government and business, for the most part), because your family can't make money farming when it has to compete with subsidized American corn and your land was sold out from under you by the government for a strip mine or pop-up city.
Personal determination has nothing to do with it. You won the lottery, and now you're trying to tell everyone else, "Hey, why don't you just win the lottery, huh??". Yes, yes, I'm sure you worked very hard and all that, but that plan still only works for small fraction of the people who try it. It works for some people and good for them... but it doesn't work for a lot of people, no matter how hard they bust their ass. There is no correlation between work and results in an economy where the best way to get money is by farking over other people in one way or another.
Like you. I wonder how much of your prosperity is the result of theft and coercion in one form or another, whether gentrification, or paying people far less than they deserve because they have no other realistic choice, or because the raw materials in the things you sell come from a third-world country where the corrupt government is bribed by American corporations to give them resources at fire-sale rates instead of using that wealth to lift their own populations out of poverty (and if a few thousand dissidents have to be jailed and/or shot, well you have to break a few eggs)?

Haha, yeah. I remember when CompUSA sent their knights to drag me away from home at swordpoint to work for them

Why would they, when the police will do it if you don't pay rent or property taxes?

leverage exists

Here's some leverage for you: Two kids, no marketable skills, in a gentrifying neighborhood, no savings. Do you a) hold out for what you think you're worth and get evicted because you held out so long that you missed rent or b) take three shiatty jobs and live paycheck to paycheck while trying to give your kids enough to let them believe you're middle-class so you don't feel like a total piece of shiat, leaving you with no time or money with which to increase your economic mobility?


pstudent12
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.


Looking things up is hard


geek_mars
Granted, the workers agree to take the job for the pay offered

People do wage labor because the alternative is homelessness, not because they want to. It's coercive- the word "agree" belongs nowhere near this.


MayoSlather
The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves.

In terms of political economy, capitalism is actually a worse deal for workers than feudalism was. In capitalism, a worker is paid an hourly wage regardless of their productivity, with the difference between their productivity and their wage being taken as profit by the owner class. In feudalism, workers paid the landlord a set amount and kept the rest of their productivity.
 
2014-02-13 11:40:46 AM
And we shouldn't complain about our oppressive government because Somalia.
 
2014-02-13 11:44:36 AM

ChildOfBhaal: The state brings a good deal more moral authority to the table, for starters.  However one feels about the government, one must concede that it does more good works (the military and the interstates, at least, right?) and employs more benevolent rhetoric than a bandit does (Robin Hood possibly excepted).


Governments can also systematically murder tens of millions, drop bombs on people, experiment on people, amass riches for themselves through violence, and give special deals to corporations. In fact, anything you speak ill of a corporation or a rich dude you can also say of a government or a leader. The government can also do all sorts of benevolence. Even Hitler made Volkswagen and interstates highways. States are capable of far greater evil than individuals. None of this points to some sort of innate morality of the state.

ChildOfBhaal: The state also conferred the property rights that you hold so dear.  Before we came up with the notion of the polity, your property consisted of whatever you could pile within range of your spear.  It was only after some sort of legal system was put in place that property consisted of anything more than mere possession of an object or that theft became a concept.  If the state conferred property rights, I'd say that it's somewhat more justified in partially dispelling those rights than some churlish footpad.


People had property rights before the state. They simply had to enforce them by themselves. We delegate that defense to the state because it's easier than defending it yourself, and everything flows a lot easier if we have a common system of rules to trade under. Human advancement and wealth creation are sped up by the efficiency, but they can be slowed if inefficiency and restriction becomes the function of the state instead.

ChildOfBhaal: Finally, the state, unlike the desperado, acts under color of law.  The same tax code that you feel coerces you also constrains the governments actions.  There are significant restrictions on the time and manner in which the state can seize your property, as well as on the amount of property that can be seized.  The state, unlike the brigand, will afford you due process when it seizes your property.


Maybe you live in a state that has rule of law and due process. I don't. In the state (country) I live in if the state really wants something, nothing is going to stop them. In the state I live in people's assets areseized for suspicion (not conviction) of drug crimes. In the state I live in there are secret laws with secret interpretations by secret courts. In the state I live in your "due process" can be summarily crushed by the government uttering "state secrets". Anything the state wants enough it gets, either through selective enforcement of it's inescapable web of laws or by simply making a new law.
 
2014-02-13 11:45:46 AM

ThighsofGlory: And we shouldn't complain about our oppressive government because Somalia.


Does anyone in your family kvetch about all that straw?
 
2014-02-13 12:42:57 PM

yakmans_dad: ThighsofGlory: And we shouldn't complain about our oppressive government because Somalia.

Does anyone in your family kvetch about all that straw?


The Straw Nation of Somalia comes up all the time around here whenever someone mentions that there should be less regulation on various things or that taxes should be lower. Usually combined with "why don't you move to that Libertarian Paradise of Somalia?"
 
2014-02-13 12:46:45 PM

Cerebral Ballsy: Fano: geek_mars: 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.

"Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse. "

Need and greed are what makes us human? No. These are traits all animals have.. These are the basest animal instincts, the very opposite of "humanity". Off the top of my head I can think some traits that apply to humans only:

Music
Regret
Poetry
Philosophy
Abstract thought
Dreams/ aspirations
Scientific curiosity
Reflection on ourselves and a desire for personal growth

So who wrote that tripe crap that need and greed unite us in our humanity? I'd say that person has failed as a human being.


That quote never said greed makes us human, it said greed was inherent to humans. So is a need for food, and animals eat too.

Abstract though and reflection were on your list. Try them.

Also iirc some animals play with musical instruments when given them. Elephants I believe.
 
2014-02-13 12:56:48 PM

yakmans_dad: ThighsofGlory: And we shouldn't complain about our oppressive government because Somalia.

Does anyone in your family kvetch about all that straw?


Of course not. Who wants a tax audit?
 
2014-02-13 06:30:03 PM

AirForceVet: Terrible logic from this CEO. Claiming our poor are wealthy as compared to 99% of the rest of humanity leaves out other First World countries like Japan, Canada, Iceland, France, Germany, and even Second World countries.  The dumbass is lumping our poor with the Third World, forgetting about our own Fourth World populations.

/He's not been to any remote American Indian reservations like Pine Ridge obviously.


First world, second world, third world are terms that have nothing to do with quality of life. They are Amero-centric terms that refer to whether a country is an ally, adversary, or inconsequential to the USA.

The more you know.
 
2014-02-13 07:28:31 PM

jake_lex: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x464]


99.6% of poor households have this meme.  You can't explain that.
 
2014-02-13 08:17:23 PM
Do these people even care anymore that they massively outnumbered?

probably not
 
Displayed 279 of 279 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report