Skip to content
 
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.

(Entertainment Weekly)   Robert Reich and Hugh Jackman show up on "The Simpsons" to explain why Homer's lifestyle is out-of-reach to many Americans. Through song   (ew.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, The Simpsons, Bart Simpson, Homer Simpson, Hugh Jackman, Lisa Simpson, Middle class, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance, The Simpsons Movie  
•       •       •

1168 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 May 2022 at 10:43 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



33 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-18 11:28:31 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Let me tell you all the things I hate more.
 
2022-05-19 12:06:20 AM  
Thing , that sort of lifestyle WAS once reachable.

It's just that people just sat on their asses and allowed the republicans to write laws making the rich richer and the rest of us with jack. No unions. "right to work" bullsh*t.

People just be hatin' on Homer because he reminds them that he lives the kind of lifestyle they wish they still could. Well, who's fault is that? Huh?
 
2022-05-19 12:08:39 AM  
"This IS"

/gonna make a GoFundMe to send this damn keyboard into the heart of a volcano!
 
2022-05-19 12:15:42 AM  
Nothing like millionaires giving advice to the commoners. It warms the cockles of my heart!
 
2022-05-19 12:48:44 AM  
What part of Homer's lifestyle exactly is out of reach?
 
2022-05-19 12:53:19 AM  

mr0x: What part of Homer's lifestyle exactly is out of reach?


A well-paying job that can cover a decent home and a family.

AAAAGGGGHHHH: Thing , that sort of lifestyle WAS once reachable.

It's just that people just sat on their asses and allowed the republicans to write laws making the rich richer and the rest of us with jack. No unions. "right to work" bullsh*t.

People just be hatin' on Homer because he reminds them that he lives the kind of lifestyle they wish they still could. Well, who's fault is that? Huh?


OK, temporarily-embarrassed plutocrat.
 
2022-05-19 1:00:59 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: mr0x: What part of Homer's lifestyle exactly is out of reach?

A well-paying job that can cover a decent home and a family.


Is his job well-paying? Is his home decent?

I mean there are no episodes of financial strain but I don't think it was ever that he has a well-paying job.
 
2022-05-19 1:10:47 AM  
Simpsons already did it

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-19 1:13:34 AM  

Tax Boy: Simpsons already did it

[pbs.twimg.com image 640x480]


Frank Grimes - The Cult of Work | Renegade Cut
Youtube P40sJOkxnac
 
2022-05-19 1:27:25 AM  

WhippingBoi: Nothing like millionaires giving advice to the commoners. It warms the cockles of my heart!


Those commoners did not earn their money performing wage theft on their minimum salary employees.

You can debate whether they are overpaid or not, but they earn their money working.
 
2022-05-19 1:38:32 AM  
season 33, jesus christ i gave up on this show 20 years ago
i forget it's still on, they don't even advertise to me
 
2022-05-19 2:12:55 AM  
Married with Children was sillier, having a low-paid shoe salesman support a suburban house and family of 4. Sure they didn't eat, and had a lemon for a car, but somehow they were always clothed, sheltered, healthy, and usually not in jail.
 
2022-05-19 2:19:23 AM  

nytmare: Married with Children was sillier, having a low-paid shoe salesman support a suburban house and family of 4. Sure they didn't eat, and had a lemon for a car, but somehow they were always clothed, sheltered, healthy, and usually not in jail.


Fark user imageView Full Size


"We love you, daddy. We just don't respect you."
 
2022-05-19 2:42:28 AM  
I was told pointing that out was just Millennials whining.
 
2022-05-19 4:18:25 AM  

nytmare: Married with Children was sillier, having a low-paid shoe salesman support a suburban house and family of 4. Sure they didn't eat, and had a lemon for a car, but somehow they were always clothed, sheltered, healthy, and usually not in jail.


Homes were cheaper 30 years ago.

The problem with the Simpsons is that they don't age, so they are living today with standards from 30 years ago.
 
2022-05-19 4:21:14 AM  

nytmare: Married with Children was sillier, having a low-paid shoe salesman support a suburban house and family of 4. Sure they didn't eat, and had a lemon for a car, but somehow they were always clothed, sheltered, healthy, and usually not in jail.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-19 5:23:01 AM  
It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.
 
2022-05-19 6:09:36 AM  

Tax Boy: Simpsons already did it

[pbs.twimg.com image 640x480]


Yup, they already covered it.
 
2022-05-19 6:28:06 AM  

Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.


Conclusion: it is in America's best economic interests to periodically bomb every other country's industrial base to a 19th century level.
 
2022-05-19 6:54:41 AM  

padraig: WhippingBoi: Nothing like millionaires giving advice to the commoners. It warms the cockles of my heart!

Those commoners did not earn their money performing wage theft on their minimum salary employees.

You can debate whether they are overpaid or not, but they earn their money working.


They're not overpaid.  They are paid an amount in proportion to what they earn for their employers.  They negotiated for that.  They are paid exactly right. 

NFL players get it even worse.  Those guys shorten their life spans making billions for their already rich owners and everyone calls them overpaid for making a tiny fraction of that in precarious contracts filled with clauses to get out of paying them if they get injured or don't meet certain performance targets that might be limited by a shiatty coach or, in the case of the Dolphins or Browns, an owner who orders the coach to tank the season for draft picks.
 
2022-05-19 6:58:38 AM  

mr0x: What part of Homer's lifestyle exactly is out of reach?


buying a house, having kids.
 
2022-05-19 7:05:10 AM  

Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.


don't forget the 80s where it was made beneficial thru tax breaks, etc for companies to move their workforce overseas with almost nonexistant worker pay and regs.  and all that happened and oddly enough prices didn't go down.
 
2022-05-19 7:19:05 AM  

Rapmaster2000: padraig: WhippingBoi: Nothing like millionaires giving advice to the commoners. It warms the cockles of my heart!

Those commoners did not earn their money performing wage theft on their minimum salary employees.

You can debate whether they are overpaid or not, but they earn their money working.

They're not overpaid.  They are paid an amount in proportion to what they earn for their employers.  They negotiated for that.  They are paid exactly right. 

NFL players get it even worse.  Those guys shorten their life spans making billions for their already rich owners and everyone calls them overpaid for making a tiny fraction of that in precarious contracts filled with clauses to get out of paying them if they get injured or don't meet certain performance targets that might be limited by a shiatty coach or, in the case of the Dolphins or Browns, an owner who orders the coach to tank the season for draft picks.


What I said for soccer players apply to the NFL players too : they are not wealthy. Those that sign their paychecks are/
 
2022-05-19 7:19:06 AM  

WhippingBoi: Nothing like millionaires giving advice to the commoners. It warms the cockles of my heart!


It's not exactly "zero sum" but for the vast majority of people, the economy might as well be.  You get wealth by taking it from others, which, if you have half a brain in your head, you'll realize makes those people poorer.

When the wealthy tell you to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, they usually neglect to inform you that A) the vast majority of them pulled themselves up by their parents' or grandparents' bootstraps and B) they've been making sure the rules change so they are on a nice, safe platform well above the commoners, with railings installed so they can't fall back down, and with the ladders pulled up behind them to ensure the platform doesn't get crowded.
 
2022-05-19 7:20:14 AM  

Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.


Except that America's wealth kept increasing. So it wasn't that we had less money and needed to cut costs. It's that the American profit went into fewer and fewer hands
mybudget360.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-19 8:34:51 AM  

shpritz: nytmare: Married with Children was sillier, having a low-paid shoe salesman support a suburban house and family of 4. Sure they didn't eat, and had a lemon for a car, but somehow they were always clothed, sheltered, healthy, and usually not in jail.

Homes were cheaper 30 years ago.

The problem with the Simpsons is that they don't age, so they are living today with standards from 30 years ago.


Damm right things where cheaper.

Back in 2012 is the last time I rented an apartment. In a crappy part of Vegas, 700+sq foot 1 bedroom was about $780 a month. Good luck finding that now.

The house payment on this home I am in now (not renting nor is the house I live in mine, long story) is about 890 a month for a 4 bedroom (about 2,000sqft with a pool ($110,000 in 2009) in North Las Vegas.

Down the street new homes are going up that are half the size of my house now. The price is a insane 400,000 to start. The value of this house might reach half a million. In North Las Vegas. farking insane.
 
2022-05-19 9:29:33 AM  

odinsposse: Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.

Except that America's wealth kept increasing. So it wasn't that we had less money and needed to cut costs. It's that the American profit went into fewer and fewer hands
[mybudget360.com image 741x528]


I'm not arguing against this.

I'm just arguing why it happened in the first place.
 
2022-05-19 10:04:58 AM  
I would ask anyone of you to check and see what the tax rate for rich people was before the 1970's-80's.

Check and see what they were between 1948-1976, and you'll see why everything is starting to get all farked up.
 
2022-05-19 10:22:33 AM  

Tax Boy: Simpsons already did it

[pbs.twimg.com image 640x480]


Yeah, shut down the thread, they already acknowledged Homer's lifestyle was unattainable some time after season 3
 
2022-05-19 10:55:26 AM  

Ishkur: odinsposse: Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.

Except that America's wealth kept increasing. So it wasn't that we had less money and needed to cut costs. It's that the American profit went into fewer and fewer hands
[mybudget360.com image 741x528]

I'm not arguing against this.

I'm just arguing why it happened in the first place.


blame the movie 'wall street'.  republicans took it to heart like they're taking idiocracy now.
 
2022-05-19 11:17:47 AM  

Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.


There was another factor you're leaving out, which ensured that workers got decent wages and benefits: unions. Starting in the 70s and then completely off the hook in the Reagan era was a concerted effort to destroy unions. That's not to say unions were perfect or absent corruption, just that they existed to serve an important purpose: give labor power in negotiations with management.
 
2022-05-19 11:53:37 AM  

You Are All Sheep: Ishkur: odinsposse: Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.

Except that America's wealth kept increasing. So it wasn't that we had less money and needed to cut costs. It's that the American profit went into fewer and fewer hands
[mybudget360.com image 741×528]

I'm not arguing against this.

I'm just arguing why it happened in the first place.

blame the movie 'wall street'.  republicans took it to heart like they're taking idiocracy now.

t3knomanser: There was another factor you're leaving out, which ensured that workers got decent wages and benefits: unions. Starting in the 70s and then completely off the hook in the Reagan era was a concerted effort to destroy unions. That's not to say unions were perfect or absent corruption, just that they existed to serve an important purpose: give labor power in negotiations with management.

And another factor: 91+% Top Marginal Income Tax rate. Point this out in a debate forum infested with corporatist apologists and you'll be told that nobody actually paid that much. True, but that was never the point (past the initial raising money for the war effort). First, of course, there's what "marginal" means: only the wealth above the top margin's lower bound of income was taxed at that rate.

But more to the point, they'll tell you that the rich used loopholes to keep from paying those taxes, which is also true. Get this, though: those loopholes were the point!! They were deductions and exemptions for business expenses such as labor costs and construction and depreciation of business facilities and equipment and all-round investing in business. Those were designed to provide a powerful incentive for the wealthy to invest their money back into business, which meant more and better employment, which lifted and expanded the (white) middle class. Basically, they were given the freedom of choice: invest money back into your businesses (which would make them richer, too), or fork over 91% of everything over the top margin's lower bound plus lower percentages of lower margins in taxes.

Without those huge tax rates and the loopholes, the bulk of the post-war wealth gains Ishkur rightly talks about would've gone straight into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy and not trickled down, as they have both before and since.

It was Reaganomics (which his own Vice President had dubbed "a voodoo economic system" back when they were competing in the primaries in 1980) that ended this. JFK had earlier seen that with the war over and the Marshall Plan (which also enriched us by making those rebuilding nations our customers for our steel etc.) having begun to lift the war-torn nations back up, that 91% wasn't sustainable so he lowered it down to around 70%, which is sustainable. This is what AOC wants to return to, and she's right.
 
2022-05-19 10:36:20 PM  

COMALite J: You Are All Sheep: Ishkur: odinsposse: Ishkur: It should probably be pointed out that the reason why America had a post-war middle class boom is because it was the only educated and industrious indigenous base not dead or displaced by war.

In the 50s 2/3 of all finished goods on the entire planet were made in America. The country literally bankrolled the post-war era and was the manufacturing nervous center of the entire world. Because of this quiet monopoly the American workforce could bargain for higher pay and benefits, because there was simply nowhere else for companies to go. Every other country was blown to smithereens.

By the 70s other countries had rebuilt their infrastructures and offered a competitive alternative to the American workforce, which American companies were all too happy to accept. The end of American manufacturing and the squeezing of the middle class came as a result of international surplus of workers, which always means a race to the bottom for labor.

Except that America's wealth kept increasing. So it wasn't that we had less money and needed to cut costs. It's that the American profit went into fewer and fewer hands
[mybudget360.com image 741×528]

I'm not arguing against this.

I'm just arguing why it happened in the first place.

blame the movie 'wall street'.  republicans took it to heart like they're taking idiocracy now.
t3knomanser: There was another factor you're leaving out, which ensured that workers got decent wages and benefits: unions. Starting in the 70s and then completely off the hook in the Reagan era was a concerted effort to destroy unions. That's not to say unions were perfect or absent corruption, just that they existed to serve an important purpose: give labor power in negotiations with management.
And another factor: 91+% Top Marginal Income Tax rate. Point this out in a debate forum infested with corporatist apologists and you'll be told that nobody actually paid that much. True, but that was never the point (past the initial raising money for the war effort). First, of course, there's what "marginal" means: only the wealth above the top margin's lower bound of income was taxed at that rate.

But more to the point, they'll tell you that the rich used loopholes to keep from paying those taxes, which is also true. Get this, though: those loopholes were the point!! They were deductions and exemptions for business expenses such as labor costs and construction and depreciation of business facilities and equipment and all-round investing in business. Those were designed to provide a powerful incentive for the wealthy to invest their money back into business, which meant more and better employment, which lifted and expanded the (white) middle class. Basically, they were given the freedom of choice: invest money back into your businesses (which would make them richer, too), or fork over 91% of everything over the top margin's lower bound plus lower percentages of lower margins in taxes.

Without those huge tax rates and the loopholes, the bulk of the post-war wealth gains Ishkur rightly talks about would've gone straight into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy and not trickled down, as they have both before and since.

It was Reaganomics (which his own Vice President had dubbed "a voodoo economic system" back when they were competing in the primaries in 1980) that ended this. JFK had earlier seen that with the war over and the Marshall Plan (which also enriched us by making those rebuilding nations our customers for our steel etc.) having begun to lift the war-torn nations back up, that 91% wasn't sustainable so he lowered it down to around 70%, which is sustainable. This is what AOC wants to return to, and she's right.


Wasn't the 81 percent meant mostly for Rockefeller?
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.