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.

(AP News)   Pour one out for CEOs who only averaged 17% pay increases last year   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Executive compensation, Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, Chief executive officer, last year, Chief executives, CEO pay, Corporate governance  
•       •       •

381 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 May 2022 at 5:50 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-28 6:37:59 AM  
No.
 
2022-05-28 6:42:24 AM  
Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.
 
2022-05-28 6:58:00 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.


If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.
 
2022-05-28 7:06:58 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.


In a lot of places, $1M in wealth means you own your home and have some savings.  That's not even the middle of the middle class any longer.

Beyond that, I have no problem with an economic system that provides wealth as an incentive to risk your capital.  Getting a successful business going from nothing is far more likely to bankrupt you than make you the next Musk, there's nothing wrong with having multi-millionaires around receiving their reward for achieving success.

What I have a problem with probably sets in around the $50m mark.  At that point, you have enough money that you can essentially summon a new small to medium business out of thin air and not take a hit to your lifestyle if it fails after a few years.
 
2022-05-28 7:28:53 AM  
Meanwhile Rapey McRapiist just signed a $220 million dollar contract.

shiat's on fire yo
 
2022-05-28 7:31:48 AM  
I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.
 
2022-05-28 7:34:03 AM  
Good thing the minimum wage rose 17% as well.

I mean I assume.
 
2022-05-28 8:18:12 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-28 8:21:25 AM  

baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.


It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it
 
2022-05-28 8:37:24 AM  

Unsung_Hero: In a lot of places, $1M in wealth means you own your home and have some savings.  That's not even the middle of the middle class any longer.


It's at least upper-middle class by any measure. But by $1M I was just referring to the "if they dropped dead" hypothetical, not whether or not they should exist from something resembling a policy perspective.

It's true that $1M isn't unambiguously "rich" in a lot of places, but still even when you compare it to the bulk of earners in those areas, it kind of is. That ambiguity is a bad sign, it basically means we're partially third-world.
 
2022-05-28 8:41:34 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Unsung_Hero: In a lot of places, $1M in wealth means you own your home and have some savings.  That's not even the middle of the middle class any longer.

It's at least upper-middle class by any measure. But by $1M I was just referring to the "if they dropped dead" hypothetical, not whether or not they should exist from something resembling a policy perspective.


By which I mean, even if everyone worth over $1M dropped dead, there would certainly be disruption but the remaining 90% of people would regroup and still lead, build, enterprise, and consume. If everyone worth under $1M dropped dead, the remaining people (many of whom are arguably not even "rich") would still be farked without that massive base of consumption and production.
 
2022-05-28 8:48:19 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it


Sup?
 
2022-05-28 8:57:24 AM  

ThomasPaineTrain: Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it

Sup?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-28 9:01:16 AM  
But...but...their "vision"! You have to be willing to pay for that kind of unique "talent"! Without the incentive of limitless income, could we reasonably expect middle aged white men (mostly) to have the wherewithal to even get out of bed every morning in time for their driver (or pilot) to gently shuttle them to their office suite?!
 
2022-05-28 9:18:58 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it


This is America, if you're willing to swap the black hood for a white one. we've got you covered.
 
2022-05-28 9:26:34 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it


Anybody got a black hood and a guillotine I can borrow?
 
2022-05-28 9:41:00 AM  

Snotnose: Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it

Anybody got a black hood and a guillotine I can borrow?


The hood is dual purpose.  It makes you more menacing, but the primary reason is it hides your identity so the condemned's family and friends have trouble seeking retribution against you.

In a popular uprising, you don't have to worry so much about that.  The people you're executing might still have friends and family, but they're being put in the next guillotine over.
 
2022-05-28 9:56:52 AM  
Meanwhile, my company, who claimed to take inflation into account when determining raises, gave me a 2% raise. So I'm down 4-6%.

/I need a new job
 
2022-05-28 9:59:50 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.


You underestimate the power of propaganda. As long as those in power make people think that *those* people are the cause of their problems, they have nothing to worry about.

/see: people shooting up schools and churches instead of boardrooms
 
2022-05-28 10:06:54 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: people shooting up schools and churches instead of boardrooms


Depending on the church, I think they deserve to be in the #2 slot behind the boardrooms.  But even then, you do have to be discriminating about WHICH boardrooms.
 
2022-05-28 10:55:51 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.


Why set a cap? The point isn't "some people have too much money," the point is "some people don't have enough money to live, let alone live comfortably." Let's keep the focus where it needs to be, on providing services and support to this in need rather than worrying about exactly where the cut-off is for too many zeros.

If providing a comfortable existence for everyone requires the elimination of the billionaire class? Fine, sure, whatever. But if we can find a way to make everyone comfortable AND someone still manages to make a billion dollars, how is that a problem?
 
2022-05-28 10:56:43 AM  
I like to think I'm as cynical as most of you farkers, but in all honesty, as cynical as I am, I cannot fathom for even one minute why someone wants to be worth $100 million, or worse yet, $1 billion, let alone $20, $30, or more. Why does someone want to own five or ten residences? Or own 20 or 30 cars? Or live in a house with 15 BRs and 20 bathrooms when it's just him and his wife? Who wants to own more clothes then they can wear if they wore different clothes every day for a year? What is short-circuiting in their brain? I know they don't have a moral compass...that I can accept because plenty of poor don't have one either. But this obsession with acquiring...stuff.

I have never personally known a rich person, i.e. someone with a net worth of 1 million or more. But most of the people I know are pretty farkin' happy with their lives. If I would win the Powerball, the last thing I'd think of doing is going out and buying stuff.

It would be easy to say those people (the 1%) are just flat out greedy and evil..and yeah, they likely are. But I can't wrap my mind around why they want to own all this shiat? Just because they can? Why buy a watch that costs $50K? Because it shows the world how rich you are? That has to be the only rationale for any of this.

I try to look at the Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and few other multi-billionaires who are giving away substantial amounts of their fortune, but TBH, it's not enough. If you net worth is still over $10 billion, you are not giving enough away! NO ONE needs that much money, full stop.
 
2022-05-28 10:57:40 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.

If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.


It would fundamentally hold true for any number where the people below that level outnumber the people above. Given global wealth distribution, you could say "If everyone with over $100,000 dropped dead, there'd be some disruption but life would go on" and be roughly as correct as what you said.
 
2022-05-28 11:22:43 AM  

Lusiphur: Yankees Team Gynecologist: Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.

If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.

It would fundamentally hold true for any number where the people below that level outnumber the people above. Given global wealth distribution, you could say "If everyone with over $100,000 dropped dead, there'd be some disruption but life would go on" and be roughly as correct as what you said.


That's exactly the point. Like it or not, there's inherent economic power in larger numbers of people, which is why one billionaire is not truly as valuable as a million "thousand-aires," not even close. He might be if he ate a million dinners each day, shat through a million anuses that needed a proportional amount of toilet paper/toilets/plumbers, and bought/drove/maintained a million Toyotas, but obviously he doesn't.
 
2022-05-28 11:32:56 AM  

Lusiphur: Why set a cap? The point isn't "some people have too much money," the point is "some people don't have enough money to live, let alone live comfortably." Let's keep the focus where it needs to be, on providing services and support to this in need rather than worrying about exactly where the cut-off is for too many zeros.


One of the reasons, possible the biggest reason, that some people don't have enough, is that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of a few who simply don't give a shiat about society overall as long as their isolated little existence continues to get incrementally more privileged.

I'm not saying eliminating billionaires will eliminate poverty, but I believe it would be a massive step in poverty reduction.
 
2022-05-28 11:32:58 AM  

baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.


Lumber, sheet steel (half inch should cover it) a couple pulleys, construction grade screws or adhesive, rope, couple latches, and some paste wax.

For tools, tape measure, square, good pencils, a table saw, chop saw, (a reasonable circular saw can proxy for both) router and a common bits set, angle grinder with cutoff and grinding wheels drill/impact driver set. A decent deadfall hammer wouldn't hurt either.

And always have gloves and safety glasses on hand.
 
2022-05-28 11:36:06 AM  

ajgeek: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

Lumber, sheet steel (half inch should cover it) a couple pulleys, construction grade screws or adhesive, rope, couple latches, and some paste wax.

For tools, tape measure, square, good pencils, a table saw, chop saw, (a reasonable circular saw can proxy for both) router and a common bits set, angle grinder with cutoff and grinding wheels drill/impact driver set. A decent deadfall hammer wouldn't hurt either.

And always have gloves and safety glasses on hand.


It has to be functional, not pretty.  Forget the paste wax, get some grease for the blade guides.  You don't want it jamming on the way down.
 
2022-05-28 11:47:11 AM  

BrianGriffin: I like to think I'm as cynical as most of you farkers, but in all honesty, as cynical as I am, I cannot fathom for even one minute why someone wants to be worth $100 million, or worse yet, $1 billion, let alone $20, $30, or more. Why does someone want to own five or ten residences? Or own 20 or 30 cars? Or live in a house with 15 BRs and 20 bathrooms when it's just him and his wife? Who wants to own more clothes then they can wear if they wore different clothes every day for a year? What is short-circuiting in their brain? I know they don't have a moral compass...that I can accept because plenty of poor don't have one either. But this obsession with acquiring...stuff.

I have never personally known a rich person, i.e. someone with a net worth of 1 million or more. But most of the people I know are pretty farkin' happy with their lives. If I would win the Powerball, the last thing I'd think of doing is going out and buying stuff.

It would be easy to say those people (the 1%) are just flat out greedy and evil..and yeah, they likely are. But I can't wrap my mind around why they want to own all this shiat? Just because they can? Why buy a watch that costs $50K? Because it shows the world how rich you are? That has to be the only rationale for any of this.

I try to look at the Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and few other multi-billionaires who are giving away substantial amounts of their fortune, but TBH, it's not enough. If you net worth is still over $10 billion, you are not giving enough away! NO ONE needs that much money, full stop.


I can't explain why others want to be incredibly wealthy, but I can give you two perspectives from personal experience that can probably be extrapolated out to at least part of the population.

First, myself. I'm not fabulously wealthy, though by some of the definitions promulgated here on Fark I guess I am. I love cars. It started when I was a little bit growing up in the Soviet Union and one of my uncles, who was lucky enough to be somewhat politically connected, was able to go on vacation to Finland regularly and would always bring me back basically Matchbox models. For a young boy in the soviet union, this was the greatest thing ever -- it represented the west, and freedom, and possibility, and I can't even describe the feeling of having these little western you cars except as "hope." So I grew up loving cars. And as I grew up, I graduated from wanting you cars to wanting the real things. Unfortunately, the real things are expensive. I'm not taking about going down to the Porsche dealership and picking up a new 911 like an accountant that wants everyone to think his practice is thriving. I'm talking about getting a Carrera GT, which easily sell in the million+ range. And an XJR-15, also a million dollars. And a McLaren F1 (shiat, about $20 million these days.) Because each one is a unique piece of functional art in a hobby with a deep connection to my past. So when you say "why would someone want to own 20 or 30 cars, it's because each car in my dream garage is an individual expression of a time, a place, a feeling, a dream; and while I'd be thrilled to even be able to drive one whenever I wanted, I really want to experience all of them.

Speaking of art, I also live art. I have a fantastic collection of emerging artists at the moment, but I would love to be able to have some of the classics -- I have a deep personal connection to Chagall, for example. Unfortunately, art is expensive. I need to make more money if I want to be able to walk into my living room and see a painting I love from one of the greats. But then I would also need a bigger house, because what's the point of having an art collection if you have to keep most of it in a climate-controlled warehouse and can't look at it? And I love fashion, but fashion is also expensive. Not because I care about showing it off, but because I find joy in beautiful things people make and want to be able to wear them. So it's not about owning more clothes than I can wear -- it's about being able to find something that works to me and then being able to buy it without worrying about whether it costs $20 or $2,000 or $20,000. And because I also care deeply about workers rights and sustainable economies, I'm limited to a relatively small number of mostly higher end brands actually produce clothing using end to end sustainable practices. That costs money.

The second perspective is my partner's, who also shares much of the beliefs I do about art and being able to get things she finds beautiful and meaningful, but who also is intensely competitive. She wants to make a lot of money so that she can "win" against the small group of people ashes selected as her nemeses. And sure, I find that a little weird and slightly pathological, but on the other hand that's the same motivation that drives athletes to excel in their sports, so why are we ok with someone killing themselves to be the fastest runner in the world but not ok with someone taking that perspective for building a business?

Hope that helps explain at least our pathologies.
 
2022-05-28 11:53:54 AM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: That's exactly the point. Like it or not, there's inherent economic power in larger numbers of people, which is why one billionaire is not truly as valuable as a million "thousand-aires," not even close. He might be if he ate a million dinners each day, shat through a million anuses that needed a proportional amount of toilet paper/toilets/plumbers, and bought/drove/maintained a million Toyotas, but obviously he doesn't.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-28 11:53:57 AM  

Unsung_Hero: Lusiphur: Why set a cap? The point isn't "some people have too much money," the point is "some people don't have enough money to live, let alone live comfortably." Let's keep the focus where it needs to be, on providing services and support to this in need rather than worrying about exactly where the cut-off is for too many zeros.

One of the reasons, possible the biggest reason, that some people don't have enough, is that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of a few who simply don't give a shiat about society overall as long as their isolated little existence continues to get incrementally more privileged.

I'm not saying eliminating billionaires will eliminate poverty, but I believe it would be a massive step in poverty reduction.


Sure, I don't disagree, but when you approach it from the perspective of "eliminate billionaires," your language is signaling that you are not nearly as interested in eliminating poverty as you are in lashing out against a group you feel personally slighted by.

What I would like is for every single person in the world to enjoy a comfortable, happy, fulfilling, productive (as they choose to define it) life. That's it. If that means no more billionaires, sure, let's do it. Or if we can accomplish that and still have billionaires, who cares? The bottom line is that the elimination of poverty, not the elimination of billionaires, should be the goal. So let's stay focused on the important bits.
 
2022-05-28 11:57:03 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Yankees Team Gynecologist: That's exactly the point. Like it or not, there's inherent economic power in larger numbers of people, which is why one billionaire is not truly as valuable as a million "thousand-aires," not even close. He might be if he ate a million dinners each day, shat through a million anuses that needed a proportional amount of toilet paper/toilets/plumbers, and bought/drove/maintained a million Toyotas, but obviously he doesn't.

[Fark user image 438x327]


The Toyotas play a key role too, don't forget.
 
2022-05-28 11:57:06 AM  

Lusiphur: your language is signaling that you are not nearly as interested in eliminating poverty as you are in lashing out against a group you feel personally slighted by.


No, my language is signalling that they are the most obvious symptom of a problem with our economic model, one that can be resolved with a fairly simple patch - if we can overcome the power they have and use to protect their position.

"Fix poverty first" is usually what people say when they're offering no solutions and want to distract you from doing something they don't like.
 
2022-05-28 12:02:12 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Lusiphur: your language is signaling that you are not nearly as interested in eliminating poverty as you are in lashing out against a group you feel personally slighted by.

No, my language is signalling that they are the most obvious symptom of a problem with our economic model, one that can be resolved with a fairly simple patch - if we can overcome the power they have and use to protect their position.

"Fix poverty first" is usually what people say when they're offering no solutions and want to distract you from doing something they don't like.


Yes. They are a symptom. The goal isn't treating symptoms, the goal is fixing the problem.

But the accusation that I'm offering "no solutions" is rich coming from someone who's "solution" is "let's lash out at this 'other' and the problem will magically fix itself." You want solutions? They're really easy: subsidized housing, food, healthcare, and education. Especially when combined with direct assistance to the neediest. It works, and it's been successfully prototyped in much of Scandinavia. You know what else they have in much of Scandinavia, besides an incredibly good Gini coefficient? Billionaires! Turns out, you can have both without resorting to feel-good policies that do nothing but soothe your hurt ego.
 
2022-05-28 12:06:54 PM  
Pour one out... of the tail-end of a woodchipper?
 
2022-05-28 12:09:08 PM  

Lusiphur: Unsung_Hero: Lusiphur: your language is signaling that you are not nearly as interested in eliminating poverty as you are in lashing out against a group you feel personally slighted by.

No, my language is signalling that they are the most obvious symptom of a problem with our economic model, one that can be resolved with a fairly simple patch - if we can overcome the power they have and use to protect their position.

"Fix poverty first" is usually what people say when they're offering no solutions and want to distract you from doing something they don't like.

Yes. They are a symptom. The goal isn't treating symptoms, the goal is fixing the problem.

But the accusation that I'm offering "no solutions" is rich coming from someone who's "solution" is "let's lash out at this 'other' and the problem will magically fix itself." You want solutions? They're really easy: subsidized housing, food, healthcare, and education. Especially when combined with direct assistance to the neediest. It works, and it's been successfully prototyped in much of Scandinavia. You know what else they have in much of Scandinavia, besides an incredibly good Gini coefficient? Billionaires! Turns out, you can have both without resorting to feel-good policies that do nothing but soothe your hurt ego.


You continue to make unnecessary and off-target personal attacks.  This undermines your arguments.

You're presenting a false dichotomy, as if billionaires aren't actually a problem or we can't address their existence and poverty simultaneously.  Again, this is a tactic repeatedly used to distract people from taking action.

Have you seen Musk, Bezos, the Waltons, Koches, Sinclairs, etc?  They have a lot of power because they have a lot of wealth.  They are exploiting people and driving them to desperation and suffering around the globe.  But apparently we should leave them alone as long as there are poor people and anyway, Sweden's doing OK?

Your argument is, quite frankly, shiat.
 
2022-05-28 12:21:08 PM  

Unsung_Hero: ajgeek: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

Lumber, sheet steel (half inch should cover it) a couple pulleys, construction grade screws or adhesive, rope, couple latches, and some paste wax.

For tools, tape measure, square, good pencils, a table saw, chop saw, (a reasonable circular saw can proxy for both) router and a common bits set, angle grinder with cutoff and grinding wheels drill/impact driver set. A decent deadfall hammer wouldn't hurt either.

And always have gloves and safety glasses on hand.

It has to be functional, not pretty.  Forget the paste wax, get some grease for the blade guides.  You don't want it jamming on the way down.


Forgo the blade and just drop an anvil. Hand out rain coats for the splash zone.
 
2022-05-28 1:55:50 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.


Just remember

No one loves freedumb more than crooks
 
2022-05-28 1:58:05 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.

If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.


That will never be mentioned on the news

Billionaires dont create jobs.  Only demand for goods and services creates jobs

Theyve been peddling that lie for at least 40 years
 
2022-05-28 2:05:28 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Snotnose: Some Junkie Cosmonaut: baronbloodbath: I took a 5% pay cut, adjusting for inflation.

I should invest in pitchforks, torches, and whatever people use to build guillotines.

It's not so much the parts for the guillotine as it is finding a fat, shirtless guy with a black hood to stand around and operate it

Anybody got a black hood and a guillotine I can borrow?

The hood is dual purpose.  It makes you more menacing, but the primary reason is it hides your identity so the condemned's family and friends have trouble seeking retribution against you.

In a popular uprising, you don't have to worry so much about that.  The people you're executing might still have friends and family, but they're being put in the next guillotine over.


Revolutions are a hellava drug
 
2022-05-28 2:07:57 PM  

BrianGriffin: I like to think I'm as cynical as most of you farkers, but in all honesty, as cynical as I am, I cannot fathom for even one minute why someone wants to be worth $100 million, or worse yet, $1 billion, let alone $20, $30, or more. Why does someone want to own five or ten residences? Or own 20 or 30 cars? Or live in a house with 15 BRs and 20 bathrooms when it's just him and his wife? Who wants to own more clothes then they can wear if they wore different clothes every day for a year? What is short-circuiting in their brain? I know they don't have a moral compass...that I can accept because plenty of poor don't have one either. But this obsession with acquiring...stuff.

I have never personally known a rich person, i.e. someone with a net worth of 1 million or more. But most of the people I know are pretty farkin' happy with their lives. If I would win the Powerball, the last thing I'd think of doing is going out and buying stuff.

It would be easy to say those people (the 1%) are just flat out greedy and evil..and yeah, they likely are. But I can't wrap my mind around why they want to own all this shiat? Just because they can? Why buy a watch that costs $50K? Because it shows the world how rich you are? That has to be the only rationale for any of this.

I try to look at the Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and few other multi-billionaires who are giving away substantial amounts of their fortune, but TBH, it's not enough. If you net worth is still over $10 billion, you are not giving enough away! NO ONE needs that much money, full stop.


Because they can
 
2022-05-28 2:09:02 PM  

BrianGriffin: I like to think I'm as cynical as most of you farkers, but in all honesty, as cynical as I am, I cannot fathom for even one minute why someone wants to be worth $100 million, or worse yet, $1 billion, let alone $20, $30, or more. Why does someone want to own five or ten residences? Or own 20 or 30 cars? Or live in a house with 15 BRs and 20 bathrooms when it's just him and his wife? Who wants to own more clothes then they can wear if they wore different clothes every day for a year? What is short-circuiting in their brain? I know they don't have a moral compass...that I can accept because plenty of poor don't have one either. But this obsession with acquiring...stuff.

I have never personally known a rich person, i.e. someone with a net worth of 1 million or more. But most of the people I know are pretty farkin' happy with their lives. If I would win the Powerball, the last thing I'd think of doing is going out and buying stuff.

It would be easy to say those people (the 1%) are just flat out greedy and evil..and yeah, they likely are. But I can't wrap my mind around why they want to own all this shiat? Just because they can? Why buy a watch that costs $50K? Because it shows the world how rich you are? That has to be the only rationale for any of this.

I try to look at the Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and few other multi-billionaires who are giving away substantial amounts of their fortune, but TBH, it's not enough. If you net worth is still over $10 billion, you are not giving enough away! NO ONE needs that much money, full stop.


Plus
They want their brats and their brats brats to be loaded for the next 1000 years.

Their egos are infinite
 
2022-05-28 2:10:34 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Lusiphur: Yankees Team Gynecologist: Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.

If every billionaire dropped dead suddenly, there'd be some disruption but life would go on.

If every non-billionaire dropped dead suddenly, the billionaires would be utterly farked.

You can set that threshold at $10M or probably even $1M and it would still hold true.

It would fundamentally hold true for any number where the people below that level outnumber the people above. Given global wealth distribution, you could say "If everyone with over $100,000 dropped dead, there'd be some disruption but life would go on" and be roughly as correct as what you said.

That's exactly the point. Like it or not, there's inherent economic power in larger numbers of people, which is why one billionaire is not truly as valuable as a million "thousand-aires," not even close. He might be if he ate a million dinners each day, shat through a million anuses that needed a proportional amount of toilet paper/toilets/plumbers, and bought/drove/maintained a million Toyotas, but obviously he doesn't.


Only demand for goods and services create jobs.

Not billionaires
 
2022-05-28 2:12:26 PM  

Cafe Threads: [Fark user image image 310x360]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-28 2:13:51 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Unsung_Hero: Much like population can't grow forever, wealth can't concentrate forever.  8 billion people aren't going to tolerate 8 people owning everything.  Or even 8000.  Eventually, the pitchforks and torches WILL come out.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that this is what is happening and that is where we're headed?  I'm perfectly OK with a world where it's not possible for one person to control billions of dollars worth of wealth leaving everyone around them at their mercy.

We need a wealth tax, and we need one badly.  You should still be able to get rich... if you take risks and work hard for it.  You should not be able to get ultra-rich because you're already rich and the economic system makes acquiring money easier the more you have.  Billionaires should not exist.

You underestimate the power of propaganda. As long as those in power make people think that *those* people are the cause of their problems, they have nothing to worry about.

/see: people shooting up schools and churches instead of boardrooms


Divide and Conquer works
 
2022-05-28 2:18:26 PM  

Lusiphur: BrianGriffin: I like to think I'm as cynical as most of you farkers, but in all honesty, as cynical as I am, I cannot fathom for even one minute why someone wants to be worth $100 million, or worse yet, $1 billion, let alone $20, $30, or more. Why does someone want to own five or ten residences? Or own 20 or 30 cars? Or live in a house with 15 BRs and 20 bathrooms when it's just him and his wife? Who wants to own more clothes then they can wear if they wore different clothes every day for a year? What is short-circuiting in their brain? I know they don't have a moral compass...that I can accept because plenty of poor don't have one either. But this obsession with acquiring...stuff.

I have never personally known a rich person, i.e. someone with a net worth of 1 million or more. But most of the people I know are pretty farkin' happy with their lives. If I would win the Powerball, the last thing I'd think of doing is going out and buying stuff.

It would be easy to say those people (the 1%) are just flat out greedy and evil..and yeah, they likely are. But I can't wrap my mind around why they want to own all this shiat? Just because they can? Why buy a watch that costs $50K? Because it shows the world how rich you are? That has to be the only rationale for any of this.

I try to look at the Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and few other multi-billionaires who are giving away substantial amounts of their fortune, but TBH, it's not enough. If you net worth is still over $10 billion, you are not giving enough away! NO ONE needs that much money, full stop.

I can't explain why others want to be incredibly wealthy, but I can give you two perspectives from personal experience that can probably be extrapolated out to at least part of the population.

First, myself. I'm not fabulously wealthy, though by some of the definitions promulgated here on Fark I guess I am. I love cars. It started when I was a little bit growing up in the Soviet Union and one of my uncles, who was lucky enough to be somewhat politically connected, was able to go on vacation to Finland regularly and would always bring me back basically Matchbox models. For a young boy in the soviet union, this was the greatest thing ever -- it represented the west, and freedom, and possibility, and I can't even describe the feeling of having these little western you cars except as "hope." So I grew up loving cars. And as I grew up, I graduated from wanting you cars to wanting the real things. Unfortunately, the real things are expensive. I'm not taking about going down to the Porsche dealership and picking up a new 911 like an accountant that wants everyone to think his practice is thriving. I'm talking about getting a Carrera GT, which easily sell in the million+ range. And an XJR-15, also a million dollars. And a McLaren F1 (shiat, about $20 million these days.) Because each one is a unique piece of functional art in a hobby with a deep connection to my past. So when you say "why would someone want to own 20 or 30 cars, it's because each car in my dream garage is an individual expression of a time, a place, a feeling, a dream; and while I'd be thrilled to even be able to drive one whenever I wanted, I really want to experience all of them.

Speaking of art, I also live art. I have a fantastic collection of emerging artists at the moment, but I would love to be able to have some of the classics -- I have a deep personal connection to Chagall, for example. Unfortunately, art is expensive. I need to make more money if I want to be able to walk into my living room and see a painting I love from one of the greats. But then I would also need a bigger house, because what's the point of having an art collection if you have to keep most of it in a climate-controlled warehouse and can't look at it? And I love fashion, but fashion is also expensive. Not because I care about showing it off, but because I find joy in beautiful things people make and want to be able to wear them. So it's not about owning more clothes than I can wear -- it's about being able to find something that works to me and then being able to buy it without worrying about whether it costs $20 or $2,000 or $20,000. And because I also care deeply about workers rights and sustainable economies, I'm limited to a relatively small number of mostly higher end brands actually produce clothing using end to end sustainable practices. That costs money.

The second perspective is my partner's, who also shares much of the beliefs I do about art and being able to get things she finds beautiful and meaningful, but who also is intensely competitive. She wants to make a lot of money so that she can "win" against the small group of people ashes selected as her nemeses. And sure, I find that a little weird and slightly pathological, but on the other hand that's the same motivation that drives athletes to excel in their sports, so why are we ok with someone killing themselves to be the fastest runner in the world but not ok with someone taking that perspective for building a business?

Hope that helps explain at least our pathologies.


Tell your partner only Grim wins.

And he isnt interested in possessions or wealth
 
2022-05-28 2:19:24 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-28 2:27:43 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image image 599x697]


After inflation, the minimum wage is worth about $5.38 today compared to its buying power in 2009.

How many of you are willing to work for $5? How many of you were willing to work for $7 in 2009? Why should anyone else have to?
 
2022-05-28 2:28:57 PM  

austerity101: Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image image 599x697]

After inflation, the minimum wage is worth about $5.38 today compared to its buying power in 2009.

How many of you are willing to work for $5? How many of you were willing to work for $7 in 2009? Why should anyone else have to?


If wages stayed on pace with productivity, the minimum wage would be $25/hour today.
 
2022-05-28 2:49:44 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Lusiphur: Unsung_Hero: Lusiphur: your language is signaling that you are not nearly as interested in eliminating poverty as you are in lashing out against a group you feel personally slighted by.

No, my language is signalling that they are the most obvious symptom of a problem with our economic model, one that can be resolved with a fairly simple patch - if we can overcome the power they have and use to protect their position.

"Fix poverty first" is usually what people say when they're offering no solutions and want to distract you from doing something they don't like.

Yes. They are a symptom. The goal isn't treating symptoms, the goal is fixing the problem.

But the accusation that I'm offering "no solutions" is rich coming from someone who's "solution" is "let's lash out at this 'other' and the problem will magically fix itself." You want solutions? They're really easy: subsidized housing, food, healthcare, and education. Especially when combined with direct assistance to the neediest. It works, and it's been successfully prototyped in much of Scandinavia. You know what else they have in much of Scandinavia, besides an incredibly good Gini coefficient? Billionaires! Turns out, you can have both without resorting to feel-good policies that do nothing but soothe your hurt ego.

You continue to make unnecessary and off-target personal attacks.  This undermines your arguments.

You're presenting a false dichotomy, as if billionaires aren't actually a problem or we can't address their existence and poverty simultaneously.  Again, this is a tactic repeatedly used to distract people from taking action.

Have you seen Musk, Bezos, the Waltons, Koches, Sinclairs, etc?  They have a lot of power because they have a lot of wealth.  They are exploiting people and driving them to desperation and suffering around the globe.  But apparently we should leave them alone as long as there are poor people and anyway, Sweden's doing OK?

Your argument is, quite frankly, shiat.


"Fix poverty first" is usually what people say when they're offering no solutions and want to distract you from doing something they don't like.

Really? I'm resorting to personal attacks?

The real irony is that I'm not presenting any dichotomy. I'm saying focus on the problems, and if that requires tracing the shiat out of billionaires, so be it. YOU, on the other hand, are stuck in a "if you're not punishing billionaires, you're not doing anything to alleviate poverty" loop. You are so obsessed with the idea that billionaires are the reason your life sucks that you gave either completely abandoned, or never ascribed to, the politics of justice and restoration; only the politics of grievance. Like the Trumpets, you've decided that there is a discrete group of people that are responsible for all the world's ills, and if you can only hurt that group enough, everything will magically become better, and that anyone who questions you must be "defending billionaires." And that's a truly sad way to live, and a truly stupid approach to politics. And that last bit was a personal attack.
 
2022-05-28 4:38:27 PM  
Stop buying their shiat. Solved.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


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.