|
GlyphGryph posted:I am unfamiliar with "HENRY mother fuckers", who is that. High Earner, Not Rich Yet 
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I am unfamiliar with "HENRY mother fuckers", who is that. HENRY - High Earner, Not Rich Yet. People with 6 figure salaries who still claim to be just getting by, and higher taxes would be too much of a burden. Mother fuckers - people who actively engage in the loving of mothers, implicitly their own, but the term is acceptable for other people's mothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800657&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post467109489 Posted my huge-rear end  post from this morning with some additional information. Are you going to update the glyphgryph.com website any time soon, btw? It doesn't look like it's changed since the 17th.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:HENRY - High Earner, Not Rich Yet. People with 6 figure salaries who still claim to be just getting by, and higher taxes would be too much of a burden. see, even Fulchrum can get on board hating on HENRYs. there's hope for the Democratic party!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:MIGF is a woman? This is a really elaborate attempt to get him out of office right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
to me though. It's as if their takeaway from the election is that the candidate wasn't enough of a corrupt, establishment insider with no ideology beyond personal political power.
|
Im sure that big banks, who have a storied history of loving poor people to death, and have secured spots on Trumps cabinet, will definitely become good and cool over the next 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
I dunno, classifying those people as poor because they aren't capable of accruing wealth despite having every possible advantage seems like a win/win since they'd probably hate it. And accidentally pulling a few "wealthy" people into the financially struggling bracket is better than accidentally putting a large number of struggling people into the "wealthy" bracket? Also, I have trouble believing any of those people are failing to accrue significant net wealth each year, but if they are making that much money and still somehow manage not to have any, well, at least they're probably contributing to paying people who need it with all that cash their throwing around so I can't complain too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
We need to get off of targeting bankers, and focus on the real enemy, impoverished blue collar workers living in dying rural economies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:We need to get off of targeting bankers, and focus on the real enemy, impoverished blue collar workers living in dying rural economies. they deserve what they get because they didn't get good enough grades in high school to find a real job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:We need to get off of targeting bankers, and focus on the real enemy, impoverished blue collar workers living in dying rural economies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:they deserve what they get because they didn't get good enough grades in high school to find a real job. now let me go spend all of my money giving my children every possible advantage in education to make sure they don't fail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
lol I know that gif isn't serious but six hundred fifty grand is like more than I will make in the rest of my lifetime
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I dunno, classifying those people as poor because they aren't capable of accruing wealth despite having every possible advantage seems like a win/win since they'd probably hate it. And accidentally pulling a few "wealthy" people into the financially struggling bracket is better than accidentally putting a large number of struggling people into the "wealthy" bracket? They're a statistically irrelevant group I would imagine but they are definitely out there. fwiw the only people I know that fit this are people that came from upper middle-class backgrounds that are bankrupting themselves to live their parents lifestyle of country clubs and vacations on incomes that don't come near what their parents make or work in the energy sector and set a personal budget based on $100/bbl oil. Either way, its fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Uh, what are you talking about? That's not what I'm saying, at all. Increasing productivity is good, generally, because it allows people to produce more value of stuff, which could potentially raise the standard of living for everyone. The problem is that the mechanism that distributes the resulting extra stuff is all hosed up. You can fix that mechanism without stopping improvements in productivity, which is generally the result of improving technology.  Fix this graph. We don't need more productivity. E: fix this graph works on two levels! Nix Panicus has issued a correction as of 22:37 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Reasons Hillary Clinton Lost: * Racism * Sexism * Bernie Bros * Jill Stein * CNN * James Comey * Russia * Julian Assange * Leftists * 14 year-old Macedonians Not-Reasons Hillary Clinton Lost: *Hillary Clinton *The Democratic Party *Ignoring the working class
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, man. Look at the first part of the graph, where both go up. You don't have to stop productivity gains to increase wages. Improved productivity is always good, with a system that equitably distributes resources it'll eventually mean nobody will have to work at all. The problem starts and ends with the gains of that increased productivity going to the pockets of the few.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Serf posted:lol I know that gif isn't serious but six hundred fifty grand is like more than I will make in the rest of my lifetime Gif isn't serious, the figures are, or at least were. The drawings and the income levels were from a WSJ article about how the "average person" would be "devestated" by the expiring Bush tax cuts. The retired couple had no change to their tax level, and they still look like someone told them their son has been killed in the bathroom of a porn shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I dunno, classifying those people as poor because they aren't capable of accruing wealth despite having every possible advantage seems like a win/win since they'd probably hate it. And accidentally pulling a few "wealthy" people into the financially struggling bracket is better than accidentally putting a large number of struggling people into the "wealthy" bracket? here's the actual infographic from wsj  my fav is the retired couple who have six figures of non-investment income
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Serf posted:lol I know that gif isn't serious but six hundred fifty grand is like more than I will make in the rest of my lifetime The New York Times actually made that and it was real, the gif just makes fun of it but I don't think it changed the amounts. I can't find the original right now but maybe somebody has it saved somewhere. edit: I guess that's why I couldn't find it, wrong newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:The New York Times actually made that and it was real, the gif just makes fun of it but I don't think it changed the amounts. I can't find the original right now but maybe somebody has it saved somewhere. Even the times couldn't be that freaking dense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:here's the actual infographic from wsj and now I've gone cross-eyed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:here's the actual infographic from wsj oh my god the sad, sad people who are making 180k in investment income. we need to make some commercials like the animal abuse ones, replace the sad dogs and cats with sad rich people in their giant houses
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
The example with the lowest income ($180,000/y) makes more than 96% of the country, and that's going by 2015 data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, man. Look at the first part of the graph, where both go up. You don't have to stop productivity gains to increase wages. Improved productivity is always good, with a system that equitably distributes resources it'll eventually mean nobody will have to work at all. The problem starts and ends with the gains of that increased productivity going to the pockets of the few. What Im saying is that wage gains are so far disconnected from productivity gains that we need a period or readjustment where we just pay everyone more for the work they already do to make wages and productivity track again. Instead of stagnant wages and increasing productivity, we need increasing wages and stagnant productivity until wages catch up again. Pay for it with the blood of bankers. And again, the mechanism for equitably distributing resources among workers IS WAGES. Thats the mechanism. Pay people for the work they do! And improved productivity is *NOT* always good. Its exactly as good as the improvement to the social good that productivity brings!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
won't anyone think of the poor executives making 200k a year who will have to pay 3k more in taxes lmao that's two month's wages for me before taxes are you kidding
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:What Im saying is that wage gains are so far disconnected from productivity gains that we need a period or readjustment where we just pay everyone more for the work they already do to make wages and productivity track again. Instead of stagnant wages and increasing productivity, we need increasing wages and stagnant productivity until wages catch up again. This is like saying that we need to stop putting on pants until it rains again. This doesn't follow at all. The point is that we give the factories back to the workers, we don't need to smash any machines. Raising wages won't decrease productivity. Productivity itself is not affected by wages. You fundamentally don't seem to understand that wages and productivity should correlate, but they aren't inherently causative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I am unfamiliar with "HENRY mother fuckers", who is that. "High Earner, Not Rich Yet" its a term coined by people who make "only" six or seven figures but think they shouldn't be called "rich" since they only have one yacht
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:High Earner, Not Rich Yet poor Henry 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:The example with the lowest income ($180,000/y) makes more than 96% of the country, and that's going by 2015 data. But Ace, I'm sure they must be contributing to paying people who need it with all their cash, so we can't complain too much. And it must be better to call these guys poor and struggling than to accidentally call those who DO need their $400,000 a year salaries rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
oh woe is me, I make $260,000 a year and will have $3000 less next year if those horrible dastardly Democrats have their way Look at my adorable children! If I am taxed a little more, I won't be able to afford a live-in nanny and monthly housekeepers and will have to actually raise them myself (like all those lucky-ducky single parents who won't be affected)! Okay, I lied, I'll still be able to afford the staff, but I won't be able to invest as much and will have to retire at 60 instead of 55 and that's still pretty bad right? LOOK AT MY ADORABLE CHILDREN
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
lotta people itt who don't understand the struggle it is to send 4 kids to private school and buy new luxury vehicles every 2 years
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This is like saying that we need to stop putting on pants until it rains again. This doesn't follow at all. The point is that we give the factories back to the workers, we don't need to smash any machines. Raising wages won't decrease productivity. Productivity itself is not affected by wages. You seem to think productivity is an inherent good. We don't need to smash the machines, but we certainly don't need to build any more of them or work any harder until wages start catching up. Continued automation and praise for twelve hour work days and completely broken work/life balances isn't going to send the message that workers deserve higher wages. We need to rebuild unions and stagnate productivity until more wages are on offer through the time honored mechanism of strikes. Also through cleansing Wall Street with purging fire and the liberation of assets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
just realized my aunt and uncle are HENRYs. it always pissed me off how they would buy BMWs every couple of years and then complain about their taxes going up lol and even they aren't the true enemy
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
I completely forgot: A) in the original the old couple's taxes didn't change at all, and B) the edit ended with "Actually named Henry"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
eat the rich if you must but don't guillotine poor henry 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:HENRY - High Earner, Not Rich Yet. People with 6 figure salaries who still claim to be just getting by, and higher taxes would be too much of a burden. I'm actually making six figures and struggling to get by this year (like 100k before taxes), so I resent that.  Well, I don't really resent that, but I certainly don't have financial security, and it's not because of vacations to the Bahamas - it's medical bills and student loans and rent, mostly. I feel a lot more solidarity with the working poor than I do with the upper class, that's for sure. Forget "not rich yet" - I'm more "might someday have non-negative net worth if I'm lucky". Wealth accumulation is harder today than it has been in a long time in America, and I think it's a bigger class marker than income to have actually acquired some. Didn't it used to be that owning your own home was like the bare minimum for being middle class back in the day? GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 23:07 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:You seem to think productivity is an inherent good. We don't need to smash the machines, but we certainly don't need to build any more of them or work any harder until wages start catching up. Continued automation and praise for twelve hour work days and completely broken work/life balances isn't going to send the message that workers deserve higher wages. We need to rebuild unions and stagnate productivity until more wages are on offer through the time honored mechanism of strikes. Productivity gains aren't a result of people working harder or longer. It's the result of people being able to sit on a tractor to farm a field instead of walking around with a hoe. Automation should absolutely increase, because it means fewer people have to do lovely, dangerous work! You can't "stagnate productivity" unless you did something like rounded up every scientist and engineer into a camp and held them hostage. I agree wages need to increase and unions need to be strengthened. Absolutely. My point is that there's no mechanism that does this that also somehow also causes productivity to stagnate. As long as there's still some form of competition, businesses still compete within that playing field. We just have to set the rules of that field such that everybody's operating under the same constraints, which require that everyone is sufficiently taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
UHD posted:eat the rich if you must but don't guillotine poor henry He's one of those temporarily embarrassed millionaires, he'll totally be the first dog CEO of a fortune 500 company some day. Up against the wall i say!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I dunno, classifying those people as poor because they aren't capable of accruing wealth despite having every possible advantage seems like a win/win since they'd probably hate it. And accidentally pulling a few "wealthy" people into the financially struggling bracket is better than accidentally putting a large number of struggling people into the "wealthy" bracket? It's better that a few abuse a system than to abandon the many I agree. Hey maybe we can define luxuries that don't count towards your expenses, which will all be changed to things black people buy in three decades
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:lotta people itt who don't understand the struggle it is to send 4 kids to private school and buy new luxury vehicles every 2 years Every 2 years? Obama was such a loving commie bastard
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:14
|
|
