|
KingNastidon posted:In a pinch, what percentage of physicists could replace a janitor and what percentage of janitors could replace a physicist? A CEO (and managers in general) is not remotely comparable with a physicist (also the super rich virtually never derive their money from any sort of concrete skill). You're also doing the typical right wing is/ought fallacy. Of course true equality won't be happening any time soon. But on a basic ethical level it should be the thing we aim for. Maybe it will never be practical to have truly equal material circumstances, but that should be the goal. Requiring experience/skills should not make a job more valuable, since in a reasonable world skills would not cost money to acquire. The only thing that can be argued to be a reasonable thing to base wages on is how unpleasant a job is. On a basic ethical level it doesn't make sense for some people to be better compensated simply because they happened to be born with certain talents (though in our current society there's almost zero relationship between pay and talent/skill). You're confusing "what feels normal" with any sort of coherent moral/logical arguments for how things should be. KingNastidon posted:And yet this is still more relevant experience than your average janitor. And decades more direct experience in the industry. I don't think swapping in the median janitor would be seemless. Honest question - what evidence would you accept as proof that CEOs don't have some special skill that makes them better than the average person? Seriously, try to come up with an answer to this. And even if you believe they're better at making a company profitable (a dubious claim on its own), that doesn't mean they're actually useful to society. If you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that a frightening portion of your beliefs stem from a gut feeling of certain things "obviously being true." Streak posted:I think you will find that some ceos have degrees, which in fact means they totally deserve the salaries they get, which are often hundreds of times more than their employees, who actually do the work they reap the benefits of. If those employees don't like it they should just become ceos. Bing bong so simple, why yes I have been described as neuro atypical, why do you ask KingNastidon is using a logic where the null hypothesis is that CEOs and other wealthy people deserve their position and at least some degree of their relative wealth. Using his logic, proof must somehow be provided that this is not the case. Fortunately for him, the proof he would require to change his opinion is literally impossible to provide. Unless you can create an alternate universe that is identical to ours except with the CEOs substituted with average people, it is impossible to prove that the status quo isn't mostly fair (again, using his logic). This sort of reasoning is pretty common among reactionaries of various stripes. They basically take some form of a just world fallacy (even if they're willing to acknowledge that things are sometimes unfair) and demand an impossible level of proof that things aren't fair from other people. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Oct 24, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
more money = better than Bing bong
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
so you can claim that you don't technically support CEOs getting paid a billion dollar salary for loving up and putting their employees out on the street, while saying those CEOs should still be given a billion dollars anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
100% of janitors could replace Bob Iger or Mark Zuckerberg
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:On a basic ethical level it doesn't make sense for some people to be better compensated simply because they happened to be born with certain talents (though in our current society there's almost zero relationship between pay and talent/skill). Also note the vague and constantly-shifting definition of "earn". It's a meaningless word that changes chameleonlike every two seconds into whatever is convenient at the moment. One minute billionaires "earned" a billion dollars because they created a billion dollars of economic value (circularly determined from the fact that someone paid them a billion dollars). But of course, people aren't paid based on the economic value they create, someone else pointed out that by any economic measuring stick sanitation workers create more value than probably anyone because without them we'd be ravaged by epidemics. If no one treated our poop-water before it ran back into our drinking water, trillions in economic value would be destroyed right away. So then the definition shifts, sanitation workers are untalented/unskilled (just ignore that you need to train them mk), so "earning" means being paid proportional to talent/skill. But that's not how the world works either, under that definition quantum physicists and brain surgeons and opera singers and chess grandmasters should be the billionaires because those skills are rarer than CEO or wealthy failson. And so now we shift back, chess grandmasters may be rare and highly skilled/talented but they didn't create a billion dollars in economic value. So at the end of the day "earn" is just "whatever billionaires do". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also note the vague and constantly-shifting definition of "earn". It's a meaningless word that changes chameleonlike every two seconds into whatever is convenient at the moment. Yeah but have you considered: they deserve a billion dollars because they have a billion dollars. If they didn't deserve it, they wouldn't have it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:so you can claim that you don't technically support CEOs getting paid a billion dollar salary for loving up and putting their employees out on the street, while saying those CEOs should still be given a billion dollars anyway i mean, yeah, everything in his philosophy is reaching backwards from "my job is to cause opioid epidemics and force diabetics to ration insulin, and that doesn't make me a bad person, because ____" but it's interesting to see the shapes he contorts himself into. right now he's halfway to justifying the Divine Right of Kings. i want to see how much further down that road he will go. why -is- it so important to him that his masters separate the money they get out into a different pile, and guarantee none of their filthy inferiors get a cut. there's an answer to the question, and he has an awful lot of his self-image tied up in avoiding it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Should the equity stake that exists outside of VC and within the hands of the company itself be split equally across every full time employee? Then there's salary. Again, should there be a common salary across all employees in the company? The first is an unequivocal yes. The latter is dependent upon a society where education/training are freely provided. Your counterargument to the former will be that growth will be harmed because investors will have less of an incentive to invest. The answer to this is that there's no reason to believe that limiting growth will be more harmful than the absolutely immense (and possibly human-society-destroying) harm caused by perverse incentives for constant growth (and a more equitable society would involve the rich having less money to invest to begin with). I used to think this same dumb stuff, because we live in a culture that has told you that thinking otherwise is inherently ridiculous. But these ideas do not hold up to any scrutiny. If you were truly honest with yourself, you'd realize that all of this stuff is just coming from a gut feeling you have that people who seek any sort of major change to society are being ridiculous and irrational. By the way, people respond to you with hostility because it is transparently obvious that you aren't taking any of their points seriously and dismiss them as being inherently ridiculous. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Once you admit that some people have way more than they deserve and most people have way less, you never look at anything in the world the same way again. It's no wonder people resist admitting it so hard. We're seeing it in real-time right now with this guy. "you mean... The world ISNT fair?? I've been perpetuating an inhumane system this entire time?? Am I the baddy???"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Streak posted:Once you admit that some people have way more than they deserve and most people have way less, you never look at anything in the world the same way again. It's no wonder people resist admitting it so hard. We're seeing it in real-time right now with this guy. These people are willing to acknowledge that the world isn't fair. But they believe it's just "some people" and aren't willing to acknowledge the reality that a world that is unfair for some people is, inherently, unfair for all people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Hey guys, Mayor Butt is real bad https://twitter.com/briantashman/status/1187404791888121857?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Hey guys, Mayor Butt is real bad This is actually an amazingly succinct demonstration of why centrist triangulating is garbage. Buttigieg thinks he's appealing to reason here by praising Souter and Kennedy. Do you know what the other side sees? "They're moving towards us, that means we can appoint more Gorsuchs and Kavanaughs!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Hillary’s loss didn’t boost the left. It was her winning the primary through a corrupt DNC, trump being comically overt with how evil he is, and a general uprising of younger people who have experienced the bullshit that older generations heaved on them. I read your entire post and it seems that you agree that Hillary's loss vitalized the left, even though your opening sentence states the opposite. Strange.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
shots fired https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1187437244430389248?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Streak posted:more money = better than https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbU4VRs2rro
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Biden to his rich friends: "Help" https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1187444747478151173
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
A reminder that Buttgieg's plan is to radically alter the supreme court by expanding it to 15 justices. And then the justices would be 5 people selected by republicans, 5 by democrats, and 5 the 2 sides agree on. It's the perfect example of radical centrism. An extreme change to the current institutions in order to maintain the status quo forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:A reminder that Buttgieg's plan is to radically alter the supreme court by expanding it to 15 justices. Like you said...what does that even do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:A reminder that Buttgieg's plan is to radically alter the supreme court by expanding it to 15 justices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Right, so 10 conservative and 5 liberal judges 15 conservatives, since Presdient Buttigieg's ideal is judges like Souter and Kennedy
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Where does all the money raised get spent? You have so many volunteers, couldn’t a senior staffer pay themselves $1 million?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1187444747478151173?s=21 This reeks of desperation
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:15 conservatives, since Presdient Buttigieg's ideal is judges like Souter and Kennedy Pete sucks and his plan is dumb, but this is disingenuous. He brought up Souter and Kennedy as examples of judges that would sit in the unanimous approval slots, not as what his personal picks would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1187444747478151173?s=21 Tick Tock, Mr. Biden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Thoom posted:Pete sucks and his plan is dumb, but this is disingenuous. He brought up Souter and Kennedy as examples of judges that would sit in the unanimous approval slots, not as what his personal picks would be. and I have a bridge to sell you e: a natural glide-path to a bridge
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden announced a new campaign yesterday called “Todos Con Biden” (Everyone With Biden) to help organize Latinx support for the former vice president. But there’s just one little problem: The Biden campaign forgot to register the web address, Facebook name, and Twitter handle for the new initiative, allowing the Trump reelection campaign to scoop them up and use the accounts to spread anti-Biden messages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1187463802729750528
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
quote:Finally, Sanders would try to prevent marijuana businesses from turning into an analog of Big Tobacco — a major concern even among some supporters of legalization. He would financially incentivize marijuana businesses to be nonprofits; prohibit products and labels that target young people; ban tobacco companies, as well as other companies that make cancer-causing products or are “guilty of deceptive marketing,” from the pot industry; set market share and franchise caps; and establish federal regulation for the safety of cannabis products. This owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
People talk about, "oh, Sanders won't be able to get any of his agenda past congress, that's why we should support a candidate who won't even try", forgetting that there's a ton of stuff the president can do by himself https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1187479728225173504?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1187444747478151173?s=21 Translation - we just realised we spunked all our campaign money on private jets
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Tons of this poo poo in the replies https://twitter.com/JeanMigdl/status/1187475737831497729?s=19 They just loving love losing
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:People talk about, "oh, Sanders won't be able to get any of his agenda past congress, that's why we should support a candidate who won't even try", forgetting that there's a ton of stuff the president can do by himself I don't give a hot gay gently caress what Congress says, shouted President Bernie "Bernard" Sanders
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Streak posted:Tons of this poo poo in the replies wasn't the entire idea of goliath how he was brought down by a weakling with a sling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
bernie sanders endorses the reactionary judicial policies of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Thoom posted:Pete sucks and his plan is dumb, but this is disingenuous. He brought up Souter and Kennedy as examples of judges that would sit in the unanimous approval slots, not as what his personal picks would be. Only by the dumbest and most intense centrist logic can you call Kennedy anything other than conservative. Not hating gay people and being slightly less horrific than John Roberts does not make him a fine candidate for the non-wack job part of Pete's dumb court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:People talk about, "oh, Sanders won't be able to get any of his agenda past congress, that's why we should support a candidate who won't even try", forgetting that there's a ton of stuff the president can do by himself quote:"In a Sanders administration we will review all marijuana convictions - both federal and state - for expungement and re-sentencing. All past convictions will be expunged. quote:Allow people with marijuana convictions to contact the state to ensure the list did not miss them. And we will grant people with marijuana related convictions an administrative remedy, if after two years, the state has not taken action on their sentences and records. this is such bullshit it's almost insulting. it seems to believe that the president can pardon state crimes or authorize federal courts to vacate state convictions. am i just missing the part where it explains how we get states where weed is currently illegal to legalize rather than continue generating more felony convictions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:wasn't the entire idea of goliath how he was brought down by a weakling with a sling? No he was outspent by DavidPAC
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:this is such bullshit it's almost insulting. it seems to believe that the president can pardon state crimes or authorize federal courts to vacate state convictions. i was looking this up, and so far it's been pretty hard to determine. do you know of any states where marijuana is explicitly illegal? I mean that in the sense that they have a state law banning marijuana use, cultivation, etc as opposed to relying on federal illegality of marijuana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_(1900s) from what I see, some states have some ancient laws where marijuana is covered as a poison, but are people being charged under those laws? is marijuana usage purely a federal crime or is it a state crime too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1187409571473711111?s=19 When the most newsworthy event of your campaign is ending it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 23:58
|
|
