|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:Gotta love Soddy Daisy Haha, this reminds me of a full page ad that was taken out yesterday (4th of July) in Memphis, TN's local newspaper, the Commercial Appeal (I'm pretty sure it was the Appeal). It had a bunch of quotes talking about America being a Christian nation and how religion should be taught in public schools, etc. Apparently the ad was bought by Hobby Lobby.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Commissar Canuck posted:Saw this from a newspaper website I used to work for in southern Minnesota: I like this part: "* There are now only 58.1% of the population working, lowest since 1983." And who was president in 1983? Hmmmmm
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:gently caress people with health problems This sort of opinion is one of very few things that makes me consider someone a genuinely Bad Person. Stuff like violent crimes and what have you almost always have mental illness as a factor, but the decision to actively prioritize the punishing of "bad/lazy people" over helping people in need is completely inexcusable. If the person with these views is well off/privileged themselves, it makes them even more detestable. To put this in perspective, I virtually never get mad about anything. I never get angry while driving, etc because I always assume that maybe the person was distracted because they were having a hard time in their life or something. I think that even the most terrible murderer deserves treatment if they suffer from a mental illness. But I can't think of any way to excuse the sort of view expressed by that letter writer (and unfortunately a large portion of other people).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Xombie posted:In other words, they had no independence. Which in real life is a guaranteed way to stunt your children's emotional growth, because it isn't what real life is like. I've never met anyone who grew up in a household like this that were very well-adjusted adults. Unfortunately, if you're wealthy it is entirely possible to live your entire life as an emotionally stunted person who makes morally questionable decisions without it ever having much of adverse effect. Mojo Threepwood posted:This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich: I would unironically not have much of a problem with rioting targeting the rich. While there are a number of better ways to deal with the situation, it would at least be better than the status quo where a large portion of the working class like and support the same people who exploit them. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:"Having all the money" is part of the attitude I'm talking about. I don't begrudge anybody having a hundren million dollars. I begrudge them having a hundred million dollars and then doing their damnedest to slash taxes and government services and fighting like hell to prevent things like universal health care and food stamps. Eh, I actually do begrudge them having 100 million dollars. I see the situation like this analogy: There are 100 people, and 10 of those 100 are randomly selected to participate in a game*. The top 3 of this game are given 100 million dollars, with the rest of the 10 receiving less (but still a lot of) money. Among the remaining 90, about 1/3 are living in dire poverty and don't have reliable access to food or healthcare. How would you feel about the folks who choose to remain millionaires in this situation? I absolutely believe that being rich is evil. It is impossible to justify owning great wealth in a society that #1 isn't fair and #2 has millions (billions if you're talking about the world) people living in poverty or even starving. While it might be necessary to work with some wealthy individuals/groups for pragmatic reasons, that doesn't mean they aren't bad people. As a side note, I think that there's a sliding scale when it comes to how wrong being wealthy is. While someone who makes $300,000 a year and chooses to use most of the money on him/herself certainly isn't a good person, it's far less detestable than someone who has tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. It's about the amount of effort it would take for someone to part from their money. Someone with 100 million dollars could - without any noticeable decrease in quality of life - give away 90 million at any given moment**. The fact that they choose not to makes them far more repugnant than someone in the middle class not donating $100. *The game here is just meant to point out that, while skill/ability are a factor (in this case winning the - presumably fair - game), most people aren't even given the option of competing. **I know that a huge portion - probably most - of the wealth the very rich possess isn't necessarily liquid, but when you're that rich you could simply hire people to do the work of selling off your assets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Okay, checked that blog's latest posting, I can't get over that there is a man named David French who wrote this: Someone should give this guy an analogy of a person always walking around with a full first-aid kit, because you never know when someone around you or yourself might be injured (something that is a hell of a lot more likely than having your life threatened by a criminal).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/1/uber-welfare-sharing-gig-economy-000031 This sort of reminds me of this professor I had in college (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Sundararajan) who now spends all his time talking up the "sharing economy" as being the most amazing, "paradigm-shifting" thing ever and posting on Facebook (he was one of the professors who added a bunch of his students to Facebook; this might be common now, but not so much in 2005) about how awesome airbnb and various other similar businesses are. He's actually a really smart guy and was a good professor, so I'm convinced that he's mostly doing this for the publicity/financial benefits. The whole term "sharing economy" is bizarre; people aren't sharing jack poo poo. Sharing directly implies that you're letting someone use something for free. It's basically a buzzword for "a bunch of people more easily selling goods and services to each other by using the internet/smartphones as a platform." And there's definitely something interesting to talk about there, but it certainly isn't some brand new thing; it's just making an existing segment of the economy far more efficient. And it also isn't some universally good thing; it's super hard to regulate direct person-to-person sales of goods and - more importantly - services.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Nick_326 posted:"How one 31-year-old paid off $220,000 in student loans in 3 years" This sort of thing is one of the few things that makes me genuinely angry and disgusted. Like, I can't even begin to comprehend the mindset that would lead to someone thinking that article and its conclusions are reasonable, especially if the person involved isn't rich (though I imagine they usually are pretty well off if they believe stuff like this is reasonable). Like, I can sort of understand someone coming to that conclusion without the details, but the article specifically lists all these huge advantages this girl had that normal people don't have access to. This reminds me of my friend from college who got this really nice internship with JPMorgan Chase after his junior year and told me that he believed it was because of how bold he was during his interview. I asked him if he had prior work experience. He said "not much" and I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned doing an internship at some hedge fund that he got through a connection of his (ultra rich) father's. I said "well I imagine having a really good internship after your sophomore year probably gave you a bit of an advantage there" and he said "maybe but I don't think it was that important." I believe that the biggest cause of this sort of thinking is that wealthy people are afraid that acknowledging their huge advantages will diminish their accomplishments. edit: loving lol, check out this other article by the same author: http://www.businessinsider.com/teachers-early-retirement-best-advice-for-saving-2017-1 Anyone could become a millionaire as long as they have enough money to buy and sell real estate aside from their own house/apartment! Also, does it even make sense to refer to teaching as their main job if they're obviously make way more money through real estate? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Privileged people often ignore their privilege because they are not comparing themselves to people who had to work three jobs while putting themselves through community college. They are comparing themselves to their peers - other privileged people. If you work hard to get that Goldman Sachs job while your childhood buddy with an even richer father just lazes through life smoking pot and leeching off his parents, you naturally congratulate yourself on being a hard worker. You don't realize that your "intense" working day (plus business lunch) is an afternoon at the spa compared to how the poor have to work because you don't really know any poor people. Yeah, this is a major element. A large portion, if not most, of wealthy people literally don't have a single person in their social circles who isn't also either wealthy or at least financially secure*. In college I remember some of my friends legitimately being confused that I couldn't hang out with them at restaurants/bars due to the cost (which could easily run 50+ dollars since we were in NYC), and in the case of the friend I mentioned I think he just assumed that getting help from relatives in finding internships/jobs is the norm. That being said, I still feel like you'd have to be a god drat moron to not realize that most people don't live like that. I can understand having a somewhat distorted view of the average person's finances (for example a lot of my peers thought that 60-70k was a normal starting salary in most professions/regions and didn't realize that only applied to a relatively elite minority of jobs), but it seems like you'd still have the sense to realize that your standards of living while making six figures are not the same as those of the average American. I think in most cases it's not so much that they don't know other people live differently, but that they just choose not to think about it. It's easy to only think about the people you directly interact with and never let your mind wander to anything else. * As a side note related to this, I actually found that the biggest differentiating factor wasn't so much the amount of money a person's family had as the sort of jobs they're involved with. I noticed that there wasn't much of a difference between the person whose parents were literal multi-millionaires and the person whose parents were both college economics/finance professors. While I'm sure the latter person was at least upper middle class, I think that the most important thing is that both of those people have a clear understanding of how to navigate within "well-paid professionals" (for lack of a better term) circles. I think that someone whose parents were born poor and made their money through owning a business wouldn't necessarily have the same benefit as someone who had less money but had parents involved in a field like finance, law, etc. So I think there are a few important distinguishing factors when it comes to money/careers. In terms of importance, it's probably something like this: 1. People who primarily make their money through ownership of capital vs. Everyone else 2. Financially secure vs. Not financially secure (i.e. does the person ever have to reasonably worry about money, assuming they don't make excessively stupid decisions like buying multiple houses) 3. Involved in a "professional" career vs. Involved in a more "isolated" career that doesn't involve connections to a bunch of other well-off people Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:47
|
|