Current Events > billionaires earned their weal-

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Sphyx 10/14/19 3:44:03 AM #152:	Some of them definitely earned their weals. --- You're so vain, You probably think this sig is about you. <cite>Sphyx posted [p:928741591] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Some of them definitely earned their weals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/14/19 4:42:32 AM #153:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylLTMYt24lA" data-time=" --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928742279] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylLTMYt24lA" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thanosibe 10/14/19 8:41:43 AM #154:	IShall_Run_Amok posted... Remember that every time a capitalist shill blathers on about Starbucks and Amazon Prime, they are deflecting criticism. Stay the course and press them further; remember that this is not about you. The coward will not be able to stand up. This has to be satire. --- I think I need a drink. Almost everybody does only they don't know it. -- Charles Bukowski <cite>thanosibe posted [p:928745584] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>IShall_Run_Amok posted... </cite> <quote>Remember that every time a capitalist shill blathers on about Starbucks and Amazon Prime, they are deflecting criticism. Stay the course and press them further; remember that this is not about you. The coward will not be able to stand up.</quote>This has to be satire. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/14/19 12:19:16 PM #155:	1337toothbrush posted... Are you seriously agreeing with the statement "everyone can earn above median wage"? YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense. At age 20, the median salary is what, $25,000? $30,000? But as you earn experience, you move up the pay scale and earn considerably more than that. Meanwhile, new employees come in from behind when they are 20 and at that pay scale, which means the median wage remains roughly the same for that age group. But as you earn more, you've far surpassed what was once the median salary for your age group and can save/invest more money. In fact most workers move up into the highest income brackets for at least one year in their working careers. As a household, if you are diligent and intentional with your career you will certainly earn more than the median salary. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928752137] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Are you seriously agreeing with the statement "everyone can earn above median wage"? </quote> YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense. At age 20, the median salary is what, $25,000? $30,000? But as you earn experience, you move up the pay scale and earn considerably more than that. Meanwhile, new employees come in from behind when they are 20 and at that pay scale, which means the median wage remains roughly the same for that age group. But as you earn more, you've far surpassed what was once the median salary for your age group and can save/invest more money. In fact most workers move up into the highest income brackets for at least one year in their working careers. As a household, if you are diligent and intentional with your career you will certainly earn more than the median salary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 10/14/19 12:21:33 PM #156:	pls posted... YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense. Do... do you know what "median" means? --- Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:928752223] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense.</quote> Do... do you know what "median" means?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IShall_Run_Amok 10/14/19 12:23:21 PM #157:	thanosibe posted... IShall_Run_Amok posted... Remember that every time a capitalist shill blathers on about Starbucks and Amazon Prime, they are deflecting criticism. Stay the course and press them further; remember that this is not about you. The coward will not be able to stand up. This has to be satire. Oh, yes, its definitely satire. ~~No, it isn't, you can't let capitalist shills deflect from criticism~~ --- On the whole, I'd rather have a Marple Cinematic Universe. <cite>IShall_Run_Amok posted [p:928752292] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>thanosibe posted...</cite> <quote>IShall_Run_Amok posted... </cite> <quote>Remember that every time a capitalist shill blathers on about Starbucks and Amazon Prime, they are deflecting criticism. Stay the course and press them further; remember that this is not about you. The coward will not be able to stand up.</quote>This has to be satire. </quote> Oh, yes, its definitely satire. No, it isn't, you can't let capitalist shills deflect from criticism</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/14/19 12:23:55 PM #158:	scar the 1 posted... pls posted... YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense. Do... do you know what "median" means? Median salaries are broken down by age group, and if you guys would've clicked the link I shared earlier you'd have seen that. It's certainly true that most workers earn more as they get older. A median requires there to be people below the median, but being below the median salary when you're in the prime of your career still means you're earning more than whatever the median is when you're starting out. Which means that most people can save/invest throughout their working career unless they're not giving a shit about their own future. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928752314] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>YES. Because if you think critically for a second, it makes sense.</quote> Do... do you know what "median" means?</quote> Median salaries are broken down by age group, and if you guys would've clicked the link I shared earlier you'd have seen that. It's certainly true that most workers earn more as they get older. A median requires there to be people below the median, but being below the median salary when you're in the prime of your career still means you're earning more than whatever the median is when you're starting out. Which means that most people can save/invest throughout their working career unless they're not giving a shit about their own future.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 10/14/19 12:40:32 PM #159:	Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group. --- Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:928752875] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/14/19 12:55:05 PM #160:	scar the 1 posted... Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group. The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928753431] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group.</quote> The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 10/14/19 1:06:00 PM #161:	pls posted... scar the 1 posted... Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group. The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time. And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low --- Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:928753838] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group.</quote> The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time.</quote> And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/14/19 1:09:45 PM #162:	scar the 1 posted... pls posted... scar the 1 posted... Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group. The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time. And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low Last I saw, the majority of workers earn more as they age and most will be in the top income bracket at least one year of their life. Would have to search for the source on that though. --- Do good. Eat communists. <cite>pls posted [p:928753984] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group.</quote> The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time.</quote> And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low</quote> Last I saw, the majority of workers earn more as they age and most will be in the top income bracket at least one year of their life. Would have to search for the source on that though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 10/14/19 6:50:54 PM #163:	1337toothbrush posted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylLTMYt24lA" data-time=" Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with. The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:928767833] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylLTMYt24lA" data-time="</quote> Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with. The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 10/14/19 6:56:13 PM #164:	The Admiral posted... Sounds like someone just finished reading Das Kapital. I remember a few kids in high school who read it also and went around making edgy comments like this. King of edge criticizes edgy user because his edge falls on the opposite side of the spectrum of the king. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:928768022] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>The Admiral posted... </cite> <quote>Sounds like someone just finished reading Das Kapital. I remember a few kids in high school who read it also and went around making edgy comments like this.</quote> King of edge criticizes edgy user because his edge falls on the opposite side of the spectrum of the king. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scar the 1 10/15/19 12:43:00 AM #165:	Broseph_Stalin posted... Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. You know what else could prevent that? Paying bonuses to employees, or raising their wages. --- Stop being so aggressively argumentative for no reason. - UnfairRepresent <cite>scar the 1 posted [p:928782327] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening.</quote> You know what else could prevent that? Paying bonuses to employees, or raising their wages.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smashingpmkns 10/15/19 12:44:19 AM #166:	--- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:928782363] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 7:57:39 AM #167:	pls posted... scar the 1 posted... pls posted... scar the 1 posted... Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group. The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time. And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low Last I saw, the majority of workers earn more as they age and most will be in the top income bracket at least one year of their life. Would have to search for the source on that though. Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928788913] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah but "everyone can make more than the median" is either false, or arbitrary because of course everyone in a group can make more money than the median of a completely different group.</quote> The context was about workers in the here and now and the median in their current group. My argument is that yes, they will definitely earn more and everyone can earn more with time, because the median changes as you get older to reflect that you do typically earn more with time.</quote> And you're making that point knowing full well that class mobility in the US is very low</quote> Last I saw, the majority of workers earn more as they age and most will be in the top income bracket at least one year of their life. Would have to search for the source on that though.</quote> Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 8:07:08 AM #168:	Broseph_Stalin posted... Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with. Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh? I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose. Broseph_Stalin posted... The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. Source? Also, corporations having even more money to invest in R&D on top of stock buybacks doesn't mean that buyback money couldn't be put to better use. Broseph_Stalin posted... Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol As scar said, they could pay their employees more. The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs. It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928789092] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with.</quote> Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh? I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. </quote> Source? Also, corporations having even more money to invest in R&D on top of stock buybacks doesn't mean that buyback money couldn't be put to better use. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol</quote> As scar said, they could pay their employees more. The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs. It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 10/15/19 9:59:49 PM #169:	1337toothbrush posted... Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh? stock buybacks have never been illegal. 1337toothbrush posted... I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fireworks-over-share-buybacks-are-duds-11562338801 1337toothbrush posted... Source? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RC1Q027SBEA?mod=article_inline 1337toothbrush posted... The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs. ...exactly? HC cost have risen well above inflation rates and employers are the ones covering most of that cost to keep their workers covered. No one is saying HC cost aren't cutting into wages, but that's not your employers fault. 1337toothbrush posted... It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy. No one gets insurance to regularly use it... it's insurance. The fact that you are covered for catastrophic care that you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford isn't a small thing. <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:928819703] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh?</quote> stock buybacks have never been illegal. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose.</quote> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fireworks-over-share-buybacks-are-duds-11562338801 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Source? </quote> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RC1Q027SBEA?mod=article_inline 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs.</quote> ...exactly? HC cost have risen well above inflation rates and employers are the ones covering most of that cost to keep their workers covered. No one is saying HC cost aren't cutting into wages, but that's not your employers fault. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote> It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy.</quote> No one gets insurance to regularly use it... it's insurance. The fact that you are covered for catastrophic care that you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford isn't a small thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:12:53 PM #170:	1337toothbrush posted... Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family. Keep your expenses under control. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928820229] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family.</quote> Keep your expenses under control. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 10/15/19 10:14:48 PM #171:	pls posted... 1337toothbrush posted... Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family. Keep your expenses under control. Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:928820313] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>Their expenses also tend to go up as they age. Most 20 year olds don't have a mortgage and aren't raising a family.</quote> Keep your expenses under control. </quote> Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:16:59 PM #172:	Webmaster4531 posted... Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream. I guarantee you having freedom from having money in the bank is a lot nicer than having a second car or buying more house than I need. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928820401] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream.</quote> I guarantee you having freedom from having money in the bank is a lot nicer than having a second car or buying more house than I need. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 10/15/19 10:20:23 PM #173:	pls posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream. I guarantee you having freedom from having money in the bank is a lot nicer than having a second car or buying more house than I need. Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:928820536] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah, don't do anything that makes you happy. The American dream.</quote> I guarantee you having freedom from having money in the bank is a lot nicer than having a second car or buying more house than I need. </quote> Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:20:51 PM #174:	Webmaster4531 posted... Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it. You're lying if you think Americans aren't overspending like crazy. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928820554] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it.</quote> You're lying if you think Americans aren't overspending like crazy. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 10:22:45 PM #175:	Broseph_Stalin posted... stock buybacks have never been illegal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/stock-buybacks-were-once-illegal-why-are-they-legal-now-sHh6HZjtyk2styG-qLgnQg/ Lying doesn't help your argument. Broseph_Stalin posted... https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fireworks-over-share-buybacks-are-duds-11562338801 Quote the relevant parts, it says I need to be a subscriber to read that rag. Broseph_Stalin posted... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RC1Q027SBEA?mod=article_inline That doesn't account for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RL1A225NBEA No shit "more" money is spent on R&D when billions are worth less. Also, again, corporations are flush with cash, it's no surprise R&D would get some of that. Broseph_Stalin posted... ...exactly? HC cost have risen well above inflation rates and employers are the ones covering most of that cost to keep their workers covered. No one is saying HC cost aren't cutting into wages, but that's not your employers fault. Yes it is. Employers push to keep the current system because it gives them power over employees, employees that could leave if they weren't afraid of losing health care coverage. It's also cheaper for companies that actual wage increases. Broseph_Stalin posted... No one gets insurance to regularly use it... it's insurance. The fact that you are covered for catastrophic care that you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford isn't a small thing. Which means it's less valuable for me. Thanks for confirming my point. It would be a lot cheaper if the government covered it, like every other first-world country. It's a shitty "benefit" created and maintained by the rich. It is no substitute for increased wages. You're making a really stupid point here. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928820615] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>stock buybacks have never been illegal.</quote> https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/stock-buybacks-were-once-illegal-why-are-they-legal-now-sHh6HZjtyk2styG-qLgnQg/ Lying doesn't help your argument. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fireworks-over-share-buybacks-are-duds-11562338801</quote> Quote the relevant parts, it says I need to be a subscriber to read that rag. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RC1Q027SBEA?mod=article_inline</quote> That doesn't account for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RL1A225NBEA No shit "more" money is spent on R&D when billions are worth less. Also, again, corporations are flush with cash, it's no surprise R&D would get some of that. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>...exactly? HC cost have risen well above inflation rates and employers are the ones covering most of that cost to keep their workers covered. No one is saying HC cost aren't cutting into wages, but that's not your employers fault.</quote> Yes it is. Employers push to keep the current system because it gives them power over employees, employees that could leave if they weren't afraid of losing health care coverage. It's also cheaper for companies that actual wage increases. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>No one gets insurance to regularly use it... it's insurance. The fact that you are covered for catastrophic care that you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford isn't a small thing.</quote> Which means it's less valuable for me. Thanks for confirming my point. It would be a lot cheaper if the government covered it, like every other first-world country. It's a shitty "benefit" created and maintained by the rich. It is no substitute for increased wages. You're making a really stupid point here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 10/15/19 10:23:00 PM #176:	pls posted... Webmaster4531 posted... Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it. You're lying if you think Americans aren't overspending like crazy. A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:928820627] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>Did toothbrush say a mansion and a second car? I don't see it.</quote> You're lying if you think Americans aren't overspending like crazy. </quote> A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:24:16 PM #177:	Webmaster4531 posted... A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt. Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928820666] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt.</quote> Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 10:25:31 PM #178:	pls posted... Webmaster4531 posted... A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt. Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928820710] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt.</quote> Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. </quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 10/15/19 10:26:09 PM #179:	pls posted... Webmaster4531 posted... A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt. Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. Yes, thanks for paraphrasing toothbrush. You could have just agreed with him. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:928820734] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Webmaster4531 posted... </cite> <quote>A home and children is overspending now? No more panic of greying economy and social security going bankrupt.</quote> Depending on where you are in life, yes, owning property or having children can be overspending. Everything has to come at the right time in the right order. </quote> Yes, thanks for paraphrasing toothbrush. You could have just agreed with him.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:29:41 PM #180:	1337toothbrush posted... @DadofStrawman --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928820861] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote></quote> @DadofStrawman </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 10:36:17 PM #181:	If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928821167] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MutantJohn 10/15/19 10:45:14 PM #182:	1337toothbrush posted... If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work. This is actually true lol O_o My gf and I decided: it's either kids or a house. So we're choosing to have a kid :P I figure, as long as the child knows love and has a happy family, a house isn't as important. --- "Oh, my mother; oh, my friends, ask the angels, will I ever see heaven again?" - Laura Marling <cite>MutantJohn posted [p:928821499] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work.</quote> This is actually true lol O_o My gf and I decided: it's either kids or a house. So we're choosing to have a kid :P I figure, as long as the child knows love and has a happy family, a house isn't as important. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 10:46:40 PM #183:	1337toothbrush posted... If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work. The labor force used to be half the size. If more people wanted to be stay at home parents, the earning power for an individual would go up. And it's still very possible to afford children. The economy is good. You just can't have it all right out of college, especially not if you fucked up and majored in something useless. Wages have kept up, assuming you're in a good in-demand field. It's really only for unskilled labor that wages are stagnant. And global population is still growing, so we could do to have fewer births in any case. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928821554] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>If people waited until they could afford to have children in this shitty economy, they'd miss child-bearing age. In fact, this is what is happening now. If it weren't for immigration, the population of the United States would be declining. Meanwhile decades ago, high school drop-outs could raise a family in a house that they own on a single income. This is a systemic problem, not one of people not being able to manage money. When money doesn't go as far as it did in the past and wages haven't been keeping up, it's harder to make that money actually work.</quote> The labor force used to be half the size. If more people wanted to be stay at home parents, the earning power for an individual would go up. And it's still very possible to afford children. The economy is good. You just can't have it all right out of college, especially not if you fucked up and majored in something useless. Wages have kept up, assuming you're in a good in-demand field. It's really only for unskilled labor that wages are stagnant. And global population is still growing, so we could do to have fewer births in any case. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 10:54:19 PM #184:	I'm going to have to break this bullshit apart one line at a time: pls posted... The labor force used to be half the size. If more people wanted to be stay at home parents, the earning power for an individual would go up. And it's still very possible to afford children. The economy is good. The economy is also bigger than it was before. If the economy were so great for the middle and working classes, they would be earning more. pls posted... You just can't have it all right out of college, especially not if you fucked up and majored in something useless. You could have it right after dropping out of high school before. Now you have to finish high school AND get through a 4+ year program to earn less money than that drop-out in the past. If the economy is so good, why is it so much harder to earn a decent living? pls posted... Wages have kept up, assuming you're in a good in-demand field. It's really only for unskilled labor that wages are stagnant. If wages kept up, the two incomes would've doubled purchase power compared to that single high school dropout of the past. The caveat of "good in-demand field" is bullshit. The work is just as in-demand, it just pays less. pls posted... And global population is still growing, so we could do to have fewer births in any case. "Actually it's a good thing that people can't afford to raise a family. Also, the economy is great, believe me!" --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928821854] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>I'm going to have to break this bullshit apart one line at a time: pls posted...</cite> <quote>The labor force used to be half the size. If more people wanted to be stay at home parents, the earning power for an individual would go up. And it's still very possible to afford children. The economy is good. </quote> The economy is also bigger than it was before. If the economy were so great for the middle and working classes, they would be earning more. pls posted...</cite> <quote>You just can't have it all right out of college, especially not if you fucked up and majored in something useless.</quote> You could have it right after dropping out of high school before. Now you have to finish high school AND get through a 4+ year program to earn less money than that drop-out in the past. If the economy is so good, why is it so much harder to earn a decent living? pls posted...</cite> <quote>Wages have kept up, assuming you're in a good in-demand field. It's really only for unskilled labor that wages are stagnant.</quote> If wages kept up, the two incomes would've doubled purchase power compared to that single high school dropout of the past. The caveat of "good in-demand field" is bullshit. The work is just as in-demand, it just pays less. pls posted...</cite> <quote>And global population is still growing, so we could do to have fewer births in any case.</quote> "Actually it's a good thing that people can't afford to raise a family. Also, the economy is great, believe me!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 11:00:20 PM #185:	The economy is also bigger than it was before. If the economy were so great for the middle and working classes, they would be earning more. The economy is bigger but the labor pool has also increased in size significantly. And really, unless you're stuck in a shitty job there is plenty of opportunity in America. But in any case you didn't address the point - a smaller labor pool would increase the value of each laborer. You could have it right after dropping out of high school before. Now you have to finish high school AND get through a 4+ year program to earn less money than that drop-out in the past. If the economy is so good, why is it so much harder to earn a decent living? Ehhhhh yeah I don't know about that, anyone I know who dropped out of high school because of kids had to rely on family to survive, worked in the physical trades, or went back to school. Admittedly it's anecdotal. How much economic activity has gone abroad because of regulations that made it less worth pursuing here? How much more competition is there for jobs because of other countries advancing and producing stuff? If wages kept up, the two incomes would've doubled purchase power compared to that single high school dropout of the past. Two people in a household can earn that kind of money with minimal or no education, but they'll both be working which leaves no time for raising kids. That's why it's important to go to college for something that pays off. Or to go in the trades, rather than settling for being a cashier at Walmart for life. The caveat of "good in-demand field" is bulls*. The work is just as in-demand, it just pays less. Nah that's not true at all. Plenty of jobs exist that cannot be filled easily due to the skills required. And those will pay a premium. "Actually it's a good thing that people can't afford to raise a family. Also, the economy is great, believe me!" If you can't be responsible for children, don't have any. If you want some, work on being able to provide a stable household. Not rocket science, and people being irresponsible high school dropouts back in the 50s when America was the only nation producing shit is not a meaningful counterargument. And the economy has been pretty good for me these last 5 years. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928822119] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>The economy is also bigger than it was before. If the economy were so great for the middle and working classes, they would be earning more. The economy is bigger but the labor pool has also increased in size significantly. And really, unless you're stuck in a shitty job there is plenty of opportunity in America. But in any case you didn't address the point - a smaller labor pool would increase the value of each laborer. You could have it right after dropping out of high school before. Now you have to finish high school AND get through a 4+ year program to earn less money than that drop-out in the past. If the economy is so good, why is it so much harder to earn a decent living? Ehhhhh yeah I don't know about that, anyone I know who dropped out of high school because of kids had to rely on family to survive, worked in the physical trades, or went back to school. Admittedly it's anecdotal. How much economic activity has gone abroad because of regulations that made it less worth pursuing here? How much more competition is there for jobs because of other countries advancing and producing stuff? If wages kept up, the two incomes would've doubled purchase power compared to that single high school dropout of the past. Two people in a household can earn that kind of money with minimal or no education, but they'll both be working which leaves no time for raising kids. That's why it's important to go to college for something that pays off. Or to go in the trades, rather than settling for being a cashier at Walmart for life. The caveat of "good in-demand field" is bulls***. The work is just as in-demand, it just pays less. Nah that's not true at all. Plenty of jobs exist that cannot be filled easily due to the skills required. And those will pay a premium. "Actually it's a good thing that people can't afford to raise a family. Also, the economy is great, believe me!" If you can't be responsible for children, don't have any. If you want some, work on being able to provide a stable household. Not rocket science, and people being irresponsible high school dropouts back in the 50s when America was the only nation producing shit is not a meaningful counterargument. And the economy has been pretty good for me these last 5 years. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 11:02:57 PM #186:	Anyway, let's be honest. From previous conversations it's already obvious that you'll never give even an iota of credence to the concept of personal responsibility, because all you want is more Marx. Can't expect you to really care about a good faith conversation when you're just going to repeatedly strawman. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928822232] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Anyway, let's be honest. From previous conversations it's already obvious that you'll never give even an iota of credence to the concept of personal responsibility, because all you want is more Marx. Can't expect you to really care about a good faith conversation when you're just going to repeatedly strawman. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 10/15/19 11:13:21 PM #187:	pls posted... Anyway, let's be honest. From previous conversations it's already obvious that you'll never give even a iota of credence to the concept of personal responsibility, because all you want is more Marx. Can't expect you to really care about a good faith conversation when you're just going to repeatedly strawman. Now this is some bullshit. This post from you was a bullshit strawman. pls posted... Keep your expenses under control. Also ad hominem since you were dishonestly using the 2nd person "your". --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:928822634] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>Anyway, let's be honest. From previous conversations it's already obvious that you'll never give even a iota of credence to the concept of personal responsibility, because all you want is more Marx. Can't expect you to really care about a good faith conversation when you're just going to repeatedly strawman. </quote> Now this is some bullshit. This post from you was a bullshit strawman. pls posted...</cite> <quote>Keep your expenses under control.</quote> Also ad hominem since you were dishonestly using the 2nd person "your".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 11:14:54 PM #188:	pls posted... The economy is bigger but the labor pool has also increased in size significantly. And really, unless you're stuck in a shitty job there is plenty of opportunity in America. But in any case you didn't address the point - a smaller labor pool would increase the value of each laborer. Because it's a nonsense point. Who will leave the workforce? Who could afford to? The economy is bigger and most of the benefits are going to the rich. If income was more evenly distributed then two incomes would actually go farther than that one income of the past and people could actually live on one income. pls posted... Ehhhhh yeah I don't know about that, anyone I know who dropped out of high school because of kids had to rely on family to survive, worked in the physical trades, or went back to school. Admittedly it's anecdotal. How much economic activity has gone abroad because of regulations that made it less worth pursuing here? How much more competition is there for jobs because of other countries advancing and producing stuff? Did you grow up in the 50s? Why are you talking about personal experience of dropouts now? Economic activity has done abroad because it's cheaper to pay someone $1/hour than $8/hour. It has nothing to do with regulation. The "competition" is a race to the bottom pitting desperate workers against each other. pls posted... Two people in a household can earn that kind of money with minimal or no education, but they'll both be working which leaves no time for raising kids. That's why it's important to go to college for something that pays off. Or to go in the trades, rather than settling for being a cashier at Walmart for life. That you continually fail to see how this is worse than being able to do the same with a single high school dropout income of the past blows my mind. "Good economy" my ass. pls posted... Nah that's not true at all. Plenty of jobs exist that cannot be filled easily due to the skills required. And those will pay a premium. High demand for skill with low pay to compensate. pls posted... If you can't be responsible for children, don't have any. If you want some, work on being able to provide a stable household. Not rocket science, and people being irresponsible high school dropouts back in the 50s when America was the only nation producing shit is not a meaningful counterargument. And the economy has been pretty good for me these last 5 years. "Being responsible" means waiting to be able to afford them. The birth rate has declined dramatically. Do you not understand what this means? If it were about responsibility, those high school dropouts back then wouldn't have been able to do it with such ease. You're buying in the excuse of the rich who blame the shitty economic conditions of the lower and middle classes on the individuals. It's a systemic problem. "Good for me" doesn't mean good for everyone. I've been doing very well ever since I started working right out of school, doesn't mean the same is true for everyone. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928822702] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>The economy is bigger but the labor pool has also increased in size significantly. And really, unless you're stuck in a shitty job there is plenty of opportunity in America. But in any case you didn't address the point - a smaller labor pool would increase the value of each laborer.</quote> Because it's a nonsense point. Who will leave the workforce? Who could afford to? The economy is bigger and most of the benefits are going to the rich. If income was more evenly distributed then two incomes would actually go farther than that one income of the past and people could actually live on one income. pls posted...</cite> <quote>Ehhhhh yeah I don't know about that, anyone I know who dropped out of high school because of kids had to rely on family to survive, worked in the physical trades, or went back to school. Admittedly it's anecdotal. How much economic activity has gone abroad because of regulations that made it less worth pursuing here? How much more competition is there for jobs because of other countries advancing and producing stuff?</quote> Did you grow up in the 50s? Why are you talking about personal experience of dropouts now? Economic activity has done abroad because it's cheaper to pay someone $1/hour than $8/hour. It has nothing to do with regulation. The "competition" is a race to the bottom pitting desperate workers against each other. pls posted...</cite> <quote>Two people in a household can earn that kind of money with minimal or no education, but they'll both be working which leaves no time for raising kids. That's why it's important to go to college for something that pays off. Or to go in the trades, rather than settling for being a cashier at Walmart for life.</quote> That you continually fail to see how this is worse than being able to do the same with a single high school dropout income of the past blows my mind. "Good economy" my ass. pls posted...</cite> <quote>Nah that's not true at all. Plenty of jobs exist that cannot be filled easily due to the skills required. And those will pay a premium.</quote> High demand for skill with low pay to compensate. pls posted...</cite> <quote>If you can't be responsible for children, don't have any. If you want some, work on being able to provide a stable household. Not rocket science, and people being irresponsible high school dropouts back in the 50s when America was the only nation producing shit is not a meaningful counterargument. And the economy has been pretty good for me these last 5 years.</quote> "Being responsible" means waiting to be able to afford them. The birth rate has declined dramatically. Do you not understand what this means? If it were about responsibility, those high school dropouts back then wouldn't have been able to do it with such ease. You're buying in the excuse of the rich who blame the shitty economic conditions of the lower and middle classes on the individuals. It's a systemic problem. "Good for me" doesn't mean good for everyone. I've been doing very well ever since I started working right out of school, doesn't mean the same is true for everyone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 11:22:49 PM #189:	It never was and never could be sustainable to raise a family on a high-school dropout's pay. That's just ridiculous and an impossible version of reality. And if that's how you measure whether or not the economy is good, then the problem is with your measurement. The median household income in the states is more than enough to thrive and have a family, unless you're going to overspend on shit. I already linked this earlier but it's worth looking at again. It's the median income by age group. https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/median-salary-by-age/ If you're earning around $62,000 during those prime child-bearing years, you should certainly be able to afford a family. If you are not earning enough to responsibly raise children, don't have children until you do. If that means that it will never have children, so be it. There are enough people on the planet and the global population is still rising. The idea that we should dispense with common sense and basic math just because you think high school dropouts back in the day were magically able to afford the American standard of living on a single income is ridiculous. When was such a fairy tale possible? For how long? How much more inflated is the American standard of living now compared to then? Contraception is a thing. Have children responsibly, without forcing others to pay for them, or don't have them at all imo. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928823020] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>It never was and never could be sustainable to raise a family on a high-school dropout's pay. That's just ridiculous and an impossible version of reality. And if that's how you measure whether or not the economy is good, then the problem is with your measurement. The median household income in the states is more than enough to thrive and have a family, unless you're going to overspend on shit. I already linked this earlier but it's worth looking at again. It's the median income by age group. https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/median-salary-by-age/ If you're earning around $62,000 during those prime child-bearing years, you should certainly be able to afford a family. If you are not earning enough to responsibly raise children, don't have children until you do. If that means that it will never have children, so be it. There are enough people on the planet and the global population is still rising. The idea that we should dispense with common sense and basic math just because you think high school dropouts back in the day were magically able to afford the American standard of living on a single income is ridiculous. When was such a fairy tale possible? For how long? How much more inflated is the American standard of living now compared to then? Contraception is a thing. Have children responsibly, without forcing others to pay for them, or don't have them at all imo. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 11:32:09 PM #190:	@Broseph_Stalin Looking forward to you trying to explain your lies and deception. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928823328] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>@Broseph_Stalin Looking forward to you trying to explain your lies and deception.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 11:34:56 PM #191:	pls posted... It never was and never could be sustainable to raise a family on a high-school dropout's pay. That's just ridiculous and an impossible version of reality. And if that's how you measure whether or not the economy is good, then the problem is with your measurement. The median household income in the states is more than enough to thrive and have a family, unless you're going to overspend on shit. I already linked this earlier but it's worth looking at again. It's the median income by age group. https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/median-salary-by-age/ If you're earning around $62,000 during those prime child-bearing years, you should certainly be able to afford a family. If you are not earning enough to responsibly raise children, don't have children until you do. If that means that it will never have children, so be it. There are enough people on the planet and the global population is still rising. The idea that we should dispense with common sense and basic math just because you think high school dropouts back in the day were magically able to afford the American standard of living on a single income is ridiculous. When was such a fairy tale possible? For how long? How much more inflated is the American standard of living now compared to then? Contraception is a thing. Have children responsibly, without forcing others to pay for them, or don't have them at all imo. It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bullshit propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. Fuck that, tax the rich and revive the middle class. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928823418] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>It never was and never could be sustainable to raise a family on a high-school dropout's pay. That's just ridiculous and an impossible version of reality. And if that's how you measure whether or not the economy is good, then the problem is with your measurement. The median household income in the states is more than enough to thrive and have a family, unless you're going to overspend on shit. I already linked this earlier but it's worth looking at again. It's the median income by age group. https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/median-salary-by-age/ If you're earning around $62,000 during those prime child-bearing years, you should certainly be able to afford a family. If you are not earning enough to responsibly raise children, don't have children until you do. If that means that it will never have children, so be it. There are enough people on the planet and the global population is still rising. The idea that we should dispense with common sense and basic math just because you think high school dropouts back in the day were magically able to afford the American standard of living on a single income is ridiculous. When was such a fairy tale possible? For how long? How much more inflated is the American standard of living now compared to then? Contraception is a thing. Have children responsibly, without forcing others to pay for them, or don't have them at all imo. </quote> It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bullshit propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. Fuck that, tax the rich and revive the middle class.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/15/19 11:37:10 PM #192:	1337toothbrush posted... It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bulls* propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. f* that, tax the rich and revive the middle class. What year was it last possible to do such a thing? It is literally a non sequitur to say that "if it was possible in the early 50s when the US was the only piece of the economy it should be possible 70 years later" You can tax the rich more but it isn't going to change the fact that personal responsibility is a thing. Taxing Bezos more isn't going to suddenly turn into money in your pocket. Go ahead and tax them more. Just temper your expectations because you have some really ridiculous ones. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928823504] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bulls* propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. f* that, tax the rich and revive the middle class.</quote> What year was it last possible to do such a thing? It is literally a non sequitur to say that "if it was possible in the early 50s when the US was the only piece of the economy it should be possible 70 years later" You can tax the rich more but it isn't going to change the fact that personal responsibility is a thing. Taxing Bezos more isn't going to suddenly turn into money in your pocket. Go ahead and tax them more. Just temper your expectations because you have some really ridiculous ones. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 10/16/19 12:12:44 AM #193:	1337toothbrush posted... Lying doesn't help your argument. It's amazing how you keep falling for bad journalism. I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but your inability to think for yourself is a big reason you fall down the rabbit hole of extremist politics. People like you are specifically targeted. You have to stop looking for something that confirms your bias and learn to think critically. Stock buybacks have never been illegal. They weren't "legalized" in the eighties, the SEC just adopted a rule (10b-18) that clarified what would be considered stock manipulation. A lot of lazy journalists interpret "less regulated" as "it must have been illegal". https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm 1337toothbrush posted... Quote the relevant parts, it says I need to be a subscriber to read that rag. In 1798, the Pennsylvania Legislature granted a corporate charter to the Germantown & Reading Turnpike Road Co. One requirement: If profits remained after a 9% annual dividend had been paid, the company would have to use the said surplus to buy back as many of its shares as possible at the sums which were originally paid. Other companies followed similar practices. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as the historian Joseph Stancliffe Davis noted, many citizens and politicians didnt trust corporations or their managers. Mandatory stock buybackslike the 6% to 10% dividends that were customary at the timeappear to have been intended to keep management from pocketing or wasting the publics wealth. 1337toothbrush posted... That doesn't account for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RL1A225NBEA This shows absolutely zero change in R&D investment since deregulation on stock buybacks took place lol. It's a great graph... for me. 1337toothbrush posted... Yes it is. Employers push to keep the current system Employers never asked for the burden of health care costs. That was a government idea to shift all responsibility away from them. It's so weird that you would think US companies asked for some of the highest labor taxation rates in the world. 1337toothbrush posted... Which means it's less valuable for me "No one cares about HC coverage but also people are afraid to leave a job because they might lose their HC coverage". Learn how to form a coherent argument. <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:928824683] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Lying doesn't help your argument.</quote> It's amazing how you keep falling for bad journalism. I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but your inability to think for yourself is a big reason you fall down the rabbit hole of extremist politics. People like you are specifically targeted. You have to stop looking for something that confirms your bias and learn to think critically. Stock buybacks have never been illegal. They weren't "legalized" in the eighties, the SEC just adopted a rule (10b-18) that clarified what would be considered stock manipulation. A lot of lazy journalists interpret "less regulated" as "it must have been illegal". https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Quote the relevant parts, it says I need to be a subscriber to read that rag.</quote> In 1798, the Pennsylvania Legislature granted a corporate charter to the Germantown & Reading Turnpike Road Co. One requirement: If profits remained after a 9% annual dividend had been paid, the company would have to use the said surplus to buy back as many of its shares as possible at the sums which were originally paid. Other companies followed similar practices. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as the historian Joseph Stancliffe Davis noted, many citizens and politicians didnt trust corporations or their managers. Mandatory stock buybackslike the 6% to 10% dividends that were customary at the timeappear to have been intended to keep management from pocketing or wasting the publics wealth. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>That doesn't account for inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/Y006RL1A225NBEA</quote> This shows absolutely zero change in R&D investment since deregulation on stock buybacks took place lol. It's a great graph... for me. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Yes it is. Employers push to keep the current system </quote> Employers never asked for the burden of health care costs. That was a government idea to shift all responsibility away from them. It's so weird that you would think US companies asked for some of the highest labor taxation rates in the world. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Which means it's less valuable for me</quote> "No one cares about HC coverage but also people are afraid to leave a job because they might lose their HC coverage". Learn how to form a coherent argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/16/19 12:16:34 AM #194:	pls posted... 1337toothbrush posted... It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bulls* propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. f* that, tax the rich and revive the middle class. What year was it last possible to do such a thing? It is literally a non sequitur to say that "if it was possible in the early 50s when the US was the only piece of the economy it should be possible 70 years later" You can tax the rich more but it isn't going to change the fact that personal responsibility is a thing. Taxing Bezos more isn't going to suddenly turn into money in your pocket. Go ahead and tax them more. Just temper your expectations because you have some really ridiculous ones. https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928824790] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>It was possible and it did happen and it created the middle class as we know it today. You're a naysayer because you happen eat up the bulls* propaganda that the rich feed you. If it was possible then it should be possible now. It's always about everyone but the rich tightening their belts. f* that, tax the rich and revive the middle class.</quote> What year was it last possible to do such a thing? It is literally a non sequitur to say that "if it was possible in the early 50s when the US was the only piece of the economy it should be possible 70 years later" You can tax the rich more but it isn't going to change the fact that personal responsibility is a thing. Taxing Bezos more isn't going to suddenly turn into money in your pocket. Go ahead and tax them more. Just temper your expectations because you have some really ridiculous ones. </quote> https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/16/19 12:26:57 AM #195:	Broseph_Stalin posted... It's amazing how you keep falling for bad journalism. I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but your inability to think for yourself is a big reason you fall down the rabbit hole of extremist politics. People like you are specifically targeted. You have to stop looking for something that confirms your bias and learn to think critically. Stock buybacks have never been illegal. They weren't "legalized" in the eighties, the SEC just adopted a rule (10b-18) that clarified what would be considered stock manipulation. A lot of lazy journalists interpret "less regulated" as "it must have been illegal". https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm The "clarification" being that stock buybacks would stop being considered stock manipulation and thus made legal, you disingenuous hack. Broseph_Stalin posted... In 1798, the Pennsylvania Legislature granted a corporate charter to the Germantown & Reading Turnpike Road Co. One requirement: If profits remained after a 9% annual dividend had been paid, the company would have to use the said surplus to buy back as many of its shares as possible at the sums which were originally paid. Other companies followed similar practices. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as the historian Joseph Stancliffe Davis noted, many citizens and politicians didnt trust corporations or their managers. Mandatory stock buybackslike the 6% to 10% dividends that were customary at the timeappear to have been intended to keep management from pocketing or wasting the publics wealth. I wish I could examine their sources because that rich propaganda rag is as deceptive as you, but it's obvious even from this quote that it doesn't make sense in our modern context. Stock buybacks benefit shareholders, executives are largely compensated with stock, so they are pocketing this money. Broseph_Stalin posted... This shows absolutely zero change in R&D investment since deregulation on stock buybacks took place lol. It's a great graph... for me. Your argument was that the excess money was put into R&D. You're wrong and delusional. Get a fucking clue. Broseph_Stalin posted... Employers never asked for the burden of health care costs. That was a government idea to shift all responsibility away from them. It's so weird that you would think US companies asked for some of the highest labor taxation rates in the world. Why do large corporations fight government-provided healthcare at every turn then? Think before you post. The health care plans aren't a burden for them, that benefit more from them then having to compete with actual wage increases. Broseph_Stalin posted... "No one cares about HC coverage but also people are afraid to leave a job because they might lose their HC coverage". Learn how to form a coherent argument. Insurance covers special cases. Most people would rather more money in their pocket and the government providing cheaper healthcare. Learn to fucking read. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928825118] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>It's amazing how you keep falling for bad journalism. I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but your inability to think for yourself is a big reason you fall down the rabbit hole of extremist politics. People like you are specifically targeted. You have to stop looking for something that confirms your bias and learn to think critically. Stock buybacks have never been illegal. They weren't "legalized" in the eighties, the SEC just adopted a rule (10b-18) that clarified what would be considered stock manipulation. A lot of lazy journalists interpret "less regulated" as "it must have been illegal". https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm </quote> The "clarification" being that stock buybacks would stop being considered stock manipulation and thus made legal, you disingenuous hack. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>In 1798, the Pennsylvania Legislature granted a corporate charter to the Germantown & Reading Turnpike Road Co. One requirement: If profits remained after a 9% annual dividend had been paid, the company would have to use the said surplus to buy back as many of its shares as possible at the sums which were originally paid. Other companies followed similar practices. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as the historian Joseph Stancliffe Davis noted, many citizens and politicians didnt trust corporations or their managers. Mandatory stock buybackslike the 6% to 10% dividends that were customary at the timeappear to have been intended to keep management from pocketing or wasting the publics wealth.</quote> I wish I could examine their sources because that rich propaganda rag is as deceptive as you, but it's obvious even from this quote that it doesn't make sense in our modern context. Stock buybacks benefit shareholders, executives are largely compensated with stock, so they are pocketing this money. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>This shows absolutely zero change in R&D investment since deregulation on stock buybacks took place lol. It's a great graph... for me.</quote> Your argument was that the excess money was put into R&D. You're wrong and delusional. Get a fucking clue. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Employers never asked for the burden of health care costs. That was a government idea to shift all responsibility away from them. It's so weird that you would think US companies asked for some of the highest labor taxation rates in the world. </quote> Why do large corporations fight government-provided healthcare at every turn then? Think before you post. The health care plans aren't a burden for them, that benefit more from them then having to compete with actual wage increases. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>"No one cares about HC coverage but also people are afraid to leave a job because they might lose their HC coverage". Learn how to form a coherent argument.</quote> Insurance covers special cases. Most people would rather more money in their pocket and the government providing cheaper healthcare. Learn to fucking read.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pls 10/16/19 12:28:22 AM #196:	1337toothbrush posted... https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses. I mean you're not wrong about the tax rate, but you didn't answer my question. --- Do good. <cite>pls posted [p:928825160] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses.</quote> I mean you're not wrong about the tax rate, but you didn't answer my question. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
1337toothbrush 10/16/19 12:29:43 AM #197:	pls posted... 1337toothbrush posted... https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses. I mean you're not wrong about the tax rate, but you didn't answer my question. Because it was a dumb question. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928825192] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted... </cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594 Pay attention to the lower tax rates. We have been paying more to make up for these leeches and there are still deficits because we don't have enough to make up for their fat asses.</quote> I mean you're not wrong about the tax rate, but you didn't answer my question. </quote> Because it was a dumb question.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 10/16/19 12:52:55 AM #198:	1337toothbrush posted... The "clarification" being that stock buybacks would stop being considered stock manipulation and thus made legal, you disingenuous hack. No, it clarified the circumstances in which a stock buyback would count as stock manipulation. 1337toothbrush posted... I wish I could examine their sources because that rich propaganda rag is as deceptive as you, but it's obvious even from this quote that it doesn't make sense in our modern context. But you just said stock buybacks were illegal, how did it happen in the first place 1337toothbrush posted... Your argument was that the excess money was put into R&D. You're wrong and delusional. Get a fucking clue. ???????? your link literally shows money being put into R&D, with zero decline after buybacks were deregulated. Why are you lying? 1337toothbrush posted... Why do large corporations fight government-provided healthcare at every turn then? Hospitals and insurance companies, you mean. 1337toothbrush posted... The health care plans aren't a burden for them, that benefit more from them then having to compete with actual wage increases. "rising HC cost aren't a burden " Also raising wages (which is what they did do before HC cost became an issue) is a lot simpler than having to deal with insurance companies. <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:928825801] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>The "clarification" being that stock buybacks would stop being considered stock manipulation and thus made legal, you disingenuous hack.</quote> No, it clarified the circumstances in which a stock buyback would count as stock manipulation. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>I wish I could examine their sources because that rich propaganda rag is as deceptive as you, but it's obvious even from this quote that it doesn't make sense in our modern context.</quote> But you just said stock buybacks were illegal, how did it happen in the first place 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Your argument was that the excess money was put into R&D. You're wrong and delusional. Get a fucking clue. </quote> ???????? your link literally shows money being put into R&D, with zero decline after buybacks were deregulated. Why are you lying? 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>Why do large corporations fight government-provided healthcare at every turn then?</quote> Hospitals and insurance companies, you mean. 1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>The health care plans aren't a burden for them, that benefit more from them then having to compete with actual wage increases.</quote> "rising HC cost aren't a burden " Also raising wages (which is what they did do before HC cost became an issue) is a lot simpler than having to deal with insurance companies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SapphireClassic 10/16/19 1:02:07 AM #199:	Bezos started out with a garage set up seeking books online. He kept building his business by investing and taking risks. That's how wealth is made. <cite>SapphireClassic posted [p:928826058] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Bezos started out with a garage set up seeking books online. He kept building his business by investing and taking risks. That's how wealth is made.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gen5_AppleJack 10/16/19 1:04:28 AM #200:	1337toothbrush posted... pls posted... You can earn above the median wage if you just push yourself and spend time on improving yourself and learning valuable skills. After that becoming a millionaire is just a matter of time if you save and invest a bit each month. It isn't rocket science people. Everyone can earn above median wage! Under capitalism yes, everyone has the best opportunities in countries that support it. <cite>Gen5_AppleJack posted [p:928826110] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>You can earn above the median wage if you just push yourself and spend time on improving yourself and learning valuable skills. After that becoming a millionaire is just a matter of time if you save and invest a bit each month. It isn't rocket science people.</quote> Everyone can earn above median wage!</quote> Under capitalism yes, everyone has the best opportunities in countries that support it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 10/16/19 1:08:40 AM #201:	Gen5_AppleJack posted... 1337toothbrush posted... pls posted... You can earn above the median wage if you just push yourself and spend time on improving yourself and learning valuable skills. After that becoming a millionaire is just a matter of time if you save and invest a bit each month. It isn't rocket science people. Everyone can earn above median wage! Under capitalism yes, everyone has the best opportunities in countries that support it. capitalism necessitates an underclass. in your scenario, it is being outsourced to another country. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:928826194] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Gen5_AppleJack posted...</cite> <quote>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote>pls posted...</cite> <quote>You can earn above the median wage if you just push yourself and spend time on improving yourself and learning valuable skills. After that becoming a millionaire is just a matter of time if you save and invest a bit each month. It isn't rocket science people.</quote> Everyone can earn above median wage!</quote> Under capitalism yes, everyone has the best opportunities in countries that support it.</quote> capitalism necessitates an underclass. in your scenario, it is being outsourced to another country.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > billionaires earned their weal- (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > billionaires earned their weal-