Current Events > AOC: No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Awesome posted...

Yet she has billionaires backing her

Lmao what fucking billionaire is backing her? One dude gave her $2,000 and she returned the money.

All her money comes from individual small donors

---

DevsBro posted...

The problem with capitalism is the inequality. Like half the people have absolutely nothing.

Socialism is much more fair. ALL the people have nothing.

Most Americans are well off. The poverty rate is at 12%. This gap these guys are talking about is just a talking point for them to get elected

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

All her money comes from individual small donors

do you know how campaign finance works or what

Broseph_Stalin posted...

yes lets look at a company that pays higher than average wages

I wonder if a certain presidential candidate that AOC endorsed twisted their arm into paying $15 an hour. Hmm.

---

Squall28 posted...

Most Americans are well off. The poverty rate is at 12%. This gap these guys are talking about is just a talking point for them to get elected

did you know that nearly every other country in the world measures the poverty rate based on whats known as relative poverty, such that anyone under a certain median threshold is considered poor?

Whereas the US uses an arbitrary formula based on what was considered an adequate food budget more than 50 years ago, adjusted for general inflation

---

the most important thing to remember about statistics, though, is that you can use them to further your argument even if you have no idea what you're talking about

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Why isnt this talked about more? I only learned this recently and it seems like an insane metric to measure poverty with.

because there is a compelling conservative argument that the way we measure inflation is incorrect by being too high, which would mean any change to the way we calculate the poverty rate could go in the wrong way

---

Balrog0 posted...

did you know that nearly every other country in the world measures the poverty rate based on whats known as relative poverty, such that anyone under a certain median threshold is considered poor?

Whereas the US uses an arbitrary formula based on what was considered an adequate food budget more than 50 years ago, adjusted for general inflation

Sounds like the US calculation makes much more sense. Whether you are poor or not should be determined by what you can afford. The median has nothing to do with it.

Would you rather be making $100k a year in an area with millionaires, or making $2 a day in a country that usually makes $1, but there's not enough to buy alenough food anyways.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

do you know how campaign finance works or what

Her campaign is funded entirely through small donors.

---

Sounds like the tagline for a heist movie

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Im in over my head but can you explain more? Feel free to assume its a waste of time because it might be.

This is a good blog about it:
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/better-measure-inflation-doesnt-mean-better-measure-poverty

probably worth reading the whole thing but this is the fundamental argument:

The administration argues that the CPI-U overstates inflation because it does not adequately account for shifts in what people buy as relative prices of goods and services change. The chained CPI takes those shifts into account, reflecting a slower inflation rate over time.

To illustrate, if you buy five apples and five pears and they each cost $1, you will spend $10. If the price of pears goes up to $2, then you would need $15 dollars to buy your basket of five apples and five pears, so the CPI-U inflation would be 50 percent. But if pears cost twice as much as apples, you might opt to buy eight apples and three pearsgetting more fruit but in a different proportionand be just as happy as you were with five and five. And eight apples and three pears only cost $14, so the chained CPI inflation would be 40 percent.

Many economists believe that the chained CPI provides a better measure of inflation than the traditional CPI-U.

---

Squall28 posted...

Sounds like the US calculation makes much more sense.

because you've grown up with it? or do you have an actual thought about it that isn't just reflexively defending your original position?

Squall28 posted...

Whether you are poor or not should be determined by what you can afford. The median has nothing to do with it.

according to what or who? the median does contribute to determining how much a lot of things cost

Squall28 posted...

Would you rather be making $100k a year in an area with millionaires, or making $2 a day in a country that usually makes $1, but there's not enough to buy alenough food anyways.

the way the US measures poverty wouldn't adequately capture either measure unless the costs of food had remained relatively stable over the past 50 years in the latter country

---

You realize that paragraph was intended to be read together right? You like read the topic sentence, and stopped and go "says who?"

There are obviously countries that are poorer than the United States where being at the median there is worse than being at the lower percentiles of the US. Using the median essentially makes it if everyone is poor, no one is poor. That's just how median is calculated. According to who you say? According to math.

My parents grew up in a place with no running water or electricity, but that's everyone. If you use the median there, then no one is poor.

They moved to the US, and we're lower class because they were waiters. However, they'll take being lower class in the US than being normal in rural Vietnam any day of the week.

---

Squall28 posted...

You realize that paragraph was intended to be read together right? You like read the topic sentence, and stopped and go "says who?"

There are obviously countries that are poorer than the United States where being at the median there is worse than being at the lower percentiles of the US. Using the median essentially makes it if everyone is poor, no one is poor. That's just how median is calculated. According to who you say? According to math.

My parents grew up in a place with no running water or electricity, but that's everyone. If you use the median there, then no one is poor.

They moved to the US, and we're lower class because they were waiters. However, they'll take being lower class in the US than being normal in rural Vietnam any day of the week.

Ok

---

Well, as an example of someone who legit made over a billion on almost completely his own work would be Markus Persson, or Notch. He made the original versions of Minecraft by himself, and eventually sold it to Microsoft. Since he created the product initially by himself, then made the company that continued the product, and then sold his interest in it, he in fact made all his billions himself

---

Sabram posted...

Well, as an example of someone who legit made over a billion on almost completely his own work would be Markus Persson, or Notch. He made the original versions of Minecraft by himself, and eventually sold it to Microsoft. Since he created the product initially by himself, then made the company that continued the product, and then sold his interest in it, he in fact made all his billions himself

He exploited millions of players--many of them children--by charging them a disproportionate price compared to the costs he put into the game.

---

She's literally not wrong lol people are dying inside of Amazon warehouses in America.
---

I used to be baffled as to why people hundreds or thousands of years ago would worship kings and aristocracies and let them do whatever they want. I later realized that same line of thinking exists today. People just like being used by rich people. Yet somehow, those of us who say this is stupid and wrong are the supposed "cucks".

Being a fanboy of a political/economic system still baffles me.

---

Sabram posted...

Well, as an example of someone who legit made over a billion on almost completely his own work would be Markus Persson, or Notch. He made the original versions of Minecraft by himself, and eventually sold it to Microsoft. Since he created the product initially by himself, then made the company that continued the product, and then sold his interest in it, he in fact made all his billions himself

Yup, there's a difference between Wealth creation and Wealth transfer. Wealth creation is like you described in creating a product that offers new experiences or creates a new product. Then there's wealth transfer, where they come up with new and superior ways to offer the same services which then absorbs wealth from other services, like Amazon absorbing malls and local outlets' sales or even Eshop/PSN to gaming store outlets. I want to say the bitcoin is purely wealth transfer. Wealth transfer in that it was developed as a response to the 2008 housing crisis. They want to strip bankers of their power. The blockchain industry has since further grown to create opportunities to uproot the entire banking system as we know it and knock the US dollar off its world reserve currency status - bad news for us.

But I suppose AOC is complaining about is the incredible wealth generated while too many employees aren't comfortably compensated. The wealth gap wouldn't be much of a factor if the people below are happy. But they're not. Fair complaint. She's gonna have a field day when the Fourth Industrial Revolution kicks in, which appears to be coming real soon according to the greatest leader in the world.

https://twitter.com/twetchapp/status/1219686207610814464?s=21

---

You get paid based on the value you bring to the company.

Why is that a concept some people have such a hard time understanding?

Twi1ightSpark1e posted...

You get paid based on the value you bring to the company.

Why is that a concept some people have such a hard time understanding?

because it isn't true

the people that do the actual work (i.e. provide the actual value for the company) get paid very little, while the people who do nothing make much, much more, just because they own the building (or the materials, or whatever the case may be)

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

I laughed out loud at the topic title. She knows how to play her crowd.

---

She is right.

When your company is small and makes a million, that can be honest.

If you making a billion, somewhere in the pipeline there is exploited workers.

Nobody makes $35,000 a year. People *take* $35,000 a year. They use somebody else's building, machines, equipment, tools, intellectual property, and training to perform tasks that make them money.

See how easy it is to do what AOC does? What a hack.

This is fine!

She's not wrong

---

ClunkerSlim posted...

She really is. Ignoring the international labor exploitation, lets just look at Amazon here at home where warehouse working conditions are said to suck ass.

The working conditions are fine in the amazon warehouses from what I've seen. https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Amazon-Reviews-E6036.htm Wages are good too.

---

averagejoel posted...

because it isn't true

the people that do the actual work (i.e. provide the actual value for the company) get paid very little, while the people who do nothing make much, much more, just because they own the building (or the materials, or whatever the case may be)

Owning a building or materials in itself is costly. If the business goes under, people lose their jobs, however, the owners lose the business, their assets, etc.

The job of higher execs is to ensure their employees maintain their jobs, which in turn generates revenue, which in turn justifies the survival of the business. They are FAR more important than the average worker. It's less about what you are worth and more about what you will risk.

---

Nobody's actually explained why she's wrong or how she's "economically illiterate" ITT.


---

She's totally right, it's a philosophical issue here, the billionaires who "worked" for their wealth are chosen by the people essentially to represent the upper class, they owe the people big time for using their services and choosing them over others. A person should not have access to such a limitless source of wealth, it's no different than a person choosing to live in the filthiest, poorest way possible and people complaining that they leech off the system. Spread the wealth, direct asset sizing of the billionaire class needs to be done to remind them who is in charge.

PIITB415 posted...

She's an idiot. People like her want to punish people who are innovators, businessmen, and entrepreneurs.

To ask people to give back to the society that gave them what they needed to innovate and thrive is not to "punish" them. THIS is a shortsighted, ignorant way to look at it. This is a harmful way to look at it. You are damaging the innovators and entrepreneurs of the future. To ensure that all of society have access to basic needs such as healthcare is to help and support innovation and enterprise.

MaverickXeo posted...

Owning a building or materials in itself is costly. If the business goes under, people lose their jobs, however, the owners lose the business, their assets, etc.

the workers typically depend on their job for their survival. the owners do not

The job of higher execs is to ensure their employees maintain their jobs, which in turn generates revenue, which in turn justifies the survival of the business. They are FAR more important than the average worker. It's less about what you are worth and more about what you will risk.

if that were true, workers would still be making more; they are in a far riskier position than any of the higher ups.

if workers lose their job, for any reason, they might not be able to eat. they might become homeless. that risk is not even close to being on the table for the execs.

---

nooooo you can't have successful investments noooooo

---

Millionaires will come after they've eliminated the billionaires. If they take their money, but there are still poor people, you'd have to look at the next group with excess.

---

How would the government take money from billionaires? Just because you force them to sell their assets doesn't mean anyone is required to buy them. If anything, if you forced all billionaires to sell their assets there's a good chance no one other than the government could even afford to buy them all.

How valuable is Amazon going to be when it's being run by the Post Office?

If you want to punish rich people that's one thing, just don't act like it's going to make poor people less poor.

---

She is self projecting. AOC is on the path to become a millionaire off the backs of the American taxpayer. Billionaire actually build stuff we use and want. Politicians like AOC take and take.

I remember back when Bernie used to go after the millionaires but then he became a millionaire himself.

AOL is evil posted...

How would the government take money from billionaires? Just because you force them to sell their assets doesn't mean anyone is required to buy them. If anything, if you forced all billionaires to sell their assets there's a good chance no one other than the government could even afford to buy them all.

How valuable is Amazon going to be when it's being run by the Post Office?

If you want to punish rich people that's one thing, just don't act like it's going to make poor people less poor.

Funny thing is, the green new deal will enrich billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk because these billionaires are the few who know how to build and manage the logistics of green tech.

MaverickXeo posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The working conditions are fine in the amazon warehouses from what I've seen. https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Amazon-Reviews-E6036.htm Wages are good too.

Lmao they've literally worked people to death
---

averagejoel posted...

the workers typically depend on their job for their survival. the owners do not

if that were true, workers would still be making more; they are in a far riskier position than any of the higher ups.

if workers lose their job, for any reason, they might not be able to eat. they might become homeless. that risk is not even close to being on the table for the execs.

The workers are able to get other jobs - their household depends on the job. That said, the execs put their own property and capital into their businesses and are responsible for keeping those who work for them employed.

An exec who loses a business puts many more people out of business, hurts the overall economy, and is further in debt than the average worker who loses their job.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Lmao they've literally worked people to death

It sure doesn't look like that. Do you have any autopsy reports stating that?

It's a warehouse job... a lot of manual labour. I've worked in warehouses before, Amazon is a very typical warehouse job.

---

shnangyboos posted...

Millionaires will come after they've eliminated the billionaires. If they take their money, but there are still poor people, you'd have to look at the next group with excess.

Americans voted for an income tax because it taxed the wealthy only. Soon these politicians began taxing the next bracket. And then the next. And then the next. What was supposed to be a 1% tax on wealthy quickly evolved to 90%. The middle class got screwed and the wealthy never paid those rates because they left with their jobs somewhere else. Thats is why we should never give those in office extra power because they will abuse. For every good politician, there's 1000s of scumy politicians behind the scene with darker motivations.

Don't spend money on corporations if you don't want to support billionaires.
Just buy no-name brands from your Mom and Pop stores and farmer markets.
And if you can't find the stuff you're looking for that's otherwise available from corporations, then I guess you'll have to just make it yourself.

Also, quit your job if you hate how you get paid so little while your bosses make more. Start your own and you'll see the hardships (or not, depending on what business you start)

Smashingpmkns posted...

Lmao they've literally worked people to death

Lmao they literally didnt

MaverickXeo posted...

The workers are able to get other jobs - their household depends on the job. That said, the execs put their own property and capital into their businesses and are responsible for keeping those who work for them employed.

An exec who loses a business puts many more people out of business, hurts the overall economy, and is further in debt than the average worker who loses their job.

none of this (except the "further in debt" part, which I'm also not convinced is true) negates my point that the workers are, in fact, at more risk than the higher-ups

---

HiddenRoar posted...

Don't spend money on corporations if you don't want to support billionaires.
Just buy no-name brands from your Mom and Pop stores and farmer markets.
And if you can't find the stuff you're looking for that's otherwise available from corporations, then I guess you'll have to just make it yourself.

Also, quit your job if you hate how you get paid so little while your bosses make more. Start your own and you'll see the hardships (or not, depending on what business you start)

the problem is one at the systemic level. your solutions, being actions at the individual level, cannot fix it.

---

Vyrulisse posted...

She is such a fucking moron and ignorant. She sounds like she's perpetually stuck in edgy college freshman mode.

Ah yes, the mature thing to do would be to lick billionaire ass and to jump at every chance to defend those parasites.
---

averagejoel posted...

the problem is one at the systemic level. your solutions, being actions at the individual level, cannot fix it.

Except it can.
Businesses don't continue to thrive if customers choose to shop elsewhere (unless the government is the customer, but that's only in the case for corporations like Microsoft).

Else how do you think physical is dying to online? Why Mom and Pop dies out to Walmart? Cause of the customers.