Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 390: Where Uvalde Cowboys Gone?

(+) Yeah! (+)

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Society is in an unfortunately position where a certain subset of society has absolutely no interest in contributing to the running of society.

Yeah I hate billionaires too

Billionaires either contributed greatly to society, or their parents/grandparents did. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but in terms of societal contributions he has outdone every single person on welfare combined

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Billionaires either contributed greatly to society, or their parents/grandparents did. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but in terms of societal contributions he has outdone every single person on welfare combined

Like what?

Beyond being born with a great deal of money from rich parents, which allowed him to buy his way into an electric car company, what contributions to society has Elon Musk provided?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Billionaires either contributed greatly to society, or their parents/grandparents did. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but in terms of societal contributions he has outdone every single person on welfare combined

LMAO ok

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I have never heard someone compare philosophy to economics before, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

lol take some econ courses yourself my guy

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

In a perfect world, welfare would be pre budgeted to cover off necessities (food, clothes, shelter) in order to prevent people doing just that. I grew up in a poor neighbourhood, and a lot of families basically already did that (spend welfare/government cheques on electronics, drugs, leasing a brand new car, etc) to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of their kids. Society is in an unfortunately position where a certain subset of society has absolutely no interest in contributing to the running of society. You can't just ignore this group, because then they commit crimes to meet their needs/wants. You can give them carte blanche welfare cheques, but a subset of that group uses the money to buy drugs while their kids go hungry. You can't just give them as much money as they want because that's completely unsustainable and removes any incentive for people to contribute to society.

It's a stupid stupid problem that unfortunately has no clear solution

So people are to be consigned to a life of poverty with no breaks and no escape? In our society being a capitalist is both a duty and a fundamental right and if you cannot exercise agency over your capital, that is being denied. We should let people buy those TVs if they want to.

nothing spells thriving economy like large swathes of the population being unable to spend

So in a free market, the natural response to more people buying big TVs and less food is that the TV prices can go up and the food prices can go down. Those consumers are saying that TVs are undervalued at current prices and food is overvalued. And the market will use that information to price these things more accurately to maximize total happiness.

If the government tells people they have to buy something, it increases the price of that thing because it creates artificial demand for it. While taking away demand from something else which hurts that thing's price.

Inviso posted...

Like what?

Beyond being born with a great deal of money from rich parents, which allowed him to buy his way into an electric car company, what contributions to society has Elon Musk provided?

Isn't this kinda nonsensical? He is trying to fund exploration to Mars, he created the satellite system which is being used in Ukraine right now to keep their services from being taken offline by Russia, and then you can add the Tesla stuff if you want.

Corrik7 posted...

Isn't this kinda nonsensical? He is trying to fund exploration to Mars, he created the satellite system which is being used in Ukraine right now to keep their services from being taken offline by Russia, and then you can add the Tesla stuff if you want.

The satellite system is a good answer to my question that I wasn't aware of.

Inviso posted...

I think someone who works two or three full-time jobs deserves to live a life where they're at least comfortable in the 48-88 hours of a 168-hour week that they're not working. They should not be forced to struggle at, or below the poverty line, and rely on social programs that are constantly in danger of being cut because people believe everyone should be punished for the actions of a handful of "welfare queens" who game the system.

By your own words, these are people who for one reason or another, have no other option than to work these low-skill, manual labor jobs. These are jobs we, as a society, want and NEED someone to do. So why should those jobs not afford a basic living wage? Because a couple of anecdotal cases make everyone look bad?

Minimum wage covers that, the only issue is it is not applied based on the cost of living for a specific area, and it is not regularly increased with the rate of inflation. Instead you get these incredibly stupid massive jumps in minimum wage that shock the economy with inflation every 10 or so years.

But let's stop changing the subject. We were talking about how you think unemployed, uneducated people are somehow entitled to the same luxuries as skilled workers. Please elaborate on that for us

Inviso posted...

Like what?

Beyond being born with a great deal of money from rich parents, which allowed him to buy his way into an electric car company, what contributions to society has Elon Musk provided?

Elon Musk wasn't born into extreme wealth, his father was an engineer who owned some shares in an emerald mine. Well off for sure, but certainly not "rich". He's apparantly retired with a net worth of $2million. As far as his contributions, one might say employing thousands of high paying jobs working on innovative technology is a pretty damn big contribution. Between Starlink, Spacex and Tesla, those are 3 companies that are advancing humanity.

Musk is a social media addict, and comes across as an arrogant assclown, but you cannot deny his positive impact on society.

Tell me, what have you done for society lately?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Elon Musk wasn't born into extreme wealth, his father was an engineer who owned some shares in an emerald mine. Well off for sure, but certainly not "rich". He's apparantly retired with a net worth of $2million.

Thats not rich to you?

Also you neglected to mention that his mom apparently has a net worth of $20 Million?

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats not rich to you?

These days $2 million isn't even close to rich. That doesn't even cover a house in some places. Comfortable? Sure. Rich, no.

Jakyl25 posted...

Also you neglected to mention that his mom apparently has a net worth of $20 Million?

Okay $20 million I'll agree is rich, but did she become that rich before or after her son became super rich?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Minimum wage covers that, the only issue is it is not applied based on the cost of living for a specific area, and it is not regularly increased with the rate of inflation. Instead you get these incredibly stupid massive jumps in minimum wage that shock the economy with inflation every 10 or so years.

But let's stop changing the subject. We were talking about how you think unemployed, uneducated people are somehow entitled to the same luxuries as skilled workers. Please elaborate on that for us

1. We have not raised the minimum wage since 2009. It is currently set at $7.25/hr. The average cost of living in America is $15.82/hr. Cost of living has had no problem rising in the past 14 years, yet for some reason we can't raise the minimum wage to keep up with it, because spooky inflation.
2. What the heck are you talking about? My argument has been that someone who busts their ass, works multiple jobs, and still can't make ends meet because unskilled labor doesn't pay well (yet it's the best they can get) should not be punished because a few people game the system. At no point did I say anything about unemployed people. I do think that designing a system around fucking over lazy dickheads that try to game the system will also disproportionately impact the unfortunate people who ARE trying their best and ARE working as they possibly can under a system that does not give a shit about them and they have no power to change. So I'll flip the question back to your court: why do you hate poor people so much that you'd rather fuck them over as a collective than let a handful of people abuse a system that's extremely difficult to abuse?

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Elon Musk wasn't born into extreme wealth, his father was an engineer who owned some shares in an emerald mine. Well off for sure, but certainly not "rich". He's apparantly retired with a net worth of $2million. As far as his contributions, one might say employing thousands of high paying jobs working on innovative technology is a pretty damn big contribution. Between Starlink, Spacex and Tesla, those are 3 companies that are advancing humanity.

Musk is a social media addict, and comes across as an arrogant assclown, but you cannot deny his positive impact on society.

Tell me, what have you done for society lately?

You do realize that your argument in favor of Elon (and I'm sure Jeff Bezos and every other billionaire) is that, because he has money to "create jobs", he in inherently beneficial to society. Nevermind the fact that Tesla is a company who bought his way onto the board of and his "genius" didn't contribute to their primary product (and in fact, many of his products are completely wasteful vanity projects that ignore very real issues in favor of flashy spectacles).

Seriously, you're asking me what I contribute to society like I'm a fucking billionaire who has the resources Elon does. I'm not a fucking billionaire. I work for the state government and help ensure that people are able to access their healthcare benefits and pension funds. I'd consider that beneficial to society, but again, I don't have a billion dollars, and cannot achieve the things that a billionaire could. And keep in mind, you're acting like Elon, as a billionaire, is purely a net positive to society. He's not. He's someone hoarding money that could be better used spreading it throughout society. He's fighting against unions and class action lawsuits that would benefit the "little guy" because it would negatively impact his personal power and authority. And his Twitter bullshit causes massive fluctuations in the market on a whim, which fucks with peoples' finances. Again, he is a BILLIONAIRE. The impact he has is massive, positively AND negatively.

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats not rich to you?

I don't understand the disconnect so many people have with understanding the concept of annual income versus net worth. $2 million net worth for someone who is retired is a pension, a nice house and some investments. It's actually fairly modest, the average net worth of a 65+ American is around $1.2 million

If you're working "multiple" jobs and not are not able to make ends meet, the only explanation is you are not good with your money. Unless you're talking about multiple part time jobs adding up to roughly what a full time job entails, in which case a full time equivalent job, even at minimum wage is enough to live off of unless you're living in a city with astronomical CoL (i.e. Bay area)

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I don't understand the disconnect so many people have with understanding the concept of annual income versus net worth. $2 million net worth for someone who is retired is a pension, a nice house and some investments. It's actually fairly modest, the average net worth of a 65+ American is around $1.2 million

You realize the problem with using the average, right

The median is only $228k.

$2 million is not "modest" for the vast majority.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

I don't understand the disconnect so many people have with understanding the concept of annual income versus net worth. $2 million net worth for someone who is retired is a pension, a nice house and some investments. It's actually fairly modest, the average net worth of a 65+ American is around $1.2 million

Yeah this isnt happening by the time millennials reach 65

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah this isnt happening by the time millennials reach 65

Sure it will. I just did a calculation. If a 30-year old starts with nothing and saves $5,000 a year, with increases of 3% a year, and invests in an index fund with a rate of return of 9% per year (the long run S&P average), by age 65 he has more than $1.5 million.

This doesn't even take into account the issue of inheritances. By age 65 a person may have already received an inheritance.

"Billionaires are ok because not every single thing they do is horrible" wow what a great propaganda machine there

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

If you're working "multiple" jobs and not are not able to make ends meet, the only explanation is you are not good with your money. Unless you're talking about multiple part time jobs adding up to roughly what a full time job entails, in which case a full time equivalent job, even at minimum wage is enough to live off of unless you're living in a city with astronomical CoL (i.e. Bay area)

You do realize that, if you don't already have money, saving money and building wealth is difficult? You get that, right? Our minimum wage in this country is $7.25/hr and the average cost of living (average, which means half the country is worse than this) is $15.82/hr. So even if you're working two full-time jobs at minimum wage (and this doesn't even consider restaurant work, where they're allowed to provide lower wages in exchange for the option of tipping), you're making $14.50/hr. Not only is that below the average cost of living, but it's $1.32/hr below, which means a large swath of the country beyond just "average" is unsustainable.

Keep in mind that rent is extremely high across the country. The average cost of rental for a one-bedroom apartment in this country is $20.40/hr. I specified one-bedroom first, because that eliminates the ability to live alone. But an average two-bedroom apartment is $24.90/hr, which is three times the minimum wage, so in order to SURVIVE in a rental, you would need to have TWO people both working MORE than 40 hours a week at minimum wage just to survive. And that's just RENT. It doesn't factor in gasoline prices, food prices, utilities, and God forbid a person experiences an unexpected medical expense (which is more likely to occur if you're in poverty).

So to say that people working two full-time jobs are just "bad with money" is disgustingly spiteful towards the lower class. Those people are working a fuckton harder than you, yet are nowhere near as comfortable in their lives.

Inviso posted...

The average cost of living in America is $15.82/hr.

Anyone have a source for this? I don't disagree with the larger argument, but a few weeks ago I was playing around with MIT's Living Wage list and came up with about $18.10/hr as the number for a single person.

Either way, BT should probably shut up about minimum wage being enough to live off of unless he has a better argument than "of course it's enough, it's minimum wage".

I do think the idea that everyone needs to be able to afford their own unshared living area is a bit nonsensical. Communal living has existed forever and is better for the environment.

We need to make sure everyone is able to afford a shared living arrangement but I often see people aghast that not everyone can afford a one bedroom apartment and I don't think there is anything wrong with that

red sox 777 posted...

Sure it will. I just did a calculation. If a 30-year old starts with nothing and saves $5,000 a year, with increases of 3% a year, and invests in an index fund with a rate of return of 9% per year (the long run S&P average), by age 65 he has more than $1.5 million.

This doesn't even take into account the issue of inheritances. By age 65 a person may have already received an inheritance.

Wish I would have an inheritance.

masterplum posted...

I do think the idea that everyone needs to be able to afford their own unshared living area is a bit nonsensical. Communal living has existed forever and is better for the environment.

We need to make sure everyone is able to afford a shared living arrangement but I often see people aghast that not everyone can afford a one bedroom apartment and I don't think there is anything wrong with that

I literally pointed out that even rooming with a second person still requires working more than forty hours a week at minimum wage, just to afford rent (without including all other expenses).

I dont think a lot of people have any inheritance coming to them when like 2/3 of the US is impoverished.

Inviso posted...

I literally pointed out that even rooming with a second person still requires working more than forty hours a week at minimum wage, just to afford rent (without including all other expenses).

It's possible it was included in a quote to BT who I blocked a long time ago for something unrelated to this chat and haven't bothered unblocking. Sorry about that

swordz9 posted...

I dont think a lot of people have any inheritance coming to them when like 2/3 of the US is impoverished.

Only 10% of the US households are considered impoverished

red sox 777 posted...

Sure it will. I just did a calculation. If a 30-year old starts with nothing and saves $5,000 a year, with increases of 3% a year, and invests in an index fund with a rate of return of 9% per year (the long run S&P average), by age 65 he has more than $1.5 million.

This doesn't even take into account the issue of inheritances. By age 65 a person may have already received an inheritance.

Also, this is dumb as hell. If the median savings account in this country only has $4,500.00 OVERALL, how exactly do you expect people who "start with nothing" to save $5,000.00 a year?

Inviso posted...

Also, this is dumb as hell. If the median savings account in this country only has $4,500.00 OVERALL, how exactly do you expect people who "start with nothing" to save $5,000.00 a year?

I feel like the thing that conservatives fundamentally dont understand is rich privilege is not what you are able to do, its how many mistakes you can make and still succeed.

like yes, many people could save $5k a year. You get people who are Dave Ramsey acolytes who eat beans and rice and end up doing it.

But rich people fall ass backwards into it. They start with $40k a year in extra disposable income, blow $35k doing whatever the hell, save $5k a year and go man, I ended up with a million dollars just by saving 5k a year. Why doesnt everyone do it?

StealThisSheen posted...

You realize the problem with using the average, right

The median is only $228k.

$2 million is not "modest" for the vast majority.

That just means that some people are good at saving for retirement, but the vast majority of the population have no concept of fiscal responsibility

Okay I give up on black turtle as an experiment lol

Inviso posted...

You do realize that, if you don't already have money, saving money and building wealth is difficult? You get that, right? Our minimum wage in this country is $7.25/hr and the average cost of living (average, which means half the country is worse than this) is $15.82/hr. So even if you're working two full-time jobs at minimum wage (and this doesn't even consider restaurant work, where they're allowed to provide lower wages in exchange for the option of tipping), you're making $14.50/hr. Not only is that below the average cost of living, but it's $1.32/hr below, which means a large swath of the country beyond just "average" is unsustainable.

Keep in mind that rent is extremely high across the country. The average cost of rental for a one-bedroom apartment in this country is $20.40/hr. I specified one-bedroom first, because that eliminates the ability to live alone. But an average two-bedroom apartment is $24.90/hr, which is three times the minimum wage, so in order to SURVIVE in a rental, you would need to have TWO people both working MORE than 40 hours a week at minimum wage just to survive. And that's just RENT. It doesn't factor in gasoline prices, food prices, utilities, and God forbid a person experiences an unexpected medical expense (which is more likely to occur if you're in poverty).

So to say that people working two full-time jobs are just "bad with money" is disgustingly spiteful towards the lower class. Those people are working a fuckton harder than you, yet are nowhere near as comfortable in their lives.

You aren't supposed to be able to live off a minimum wage job.

SCOTUS strikes down NY's restrictions on concealed carry 6-3.

The law required a person to show they have a special need for self-defense to be able to get a concealed carry permit.

masterplum posted...

I feel like the thing that conservatives fundamentally dont understand is rich privilege is not what you are able to do, its how many mistakes you can make and still succeed.

like yes, many people could save $5k a year. You get people who are Dave Ramsey acolytes who eat beans and rice and end up doing it.

But rich people fall ass backwards into it. They start with $40k a year in extra disposable income, blow $35k doing whatever the hell, save $5k a year and go man, I ended up with a million dollars just by saving 5k a year. Why doesnt everyone do it?

So now we get back to "people who have very little money deserve to have luxuries that they didn't in any way earn".

Corrik7 posted...

You aren't supposed to be able to live off a minimum wage job.

Even full time?

Inviso posted...

Also, this is dumb as hell. If the median savings account in this country only has $4,500.00 OVERALL, how exactly do you expect people who "start with nothing" to save $5,000.00 a year?

Because people don't want to keep more money than that in a savings account earning basically zero interest. The $4,500 is an emergency fund. Above that, they transfer the money to a brokerage account, or a retirement account, or into a house. In my example, if you just save the $5,000 a year in a savings account, you won't come close to ending with $1.5M at age 65. It'll be less than $200k, unless savings account interest rates pick up from the zero or slightly-above-zero they've been at the last 14 or so years.

And I expect people to start with nothing at age 30 because many people at that age have no savings despite having had through their 20s a salary that is in absolute terms several times what their parents had at the same age. That's normal - cost of living has increased a lot. But if you are spending mostly on essentials, and not expanding your spending to whatever your income is, eventually your income rises faster than your expenditures. Because your income is going up based on both inflation AND real economic growth AND increases in experience/seniority, while your cost of living is only going up based on inflation. Realistically, if you're working in an industry that values experience, your savings will go up more than the 3% a year in my model after age 30.

Corrik7 posted...

You aren't supposed to be able to live off a minimum wage job.

Yes, you are. Just tell us that you hate the poors and want them to die, it would be more honest of you.

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1539981783546167297?t=xKwnwbXs9FrqsNWAPpFzNw&s=19
Alito proving to us all that you don't need a brain to be on the highest court of the country.

Yeah, I'm reading through the concurrences/dissents right now and Alito's is just so disgusting (and whiny too)

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS strikes down NY's restrictions on concealed carry 6-3.

The law required a person to show they have a special need for self-defense to be able to get a concealed carry permit.

Not surprising, SCOTUS is operating within the confines of the laws that are on the books. Gun restrictions need to be codified by repealing the 2nd amendment to bring the US in line with literally every other developed country in the world, but that will never happen because the culture in the US is one of gun fetishism and worship

Oh, and they also decided 6-3 that you can't sue/seek damages for not having your Miranda rights read to you.

xp1337 posted...

Oh, and they also decided 6-3 that you can't sue/seek damages for not having your Miranda rights read to you.

I'm picturing every cop squealing with delight while their little tails quiver

Corrik7 posted...

You aren't supposed to be able to live off a minimum wage job.

FDR disagrees

No, you shouldn't be able to live off a minimum wage job. If someone is not skilled enough to contribute to society at a level to live, we shouldn't have a charade where we jump through hoops to give them rubber room jobs to make it happen.

Just pass basic income and be done with it

masterplum posted...

Just pass basic income and be done with it

And until this happens, those people should just fuck off and die?

xp1337 posted...

Oh, and they also decided 6-3 that you can't sue/seek damages for not having your Miranda rights read to you.

It never sticks in court, ever. = /

So basically, this idea that how much wealth you end up with is entirely driven by circumstances you have nothing to do with is wrong. Yes, it is mostly driven by the wealth of the family into which you are born - but not entirely. It might be something like 65% birth, 25% luck, 10% your skill and work. But 10% is still not nothing.