Strikes

[ousdahl]

No, let’s keep that step going, cuz the only point to take away from that is one about greed.

I think the hoarding of wealth and avoiding of taxes affects us all.

Where you going with “no effort?” You mean like a freeloader? Or a vegetable? Or an inheritance? Orrr? I’m honestly not sure.

And hell fucking yes effort should be rewarded. That’s why I think anyone willing and able to put forth the effort full time should be rewarded with a decent standard of living. But Im not sure that’s where you were going with that one either.

Wealth is a motivator for creating stuff that people truly want, that's one reason capitalism works and communism does not. If you want to call that greed, fine, but it helps everyone.

I'm with you on the tax avoidance - I'm all for raising the rate on long term capital gains. Even though that money has already been taxed, I'm with you in that making money just by having money should be taxed at the same rate as making money by working for it.

I'm very, very much with you on the inheritance thing. The raising of the threshold for the estate tax in the Trump tax cuts was, to me, in the top three of the the worst things that administration did. Again, it's reducing taxes for people who didn't actually work for their money.

As for the minimum wage aspect, I will kick that back to you. Should we have a $100 per hour minimum wage? If not, why not?

$100 is quite a jump. But I think wages should at least be worthwhile for a worker, and keep up with other metrics of economic growth.

And wealth is a motivator, sure, but is it thee motivator for creating stuff people truly want? Heck, people truly want a cure for cancer, but there’s more money to be made in treatment, so why not make a career out of that?

And if capitalism isn’t greedy, then what is it? Please read through this and then see if you can still say capitalism isn’t broken:

https://twitter.com/danpriceseattle/sta ... 64165?s=21

[ousdahl]

Think of it this way:

Over the course of the history of capitalism, who do you think has generally had a tougher go of it, and been more vulnerable to exploitation:

the workers, or the capitalists?

[ousdahl]

It is easier for you to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. The wisdom of that analogy is that to be rich, one must ignore the cries of the hungry.

It’s crazy how Christianity gives so much lip service to condemning material wealth and greed, and leaves it at that.

What if they railed against income inequality as hard as they rail against abortion? I think it’s every bit as much a “pro-life” issue, no?

But instead, they tacitly enable capitalist greed, while also being completely opaque about all the riches they’ve hoarded over the centuries.

“Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened,” unless it’s the door to their accounting office. (Or the Vatican archives, but that’s a whole different rant)

Oh, and in classic American capitalist style, they get bailed out though they don’t even pay taxes. How is that even constitutional?

[Deleted User 289]

2 Part question for all of you moralists posting on this thread.
YOU are a self made billionaire. Are you supposed to feel guilty about about it and are YOU a bigger asshole or smaller asshole (than you are now) because you are a billionaire?

[ousdahl]

Somebody could put thousand of hours into practicing music, or writing a book, or painting a portrait.

But to become a billionaire, they put thousands of hours into making money. Not even necessarily honing a craft - you think Zuckerberg cares more about the user experience on Facebook, or about squeezing every last dime out of it regardless?

So, without using some silly term like “immoral,” I think in many instances it takes a special kind of asshole to be a billionaire.

It takes the kinda person who thinks of employees not as fellow humans who are integral to that person’s success, but as just another fungible commodity to crunch the numbers on.

[Deleted User 289]

"So, without using some silly term like “immoral,” I think in many instances it takes a special kind of asshole to be a billionaire".

Sure, in many instances it probably does. I feel in many instances it probably does NOT.
Part of my job (and also existence outside of work) is dealing with billionaires.
You know what? I find the majority of them are genuinely wonderful people.
You know who I find to be the biggest assholes? Multi millionaires who ACT like they are billionaires.

[kubowler99]

It's obvious nobody really has a grasp on how much $1,000,000,000 actually is. It's obscenely large. I make a very comfortable salary, have a nice house w/pool, a wife and 3 kids. We can afford to go on a nice vacation at least one a year. We are solidly middle-class.

If I worked for more than 5000 years and didn't spend a dime, I still wouldn't have accumulated anywhere near that amount of wealth. That's insane. Who needs that?

So, in my opinion, the continued accumulation of that type of vast wealth IS immoral. You've won the game of life in America. What else does you or your family need? More money? More power? That's the definition of greed.

[ousdahl]

Good post. Yeah, a billion with a B is a lot.

And yeah, money is power. How much power should one person really have?

also bro when can we come over for a pool party?!

[TDub]

Qingdao is calling you ous.

[Deleted User 289]

It's obvious nobody really has a grasp on how much $1,000,000,000 actually is. It's obscenely large. I make a very comfortable salary, have a nice house w/pool, a wife and 3 kids. We can afford to go on a nice vacation at least one a year. We are solidly middle-class.

If I worked for more than 5000 years and didn't spend a dime, I still wouldn't have accumulated anywhere near that amount of wealth. That's insane. Who needs that?

So, in my opinion, the continued accumulation of that type of vast wealth IS immoral. You've won the game of life in America. What else does you or your family need? More money? More power? That's the definition of greed.

I think some of us have a pretty good grasp on how much $1,000,000,000 really is. Yourself included.
I am having a difficult time understanding why people on here have such an issue with people who have a lot of money. Of course nobody "needs" a billion dollars.
No one really needs anything other than food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps companionship.
But someone is supposed to feel guilty and/or "immoral" because they are highly successful?
Sorry, I just don't get that.
I am thinking of someone in particular that I know who has a shit ton of money.
He and his family are fantastic people.
From the time he lived in a what was basically a bungalow with his family and drove a beater in High School in the 1980s, all the way up until 2/5/21, he has had the same morals.
Money didn't change his inner core. EVER. Has it changed his lifestyle? Of course it has
but he's one of the most genuine and generous people you could ever meet - and when I say generous, I'm not just talking in terms of his sharing of his wealth.
Sorry, I refuse to think of him in a negative light simply because he has a lot of money. On the contrary.
I have seen how successful he's become and how many people have benefitted from it and I find it to be a wonderful thing. God bless him!

[Deleted User 89]

and that’s the thing a number of us have said

demonizing having money, in and of itself is silly

it’s the behavior that can, and probably should be demonized

if you’ve accumulated wealth by keeping others down, then yes, it’s immoral

that isn’t necessarily the case for all the wealthy

[Mjl]

No, let’s keep that step going, cuz the only point to take away from that is one about greed.

I think the hoarding of wealth and avoiding of taxes affects us all.

Where you going with “no effort?” You mean like a freeloader? Or a vegetable? Or an inheritance? Orrr? I’m honestly not sure.

And hell fucking yes effort should be rewarded. That’s why I think anyone willing and able to put forth the effort full time should be rewarded with a decent standard of living. But Im not sure that’s where you were going with that one either.

Wealth is a motivator for creating stuff that people truly want, that's one reason capitalism works and communism does not. If you want to call that greed, fine, but it helps everyone.

I'm with you on the tax avoidance - I'm all for raising the rate on long term capital gains. Even though that money has already been taxed, I'm with you in that making money just by having money should be taxed at the same rate as making money by working for it.

I'm very, very much with you on the inheritance thing. The raising of the threshold for the estate tax in the Trump tax cuts was, to me, in the top three of the the worst things that administration did. Again, it's reducing taxes for people who didn't actually work for their money.

As for the minimum wage aspect, I will kick that back to you. Should we have a $100 per hour minimum wage? If not, why not?

$100 is quite a jump. But I think wages should at least be worthwhile for a worker, and keep up with other metrics of economic growth.

And wealth is a motivator, sure, but is it thee motivator for creating stuff people truly want? Heck, people truly want a cure for cancer, but there’s more money to be made in treatment, so why not make a career out of that?

And if capitalism isn’t greedy, then what is it? Please read through this and then see if you can still say capitalism isn’t broken:

https://twitter.com/danpriceseattle/sta ... 64165?s=21

You didn't answer re: $100 an hour minimum wage. We can't do that because it's going to knock a ton of people out of work. 15 is a big jump in most states too, and would have the same effect. So to protect those "workers'" jobs, yes, I am against jumping to 15. It's also going to result in closing a lot of small businesses and be a barrier to starting new businesses, which helps monopolize large organizations, which empowers them to mistreat their workers since there is less competition they can go work for.

Your platitudes, if turned into policy, harm the people you think you're defending.

[kubowler99]

To an extend, Trad, I agree. A disrupter or innovator that brings a brilliant idea successfully to market and makes billions because of it doesn't necessarily mean they, themselves are immoral.

But...

There's a point (and I don't think we've defined exactly what that 'point' is) where the continued accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth while millions of people in this country are homeless, living in poverty, unable to feed their kids, etc...feels wrong.

[kubowler99]

You didn't answer re: $100 an hour minimum wage. We can't do that because it's going to knock a ton of people out of work. 15 is a big jump in most states too, and would have the same effect. So to protect those "workers'" jobs, yes, I am against jumping to 15. It's also going to result in closing a lot of small businesses and be a barrier to starting new businesses, which helps monopolize large organizations, which empowers them to mistreat their workers since there is less competition they can go work for.

Your platitudes, if turned into policy, harm the people you think you're defending.

Isn't this the same argument we've heard from people since the minimum wage was introduced?

[Cascadia]

You didn't answer re: $100 an hour minimum wage. We can't do that because it's going to knock a ton of people out of work. 15 is a big jump in most states too, and would have the same effect. So to protect those "workers'" jobs, yes, I am against jumping to 15. It's also going to result in closing a lot of small businesses and be a barrier to starting new businesses, which helps monopolize large organizations, which empowers them to mistreat their workers since there is less competition they can go work for.

Your platitudes, if turned into policy, harm the people you think you're defending.

Isn't this the same argument we've heard from people since the minimum wage was introduced?

What's really sad is that people like Mjl actually believe that shit. But, people believe in Q as well.

Change out money with drinkable water and the problem becomes obvious.

[Mjl]

Ok, let's do $100 minimum wage then.

[ousdahl]

I thought I did address your $100 hypo?

$100 is quite a jump. But I think wages should at least be worthwhile for a worker, and keep up with other metrics of economic growth.

Even a $15 minimum isn’t gonna be a jump. It’ll be phased in. And all a business owner has to do to make up for the increased wage costs, is increase consumer prices too. And consumers will be able to afford it, cuz their wages went up.

And sure, maybe some businesses will inevitably suffer. But if a business cannot operate without paying the absolute bare minimum they’re legally allowed to pay a worker, then that was never a sustainable business model to begin with.

[ousdahl]

I am having a difficult time understanding why people on here have such an issue with people who have a lot of money. Of course nobody "needs" a billion dollars.

If you can acknowledge that of course nobody needs a billion dollars, then why are you having a difficult time understanding why some people have such an issue with it?

No one really needs anything other than food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps companionship.
But someone is supposed to feel guilty and/or "immoral" because they are highly successful?

That’s the thing! How can a very few folks have SO much material wealth and power while so many others struggle with things like food, clothing, and shelter?

I don’t wanna discount anyone’s success. But where do we draw that line between individual success, and individual excess?


“Hunger exists not because we can’t care for the poor, but because we can’t satisfy the rich.”

[Sparko]

It is easier for you to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. The wisdom of that analogy is that to be rich, one must ignore the cries of the hungry.

It’s crazy how Christianity gives so much lip service to condemning material wealth and greed, and leaves it at that.

What if they railed against income inequality as hard as they rail against abortion? I think it’s every bit as much a “pro-life” issue, no?

But instead, they tacitly enable capitalist greed, while also being completely opaque about all the riches they’ve hoarded over the centuries.

“Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened,” unless it’s the door to their accounting office. (Or the Vatican archives, but that’s a whole different rant)

Oh, and in classic American capitalist style, they get bailed out though they don’t even pay taxes. How is that even constitutional?

Give away all you own and follow me? That was the pronouncement. And actually, the golden rule is probably the best way for a society to thrive even without winning a deluxe parting gift of Lee Press-on Nails and a cloud-backed paradise for a life well-spent. That is its draw for me--devoid of persecution or paradise, it is still the best philosophy. Last shall be first.

[ousdahl]

And yes - it’s a great exercise to replace money with anything else. If it was water, or food, or shelter, it would raise a lot of red flags for one person to have too much of it while others do not. (Again, except for fishing rods)

If I had a billion dollars, I think I’d have to give much of it away. “Here, have a few hundred million so that others in my community don’t have to go to bed cold and hungry tonight.” But how often do we hear that? Instead we get the “I got mine, and it’s up to them just pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.” It’s so fucking selfish.

And that’s more just a charity thing. If I was a billionaire business owner, I’d have no problem paying my employees more. Rather than one billionaire, I think we’d at least be better off with dozens or hundreds of millionaires - or in cases like Amazon and Walmart - tens of thousands of Americans who can actually afford a decent standard of living.