Jump to content

Upper Class Welfare


WoodwindWhistler

Recommended Posts

WoodwindWhistler

You know when Forbes Magazine admits there's something wrong with the people who make the most money, something's up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/

My specific question was, do you agree with the tax rates the way they are, and do you agree we should close the tax loopholes or not? I'm gathering that you're for cutting back spending, but we still kind of have a huge debt to pay off regardless.


I don't much care about taxes, nor do I care about spending, and the debt - may as well default. Be that as it may, feel free to penalize people doing better than everyone else all you want, if you can, but you still need to be able to stand on your own two feet to do so. There's just no way around that.

It doesn't bother you even a little bit that we have an effective "aristocracy" and oligarchy through concentration of resources? That we don't really have even close to equal opportunity, which is supposed to be something this country prides itself on? That small business get shafted while mega corporations use our taxpayer money for bailouts when THEY don't take responsibility for themselves?


It does, if in a different way than it does you. Specifically, I don't even think any of that bothers you - what bothers you is that small minority of people is doing better than you and everyone else and is not sharing out of good heart.

What puts the 'mega' in the mega corporation is the sheer number of consumers and employees that depend on them. Far more than any small business that majority of people wouldn't even know existed to begin with. The one who think they're too big to fail, is not I. I would totally dig all those big businesses millions of people depend on failing one after another. People who're being forced to work, finally being free not to.... wouldn't that be great? :rolleyes:

They're living off of us, just in an arbitrarily politically and socially sanctioned way.


You're the ones living off of them. How could we be have this discussion otherwise? If you were not living off of them, you could easily live without them - tax them into oblivion, take all they own and throw them out of the country, or whatever else you bloody well please - they're a fucking minority, and minorities... generally get to put up with whatever majority throws at them.

How do you imagine can they live off of you in a socially sanctioned way? Would that not require society to agree with it overall? Doubtlessly, you're implying that the majority of the society are stupid, with the exception of the few like you who know better but have no popular support. If only you could convince your stupid fellows... <_<

And they *are* responsible for a good bit of welfare, as they depress wages. It's literally less mind numbing and exhausting to accept a welfare check than to put your nose at the grindstone for 40+ hours a week, living hand to mouth and unable to save for education and use the mythical "bootstraps."


They're paying you what they think your work is worth. Any more would be welfare. If you don't think they pay fair, look out for a better employer. Simple. Basically, you ask for welfare one way or another. How they're responsible to is a mystery to me.

Now, if you have any objections to my mentioning to prospective readers that you're trolling in my thread in my OP, please say so in your next post. I'd like to give you benefit of the doubt and at least one warning.


Objection!

"may as well default" Yeah, now I'm not taking you seriously. To be so blaze about another economic crisis and the people it will hurt is definitely trolling.

May as well penalize the entire country (and world, really) for the rich not chipping in to pay off the debt or using their think tanks to figure out how to fix it. Yep. Classist if I ever saw it.

There are too many "too big to fail" businesses. If we regionalized them, it would be a more stable structure, less bureaucracy, and more competition.

If you choose to ignore the reality of "no information" voters, and the huge percentages of voters that don't even turn out in the first place, that is your prerogative.

Oh, you mean look for the next employer that has the same skinflint business practices, or the employer that doesn't exist (unemployment is up). They can't substantially increase the value of your work without education, and they can't scrape together much if they're at the bottom of the rung. They're just surviving. Your telling people as a whole to just do either is like telling them to go catch a unicorn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are not happy, but they don't know how exactly do they want to change it.

That's right about the only thing, if the most obvious, I'm going to agree you with.

The people robbing off our countries are in power

Being in power doesn't mean anything other than having the support of the majority of people. Well, the people with arms and the will to use them, at least - the able man. Having the support of majority of unables isn't gonna do anyone much good.

If you made a public vote on "should the big banks be bailed out?" I'm sure the majority would say "no". But nobody will conduct such a vote, and every consecutive party in power will bail out the banks, despite public outcry. Why is that so, I cannot say (as I said, I'm just a lowly engineer)

I really would like to see the turnout of that vote. I don't think it's specifically bailing out the big banks that the public was outraged over. Rather, how the people in charge got big bonuses right afterwards.

alucard, on 01 May 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

If you say so, but if it's not you, where does all the angry and bitter in this thread comes from? :ph34r:

I gave up "angry and bitter" when I was approximately your age; my advice is for you to do so.

Well, some of it from you, as in: "How do you imagine can they live off of you in a socially sanctioned way? Would that not require society to agree with it overall? Doubtlessly, you're implying that the majority of the society are stupid, with the exception of the few like you who know better but have no popular support. If only you could convince your stupid fellows... <_<"

fix your quotes, ffs. And what about what I said? In the past, you and many others have clearly vocalized the opinion that the vast majority of people are stupid. Word for word even. May I hope that you've finally perished the thought? Or are you saying that anyone would get angry coming across insinuations like "people are not stupid"?

"may as well default" Yeah, now I'm not taking you seriously. To be so blaze about another economic crisis and the people it will hurt is definitely trolling.

I don't see your sudden problem. Did you not want the big to fail rather than bail them out? What do you imagine the effect of that would be? No wait...

May as well penalize the entire country (and world, really) for the rich not chipping in to pay off the debt or using their think tanks to figure out how to fix it. Yep. Classist if I ever saw it.

Right from the start, you did not want something bad happening to the big guys. After all, your whole plan (or lack there of) is to somehow make them pay for you.

There are too many "too big to fail" businesses. If we regionalized them, it would be a more stable structure, less bureaucracy, and more competition.

Not really too many. Just a single one is already too much. Too big to fail business naturally means too little competition and alternatives. But how can you regionalize what is not yours? Can't. Go make your own!

If you choose to ignore the reality of "no information" voters, and the huge percentages of voters that don't even turn out in the first place, that is your prerogative.

I don't particularly subscribe to the opinion that all we need is to vote better. The thought that someone else will just go ahead and push through whatever I vote for for me while I sit on the couch with beer watching tv and being totally satisfied with just having voted seems just ludicrous to me. Extremely so.

Oh, you mean look for the next employer that has the same skinflint business practices, or the employer that doesn't exist (unemployment is up).

Do you not think it strange that there are either bad employers or no employers? Unemployment is up, right... wonder why? Maybe because employers don't exist?

They can't substantially increase the value of your work without education

Even the educated line up on the low skill/educations jobs. Education, while not necessarily bad, obviously isn't going to help you much there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

I don't particularly subscribe to the opinion that all we need is to vote better. The thought that someone else will just go ahead and push through whatever I vote for for me while I sit on the couch with beer watching tv and being totally satisfied with just having voted seems just ludicrous to me. Extremely so.

I totally agree with you there.

The problem with voting is that the more autocratic the people in power, the less they feel bound to honor votes as binding. I mean, look at all the executive orders Obama has pushed through because he got tired of Congress stonewalling legislation he wanted passed.

Need two more examples? Legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. Federal lawmakers wouldn't give a hoot in hell if 100% of Americans voted to legalize pot and gay marriage: since the 1980s, they've become so autocratic that they wouldn't feel they're under any obligation to honor those votes.

After all, what are "we the people" going to do... picket? Riot? Overthrow the lawmakers and replace them with an even worse bunch of jerks? Ain't gonna happen, bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just leaving the country. Problem solved!

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

Alucard, let me clarify: I think we pretty much had to bail out the banks. But, the system that has forced that option on us in the first place should be modified.

As few companies as possible should be "too big to fail" because that's the "natural selection" of economics that culls those that are not fit to survive.

And it would have been so much better to use that money to give to more responsible and well-managed banks. The root problem here is that banks have a highly bureaucratic set of red tape that is passed from the top down, whereas localized banks get to know their community and who is trustworthy to repay a loan face-to-face. They adapt to local market fluctuations and local economies well. (It's like the Fed setting the minimum wage, and it turns out it's too high for some states where the cost of living is low, and too low for states where the cost of living is too high. This even varies from city to city, obviously. One size fits all does not fit all). They aren't as worried about checking off boxes that some executive across the country dreamed up in his office out of fear or whimsical OCD.

"May as well penalize the entire country (and world, really) for the rich not chipping in to pay off the debt or using their think tanks to figure out how to fix it. Yep. Classist if I ever saw it."

"Right from the start, you did not want something bad happening to the big guys. After all, your whole plan (or lack there of) is to somehow make them pay for you."

This is a complete non sequitur to my point and simple repeating what you've already accused us of wanting. You're asking the entire world to shoulder the future epilepsy of economic downturn when the debt finally collapses just so the rich can have their fifth yacht instead of four right *now.* Scant few politicians want to substantially cut spending, and a good portion of them scream bloody murder when anyone suggests the rich at least be deprived of loopholes, if not pay a little more.

Dang, I wrote that top paragraph before seeing that you think the same way I do. One "too big" company is too many. As I often say, we need a Teddy Roosevelt to "trust bust," divvy up what are almost monopolies!!!

And I don't want to go into banking. I'm more of the STEM type. I'm just a concerned citizen, who wants things to operate better by market forces. Besides, anyone starting their own business would do absolutely zero about this big picture debt situation, and you know it. Politics is necessary.

"I don't particularly subscribe to the opinion that all we need is to vote better. The thought that someone else will just go ahead and push through whatever I vote for for me while I sit on the couch with beer watching tv and being totally satisfied with just having voted seems just ludicrous to me. Extremely so."

Well, at least this time you didn't ignore my point, you only dodged it. You expressed dissatisfaction at the notion that "people are stupid." I proved you wrong, in a tongue and cheek manner, i.e., low info voters and no turnout voters (neither of which are the ones going to town meetings or protests). Then you say that voting isn't the end all be all, which it isn't, but that wasn't what I was addressing. People are not "stupid," but they are uneducated and lazy. Your appeal to the majority to make us look delusional or fringe fails.

"Employers don't exist" because securing loans for small businesses is like pulling teeth and interest rates are significantly higher on them. Also it's hard to find a need that can support a business model when we are practically flooded with goods and services everywhere. It's much easier to find a job at an existing company, and by doing that, chances are you're just feeding back into that system we're discussing that's sputtering. But again, that's not an individual's fault, as you insinuate it to be, it's just them trying to live, with the cards stacked against them.

"
Even the educated line up on the low skill/educations jobs. Education, while not necessarily bad, obviously isn't going to help you much there."

Further proving my point that "bettering yourself" and "bootstraps" nonsense is nowadays largely a myth repeated by the wealthy and their brainwashed worshippers, especially for those who are earning at or near minimum wage. And those college grads, with debt hanging over their head, lining up to take minimum wage, that didn't happen as it is in epic proportions once upon a time. Clearly something else is wrong with the ladder to the middle class, too. Should they just start their own businesses as well, Alucard, seeing as a bank would be more than willing to lend to someone in so much debt. 9_9

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

I am just leaving the country. Problem solved!

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Employers don't exist" because securing loans for small businesses is like pulling teeth and interest rates are significantly higher on them. Also it's hard to find a need that can support a business model when we are practically flooded with goods and services everywhere.

Supposedly, what we need are alternatives to all the too big to fail stuff. Not anything new. As for alternative to getting loans from banks and stuff, wiki said, and I'm not inclined to disagree, banks bring lenders and burrowers together, so make it a community project and work together to free yourselves from the too big to fail stuff or something. Money is after all just a currency for work.

It's much easier to find a job at an existing company, and by doing that, chances are you're just feeding back into that system we're discussing that's sputtering.

Point is, it's not. That's the problem. Whichever company you're speaking of has no need for as many or more employees as there are unemployed. There's a huge fucking surplus of people. That's the reason they can let their employee wannabees compete for the lowest wage, among other things, and other ills.

But again, that's not an individual's fault, as you insinuate it to be, it's just them trying to live, with the cards stacked against them.

Yes, it's definitely not the individuals fault that their makers didn't think it through before they went and created a new life. Neither in this generation, nor in any before, or any after. It's just too bad for said individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

What I really want to know is, does the opposite of consolidation ever happen? Do people ever offer to buy the regional branch of a company, and is an offer like that ever accepted?

There is a huge surplus of people. I often wonder if throttling back on mechanization a bit would alleviate that. Proponents of "progress" always say that jobs aren't destroyed by mechanization, potential is just freed to do other things, but with so many people unable to find work, I'm not inclined to subscribe to that wholeheartedly. And then there's the issue that we might hit peak oil long before the pitiful contribution that alternative energies are making catch up with our power consumption.

I was talking about the trouble of funneling wealth upwards, which supporting an existing large company does. The trouble of creating enough jobs must be tackled by something else. I don't think the mix of small, medium sized, and regional business collectively create any less jobs than big ones. I think if more local production was enacted, there would be more local jobs. "Unemployment" wasn't even an existing concept at large when we were all adept at providing a lot of our own needs at home, so when did that balance shift, and can we shift it back a little? Never mind that corporations put out lower quality jobs, too, while using charisma to woo local governments into giving them taxpayer money to build and knocking out mom and pop shops in the process. But I guess manufacturing something cheaply is always going to be valued by the undiscerning no matter how high quality the next product over is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BerenErchamion

There is a huge surplus of people. I often wonder if throttling back on mechanization a bit would alleviate that. Proponents of "progress" always say that jobs aren't destroyed by mechanization, potential is just freed to do other things, but with so many people unable to find work, I'm not inclined to subscribe to that wholeheartedly.

I don't think that the solution to this is to cut back on mechanization to create an artificially-inflated employment rate. Rather, the solution is to used that added automatic production to allow for greater leisure time for everyone, so that we can all work less and still enjoy the same standard of living.

This means, of course, abolishing the concept of private property in the means of production, so that the benefits of mechanization are spread among everyone rather than just accumulating in the hands of the already-powerful, rendering them even more so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

What could we do besides communism, though? Practically everything about politics in compromise, and I don't think pushing one extreme is going to get people on your side. And even if that did work, it would take a long, long time to shift public opinion.

Isn't there anything that could work in the current system, without having to scrap the whole thing and start all over and figure out webs of distribution when we're already in debt and struggling economically? Perhaps add government incentives for people to work less than 40 hours if they make above a certain amount of money per year? Those who already work 40 hours are either doing it to stay alive, doing it because their careers require them to, (it's easier for businesses to administrate?) or because they want all the money to go with it. The latter two, obviously, could benefit by splitting it between two people, but it requires a shift in mindset, both on the employers and employees side. Turning one job that pays out a lot to several "jobs" with the same total amount of hours between two or more people would make a lot of sense, and seems completely possible, maybe even quite soon, without a ton of effort to radically change the larger picture.

Several people doing one executive or overseer's job would also decently spread around some of that ridiculously out of proportion money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sonofzeal

What I really want to know is, does the opposite of consolidation ever happen? Do people ever offer to buy the regional branch of a company, and is an offer like that ever accepted?

I know for some franchise operations, sometimes the franchises gain their independence by design or because of some issue or other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

By "independence" do they outright own the business itself, or just that location? Do they get all the profits? I assume they don't have any rights to the brand, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge surplus of people. I often wonder if throttling back on mechanization a bit would alleviate that. Proponents of "progress" always say that jobs aren't destroyed by mechanization, potential is just freed to do other things, but with so many people unable to find work, I'm not inclined to subscribe to that wholeheartedly.

I don't think that the solution to this is to cut back on mechanization to create an artificially-inflated employment rate. Rather, the solution is to used that added automatic production to allow for greater leisure time for everyone, so that we can all work less and still enjoy the same standard of living.

This means, of course, abolishing the concept of private property in the means of production, so that the benefits of mechanization are spread among everyone rather than just accumulating in the hands of the already-powerful, rendering them even more so.

What exactly do you think the problem is, if you propose this as a solution? Clearly, there won't be enough resources for everyone?

What could we do besides communism, though? Practically everything about politics in compromise, and I don't think pushing one extreme is going to get people on your side. And even if that did work, it would take a long, long time to shift public opinion.

Isn't there anything that could work in the current system, without having to scrap the whole thing and start all over and figure out webs of distribution when we're already in debt and struggling economically?

Can't really scrap and start over something that's too big to fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...