Elite Idiocy - Page 2

On March 02 2012 03:31 Kukaracha wrote:
This blog made me think of this.

On March 02 2012 02:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
About your blog: I agree completely and it's a good point.

edit: Soap made the same point two posts above me.

Off topic, but in response to the consensus view of the comments on the article on the Bloomberg site: I'd love to see the American lower class who deny the relativity of suffering justify their hardships to people literally dying of starvation and dehydration. I can't imagine anyone with access to the internet and spare time to read and write a response to a Bloomberg article has any grounds for denying the truth of the relativity of suffering.

On March 02 2012 03:29 Bagration wrote:


Really? Do we really need sexual innuendos right now?

But people love to complain. While this guy is definitely the embodiment of first world problems, his consumption has also been at an obscene level for many people, and with pay cuts, his salary can no longer match consumption. But rather than scaling back consumption, he compains to the world. A bit out of touch with the rest of the world's financial condition I would say.

On March 02 2012 02:21 0123456789 wrote:
I'm pretty pissed off myself. I've had to switch from eating a 12 inch subway sub for lunch, to a 6 inch because of finances. 6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch subs.

On March 02 2012 04:29 Treehead wrote:
Let me propose another point of view here.

I disagree with the OP, and though my point is somewhat different than Nony's - it's more along his line of thought.

Not that it matters, but my household runs only on my salary, which is just above the national average. I am not anywhere near the top 1%. My biggest expenditures currently are food and rent, which I suspect makes me like most people.

Why would a person allow themselves to go on record as saying they don't feel like they have enough with $350,000?

It could be that he didn't realize $350,000 was a lot of money and that he's a moron. That's possible. It is also possible that it could be that the reporter approached him with the angle of "hey, I'm looking to try to humanize the top 1% in response to the demonizing that has been done in the past and the amount of hate that people who make large amounts of money are taking these days - could you help me with that?" So the person shared his hardships, the reporter reported them in a way which simultaneously seemed like it was accusatory to the bottom 99% and humanizing to the top 1%. The reporter gets a ton of attention, which he deserves for having come up with something so clever. That, to me, seems far more likely.

Along the lines of what Nony is saying, I believe that just about anyone, regardless of salary or hardship, will adapt and come to think of their lives as having good parts and bad parts, parts they love and parts they're afraid of, things which make them happy to be alive, and things which make them wonder if they wouldn't be better off dead. Money doesn't change that. But along divergent lines - shouldn't we just accept that about people and move on? Must we consider this thought to be "man, we're very terrible beings - the extent to which we are terrible is relative" to "it's who we are. Let's stop trying to fight it and start learning to live with it in the most constructive way we can think of?"

Make no mistake - I believe the system providing all this wealth is broken, and needs fixing - and I'm all for that. But along the way, is it really necessary to demonize people who are just being people? Is it really necessary to demonize at all? Can't we just identify the problem and work towards a solution without complaining along the way about how unfair life is (as though all possibilities weren't devoid of an absolute "fairness"), or becoming angsty about our nature as people? This is what we do in starcraft when we see a problem, isn't it?

.... maybe most of us don't... but still, you see my point.

On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
I don't see people being apologetic about having internet access to read the article, a privilege billions of people around the world cannot afford. They just choose to bitch about those who have achieved more, though I'm surprised to see that point of view in your blog.

On March 02 2012 04:56 turdburgler wrote:


why shouldnt we demonize them? with the rich setting the rules by which everyone lives, when a millionare sits there saying how tough things are it goes beyond 'lifes hard'. now obviously the guy in the article isnt part of the super wealthy who lobby congress, he's also not the only person talking about being 'hard done by' by the economic climate. its no secret that the american (and probably most countries) tax system is designed by and for the rich. to then complain about having it tough is kinda disgusting. these are the people who without a doubt have both the means and the knowhow to change things and they still feel like they dont get enough.

ridiculous.

slightly more back to the original topic though. he may really believe there are things in his life that need improvement. he may really believe that not being able to buy a new car every year, buy a bigger house and send his kids to private school sucks, but haji's point was why even say it? you say its to humanize the banker? why doesnt he aim for sympathy first. rather than sound like a real human by being a dick like most people, why didnt he play the puppy dog eyes focus on something people actually might care about.




but that wasnt the point ;D the point is normal people dont fly to africa, look for a mud hut, then try to convince the little man in the corner that their running tap water and cheap electricity isnt enough they need moaaarr. noone is that insensitive or stupid. and yet this banker, who you would assume is smarter than your average bear, proclaims to the public that he needs more money.

On March 02 2012 02:21 0123456789 wrote:
6 inches don't satisfy me enough. I need the big long dark 12 inch

On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.

The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.

Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.

So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..

When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic.

On March 02 2012 02:50 Skuller wrote:
I think that one of the problems with finance in America is that it is much easier to make a larger percentage gain if you have a lot of money.

i.e.
If you have 100$, you can safely make $5 by investing intelligently in one year.
If you have 1000$, you can safely make $80 by investing intelligently in that year.

Not only is the amount that you make greater by having a greater principle (amount that you could invest), but the percentage gain is higher.

While this is normal to expect in a healthy economy, in the US, the return on investment that the "1%'ers" can make is much larger than the return on investment that the others can make. All this while lobbying congress for lower taxes in times where arguably more money is needed by the government.

So it's not a question of whether the rich are intelligent or not, it's a question of if this system has come to the point that there is an utter lack of economic mobility (that is, the ability for the poor to become rich). Sure the poor can get more money, and once in awhile there'll be a couple of people that burst through the ranks to the very rich, but the rich get more money. It's getting to the point where the poor cannot move into the middle class (which is shrinking).

Of course, the US is in a "first world problem" situation, as the relative wealth in the US is much higher than in other countries. We're arguing over whether a few can live their dream lives, or more people can live great lives.

In response to the article, it's obvious that the guy is complaining because he has to pick among which elements of his "dream life" that he wants to keep. The financial situation forces some people to change their lifestyle, and nobody likes change. Most likely there are some or a lot of us that live in privileged situations. We're used to the lifestyle that we have. If asked to cut 14% of it out, we would complain. In other words, just because he is rich, I don't think he lost his right to complain about the adjustments he has to make (it just will have little-no effect on the public).

On March 02 2012 03:28 Eiii wrote:
Honestly, I don't think this article is terribly surprising or insulting. They're just people whose income has been cut drastically, and now they have to cut back on the luxuries or services they've enjoyed, which is difficult or upsetting to anyone regardless of how much money you make. The only confusing thing about the whole article is that they would be dumb enough to complain about their situation to a reporter in this economic climate.

Oh, there's one more thing about the article that really struck me-- someone interviewed in the article mentions that most people at his income level don't save any money and mostly just live hand-to-mouth. While I'm sure it's an exaggeration and there are plenty of people who save and invest wisely (I get the feeling they're the ones smart enough to not go out and publicly complain about cuts in their still-massive compensations), it blows my mind that anyone making that much money would be unable to just set side $100k a year as an investment, safety, or retirement fund.

On March 02 2012 02:37 Soap wrote:
I don't see people being apologetic about having internet access to read the article, a privilege billions of people around the world cannot afford. They just choose to bitch about those who have achieved more, though I'm surprised to see that point of view in your blog.

On March 02 2012 02:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
About your blog: I agree completely and it's a good point.

edit: Soap made the same point two posts above me.

Off topic, but in response to the consensus view of the comments on the article on the Bloomberg site: I'd love to see the American lower class who deny the relativity of suffering justify their hardships to people literally dying of starvation and dehydration. I can't imagine anyone with access to the internet and spare time to read and write a response to a Bloomberg article has any grounds for denying the truth of the relativity of suffering.

On March 02 2012 08:08 Gnial wrote:
The responses to this article, and even the OP's comment itself, baffles me. Why are so many people so jealous of others when it doesn't concern them at all? It is such a rotten emotion, and shows weakness of character.

The fellows current standard of living and expected standard of living just took a huge hit. Just because his relative wealth is higher, everyone here seems to think he shouldn't be complaining.

Well guess what, he may be in the top 1%, but most of you are in the top 1% of the world, and all of you would be in the top 1% in some impoverished countries. And you would be in the top 0.001% in standard of living in the world 100 years ago.

So why, because he is in the top 1% in the U.S., right now, is it all of a sudden reprehensible for him to be professing disappointment for his loss? Think about it. Come up with some arguments. And then see if those arguments apply for yourself relative to homeless people. or the impoverished and suppressed in some foreign countries..

When you have realized that your feelings of animosity towards him are rooted in jealousy, good - you have just grown up a little bit more. Now you can put it aside, start working towards your own personal goals, and stop being so pathetic.

On March 02 2012 14:47 thedeadhaji wrote:
Coincidentally, I had a related discussion with a friend on Sunday, even before this article went live.

There is definitely an absolute degree to suffering. A person who is starving in Africa is in much greater suffering than the family on foodstamps in America, from an objective, absolute perspective.

But there's also an aspect of suffering that is relative and personal. In this sense, the person in Africa, the person getting foodstamps, the financially 'suffering' banker, and the college student who can't figure out what he wants to do with the next 50 years of his life all have a comparatively similar degree of personal torture and suffering of the mental kind.

Absolute suffering and relative personal suffering are both real. But they are also very different beasts.


I honestly don't mind that Mr. Schiff makes $350k a year at age 48. I know a handful of people who were making 10x that amount in their heyday. I also expect to be making around that much by the time I'm that age anyways; if I don't, then I probably have a good reason why I took a detour, so that's fine too.

His unhappiness with the situation is totally fine too. It's incredibly difficult to see the world from outside the shell that is your self. If I were in his shoes I'd likely bitch and moan too. Besides, like Mani said, his suffering is real.

But if I were in his shoes, I would not complain publicly in this current toxic atmosphere towards finance. Who knows, maybe his words were taken completely out of context. One would surely hope that the true "villain" in the situation is the Bloomberg linkbaiting reporter.

On March 02 2012 09:16 hypercube wrote:


Great argument if your point we should be complaining less. Terrible argument if you want to defend his whining.

For the record, I wouldn't complain at all if I was visiting a homeless shelter or an African country. It's bad taste. When 90% of your audience is poorer than you, and probably blames you to some extent for it, you shut the fuck up about your own financial problems.

BTW, I agree that it's reasonable for him to feel bad about making less than he used to. It's known that well-being isn't correlated with income after a certain point ($80,000/year in the US I think), but it's correlated with change in income. So he probably really is upset.

Also, you seem to think that anger towards any rich person must be jealousy. That's certainly not the case.