|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
the US spends a lot of money on Israel these days. Sometimes I feel like they think of it as a 51st state in the Union
|
well we treat them better than puerto rico 
|
There are entire sections of the US that don’t get as much attention as Israel does. But they are our best allied nation in the region by the virtue that they work very hard to piss off everyone in that region. So I guess the money is worth it or something.
|
On February 07 2018 07:03 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo You're using stock principal to pay off a student loan?? Get that shit payed off! stock returns are no guarantee, interest accrual is
Yeah, I only get bits and pieces of it every year. So I get a bonus at the end of the year and one component of that bonus is some amount of stock that I only get 1/3 of each year. And yeah, since the stock likely goes up in value less quickly than my loan accrues interest, I am just immediately dumping stock into paying that.
It is done like this so that when I login to see my benefits, there is this giant component that I won't fully get until a few years down the road. As a result, I am way less likely to go to another company because I would be missing out on this enormous component of my total bonus per year.
|
On February 07 2018 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 07:03 Aveng3r wrote:On February 07 2018 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo You're using stock principal to pay off a student loan?? Get that shit payed off! stock returns are no guarantee, interest accrual is Yeah, I only get bits and pieces of it every year. So I get a bonus at the end of the year and one component of that bonus is some amount of stock that I only get 1/3 of each year. And yeah, since the stock likely goes up in value less quickly than my loan accrues interest, I am just immediately dumping stock into paying that. It is done like this so that when I login to see my benefits, there is this giant component that I won't fully get until a few years down the road. As a result, I am way less likely to go to another company because I would be missing out on this enormous component of my total bonus per year.
They have this at my company as well. If I want full payout I have to work here 6 years... an eternity in tech
|
On February 07 2018 08:18 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 07:03 Aveng3r wrote:On February 07 2018 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 07 2018 06:58 LegalLord wrote:
Dow +500 by closing, we can all rest easy now and stuff. Ideally, this continues until the end of the month with +500 every day. At which point I sell stock and pay off a student loan! #PrayForMohdoo You're using stock principal to pay off a student loan?? Get that shit payed off! stock returns are no guarantee, interest accrual is Yeah, I only get bits and pieces of it every year. So I get a bonus at the end of the year and one component of that bonus is some amount of stock that I only get 1/3 of each year. And yeah, since the stock likely goes up in value less quickly than my loan accrues interest, I am just immediately dumping stock into paying that. It is done like this so that when I login to see my benefits, there is this giant component that I won't fully get until a few years down the road. As a result, I am way less likely to go to another company because I would be missing out on this enormous component of my total bonus per year. They have this at my company as well. If I want full payout I have to work here 6 years... an eternity in tech
I'm pretty sure this is called golden handcuffs. It's pretty common, and super sucky.
Also, how do you have a negative number of posts? It's -2 at the moment.
|
United States24799 Posts
I know the feeling. My current pension doesn't vest for 20 years (well, 16 now)!
I'm going to echo the sentiment that accusing congressmen who didn't applaud during the SOTU as being treasonous is quite worrisome. It's easy to just fall back to the typical position of "he didn't really mean it" or "he didn't even understand the meaning of what he said" but any congressmen in either party who doesn't unilaterally condemn that speech deserves to get voted out later this year.
|
On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 02:55 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
To be honest, I don't think you want to convince anyone of anything. Not in this discussion. I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks.
It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse.
It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing.
|
On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 02:59 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
I think his argument is that mpst people are not dependent on the market and it going down does not affect most people. The problem is he is demonstrably wrong so I do not know what else he is saying. No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it. Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion. It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though. What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing.
Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars)
|
On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it.
Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion.
It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though.
What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars)
Pretty sure farv who kinda started this part dropped it almost immediately because he realized his error. Seems like Adreme picked it up eventually and another "A"name noticed after the first two pages.
It's that people will cheer on Wall Street burning to the ground (or be indifferent) regardless of it ending up sucking for them (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it.
Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion.
I added a few words to give it context outside of the quote chain, but that's in the chain you quoted. You guys are looking more and more obnoxious about being determined not to understand the argument you're engaging in.
|
On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No. It's that people will cheer it on (or be indifferent) regardless (in part) because their relationship and understanding is significantly different than the posters who have willfully ignored the previous times I've said it.
Additionally, that not everyone (gold investors for example) ends up worse as a result of an economic implosion.
It's easier/more fun for them to poke fun at the strawman they built though.
What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse. Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars)
Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life.
On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different.
Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly.
|
On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:19 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
What you are describing is a common problem where unknowingly go against there own self interest. The poor and shrinking middle class are the most hurt by a market collapse.
Yes I am sure they feel some sense of disconnect when they hear the richest lost 4 trillion in a day but that does not hurt them. In the end they do fine and are usually better off shortly. It's everyone else who suffers whether directly or indirectly. Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined. On February 07 2018 03:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Feels like GH needs to learn what started the Great Depression. But, obviously only the rich were effected by that. I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly.
I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street.
Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite.
|
Great. Now we can be like all the dictators and have fun military parades.
And a healthy hate for democracy.
|
Hopefully it will start to gather steam in this country for how the Dutch are, not anti military but less jingoistic...
|
On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Call it what you want to call it, just acknowledge that my point clearly isn't the nonsense you and others insisted despite me clarifying multiple times, and that your disagreement wasn't with *my point* but with one folks imagined.
[quote]
I hope you're trolling. First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point. Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite.
So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd.
|
On February 07 2018 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 03:36 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
First off this the first time you properly explained what your point was. You are not the poor victim who had his words misused you are just the guy who could not properly articulate his point.
Second just because it's being done does not make it not nonsense. They can cheer all they want, they are the ones who will suffer and not the rich, that is the true tragedy. It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite. So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd.
No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble.
|
Let's throw money to have M1's rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, then spend more money to fix the roads after. If only Trump would have a shit throwing contest with the military like he does with McCain.
|
On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite. So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd. No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble.
Just an FYI, the Dow Jones is not going to go up 12,000 points in a month. Mohdoo was joking.
|
On February 07 2018 10:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes.
You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite. So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd. No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble. Just an FYI, the Dow Jones is not going to go up 12,000 points in a month. Mohdoo was joking.
Nooooo.... Really? jfc...
Thanks for covering that though <sigh>
|
On February 07 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2018 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 10:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 10:01 hunts wrote:On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 06:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2018 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 07 2018 04:04 Adreme wrote:On February 07 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] It's really not though. You guys willfully ignored my point whether poorly articulated at first or not. Second what was nonsense was the several times people kept saying I was cheering on economic collapse because I thought it would bring about equality and not hurt disadvantaged people despite saying several time it would harm them. Like I said, call people's reaction to the notion of Wall Street burning down whatever you want, just understand and acknowledge that my point wasn't what you guys assumed it was (and insisted despite me repeatedly saying that it would harm them/us). The conversation didn't start 1 hour ago in the post you linked, it started yesterday with you saying most people aren't in the,market so it doesn't affect them and calling it a neoliberal problem. Then an hour later snarkily saying that we should be happy about tip changes. You gave us the impression your point was x when you are saying it was y. I get you think you were clear, but if no one understands your point then clearly you were not. Once you explained it properly it was easy to understand because people voting against there self interest is very common. It didn't start an hour ago and the post you quoted wasn't the first time I clarified my point sooo...? Provided I accept the premise that I didn't make clear my point initially, I clarified it several times in between then and when you (being one of few that) acknowledged you were arguing against a point I wasn't making and clarified several times. I mean, you're not helping your points by utilizing the latter of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". - 155 million is the number of employed people in the US (not covering anyone with <35 hours a week) - 60 million is the number of children in the US who cannot be employed, and are dependants - 40 million is the number of people in age groups that could be working, but the majority are not (still in school, going to college working <35 hours, etc.). Let's be generous and say 20 million of them are dependants. - 15 million (taken from the pdf you linked) are married adults in single-worker families. - 6 million's the number of people looking for work but not working. So from even a very cursory glance, that's 60-70% of the population who are, in fact, effected by employers. Number is going to climb higher the more granular we get, but frankly I don't think this discussion will continue in that detail. Long-short is that most people do get fucked when the economy tanks. It's a shame you missed the point so bad after so many times. I can understand people thinking I meant something like that before I don't know like the 3rd or 4th time I specifically rejected it and pointed out I am fully aware people will suffer and that not having stocks or a job doesn't mean you aren't impacted by economic collapse. It's kinda offensive at this point that people are STILL insisting on not even reading the argument they are opposing. Then what is the point you are trying to make? If literally everyone but you gets it? (Hmm this feels similar to xdaunt/danglars) Best I can tell is that he thinks people on this thread are all about "muh portfolio", so he's trying to teach everyone that stocks and investments aren't life. On February 07 2018 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is me trying to broach the point that how the people here feel about the stock market isn't shared by a great swath of the American public (in part) because the relationship is fundamentally different. Of course, I think most people here are more effected by the tangential effects of the market over the direct stock values, so his point is missing wildly. I'm saying the guy worried about whether his stock options will pay off his student loans or whether their job is going to be more crappy work after the collapse are engaging at a different wavelength than households without banks (more than there are Asian people in the US) or the many people with significantly different relationships with Wall Street. Frankly I'm happy we're past the whole "He's arguing that poor people are immune to the negative impacts of economic collapse" like that wasn't the dumbest possible interpretation of the multiple times I said the opposite. So basically you start off with a bad assumption about everyone else on this board, get upset when no one understands your awful starting point, and still don't understand that maybe posters here are a lot closer to the savings-less population than the Wall Street crowd. No. The people who would cheer on wall street burning down are generally not the same people who are paying off student loans with stock options. Arguments like "Man that would make my job suck" and "will I be able to pay off my student loan with my stock options" kept coming and it seemed like that wasn't getting through for a long time. Some seem to have been able to understand, while others are still having trouble.
I'm still a little unclear as to who you are saying would benefit from a financial meltdown. Who? You just say people without bank accounts. Who are the people without bank accounts? What do they do? Why do they not have bank accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
