On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
Hi guys I know you like your graphs and data and shit but I figured I'd just drop an anecdote of my first night today at the protest. I've been on board with most of the ideas that OWS protests so tonight at the student rally was my perfect opportunity to attend. + Show Spoiler +
First of all, Here's a videoof the scrolling text from a helicopter.
There were large gatherings at all of the locations mentioned for the initial subway occupation, I am not too sure how the others went as I was out all day. I went to the Student gathering at Union Square and there were a few thousand students there to talk about the Cuny system and limiting tuition hikes, continuing funding of public universities, and how we shouldn't have to work multiple jobs in addition to our studies to afford tuition or pay our loans back. I mean shit... they are the ones who told us to go to college or we'd flip burgers so where are those money making jobs amirite?
Then we marched down 6th avenue // broadway // canal street and got a lot of support by even those who were stopped in traffic. We literally took the whole street as many watched and cheered us on, it was exhilarating to see how this escalated and touching to see citizens approve of our student march. Cheers and horns accompanied our chants and it was a beautiful sound. It all met up at Foley Square where estimates of tens of thousands ( I read 30,000 possibly) met to march towards/across the bridge. Police barricaded the march to take one lane + the sidewalk and we marched slowly toward the walking path on the bridge. One confrontation occured when the police barricaded about half of the protestors to prevent them from joining the front half of the group. We quickly learned about this and many came back to confront the officers where we chanted "Let us March" for a few minutes until they conceded and let the group past. I remember seeing Sergeant Davis at the front of the back end barricade (The marine guy who spoke out about brutality) The group safely made it to the bridge and without disrupting traffic we marched across the bridge.
Cars honked and cheered, lots of fist pumps as we crossed and it was happily ever after. Not too many arrests I believe.
>New York City: A massive projection is being displayed on the Verizon building south of the Brooklyn Bridge. In a series of shots it reads, “We are the 99%, Look around, you are a part of a global uprising…We are unstoppable, another world is possible…We are a cry from the heart of the world…It is the beginning of the beginning.” The projection then goes on to display the names of occupations around the country in rapid-fire succession with the final name reading, “Occupy Earth.” With a chorus of honking cars in the background, the crowd erupts in cheers and reads the display in unison as they pass.
Verizon is attempting to cut their workers benefits so they joined the strike, and used their building for the projection.
TL;DR we met, we marched. lots of people. good stuff.
Here are a few photos of the march and the awesome batman logo :D + Show Spoiler +
I can't follow this post as I'm taking a vacation to go to MLG providence but cheers guys please don't dismiss occupy just because of what you've heard about it on TV or in the news. It really is more than a bunch of hippies in a drum circle sleeping in a park.
On November 18 2011 17:30 Velr wrote: It's staggering...
175 pages int his tread.. Still people coming in: "I dun know what it's all about, they are just sitting in parks?"
Seriously, it's so EASY to find out what this is about and i can't see a reason to not "get" it or at least find it.
Its because the whole movement is so ambigious and vague. Anyone you ask what its all about just says something like 'its a bunch of protesters complaining about wall street corporates abusing the system'. But it doesn't specify what exactly, who exactly, or even directly what is the problem/abuse anyways.
I still don't really know what the fuck this is all about. Because to be honest it's just a bunch of protesters who are mad and sitting around yelling and shit with no actual plan of getting anything changed. The movement didn't even start out with an agenda or goal, they just set out to 'get the message out'. Like yea ok we got the message, what the fuck do you plan to do about it? Do you think these corporate people care about anyone else to change their ways?
On November 18 2011 17:30 Velr wrote: It's staggering...
175 pages int his tread.. Still people coming in: "I dun know what it's all about, they are just sitting in parks?"
Seriously, it's so EASY to find out what this is about and i can't see a reason to not "get" it or at least find it.
Its because the whole movement is so ambigious and vague. Anyone you ask what its all about just says something like 'its a bunch of protesters complaining about wall street corporates abusing the system'. But it doesn't specify what exactly, who exactly, or even directly what is the problem/abuse anyways.
On November 18 2011 17:30 Velr wrote: It's staggering...
175 pages int his tread.. Still people coming in: "I dun know what it's all about, they are just sitting in parks?"
Seriously, it's so EASY to find out what this is about and i can't see a reason to not "get" it or at least find it.
No it isn't easy because they have a lot of complaints (which I agree with by the way) but no real world SOLUTIONS.
Edit: And the actions they are taking (civil disobediance, distupting traffi/businesses etc) really has nothing to do with fixing problems, in fact they just create more problems for alot of regular people. So do I listen to their worlds or their actions when figuring out "What it's all about" ?
For example If they focused on gathering signatures to get some legislation on ballots to reform election finance I would really get behind that and they would actually acomplish something.
But for now we just get angry people sitting in parks and blocking cars.
On November 18 2011 17:30 Velr wrote: It's staggering...
175 pages int his tread.. Still people coming in: "I dun know what it's all about, they are just sitting in parks?"
Seriously, it's so EASY to find out what this is about and i can't see a reason to not "get" it or at least find it.
Its because the whole movement is so ambigious and vague. Anyone you ask what its all about just says something like 'its a bunch of protesters complaining about wall street corporates abusing the system'. But it doesn't specify what exactly, who exactly, or even directly what is the problem/abuse anyways.
Ok so focus on that and create nation wide ballot inititves for next years electios to outlaw this kind of abuse? Or shall we attention whore in the streets and pose for the cameras? Attention should not be the end game here, change should be.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
OK so let me get this straight... You want to tax the wealthy harshly... But the wealthy are the people that are responsible for running the businesses that provide people with most of these services... They make food that people buy, they make consumer goods that people buy, they're responsible for private college education...
So you expect the wealthy to have their taxes increased, but not jack up the cost of their products to make up lost revenue? How does this work?
See the way a real economy and distribution of wealth works, is that it is the free market that is responsible for making sure that people have access to stuff. If people don't have access to a particular product, because it's too expensive, it's not simply because the lower class doesn't have enough money. It's either because the product costs so much for the manufactorer to make that they wouldn't make a profit selling it to someone for such a low price , or because there's not enough of this product. Either way the problem is in the production (cost and amount of manufactoring.) Wealth distribution is NEVER the problem, it's wealth creation that's the problem.
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
OK so let me get this straight... You want to tax the wealthy harshly... But the wealthy are the people that are responsible for running the businesses that provide people with most of these services... They make food that people buy, they make consumer goods that people buy, they're responsible for private college education...
So you expect the wealthy to have their taxes increased, but not jack up the cost of their products to make up lost revenue? How does this work?
See the way a real economy and distribution of wealth works, is that it is the free market that is responsible for making sure that people have access to stuff. If people don't have access to a particular product, because it's too expensive, it's not simply because the lower class doesn't have enough money. It's either because the product costs so much for the manufactorer to make that they wouldn't make a profit selling it to someone for such a low price , or because there's not enough of this product. Either way the problem is in the production (cost and amount of manufactoring.) Wealth distribution is NEVER the problem, it's wealth creation that's the problem.
The wealthy can't just jack up the cost of their products to make up lost revenue. If they could change the price to increase their revenue then they would have already done it. They set the price of their products to maximize profit from the start.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
OK so let me get this straight... You want to tax the wealthy harshly... But the wealthy are the people that are responsible for running the businesses that provide people with most of these services... They make food that people buy, they make consumer goods that people buy, they're responsible for private college education...
I'm not sure if you understand the difference between personal income tax, and corporate taxes.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
OK so let me get this straight... You want to tax the wealthy harshly... But the wealthy are the people that are responsible for running the businesses that provide people with most of these services... They make food that people buy, they make consumer goods that people buy, they're responsible for private college education...
So you expect the wealthy to have their taxes increased, but not jack up the cost of their products to make up lost revenue? How does this work?
See the way a real economy and distribution of wealth works, is that it is the free market that is responsible for making sure that people have access to stuff. If people don't have access to a particular product, because it's too expensive, it's not simply because the lower class doesn't have enough money. It's either because the product costs so much for the manufactorer to make that they wouldn't make a profit selling it to someone for such a low price , or because there's not enough of this product. Either way the problem is in the production (cost and amount of manufactoring.) Wealth distribution is NEVER the problem, it's wealth creation that's the problem.
The wealthy can't just jack up the cost of their products to make up lost revenue. If they could change the price to increase their revenue then they would have already done it. They set the price of their products to maximize profit from the start.
yes they can. if redistribution of wealth occurs, then poorer people have more money to spend, so then you can charge them more. easy.
also, they wouldn't raise prices if they could... because then they would be out-competed by those having lower prices, but if you raise taxes on everyone, everyone is forced to raise the prices so you don't get out-competed.
So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
OK so let me get this straight... You want to tax the wealthy harshly... But the wealthy are the people that are responsible for running the businesses that provide people with most of these services... They make food that people buy, they make consumer goods that people buy, they're responsible for private college education...
I'm not sure if you understand the difference between personal income tax, and corporate taxes.
Or the concept of income tax, period.
Yeah I do... it decreases total revenue... forcing an increase in prices.
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
I'm quite aware that wealth inequality is economically unstable, and lead to the great depression, etc. Fine. Then remove the anecdote. Why is it unfair for someone to obey the law and make a successful business?
Your anecdote doesn't really illustrate the problem. It's basically a middle class example of a small successful business.
But even so, let's review your anecdote - your father took a big risk, quit his job, and pursued his dream. And it all worked out well and you can now use it as an argument in a debate. But what if it didn't work out?
Moreover, you need to understand that not everyone has the desire to work 15 hours a day for 10 years. This is actually what bugs me the most. You shouldn't HAVE to work 15 hours a day to avoid a shitty job and a shittier wage. Working 15 hours a day is extremely unhealthy, in every sense of the word. You can't fault people who don't want to live like that and expect a fair wage and living conditions for the standard 8 hours a day of work, and you can't measure everyone against a 15 hour per day standard, because that's a horrible standard.
There's nothing unfair about someone being wealthy and able to provide for himself a reasonable amount of luxury. But the problem is on the other end - there is plenty that's unfair about having people living in poverty or on the brink of poverty. It is wrong both because these people are actually suffering, and more importantly because it means that they are inferior and dependent in every way on people at the high end of the income curve, which is a dangerous situation to have because you have people controlling other peoples' lives and fates.
Welfare and accessible education isn't there just to help people out, it's also there to preserve the principles of equality and democracy. If your whole life depends on the whim of your current employer or you aren't being treated or paid fairly, then you are quite simply not free and you can not vote freely or act freely.
I'm not arguing against welfare. I agree completely that it's necessary. But as my opposition was talking about "Social Mobility", my story was proof that one can break the bonds of poverty with hard work and dedication. No, not everyone has the motivation to work that hard. As consequence, they will remain in the poorer class. While this seems like a harsh reality, when thought about, it is necessary.
Imagine if a regular employee was able to work an average amount of hours with average performance. My interpretation of your logic is that he should then be able to rise in his economic state. If you apply this ideal to the real world, you encounter a problem that is mathematically impossible. there is simply not enough money to pay that many people that high.
History dictates that a poor class needs to be larger that the middle and rich classes for a functional society to exist (think of a pyramid). If average work allowed in increase in wealth to occur, then the society would collapse, do to a lack of a labor force and spendable capital.
While idealistically you may be correct, those ideas applied to the real world simply do not work. I grimace at going back to the cliche "Life's not fair", but it speaks the truth in this debate. The poor classes will remain poor for the most part, without doing great things to bring them out of the poor class.
I have no problem with the fact that the majority of people will always have to remain in the lower class. The point is ensuring that lower class standard of life is still reasonable so that even these people can be fairly independent, that they have access to good education, that they don't have to worry about the most basic needs and that they're capable of having a dignified life without depending entirely on private interest. Because only then these people can retain their principles, personal integrity and freedom - which is what you need for a democracy to make any kind of sense. Otherwise they are easily manipulable and controlled by the powerful (wealthy) minority, which inevitably leads into oligarchy and that's not a fun place to be.
One problem is that "reasonable" standard of life gets defined upwards as society develops, even the poor want to "keep up with the Joneses".
On November 18 2011 17:36 Talin wrote: In order to ensure that kind of welfare, you need to tax the wealthy harshly. And this is actually good in and of itself, not only because those taxes go into improving the life of the majority of people. Because it is not only the wealth that is being redistributed, but much more importantly - power. Wealth isn't just something that allows one to have excess personal luxury - it also allows these people to influence the society and the institutions of government, and ignore, bend, bypass, change and abuse the shit out of laws which limit their ambition and stand in their way. Which again is something that slowly erodes the principles of democracy. This is why institutions of government and elected representatives of the people must always be beyond and above the private sector and private interest, and have ways to exert direct control over the private sector.
By the way, "Life's not fair" is a horrible mantra to stick by in any debate. Generations and generations of people in any country have struggled and sacrificed their own personal gain or even lives to MAKE life more fair to everyone. And when it still wasn't fair enough, they struggled to make it even more fair and better for everyone. This pursuit for the betterment and "fairness" of life is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society. What if we said "life isn't fair, society can't work any other way" back in the 17th century, or 13th century, or BC? That kind of thinking is detrimental for the development of a modern society - there is ALWAYS a way to make society more balanced and fair, and no system is set in stone as something that irreplaceable or impossible to improve upon.
While life will almost certainly never be entirely fair, it doesn't mean it's ever a good idea to accept that life isn't fair and just go with that. That would be equivalent to killing yourself because you know you're going to die eventually anyway.
The problem is, high enough levels of taxation make society Less fair, moving too much power to the people over the individuals. (ie majority exploiting the minority). Now, as you mention wealth makes that minority powerful, but if there is too much democracy, the minority will get exploited. (the 51% enslaving the 49%)
So we should definitely work to make life more fair. However, changes that some people say would make life More fair are things other people say would make life Less fair.
............................. and in relation to another poster... you are in the top 1% if you make more than ~$50,000 per year. ie anyone with a fulltime professional job. probably a sizable chunk of the Occupy movement is in the top 1% (worldwide)
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
You see using the force of government to tax haves and give to have nots as a bad thing. I see haves lobbying and buying politicians to dictate bills which would effect them in their favour as bad. Because the senate declaring pizza sauce a vegatable and keeping fries in school lunches rather then find healthier alternatives comes at the beckon of those who make these goods, not the betterment of the people.
And on my own tangent, too many associate a small business owner with the owners of large corporations. Most of whats gained any traction before being shot down in the house or senate would not effect small business owners personal income.
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
On November 18 2011 23:35 Velr wrote: Your logic would be flawless...
If the guys in charge would not earn millions upon millions from the according to you "not too expensive products" and go isntantly bankrupt with a more even payout distribution... but it's even worse, they even earn millions by just having millions on their banks doing nothing themselves to earn this money...
I don't care if you up the taxes or the payouts among "low-tier" employees... The inequality is just bad for the state, bad for business and bad for the marked... The only people profiting from the inequality are the (too) wealthy.
So wealth redistribution, basically. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, using the force of government. I'm sure we've been around this over and over again through this thread, but its also one of the only concrete, actionable demands I've seen anyone bring up for OWS.
I'm also a bit puzzled about your complaint about them having "millions on their banks," saving and investing is a bad thing now? I mean I know that's the agenda the administration has been pursuing, but I was raised to believe that savings are a positive thing.
You see using the force of government to tax haves and give to have nots as a bad thing. I see haves lobbying and buying politicians to dictate bills which would effect them in their favour as bad. Because the senate declaring pizza sauce a vegatable and keeping fries in school lunches rather then find healthier alternatives comes at the beckon of those who make these goods, not the betterment of the people.
And on my own tangent, too many associate a small business owner with the owners of large corporations. Most of whats gained any traction before being shot down in the house or senate would not effect small business owners personal income.
The easy rule of thumb is how much federal corporate tax did such large corporations pay? If they made a tax surplus and gained money there is probably something wrong, one hand washing another.
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mPF6I.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IjlFV.jpg)
