EPTBut we digressed.
What is the current overall opinion on candidates chances, what do you think?
Some say Trump will probably win, some say no way this will happen.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4285
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ZeroByte13
795 Posts
But we digressed. What is the current overall opinion on candidates chances, what do you think? Some say Trump will probably win, some say no way this will happen. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On July 20 2024 04:21 KobraKay wrote: It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. How is it better for society when the best and brightest move elsewhere because of it? Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job. Moreover, zero said they arent going back because their wife likes the city. That is a very important piece of it that is completely detached of that payment structure. So im not really following your conclusion. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45855 Posts
On July 20 2024 04:24 ZeroByte13 wrote: Another very important incentive to not come back any time soon is that my country of origin is in the middle of a war right now. But we digressed. What is the current overall opinion on candidates chances, what do you think? Some say Trump will probably win, some say no way this will happen. I don't think any Democratic candidate - Biden or his possible replacement - has a clear advantage over Trump. At best, I think Democrats will end up with a ~50% chance of winning the election, although I think it's more realistic that Trump will have a slight edge going into November. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2715 Posts
On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. Agreed. To put myself in that space, I could see no reason for me to consider chasing higher profits in another country if my wage met my means. However, I could see it not fitting other peoples' goals - I can readily survive comfortably off ~40k a year CDN simply because I choose to live cheaply, am not married, and neither have to support children or parents (yet). I could certainly see a downside to a 'low' salary ceiling if I had ambitions to be married and support a family + 2-3 kids on a single income in my mid/late twenties. 120k a year could very quickly be insufficient for what I wanted to achieve, and I'd have to consider moving some place without that limitation to achieve my goals. I don't think the end result would be the 'best and brightest' leaving Sweden, merely the ambitious young with bigger dreams than that system would allow. That doesn't seem like a very large group. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1151 Posts
My idea to trade companies (in the billions) only publicly, was to made wealth splitable without shattering the company, so basicly take the rich people's defense away: "I have no money, it's all in the company, so I can't pay taxes or share! If you take it wee loose dem jiiiibs!" Then they go to the bank and get a 100 million dollar loan against their company... to buy a new boat. Limiting the share price should just make trading/splitting wealth easier - to actually make people afford even a full single share, so they theoreticly could take part in decision making. My problem with absurd wealth is, that is drives the need for poor people, that own less than some Million dollars (plus a house, cars, art..) to be productive to insane hights and pushes them ever further to earn money and spend it again. I read somewhere that the average english peasant worked less hours than an american adult today And it's no longer for a common goal. It's to push insane numbers on their wealth. Products today are invented with enshittification in mind - how can we get the people hooked, and then raise prices and decrease quantity and quality? Capitalism has OD'ed on cocaine, and now it's an wealth aristocracy. 9/10 billionaires have inherited their wealth. Wealth distribution is that of 14th century europe. The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way. This doesn't mean I prefer any kind of other -ism over capitalism - but we need to roll back Reagan/Thatcher. Compared to 1980 the average household has lost 40% of income - that went STRAIGHT to the top of the foodchain. And I am frankly quite crossed about it. | ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4292 Posts
On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. For you and fleetfeet both. The best leaving is not my conclusion or my wishfulthinking, it was written by zero that the most talented developers end up leaving. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On July 20 2024 15:03 KobraKay wrote: For you and fleetfeet both. The best leaving is not my conclusion or my wishfulthinking, it was written by zero that the most talented developers end up leaving. except they didn't...[emphasis mine] - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). | ||
|
KobraKay
Portugal4292 Posts
On July 20 2024 03:07 ZeroByte13 wrote: For them, I'd say. I can try to adjust my expectations but Swedish IT industry suffers a bit because of it. Talented developers who want more money have to leave Swedish IT market. People who are ok with their salary ceiling here have less incentives to improve/grow. As soon as the pandemic made remote jobs much more popular and available, the average competence in the company I work at dropped pretty significantly - many best devs got another job somewhere else, often abroad (they didn't move). Bolded the relevant point that im talking about. Im on the phone hope it worked. They didnt move means they are doing home office for a job abroad. Stay in sweden but are not subject to those restrictions because they end up working "elsewhere". So your best ones are no longer there in your productive cycle. Their skillset left for a foreign company. So when your argument is that that model is great for everyone and is working out for everyone, im saying that is not the case, its fostering mediocre performance as per zero feedback and forcing the best ones to "leave". It might be working for most, but not the best. Im not invested in this, just pointing something out. Feel free to disagree. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On July 20 2024 17:54 KobraKay wrote: Bolded the relevant point that im talking about. Im on the phone hope it worked. They didnt move means they are doing home office for a job abroad. Stay in sweden but are not subject to those restrictions because they end up working "elsewhere". So your best ones are no longer there in your productive cycle. Their skillset left for a foreign company. So when your argument is that that model is great for everyone and is working out for everyone, im saying that is not the case, its fostering mediocre performance as per zero feedback and forcing the best ones to "leave". It might be working for most, but not the best. Im not invested in this, just pointing something out. Feel free to disagree. The "best" are still paying Swedish taxes without Swedish companies having to pay their salary. Sounds like a win for Sweden to me. EDIT: Thank you for reminding me there is a new season of Cobra Kai out. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18286 Posts
On July 20 2024 17:54 KobraKay wrote: Bolded the relevant point that im talking about. Im on the phone hope it worked. They didnt move means they are doing home office for a job abroad. Stay in sweden but are not subject to those restrictions because they end up working "elsewhere". So your best ones are no longer there in your productive cycle. Their skillset left for a foreign company. So when your argument is that that model is great for everyone and is working out for everyone, im saying that is not the case, its fostering mediocre performance as per zero feedback and forcing the best ones to "leave". It might be working for most, but not the best. Im not invested in this, just pointing something out. Feel free to disagree. I don't know the tax details of Sweden, but anybody doing that in Spain has two choices: they get paid a wage in a consultancy or similar firm that does all the paperwork and stuff. The company keeps a fee/negotiated percentage of the wages. Or they become an "autónomo", in which case they themselves need to do all the bureaucracy. Autónomos pay the maximum amount in social security (it's absurd), and pay income tax the same as everybody else. I know the Netherlands is very similar and I'd expect Sweden to have a similar setup. So if Swedish social security and taxes are the main thing reducing inequality of wages, working for a foreign company in Sweden doesn't help that much. It's true you might get to keep a bit more if paid a Californian wage in Malmö, but it won't be anywhere near the same as receiving that salary in San Francisco, because you need to pay all the overhead expenses. I have a friend who does it here in Spain. He isn't doing it for the money, but because he believes in the work he's doing. From what I know all the Shopify remote jobs LinkedIn was spamming me with is also barely worth it. The biggest pay rises I can get are for making a jump to a multinational with an office in Spain. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria843 Posts
On July 20 2024 13:58 KT_Elwood wrote: The Kings own everything, the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way. That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine. Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria843 Posts
On July 20 2024 22:35 farvacola wrote: The idea that people can “household finance” themselves into wealth makes a lot of shitty people a lot of money, so much so that it constitutes an entire industry full of charlatans like the guy who hocks dozens of versions of “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” at ridiculous conferences that cost attendees hundreds of dollars. Maybe part of fixing that is to make basic financial knowledge more accessible, but at the end of the day, the reasons why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor have relatively little to do with financial acumen. Ok, can you elaborate more on that? I'm pretty sure Warren Buffett advocates a similar principle by advocating to buy stocks. He just doesn't use this asset/liability language as much as "Rich Dad, Poor Dar", sure. Is he charlatan then? I guess you may mean that you could get rich from being an entrepreneur which is also true but all of these depend on taking some financial risk. Of course you won't become rich with just paycheck and by just keeping your money in the bank. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
Understanding assets and liabilities as concepts is fine, but it’s not gonna do much for the decision making capability of someone whose basic needs cannot be fulfilled on the wage they’re paid. A major takeaway here, one that notions of personal finance cannot address, is that the material conditions of poverty are real and they do real things to the people upon whom they attend. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11826 Posts
Lets say you earn $200k net, spend only $20k a year, thus saving $180k. You invest everything you save, lets say at 5% p.a. Another guy starts with $10 million, spends $200k a year, and invests the remainder at the same conditions as you do. After 5 years of this, your net worth has increased by $995k$, and you lived basically below the poverty line during those 5 years. The net worth of the other guy has increased by $1.6 million, he didn't have to work, and he lived very nicely. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria843 Posts
On July 20 2024 23:29 Simberto wrote: You don't get rich as a normal person by saving up, simply because the actually rich people start with so much more, and that so much more increases so quickly, that it is impossible to ever catch up. Lets say you earn $200k net, spend only $20k a year, thus saving $180k. You invest everything you save, lets say at 5% p.a. Another guy starts with $10 million, spends $200k a year, and invests the remainder at the same conditions as you do. After 5 years of this, your net worth has increased by $995k$, and you lived basically below the poverty line during those 5 years. The net worth of the other guy has increased by $1.6 million, he didn't have to work, and he lived very nicely. Well, there is always someone better off than you. The guy with $10 million probably feels a lot poorer compared to Bezos, Bill Gates, Buffett, etc. It's important to set realistic goals and be happy with some wealth/money without being too obsessed with it. If your goal is to improve your life situation and not to be the richest of the richest, even in your own country, then $1M example isn't too bad either. Also, my reply was to a comment stating that ordinary people are "peasants who own fuck all, yet work harder". $1M is nothing like a peasant in my opinion, even if it takes you years or a few decades to achieve that. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11826 Posts
On July 20 2024 23:35 SC-Shield wrote: Well, there is always someone better off than you. The guy with $10 million probably feels a lot poorer compared to Bezos, Bill Gates, Buffett, etc. It's important to set realistic goals and be happy with some wealth/money without being too obsessed with it. If your goal is to improve your life situation and not to the richest of the richest, even in your own country, then $1M example isn't too bad either. Sure. But the point of my example was that even someone earning a lot of money, living basically in poverty, cannot even dream of reducing the distance to someone at the lower end of the richness scale. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26765 Posts
On July 20 2024 23:29 Simberto wrote: You don't get rich as a normal person by saving up, simply because the actually rich people start with so much more, and that so much more increases so quickly, that it is impossible to ever catch up. Lets say you earn $200k net, spend only $20k a year, thus saving $180k. You invest everything you save, lets say at 5% p.a. Another guy starts with $10 million, spends $200k a year, and invests the remainder at the same conditions as you do. After 5 years of this, your net worth has increased by $995k$, and you lived basically below the poverty line during those 5 years. The net worth of the other guy has increased by $1.6 million, he didn't have to work, and he lived very nicely. There is also the pesky problem that investments aren’t a sure-fire thing. I mean sure some are liable to be stable, pretty safe bets but the safer you go, generally the lower your margins are. If you’re making a slight RoI you’re pretty vulnerable to other economic shocks like an extended period of atypical inflation that can still leave you de facto worse off in real terms, even if your investments were actually profitable. Meanwhile you’ve lived like a monk for years in the interim. People will do that pretty commonly to buy a house here, or start a business but there is something pretty tangible, and achievable in doing such things. It’s much harder psychologically to do so if you’re looking to invest I’d imagine. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany1151 Posts
I really like what you say, but let me be blunt: F*ck economy lessons. If you can do math and read, then you can educate yourself about Stonks and you can do a little bit better... or bet everything and lose. There are some people who got lucky 30,40 or 50 years ago.. but most billionaires have inherited their wealth. They don't need to be smarter than bread. | ||
|
Razyda
959 Posts
On July 20 2024 22:21 SC-Shield wrote: That's because people are in general not taught finances in school. I don't remember being taught at school how to do budgeting, how to live below my means, what credit card debt is, etc. Maybe it's part of school curriculum nowadays, but it wasn't part of mine. Another observation is people like to play fake rich, at least in my country. Buying the latest phone brand for the sake of it, wearing branded clothes, luxury/expensive cars, etc. To realise that you need to read a book like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to know what is a liability and what is an asset. The book is oversimplification for sure, but the average person can benefit. While I'm not more than middle class, I'd still ask, why not play "kings' games" and just acquire more assets so you don't end up like "the peasant owns fuck all, yet today he works even harder to keep it that way". Anyway, this topic is probably more suited to investment/trading thread instead. They actually are it is called math. On July 20 2024 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote: It sounds like Zero, their wife, and Swedes in general have realized there's more to being happy and fulfilled than just maximizing "productivity" (especially "productivity" measured by profit sans externalities) and monetary remuneration while embracing the society developed concurrently with that general concept. Also worth noting the "best and brightest" didn't leave Sweden. You didnt address actually important part: "Based on his feedback alone in the last 2 posts, that scheme is an incentive to be mediocre or at least to half ass the job." Which is actually brutally correct and is exactly what socialism leads to. It is also one of the reasons for saying: "Only people who never lived in socialism want socialism" Regarding topic of inheritance tax mentioned earlier in this thread, I am sorry but I didnt work my a.. off my entire life so government can reap the fruits of my work, I did it so my kids have better start in life. So if any inheritance will be set which i am not a fan of I'll simply move for my last few years to a country with more reasonable government and sort the issue there. Also can people please stop using phrase "redistribution of wealth" and call it for what it is: "Stealing" | ||
| ||
