posted
For the GOP being the official party of big money, they seem to barely be a blip on the radar. This was surprising to me. Then again, I'd never heard of ActBlue either so apparently I'm not up on political donors at all.
posted
It's a nonprofit nonpartisan group from I believe the mid 80s? Founded by two congresscritters I think.
As for the list, I don't have time to read it right now and dig into it, but I suspect that especially lately, it's not so straightforward to track campaign contributions at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much what I would expect. Unions are hard dem, NRA, oil and energy hard rep while banks and big business play both sides.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only implication I would draw from that data is that Democratic donors tend to concentrate their PAC money into fewer sources with larger "pools" of money, while Republican donors tend to spread theirs out into more sources with smaller pools of money. Certainly the spending on campaigns isn't as lopsided as the top-line data at that page might seem to imply at first glance.
The data makes empirical sense, too, as labor unions have long been Democratic stalwarts, and they comprise a much larger concentration of individuals, generally speaking, than the republican-leaning organizations on the list such as the NRA and corporations like Altria (Philip Morris), RJR, and Exxon Mobil.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure the Koch donations in 2012 were somewhere along the lines of $122 million. Maybe that's their "money spent" and this is just tracking direct donations or something. Seems misleading to look at it this way? I could be wrong.
... Or possibly because they gave their own money to PACs and it wasn't Koch Industries? Not sure.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I'm pretty sure the Koch donations in 2012 were somewhere along the lines of $122 million. Maybe that's their "money spent" and this is just tracking direct donations or something. Seems misleading to look at it this way? I could be wrong.
... Or possibly because they gave their own money to PACs and it wasn't Koch Industries? Not sure.
The figure in the table is direct, traceable donations but the Kochs also have AFP and many other non-profits to funnel money through that don't show up on such charts.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Remeber, capax: if there is a straightforward finding on an enormously complicated, only partially understood dynamic, accept it at once at face value if it appears to confirm your bias.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list. Second, bear in mind the number of people each of those groups listed represents. Unions, for example, represent the interests of many thousands of people. The Koch brothers may be further down the list but they represent the interests of...well, the Koch brothers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list.
Exactly! The list is exactly what it purports to be but if people take this as the total representation of money (corporate or otherwise) into politics, and you can't even alt+f something like "Restore Our Future" (conservative PAC, raised $153,741,731) or "American Crossroads" (conservative PAC, raised $117,472,407) in it, you're making a huge mistake.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list. Second, bear in mind the number of people each of those groups listed represents. Unions, for example, represent the interests of many thousands of people. The Koch brothers may be further down the list but they represent the interests of...well, the Koch brothers.
Let's be fair. The Koch Brothers represent the interests of American Billionaire Sociopaths. So it's like at least 10 people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
Hey look is on the crazy train "Soros" bandwagon!
2016 is going to be amazing.
quote: This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Meaningless buzzwords, also undermines your supposed point, if the party that is against money in politics is the biggest benefactor as you seem to believe wouldn't that make them more principled?
That and, what's wrong with getting money out of politics? Shouldn't it be about the issues with both sides using an roughly equal amount of public funds for their campaigns? Or rather, a plethora, a dodecahedron if you will, of sides who now have a chance to make their views known without having to be outspent 10:1 by either the DNC or GOP?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey look is on the crazy train "Soros" bandwagon!
#1: Pronouns are important. #2: I'm not talking about George Soros, though he is one of them. I'm talking about Bill Gates (That whole MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, or did you not know that? Yes, the channel that spends more time talking about what they said on Fox News the other day rather than things that are relevant.) and Warren Buffett (How much money do you think he had to donate before someone was willing to try and pass a law with his name on it?) and a load of other Billionaires that support the machines of the Democratic party.
They most certainly exist and push the Democratic party just like they exist and push the Republican party. Or did you not realize that modern politics was the only real way that billionaires can get their kicks?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
I said billionaire sociopaths, not megalomaniacal billionaires. There's a difference.
quote: #2: I'm not talking about George Soros, though he is one of them. I'm talking about Bill Gates (That whole MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, or did you not know that? Yes, the channel that spends more time talking about what they said on Fox News the other day rather than things that are relevant.) and Warren Buffett (How much money do you think he had to donate before someone was willing to try and pass a law with his name on it?) and a load of other Billionaires that support the machines of the Democratic party.
First off, I am as quick to say that I think BIll Gates is a horrific influence on education in the US as I would be if he was a Republican. And don't even get me started on his business practices. His other work is a site better than that being pursued by the Koch Brothers, and even his education stuff, while it infuriates me, isn't exactly self-serving.
Same goes for Warren Buffet, frankly. While he's indeed a powerful player, he has made very plain statements about what should be done in terms of taxation, and none of it was in his favor. He's on record as saying that our system is tipped unfairly in his own favor.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
Anyway, it should be pointed out that both Gates and Buffet are trying to build legacies for themselves now. Why else is it the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" and not something less, I don't know, vain?
And Warren Buffet's statements are very similar. He's trying to make himself remembered. He's gonna be dead within the next few decades, so who cares if what he says about taxation is *actually* a good idea? But it *does* play into the social stigmas of a specific group of people and gets him a pass from the fact that he is *still a freaking billionaire* and didn't get there by being a nice guy.
Let's also not forget that in his professional world, he does just as much to avoid taxation as every other billionaire. His words and actions don't exactly mesh (Yes, I know he lives in the same 6000 square foot house he bought in the 70s. How many other properties does he own?) The fact that he supports the same ideals as you shouldn't excuse him from the same scrutiny you place on people who support opposing ideals.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
This is an irrelevant and unqualified assertion.
But lets get to the crux of why your argument is bullshit, you are trying to draw with zero evidence a false equivalence; you are literally saying that because the Democrats also have wealthy backers, the Democrats are 'just as bad' and for some reason this means not actually trying to fix whatever is the current issue that's wrong with the system.
It is only sufficient to point out that your argumentation is composed nearly entirely of weak rationalizations and dismiss it as the waste of time that it is.
It is also sufficient to point out that the super rich backing the GOP are actively looting the American middle class, while the Democratic ones it is sufficient that they aren't Randoids.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
quote: Let's also not forget that in his professional world, he does just as much to avoid taxation as every other billionaire. His words and actions don't exactly mesh (Yes, I know he lives in the same 6000 square foot house he bought in the 70s. How many other properties does he own?) The fact that he supports the same ideals as you shouldn't excuse him from the same scrutiny you place on people who support opposing ideals
He's not above my scrutiny, believe me. And were I him, frankly I hope I would do what I think I would do, which would be *not* to be him.
But at the same time, he argues against the status quo that enables him to be so powerful *because* he doesn't see another rational way to act. He argues that rational actors don't *not* take advantage of our tax system and our financial system, and for that reasons, he wants those systems changed. For me, at least, that's much preferable to a person who pretends that everything's just fine in a system that allows a single person to wield such dizzying influence on society.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [qb] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
Wasn't attempting to refute, just pointing out that the problem of excessive individual financial power drives both sides of the political spectrum in the US.
As for the way it works, with individuals getting so much power, first I'd like to point out that calling it irrational is a serious misuse of the term. The system follows rules and has a great deal of logic behind it. The proof of that is the simple fact that individuals are able to take advantage of the system to obtain power. An irrational system would be completely random in its selection of power. Monarchy is an irrational system. Capitalism is not irrational.
Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc. Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Personally, I would rather try to inject some morality into the system than try to burn it down. There are a lot of companies that are being extremely successful by acting with an eye toward morality (Google, though they are getting less so as they grow, and CostCo, for instance). Personally, I think the best way to fix the system is for moral people to work their way into the system and change it from the inside, rather than trying to get the government to tear it down.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should also consider the fact that before he said anything about taxation, most people under 50 probably thought Warren Buffet was a really good Island rock singer.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc. Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
First, I should say I disagree pretty strongly that capitalism and capitalistic impulses are necessarily amoral, either of themselves or because they flow (somewhat) from notions of natural selection. In amoral nature, where the vast majority of organisms cannot be said to have even a sliver of self-awareness, 'nature red in tooth and claw' can fairly be said to be amoral.
However, as human beings we are both of nature yet not in a state of nature. It can no longer be said that for a powerful human to act on predatory impulses which certainly exist in nature at the expense of less powerful humans is amoral, is simply being natural. The lion doesn't carefully consider whethe it needs a particular numbe of calories at a given time-it hunts pretty much anytime it hasn't recently gorged, or is engaged in moving or defense or mating. Those same impulses don't hold true for being amoral in capitalism. The billionaire, whether Koch or Buffett, under no rational evaluation needs another million dollars, but will often make decisions that harm the livelihoods of many less powerful humans. Sometimes this results in a greater net good, but that's basically never the primary motivation. If we encountered a lion that hunted strictly or mostly from a joy in killing, having left intact kills behind it to pursue another hunt, we would probably think something was wrong.
Capitalism is a system of economics, and so as a whole it can be said I think that it is amoral. A case can be made there. But by no means does it then follow that all practitioners are amoral when they engage in capitalism. Gambling is amoral, to my mind at least. Gambling to excess is not.
As for the rest, I fail to see how this transitions into an examination of monarchies-a political rather than economic system, and it doesn't even transition perfectly to a comparison to communism which is not just economic. But even if it did, your criticism of communism seems to cut capitalism as well, because communism must surely be equally amoral in theory by your standards, but in practice it becomes something different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism? Through joining his voice to the public debate just as much as the various Very Serious People who think raising the minimum wage to a living wage is Socialism?
The whole feed a man a fish/teach a man a fish parable might be useful here, giving charity organizations a billion dollars might help a lot of people, but getting more Democrats elected insures a lot MORE people are helped.
What good is giving a billion to charity if the Republicans will just end up doubling the number of people who need charity? Its better to simply not have people who need it, prevention is superior to the cure.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism? Through joining his voice to the public debate just as much as the various Very Serious People who think raising the minimum wage to a living wage is Socialism?
The whole feed a man a fish/teach a man a fish parable might be useful here, giving charity organizations a billion dollars might help a lot of people, but getting more Democrats elected insures a lot MORE people are helped.
What good is giving a billion to charity if the Republicans will just end up doubling the number of people who need charity? Its better to simply not have people who need it, prevention is superior to the cure.
You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
I mean, I "lived" on about 450 dollars a month during two years of my life (When the minimum wage at the time would have had me making double that). In college I "lived" on student loans and 30 dollars a week (for perspective, two years of student loans equaled 12000 dollars for me). What, exactly, is a "living wage"? Quantify it. Seriously. Try it. Also, how many people do you think would actually benefit from an increase to minimum wage, that *aren't* teenagers and college students? Because an estimated 75% of all individuals making minimum wage right now are under 25. College age.
And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live? Raise the wage of grocery store workers and the grocery stores have to raise prices to cover the difference. Did you also know that if you were to raise the average Walmart employee's wage by 3 dollars an hour it would put Walmart about 20-30 billion dollars a year into the red? I mean this is very simple cause and effect stuff here.
Also, getting more democrats elected would probably only *help* the democrats that get elected. Have you seriously examined the welfare system in the US? Do you realized that it keeps more people *in* poverty than it helps out of poverty? 60% of people on welfare stay on welfare for longer than a year. Only 19-20% actually use welfare for less than a year, which is how it would work for everyone the way you guys describe the "Social safety net". Unless of course, your definition of "help" is to "maintain apathy."
What you don't seem to realize is that the very thing people in poverty need is absolutely impossible for the government to provide. People in poverty need someone to give a crap about them. Actually get to know them and figure out what they really *need*. Money is a resource that allows people to get things they want, but it doesn't always help people get what they *need*.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
Or "job creator." Or "pro-life." Right?
----------
quote:People in poverty need someone to give a crap about them. Actually get to know them and figure out what they really *need*. Money is a resource that allows people to get things they want, but it doesn't always help people get what they *need*.
But in the interim, they need money. Because we can't legislate caring, but we can legislate a solution that gets them enough to feed their kids.
quote:Raise the wage of grocery store workers and the grocery stores have to raise prices to cover the difference.
You know which retailers are doing badly right now? The ones that cater to the poor and middle class, because the poor and middle class have no money. Giving the poor and middle class more money will help those retailers more than it will hurt them in lost wages.
We are actually living in an era of record corporate profits. Why not pressure them to give some of those profits back in the form of wages?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
Or "job creator." Or "pro-life." Right?
In case he doesn't answer: right!
Well, mostly right. All those terms are designed to elicit an emotion response in lieu of an actual argument. Some of them are more disconnected or nonsensical than others. But yeah, they're all bad except maybe as a shorthand reference to a well known position.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live?
Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
*boom headshot*
I'm also hearing a whole lot of "whaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn", my entire University engineering education is free thanks to the social safety net and when I graduate I'll be making 50,000 a year in many entree level positions and whatever debts I do have gone after maybe a year or two depending on how diligent I am in paying them down.
How do you like that? That I, across the border did not have to suffer any of your humiliating lack of basic human dignity, its not fair isn't it?
Because life isn't fair, there is NO such thing as a Just World and that the only way to change that is to FORCE IT to be more fair through redistribution of wealth. Which in many First World Western countries is accomplished through the Social Safety net and progressive taxation and strong labour laws.
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
Interestingly, this is not the "headshot" you expect, Blayne. McDonald's has three primary cost sinks, and labor is one of them. If they redesign their stores so they require more cashiers, the burgers do need to get more expensive or volume needs to go up disproportionately. It's telling that so many companies are moving to remote drive-through call centers, just to cut down on that one employee at the window.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The direct relation between wages->costs is what's flawed though, which studies show something like an 80% rise in wages would only at best, translate to around 23% rise in the cost to the consumer (and since most consumers are the same people being paid minimum wage this is sustainable).
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Except that is not what happens. Wealth (and attendant power) is, in the US, as almost as much a matter of lineage as any monarchy. The major determining factor of how much wealth you end up with is how much wealth your parents have. This wasn't always true and there are some exceptions but it is getting worse. Wealth mobility in the US is considerably worse than in more progressive countries where people really can rise to the top based on drive and desire and merit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
Interestingly, this is not the "headshot" you expect, Blayne. McDonald's has three primary cost sinks, and labor is one of them. If they redesign their stores so they require more cashiers, the burgers do need to get more expensive or volume needs to go up disproportionately. It's telling that so many companies are moving to remote drive-through call centers, just to cut down on that one employee at the window.
Also McDonald's can afford a small loss at a particular store due to its massive size. The loss can be absorbed throughout the corporation. Especially if it's expected to be temporary.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it cannot afford an increase in the minimum wage to 10.10$ an hour? Well maybe it deserves to fail then. Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Except that is not what happens. Wealth (and attendant power) is, in the US, as almost as much a matter of lineage as any monarchy. The major determining factor of how much wealth you end up with is how much wealth your parents have. This wasn't always true and there are some exceptions but it is getting worse. Wealth mobility in the US is considerably worse than in more progressive countries where people really can rise to the top based on drive and desire and merit.
Got a cite handy for that claim?
If not that's cool, I can google it later. I'm not trying to pick an argument, just genuinely curious where this was reported and what methodologies were used. It's interesting to me. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Somalia is above Zimbabwe? I'm a bit surprised by that.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism?
So it's one or the other? "My secretary pays a higher income tax rate than I do and it's not right. I'm definitely keeping the resulting cash, mind you, but I'm here to tell you that this is unfair and should be changed."
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem there is, yknow, in the case of the secretary that wasn't actually said, since it's being used as an example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it's a semi-hypothetical but I believe the net result is both valid and common. Hey I get it, they want to wait until everyone has to comply before they personally contribute to the changes they are advocating. It actually makes perfect sense. And it's hypocritical, IMO.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live?
Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
*boom headshot*
I'm also hearing a whole lot of "whaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn", my entire University engineering education is free thanks to the social safety net and when I graduate I'll be making 50,000 a year in many entree level positions and whatever debts I do have gone after maybe a year or two depending on how diligent I am in paying them down.
How do you like that? That I, across the border did not have to suffer any of your humiliating lack of basic human dignity, its not fair isn't it?
Because life isn't fair, there is NO such thing as a Just World and that the only way to change that is to FORCE IT to be more fair through redistribution of wealth. Which in many First World Western countries is accomplished through the Social Safety net and progressive taxation and strong labour laws.
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Blayne, I'm going to try to respond respectfully to this, despite the complete lack of it coming from you...
1. Yes, hiring an extra cashier will increase the cost of a burger if that cashier is not cashiering. There is a lot more complexity and planning that goes into hiring practices than you realize.
2. Do you actually have a signed contract with a company saying that they will hire you after you graduate? If not, you should not expect that 50,000 dollar entry level job to be there for you. Doing so is delusional. And given your level of maturity and significant difficulties in dealing with actual people that most of your posts exhibit, I doubt very seriously you will be able to get a job that pays that much in short order, and you are going to have a very difficult time making much more than that. Engineering may not require much in the way of personality, but you'll very quickly realize that being too abrasive with people will cripple your career. I realize you have some disabilities in that area, but if people don't want to work with you on a team, you're never going to get anywhere.
3. Did I say I *currently* live on 450 a month? No. I didn't. In fact, I currently make 10 times that after taxes and the significant amount I donate to charity. I work as an IT consultant. I've earned about double the average IT admin salary for 3 years now. 5 years before that, I made a quarter of what I make now. Would you like to know how I did that? I learned how the system works and used it to my advantage.
About 5 years ago I was suffering financially and finally decided to get my butt in gear on building my knowledge and skills. I got my first IT certification. Then I made some goals and disciplined myself to meet them. I forced myself to stop playing video games until I got an MCSA. It took 3 months. 1 month later I was an MCSE. 3 months after that the company I worked for gave me a 4,000 dollar raise (at the time this was more than 10%). I was grateful, but while discussing the raise with my boss I told him I had a friend across the country who wanted to get me a job with the company he worked for at twice the pay. A week later I received another raise for an additional 12,000 dollars. I used a strangely misunderstood rule of business to my advantage. You are worth what someone is willing to pay you. If you think you are worth more than you make, go out and prove it.
4 months later I had another friend that offered to get me a job working with a government contractor. Because of my certifications and the fact that I got a DoD secret clearance after less than a week of arbitration they offered me a job for an additional 12,000 dollars a year.
Now, all of this basically adds up to me nearly doubling my paycheck in less than a year. Guess when this all happened...from September 2008 to May 2009. During the *worst recession in several decades* I went from 34000 a year to 62,000 a year. I got 10 percent more a year later when I got sick of government consulting (totally an eye opening experience) and went back to private sector work. This means that during the height of the recession I got 3 different jobs and had no more than 2 weeks of unemployment. And all of this happened because I finally decided that I was sick of just scraping by and started doing what I could to change my situation.
One more anecdote. My father works in the Electrical Contracting industry. He never went to college (until I was a teenager and he took some math courses at Community College in NC). He raised a family of 5 kids without a dual income for 15 years on 30-40 thousand dollars a year. This lasted until I was about 13 years old and we got our first computer. With it, my father taught himself to program in Basic, then Visual basic, then he taught himself to program PLCs for industrial machinery. Within 3 years he had started his own business, and was subcontracting for the company he worked for as an industrial programmer. Right now he's a millionaire, vice president of the company he still works for after 24 years, and currently spending about a thousand dollars a month to help my sister, who is a recovering drug addict and makes just enough to not qualify for any kind of government support, but not nearly enough to care for two kids on her own (Though she, too, is gaining traction in her career as a CPA). And then, would you like me to tell you about my brother, who started out as an engineer, but is currently working his way to C level executive with great speed (he's a millionaire now, too).
So I'll just use this to explain why, when someone complains about how people in the US can't succeed any more because rich people this and rich people that, I can't help but call that a load of hogwash. My experience and the experiences of just about everyone in my life have proven that to be completely untrue.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question, Boris: did your family take advantage of the substantial Mormon safety net and network of government consultants? Because your story isn't that uncommon, but the only people I know personally who have that background got their first "career-launching" jobs by being Mormon around Mormons.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Blayne, I'm going to try to respond respectfully to this, despite the complete lack of it coming from you...
There is a profound lack of empathy for the suffering of everyday Americans, suffering that would be vastly and substantially eliminated by adopting reforms that were proven effective in any developing country you could name; and only fairly disingenuous and unresearched hem-hawing as to why 'the greatest country in the world' can't reduce poverty.
quote: 1. Yes, hiring an extra cashier will increase the cost of a burger if that cashier is not cashiering. There is a lot more complexity and planning that goes into hiring practices than you realize.
This is largely a Non-sequitor that doesn't address the actual economics of wages, which again, by example look at Canada, I'm paid 10.10$ to do Software QA, i.e Quebecs minimum wage and yet where's the societal collapse?
quote: 2. Do you actually have a signed contract with a company saying that they will hire you after you graduate? If not, you should not expect that 50,000 dollar entry level job to be there for you. Doing so is delusional. And given your level of maturity and significant difficulties in dealing with actual people that most of your posts exhibit, I doubt very seriously you will be able to get a job that pays that much in short order, and you are going to have a very difficult time making much more than that. Engineering may not require much in the way of personality, but you'll very quickly realize that being too abrasive with people will cripple your career. I realize you have some disabilities in that area, but if people don't want to work with you on a team, you're never going to get anywhere.
This is hilariously off topic, again, address the actual argument; I have a subsidized University education, I thus have job mobility to not work terrible dehumanizing work in order to achieve my life goals. My point, is to show how pointless your suffering is, and completely unremarkable except to highlight the unfairness embedded in "American Exceptionalism", which, in case it isn't clear, I say with complete sarcasm.
quote: 3. Did I say I *currently* live on 450 a month? No. I didn't. In fact, I currently make 10 times that after taxes and the significant amount I donate to charity. I work as an IT consultant. I've earned about double the average IT admin salary for 3 years now. 5 years before that, I made a quarter of what I make now. Would you like to know how I did that? I learned how the system works and used it to my advantage.
I do not believe I said or implied this was your current arrangement, only that, well, see above.
quote: So I'll just use this to explain why, when someone complains about how people in the US can't succeed any more because rich people this and rich people that, I can't help but call that a load of hogwash. My experience and the experiences of just about everyone in my life have proven that to be completely untrue
Here's the problem, you do not understand economics, or trends, or how they relate to each other and to everyday people. You seem to rely a lot on rather irrelevant personal anectdotes about how you "bootstrapped" your way to success (disregarding you know, how they're is obviously a lot of stuff, government subsidized stuff, you took advantage of in some way or other) but its not germane to the actual situation.
What is German is that the middle class is being squeezed, that the rich are richer than they have ever been, more unaccountable than they have ever been, and never been less willing to pay their fairshare or invest in their home country than ever before; and yet all too willing to pool their substantial wealth into picking winners, losers, and enriching themselves at the expense of the average American (i.e, Tax cuts) and that there are consequences to society when 80% of the wealth is being hoarded.
Why is the American infrastructure allowed to crumble? Why are government jobs and funding for programs being cut? Why are food stamps and SNAP aid being cut? Education funding? Well because to pay for these things taxation is required and the rich have thrown a large amount of money into not having to pay for it; and these are things, that are not debatable, they are required for a civil society to function.
Thanks to Obamacare hundreds of thousands no longer need to remain employed to afford basic access to healthcare; and yet, this is something, that you would appear to believe isn't right; that there isn't a social contract to mandate this.
There are clear economic benefits for having a population that is education, and not stuck in perpetual poverty or forced to work multiple jobs.
CEO wages have increased by over 15 fold since the 40's but the average factory workers wages have remained static, there are consequences, and we're seeing them clear as day; the United States economy is not healthy.
quote: So it's one or the other? "My secretary pays a higher income tax rate than I do and it's not right. I'm definitely keeping the resulting cash, mind you, but I'm here to tell you that this is unfair and should be changed."
Because at the end of the day he is still a capitalist, just one with enough empathy to point out the injustice and work some gestures to salve his conscience but he isn't going to turn over his business over to the workers.
The United States is a two party capitalist dictatorship, that all of the capitalist class are class enemies doesn't change that its clearly recognizable that some are not as obviously evil as the Koch brothers.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I...Elison, I *know* you're familiar with all three of the most common definitions of that last term there. So you're perfectly aware, or should be, of how silly that description is. It's a dictatorship...governed by *two* political parties...whose members are chosen in free though flawed public elections?
I realize this is that thing you do where connotation and actual definitions bleed together and you expect everyone else to net roll with it, but that's a tedious and counteproductive way to go about a discussion. I say that as someone who disagrees pretty strongly with the capitalist paradise Boris imagines the US to be based on anecdotes, and scorns the notion that the 1% opposes a raise in minimum wage for anything other than capitosfic-that is, self-interest-reasons.
Put down the Kool-Aid, and come back to the rest of the letters of the political alphabet, not just the X-Files.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, Boris, a quick once over reveals at least three or four points in which your story of heroic self-improvement becomes a little more complicated than 'I did it through hard work and discipline'. I'd be interested in talking about it, but if you're as devoted to that narrative as it seems I'm skeptical there would be much point in it.
Just as an example for either NC or AZ, your father's income as you described it would be as much as roughly 40-90% more than the state mean income. That's just for starters, right on up into the 90s.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Question, Boris: did your family take advantage of the substantial Mormon safety net and network of government consultants? Because your story isn't that uncommon, but the only people I know personally who have that background got their first "career-launching" jobs by being Mormon around Mormons.
No, they didnt. I grew up in north carolina, so that whole working for other mormons thing doesnt apply. I went to byu idaho, but studied english, not IT. I am completely self taught in my professional life. My brother went to byu, and graduated with a 3.9 gpa, so he had companies across the countey foaming at the mouth to get him. But you have just made an interesting point I dont think you realize. That being that a privately run organization is very capable of helping people succeed, and in fact does a significantly better job than the federal government at doing so.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Incidentally, Boris, a quick once over reveals at least three or four points in which your story of heroic self-improvement becomes a little more complicated than 'I did it through hard work and discipline '. I'd be interested in talking about it, but if you're as devoted to that narrative as it seems I'm skeptical there would be much point in it.
Yes, i know that having good friends did a lot as well, but the jobs made available to me through those connections would have been completely unavailable to me without the effort made at self improvement. If there are other points you are welcometo voice them. (Tablet keypads suck)
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not suggesting you didn't do hard work to get where you are, I'm pointing out that your hard work was able to take you much further than someone without those numerous connections-and that your ability to do that hard work was impacted substantially by circumstances which you did little yourself to deserve, because of the lottery of birth.
Your father, as stated, made a significant amount greater than the state average. Potentially a great deal more, but you stated it in a way that seemed to suggest he struggled to get by. You don't mention your mother, so I don't know whether you had a two parent household. For argument's sake let's say you did.
Right there are two substantial to major indicators of adult success-number of parents and income. Your hard work had nothing to do with either of these things. I'm assuming your parents instilled values and hopefully education when you were young such that you were less likely to fall into the difficulties of substance abuse or very young parenthood-two more boons in your favor that you won thanks to a lottery, though your own discipline comes more into play here.
Skipping ahead a bit, you apparently were at leisure when younger to work a bit and otherwise goof off playing video games-potentially a pretty expensive hobby. Fresh out of high school, do you think that's an option for everyone? You mention college, so fresh out of *college* in fact.
Who paid for that college that you apparently by your own story don't use for your job now? Whether through your parents or your own academics, had you been born to less affluent presumably forward thinking, ambitious parents, do you think it's just as likely you would have gone to college? Even if you took on student loans entirely, which doesn't sound like it's the case, is this truly an equal option for everyone?
Long story short-too late!-it's not about anyone, well anyone not waiting for the revolution-saying you didn't work hard. Mostly it's about pointing out that depending on circumstances unrelated to your hard work, some of which may simply have been luck, your hard work returns minimal, solid, huge or even negative outcomes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That being that a privately run organization is very capable of helping people succeed, and in fact does a significantly better job than the federal government at doing so.
Organizations who can cherry-pick the candidates they want to help succeed do indeed do better than organizations that are supposed to help everyone, especially the poorest candidates with the fewest personal connections.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey I get it, they want to wait until everyone has to comply before they personally contribute to the changes they are advocating. It actually makes perfect sense. And it's hypocritical, IMO.
No, it's not that at all. It's that one person, even one of the wealthiest in America, is not in a position to meaningfully and sustainably affect the changes they advocate through unilateral action. If he pays higher taxes, even *much* higher taxes, but no one else does it's just a blip on the radar. Meanwhile a portion of the fortune he's amassed and already committed to philanthropic purposes would essentially disappear into the ether.
It's the same reason that I advocate for universal healthcare, even if it's going to cost a lot of money, but don't intend to write a check for the balance of my 401k to my local hospital. It's a good policy to advocate (IMO, of course) but not one I can implement on my own and I'm not being a hypocrite by failing to make a futile token gesture in that direction.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting you didn't do hard work to get where you are, I'm pointing out that your hard work was able to take you much further than someone without those numerous connections-and that your ability to do that hard work was impacted substantially by circumstances which you did little yourself to deserve, because of the lottery of birth.
Your father, as stated, made a significant amount greater than the state average. Potentially a great deal more, but you stated it in a way that seemed to suggest he struggled to get by. You don't mention your mother, so I don't know whether you had a two parent household. For argument's sake let's say you did.
I make a good deal of money in terms of the local economy (150% of average, though it wouldn't be considered much in the States). That I was able to take the risks that I did to pursue the career path I have is thanks, in no minor part, to my parentage and to my parent's money.
Just the idea that I won't starve if I don't work for a year or more has made me willing to take professional risks, and try things my friends without that level of support haven't been able to. Just this year, the month I got married, I left one job for a chance to work on something more interesting, for half the pay. The new job turned into something that payed more than the previous position.
I would never have taken that risk if I hadn't had rich parents. Never. Not afraid to admit that. Why should I be?
What baffles me about the conservative narrative is that people are really able to tell themselves that they succeed on their own- that their circumstances don't heavily influence their opportunities (if not their chances of success). You don't have to believe you don't deserve what you have, to understand that you are lucky.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [qb] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
Wasn't attempting to refute, just pointing out that the problem of excessive individual financial power drives both sides of the political spectrum in the US.
Meh. False equivalence. Money corrupts, verily. But financial power has driven the conservative side of the spectrum in America far, far harder. You want to make some quibble about it corrupting liberals, fine. It does. But the effects of its corruptive power in the hands of conservatives is, in all practical terms, the real problem.
quote: As for the way it works, with individuals getting so much power, first I'd like to point out that calling it irrational is a serious misuse of the term. The system follows rules and has a great deal of logic behind it. The proof of that is the simple fact that individuals are able to take advantage of the system to obtain power. An irrational system would be completely random in its selection of power. Monarchy is an irrational system. Capitalism is not irrational.
No, capitalism is not, in itself, rational as an economic system. While it is based in the notion of rational actors, the sum of rational decisions does not, alone, produce rational results. A system that is non-rational is not de facto *irrational,* but following a system that doesn't produce rational results without severely qualified exceptions is irrational on its face. It is irrational to follow a non-rational approach.
quote: Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc.
Aside from your creepy social-darwinism here, you're not accurately characterizing either "the laws of natural selection," nor economic theory very accurately. Or with any degree of accuracy.
I can understand why your fringe understanding of natural selection helps you sleep at night, forced as you are to collocate your sense of fear at the possibility that you live in a basically random universe, with the knowledge that you are lucky. You clearly want to justify your luck in life as the result of your natural "selection," to succeed. Well, you were selected, but calling such a process natural, or rational, is a stretch and a half.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
