What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Antiwork 2: No One Is Getting A Pay Raise

Kepler said:
Just checking in. Retirement is great. No, I am not "getting bored." Yes, I am able to "find things to do." It's a real surprise how doing whatever the fuck I please whenever I please without worrying about what some low brow cunt with the power to ruin me turns out to, on balance, not suck.

If it is true that many people are unhappy in retirement I can only think of that as a sad commentary on a system that not only forces people into wage slavery but then removes their will and imagination to do anything else.
Click to expand...
I feel really bad for those people caught up in the myth that you *have* to constantly work hard for all of your life.

But this is hardly new, This was clearly laid out in Tom Sawyer. Just like most issues in modern life. That Samuels guy could write what he observed pretty well.
 

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Three jobs ago, my boss (who was a friend) and I had a gallows humor routine when we met every morning.

Kepler: "Can I go home?"

Boss: "Sure!"
 
Kepler said:
Three jobs ago, my boss (who was a friend) and I had a gallows humor routine when we met every morning.

Kepler: "Can I go home?"

Boss: "Sure!"
Click to expand...
"But coming back tomorrow might be an issue..."

Back when I had a real job I got a Dilbert 365-day calendar and taped panels to the walls of my cubicle the way the priest puts up pages of the Bible in The Omen. I don't think my boss liked that very much...
 
Only if the owner is working along side you, in which case he probably isn't a villain.

Everybody actually at work is a victim, even management. The enemy isn't on site. He's sitting on his ass at home accumulating money off all of you in his sleep. The enemy is Scrooge McDuck.
 
Kepler said:
Only if the owner is working along side you, in which case he probably isn't a villain.

Everybody actually at work is a victim, even management. The enemy isn't on site. He's sitting on his ass at home accumulating money off all of you in his sleep. The enemy is Scrooge McDuck.
Click to expand...
I saw a reaction on one of the SM's of a guy responding to a RW meathead claiming he's not been exploited by the wealthiest. The reactor pointed out the disparity of increased wealth and earnings from the top to the bottom over the past several decades. We all know the numbers, but it's astounding to me how many can't see that forest. That they keep voting people into office that make it so the the following can happen. It's a textbook definition of exploitation.

Long-Term Trends (1970–2018)
Data from Pew Research Center highlights the disparity in income gains over this 48-year period: [1]
  • Upper-income households: Median income grew by 64% (from \(\$126,100\) to \(\$207,400\)).
  • Middle-income households: Median income grew by 49% (from \(\$58,100\) to \(\$86,600\)).
  • Lower-income households: Median income grew by 43% (from \(\$20,000\) to \(\$28,700\)). [1]
Key Takeaways on Income Distribution
  • Inequality Growth: Since the 1970s, the, "rising income inequality" has resulted in the top 10% of earners seeing much faster income growth than the bottom 90%.
  • Aggregate Income Shift: From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate U.S. income held by middle-class households dropped from 62% to 43%, while the share held by upper-income households grew from 29% to 48%.
  • Lower-Income Share: The share of aggregate income for lower-income households fell from 10% to 9% during the same period
 
Slap Shot said:
I saw a reaction on one of the SM's of a guy responding to a RW meathead claiming he's not been exploited by the wealthiest. The reactor pointed out the disparity of increased wealth and earnings from the top to the bottom over the past several decades. We all know the numbers, but it's astounding to me how many can't see that forest. That they keep voting people into office that make it so the the following can happen. It's a textbook definition of exploitation.

Long-Term Trends (1970–2018)
Data from Pew Research Center highlights the disparity in income gains over this 48-year period: [1]
  • Upper-income households: Median income grew by 64% (from \(\$126,100\) to \(\$207,400\)).
  • Middle-income households: Median income grew by 49% (from \(\$58,100\) to \(\$86,600\)).
  • Lower-income households: Median income grew by 43% (from \(\$20,000\) to \(\$28,700\)). [1]
Key Takeaways on Income Distribution
  • Inequality Growth: Since the 1970s, the, "rising income inequality" has resulted in the top 10% of earners seeing much faster income growth than the bottom 90%.
  • Aggregate Income Shift: From 1970 to 2018, the share of aggregate U.S. income held by middle-class households dropped from 62% to 43%, while the share held by upper-income households grew from 29% to 48%.
  • Lower-Income Share: The share of aggregate income for lower-income households fell from 10% to 9% during the same period
Click to expand...
The same study should show that the upper income levels, especially the top 1%, paid less taxes, over time. So the tax burden lowered at the same time that income grew. And for the top of the top, the relative tax is lower than most wage earners.

And they hide it behind- something like "they pay 70% of the taxes" but their earnings are over 90% of all income. At a bare minimum, they should be paying the same taxes as everyone else. but they don't. Let's not forget that the cost of living may go up the richer you are, but at some point, you just can't spend that much money. And I mean spend, too- not invest, but spend.

There is no way that a billionaire can spend all of their money in their lifetime. Let alone one with 10's of billions or worse 100's of billions. It would even take a lot of effort to spend $100M. Spread 100M over 50 years of spending, you have to SPEND (not invest, so no real estate, no classic cars, spend and not get back) almost $5500 every single day. That doesn't include the fact that the $100M would probably make at least 4% interest, nor does it include that at the end of life, your high end livings has value, etc- Spend $150,000 every month. Every month you spend almost 2x the median income for an entire year of the US. Billionaires have to spend 10x that. The almost 1000 billionaires in the US make a big impact in a bad way.

So these guys keep money OUT of the economy because they hoard it. And we blame increased dollars in the economy on inflation. No, it's the money hoarding that is keeping the economy from really being good.

Kills me.
 
MichVandal said:
The same study should show that the upper income levels, especially the top 1%, paid less taxes, over time. So the tax burden lowered at the same time that income grew. And for the top of the top, the relative tax is lower than most wage earners.

And they hide it behind- something like "they pay 70% of the taxes" but their earnings are over 90% of all income. At a bare minimum, they should be paying the same taxes as everyone else. but they don't. Let's not forget that the cost of living may go up the richer you are, but at some point, you just can't spend that much money. And I mean spend, too- not invest, but spend.

There is no way that a billionaire can spend all of their money in their lifetime. Let alone one with 10's of billions or worse 100's of billions. It would even take a lot of effort to spend $100M. Spread 100M over 50 years of spending, you have to SPEND (not invest, so no real estate, no classic cars, spend and not get back) almost $5500 every single day. That doesn't include the fact that the $100M would probably make at least 4% interest, nor does it include that at the end of life, your high end livings has value, etc- Spend $150,000 every month. Every month you spend almost 2x the median income for an entire year of the US. Billionaires have to spend 10x that. The almost 1000 billionaires in the US make a big impact in a bad way.

So these guys keep money OUT of the economy because they hoard it. And we blame increased dollars in the economy on inflation. No, it's the money hoarding that is keeping the economy from really being good.

Kills me.
Click to expand...
Someone should make a movie about having to spend a lot of money in a short time with nothing to show for it - sounds like a fun premise.... :)
 
MichVandal said:
And they hide it behind- something like "they pay 70% of the taxes" but their earnings are over 90% of all income.
Click to expand...

This! This is infuriating. It's the equivalent of the baddies in Magnificent Seven taking all the food, throwing one ear of corn to the mayor, then saying "we provided you all the food you got this year. Be grateful!"

544481151634736.jpg
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
This! This is infuriating. It's the equivalent of the baddies in Magnificent Seven taking all the food, throwing one ear of corn to the mayor, then saying "we provided you all the food you got this year. Be grateful!"

544481151634736.jpg
Click to expand...
And we can't kid ourselves that they get a disproportionate amount of government support. How many billions are we spending on a war because some couple wanted us to help Israel bomb Iran? Or when companies use the government to twist the rules into their favor? Let alone when we protect the shipping lanes that they benefit more from global trading? And the freaking bail outs- rich people get so very much welfare, it's not even funny. Who can't even spend all of that welfare in their lives. When people struggle to just eat, and spend every single dollar of support they get and still can't get by.

But at least the rich double dip by buying treasury bonds and not paying tax on those profits. They are the main reason we spend way, way, way more than we take in as a country.

It really sucks that people actually think they can become rich on their own justifying the fact that their lives are made worse when they give rich people so much money that they can't come close to spending it all.

I will admit that we thrive hanging onto their coat tails. though... But we are honest paying our taxes.
 
Someone emailed an almost-company-wide email list with a random question that didn't need to go to everyone. So then you had a bunch of people replying-all to be taken off of the email thread. Then people replying-all to tell the other people not to reply-all. And now we're back to more people replying-all asking to be removed.

This laser focus on efficiency has warranted us a P/E ratio of 340.
 
MichVandal said:
But at least the rich double dip by buying treasury bonds and not paying tax on those profits. They are the main reason we spend way, way, way more than we take in as a country.
Click to expand...

I have learned this isn't true. Even if we were taxing the rich appropriately, we would still have to run budget deficits because we have to to stay afloat.

The U.S. runs a deliberate budget deficit to feed the trade deficit. We supply the global economy with dollars needed to purchase oil, creating artificial demand for the currency and facilitating petrodollar recycling. By ensuring dollars are the standard for oil transactions, the U.S. forces foreign nations to hold vast dollar reserves, which are then invested in U.S. Treasuries, financing the debt. This keeps interest rates low, while also maintaining the dollar's global reserve status and perpetuating the process.

It's a "virtuous" (ahem) cycle. The budget deficit exacerbates the trade deficit by lowering national savings and attracting foreign capital, which strengthens the domestic currency and increases imports relative to exports. The trade deficit exacerbates the budget deficit by privileging imports which siphons off demand for goods and services from American producers, lessening government tax revenue.

If we had a budget surplus, the trade deficit would decrease. The dollar would become less competitive at auction. Foreign treasuries would sell their dollars. Investment in the US would crater and interest on the debt would explode. The trap is we have to keep increasing our debt, forever, because it's the only way we can survive debt service on the debt we already have!

It's nipple clamps. They only hurt when you remove them and the blood flows back to the sensitive area.
 
Last edited:
French Rage said:
Someone emailed an almost-company-wide email list with a random question that didn't need to go to everyone. So then you had a bunch of people replying-all to be taken off of the email thread. Then people replying-all to tell the other people not to reply-all. And now we're back to more people replying-all asking to be removed.
Click to expand...

Fun fact:

The largest "reply allpocalypse" in history is the 2015 Thomson Reuters* Incident. It began when one employee in the Philippines sent an email requesting his phone be re-activated to all 33,000 employees. It ended more than 7 hours and 22.7 million emails later.
Click to expand...

* Yes, the parent company of that Reuters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top