Occupy Wall Street

Mostly dank memes.

Moderators: mogers, scorch-, Cory Cory! Price, laura

BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Can't talk to someone who believes the world is that simple.
I don't consider myself simple minded.
You're implying a fucking kid, someone who is 17-18, is capable of fully understanding the implications of his/her actions when he/she goes to college and has loans.
Of course many don't understand. Since when is ignorance and being naive an excuse for taking responsibility?

Let's be realistic here. If I was 18 and shot someone in their face with a gun, a jury would say you knew damn what the implications of your actions were. Yet, if I borrow $100,000 with little to no hope for a job after, will that same jury look at this and say "well he had no idea what the implications of his actions were"? If this person isn't smart enough to see possible problems, then I would argue that he or she is not smart enough for college to begin with.
Education should be affordable to EVERYONE.
It should? Says who? Who's going to pay for it? Afterall, this is the real world with limited finances and resources.

I would argue this attitude is the very idea that's causing the problem. College ISN'T for everyone. Too many people are going to college, and you're seeing a collapse in the student loan/college bubble just like we saw in housing. It's the same game with a different name, and it always ends in disaster.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:Of course many don't understand. Since when is ignorance and being naive an excuse for taking responsibility.

Let's be realistic here. If I was 18 and shot someone in their face with a gun, a jury would say you knew damn what the implications of your actions were. Yet, if I borrow $100,000 with little to no hope for a job after, will that same jury look at this and say "well he had no idea what the implications of his actions were". If this person isn't smart enough to see possible problems, then I would argue that he or she is not smart enough for college to begin with.
Are we comparing shooting someone in the face to pursuing school without going into debt for the rest of your life?
It should? Says who? Who's going to pay for it? Afterall, this is the real world with limited finances and resources.

I would argue this attitude is the very idea that's causing the problem. College ISN'T for everyone. Too many people are going to college, and you're seeing a collapse in the student loan/college bubble just like we saw in housing. It's the same game with a different name, and it always ends in disaster.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a- ... -students/

Other countries can do it. Why shouldn't we?
gwolf_ wrote:The kid is not, the parents should help the kid. A lot of what Musburger is saying is true its just things that we don't want to hear. I was lucky to be the youngest in my family. I saw my brother go to college, graduate phi beta kappa with a liberal arts degree and not be able to find a job other than working front desk at a hotel. He then went to law school..

When I started college I began as a liberal arts major but quickly started to realize it wasn't going to get me a job when i graduated. I then changed my major to accounting and went on to get a masters in it as well. I graduated in July and almost everyone who graduated from my class has a job or is signed up for a job(I don't start until January so I get to play DOD A LOT while I take my cpa exams LOL)

On the same token I have many friends who majored in liberal arts who are just as smart as I am if not smarter, and just as good of work ethics if not better struggling to find work. Its shitty out there, you gotta protect yourself.
I've already conceded that it's true. I have no problem with students having to be in debt after school. But...for their entire lives? For 20, 30, 40 years? The hell does that say about our society and our rewards for pursuing an education?

I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but deciding to pursue a history major shouldn't entail the responsibility of living with excessive debt for...ever...
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Are we comparing shooting someone in the face to pursuing school without going into debt for the rest of your life?
I'll put it this way. If I was on a jury, and an 18 year old looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of taking out $100,000 in loans" I would consider it on par as an insult to my intelligence as if they looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of shooting this person".
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but deciding to pursue a history major shouldn't entail the responsibility of living with excessive debt for...ever...
Why?

Someone has to pay. Nothing is free in this world.
Other countries can do it. Why shouldn't we?
Because America is built on greed and money.

Other countries have weeks and weeks off and any number of rediculous things that will never happen in America. Our culture is work work work earn earn earn.

The rules of the game are in view. Follow the rules of the game, or lose.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.

you can pursue knowledge all you want without ever going into a school if you wish. the advent of the internet has virtually eliminated the need to go to school. one day employers will recognize this and start using tests that actually relate to the job to determine a candidates worth, not if they have a degree or not.

i read a lot of stuff from mises.org, doesnt make me an economics major, but i can understand a lot of the general theory just from browsing the articles when im on my phone and pooping.

the reason you cant seem to relate to any of my arguments kirk, is because you refuse to change your view. if we removed government influence in higher education, we lower the amount of graduates, thereby increasing demand for schools to get new students. schools will compete with one another and that will lower the costs of higher education. the fun part about that, is schools will cater towards what the job markets need as time progresses. companies like to recruit straight from college if they can, and they will give equipment and teaching resources to schools who are willing to teach classes that directly benefit them. our country doesnt NEED all the college graduates we have today, we dont have the jobs to cover all the degrees being given.

with all the that... most degrees students receive are virtually worthless in a lot of higher paying or manufacturing related jobs. some companies go out of there way to pay for the tuition and living expenses of students so they will get degrees in engineering and mathematics so they can then higher that person. we have a market flooded with degrees in the arts, and failing with degrees in medical, math or engineering. the decision to get a degree in art history instead of engineering is your decision, no one elses. accept the fact that you took a degree in a saturated field.

you can get drafted at 18(sign up at 17), you can buy a gun at 18, you are tried as an adult when you are 18. you are an adult when you are 17/18 and are held accountable for all other decisions you make in life, whats different about this one?

nothing you say? correct you are.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.
I'll agree with you 100%.

Our parents used to be lucky to have a family car. ALmost no one had a TV. It was a treat to SPLIT Mcdonalds for my parents. They may have got one gift at Christmas. Go back another generation and it gets less extravagent.

The age of irrational exuberence built a generation that is coddled and has no understanding of how ugly things can get. Of how EASY AND UNSTAINABLE our lifestyle truely was.


People used to be happy to eat at all. Look at what we eat today. Look at what kids get for christmas for the last 20 years. X boxes. Iphones. Familes have 3-4 cars one for each kid. Tvs in every kids room. X boxes. You name it. Americans had it all.


The idea people are owed these educations is the height of insanity.


I agree with almost everything you said in that entire last post, Unpro.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:I'll put it this way. If I was on a jury, and an 18 year old looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of taking out $100,000 in loans" I would consider it on par as an insult to my intelligence as if they looked at me and said "I didn't understand the implications of shooting this person".
And this is why you're awfully simplistic.
BrentMusburger wrote:Why?

Someone has to pay. Nothing is free in this world.
Right. It would be paid for. Read the link - it skims the surface.
Because America is built on greed and money.

Other countries have weeks and weeks off and any number of rediculous things that will never happen in America. Our culture is work work work earn earn earn.

The rules of the game are in view. Follow the rules of the game, or lose.
You're justifying your perspective by saying, "that's the way things are." You're not actually saying why it's right, or better. I would say THOSE countries and their number of "rediculous things" are signs of a more advanced society.

This is like the whole ordeal that sprung between that female anchor from Fox and Jon Stewart, when the Fox anchor left on maternity leave and suggested it's a sign of an advanced society when she used to believe it was socialist and wrong. Everyone who gets a handout that you don't get is wrong; but the second you need or want that handout, it's the sign of an advanced country.

That's basically my approach to anyone on the right/libertarians/etc. Libertarians are one unpreventable accident away from being socialists. They just don't know it yet because they're still delusional enough to believe they can control everything that happens in their life, and everyone else is equally capable of such, too.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

And this is why you're awfully simplistic.
Again, I am not simple. I would say I am realistic however harsh you may consider it to be.

From my understanding, you have a very idealistic way of how things "should be". Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. It never was that way, isn't now, and never will be.



and there it is...
You're justifying your perspective by saying, "that's the way things are." You're not actually saying why it's right, or better. I would say THOSE countries and their number of "rediculous things" are signs of a more advanced society.

This is like the whole ordeal that sprung between that female anchor from Fox and Jon Stewart, when the Fox anchor left on maternity leave and suggested it's a sign of an advanced society when she used to believe it was socialist and wrong. Everyone who gets a handout that you don't get is wrong; but the second you need or want that handout, it's the sign of an advanced country.

That's basically my approach to anyone on the right/libertarians/etc. Libertarians are one unpreventable accident away from being socialists. They just don't know it yet because they're still delusional enough to believe they can control everything that happens in their life, and everyone else is equally capable of such, too.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

unpro wrote:for the majority of society when you where 17/18 you where married and had 2-3 kids and did get held fully accountable and fully understood the implications of actions taken. its only in recent society that its been acceptable for a 18 year old to still be treated like a 12 year old.

you can pursue knowledge all you want without ever going into a school if you wish. the advent of the internet has virtually eliminated the need to go to school. one day employers will recognize this and start using tests that actually relate to the job to determine a candidates worth, not if they have a degree or not.

i read a lot of stuff from mises.org, doesnt make me an economics major, but i can understand a lot of the general theory just from browsing the articles when im on my phone and pooping.

the reason you cant seem to relate to any of my arguments kirk, is because you refuse to change your view. if we removed government influence in higher education, we lower the amount of graduates, thereby increasing demand for schools to get new students. schools will compete with one another and that will lower the costs of higher education. the fun part about that, is schools will cater towards what the job markets need as time progresses. companies like to recruit straight from college if they can, and they will give equipment and teaching resources to schools who are willing to teach classes that directly benefit them. our country doesnt NEED all the college graduates we have today, we dont have the jobs to cover all the degrees being given.

with all the that... most degrees students receive are virtually worthless in a lot of higher paying or manufacturing related jobs. some companies go out of there way to pay for the tuition and living expenses of students so they will get degrees in engineering and mathematics so they can then higher that person. we have a market flooded with degrees in the arts, and failing with degrees in medical, math or engineering. the decision to get a degree in art history instead of engineering is your decision, no one elses. accept the fact that you took a degree in a saturated field.

you can get drafted at 18(sign up at 17), you can buy a gun at 18, you are tried as an adult when you are 18. you are an adult when you are 17/18 and are held accountable for all other decisions you make in life, whats different about this one?

nothing you say? correct you are.
For the fucking 50th time: I'm not saying people who are 17-18 should not be held accountable for their decision to pursue college in the form of debt. I am saying NO ONE should be forced into debt for 50 fucking years because they want to pursue knowledge. That's a really stupid ideal in society.

I agree with removing certain aspects of government influence, but probably not in the way you think. You're libertarian, I am socialist. I'm all for revamping the way government mingles with the private sector, including education, but I'm not cool with the minimalist approach libertarians often adopt.
BrentMusburger wrote:Again, I am not simple. I would say I am realistic however harsh you may consider it to be.

From my understanding, you have a very idealistic way of how things "should be". Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. It never was that way, isn't now, and never will be.
You're saying an 18 year old should be as knowledgeable about the wrong of shooting someone in the face as he/she would be about the implications of a loan. Yes, THAT IS VERY SIMPLISTIC.

I'm not being idealistic when I'm talking about adopting a system that other countries employ. It's been shown to work in practice, and I'm suggesting we stray in that direction. How is it idealist when it resides in the realm of proven reality?
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

I am saying NO ONE should be forced into debt for 50 fucking years because they want to pursue knowledge. That's a really stupid ideal in society.
and for the 50th time, no one forces them to go into debt. They could pursue that knowledge on the Internet or at publically funded library.

They choose to go into debt with a university education.

And no where in this world has an education ever been a right. Educations have traditionally been for the elite.


Only recently, in the age of irrational excuberence has it been accepted that "anyone" can go. Which of course is another bubble and lie that will crash and burn.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:and for the 50th time, no one forces them to go into debt. They could pursue that knowledge on the Internet or a publically funded library.

They choose to go into debt with a university education for it.
Cool, and if they have to go in debt, so be it. But for life? No. That's just going to discourage significantly more people from pursuing an education.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

That's just going to discourage significantly more people from pursuing an education.
As they should be discouraged. There's too many majors in certain feilds, which basically gaurentees over-supply...and shattered lives.

The sickening irony of all of this is government has tried to make education more accessable by subsidizing it. Which in effect sends prices skyrocketing and puts it out of reach or...as we see creates a bubble where people get the education anyways (with loans) and crash and burn after. The absurdly inflationary pressure on the cost of a college education is directly attributable to the idea that "everyone should be encouraged to get an education".



Your "ideals" of what "should be" cause distortions in economics that cannot be put down forever. Reality will always win out over fantasy.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
toxinatoR
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:19 am
Clans: THUNDER
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by toxinatoR »

Image
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:As they should be discouraged. There's too many majors in certain feilds, which basically gaurentees over-supply...and shattered lives.

The sickening irony of all of this is government has tried to make education more accessable by subsidizing it. Which in effect sends prices skyrocketing and puts it out of reach or...as we see creates a bubble where people get the education and crash and burn after.

Your "ideals" of what "should be" cause distortions in economics that cannot be put down forever. Reality will always win out over fantasy.
How are my ideals not rooted in reality when other countries have a system I am suggesting we adopt...?
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

alex kirk wrote:
BrentMusburger wrote:As they should be discouraged. There's too many majors in certain feilds, which basically gaurentees over-supply...and shattered lives.

The sickening irony of all of this is government has tried to make education more accessable by subsidizing it. Which in effect sends prices skyrocketing and puts it out of reach or...as we see creates a bubble where people get the education and crash and burn after.

Your "ideals" of what "should be" cause distortions in economics that cannot be put down forever. Reality will always win out over fantasy.
How are my ideals not rooted in reality when other countries have a system I am suggesting we adopt...?
What countries have this? I'll go out on a limb and guess that this is in Europe. The place that has many countries teetering on bankruptcy and a very real possibility of collapsing the Euro. The people in Europe have figured out what I said long ago in this thread. They can vote themselves fancy educations, early retirements, and other perks. Well...until one day they can't.

The bubble caused by government intervention will burst and the laws of economics will IMPOSE reality, regardless of how many people want to look the other way.

I'm forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high,
Nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams
They fade and die.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

do you agree with the fact that we need a minimum wage law?

http://mises.org/daily/5311

http://mises.org/daily/3261

http://mises.org/daily/2130

even if the law is detrimental to the very people you want to help?

schools are the same way. if you force the economy to spend money on something that is not needed, it inflates the cost, and shrinks employment opportunities. all these people that spent 60k on schooling, could have spent 60k on more viable options if it wasnt for the insistence in this country that a college degree is all mighty.

its not bad that you wanted a degree in a subject, but its silly to get a degree in a subject when you cant support the investment of said degree after receiving it. i want a degree in history. its a subject i like and find interesting, but i realize its virtually worthless for me to have in the real world so i never put the time or effort into getting it. perhaps one day later in life when i can afford it ill go back to school and get that degree, but i dont need it.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:What countries have this? I'll go out on a limb and guess that this is in Europe. The place that has many countries teetering on bankruptcy and a very real possibility of collapsing the Euro. The people in Europe have figured out what I said long ago in this thread. They can vote themselves fancy educations, early retirements, and other perks. Well...until one day they can't.

The bubble caused by government intervention will burst and the laws of economics will IMPOSE reality, regardless of how many people want to look the other way.
What countries have education that is deemed overall more affordable than America...? I think the list of countries with education less affordable than us is significantly smaller.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

unpro wrote:do you agree with the fact that we need a minimum wage law?

http://mises.org/daily/5311

http://mises.org/daily/3261

http://mises.org/daily/2130

even if the law is detrimental to the very people you want to help?

schools are the same way. if you force the economy to spend money on something that is not needed, it inflates the cost, and shrinks employment opportunities. all these people that spent 60k on schooling, could have spent 60k on more viable options if it wasnt for the insistence in this country that a college degree is all mighty.

its not bad that you wanted a degree in a subject, but its silly to get a degree in a subject when you cant support the investment of said degree after receiving it. i want a degree in history. its a subject i like and find interesting, but i realize its virtually worthless for me to have in the real world so i never put the time or effort into getting it. perhaps one day later in life when i can afford it ill go back to school and get that degree, but i dont need it.
Show me less biased sources than something coming from a site devoted to Austrian economics.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

alex kirk wrote: What countries have education that is deemed overall more affordable than America...? I think the list of countries with education less affordable than us is significantly smaller.
So, the countries were in Europe then?

I do know this. People come from all of the world for American universities. This of course generates winners and losers.


However, as I've already said, the reason out education costs are so out of control is because of government intervention. By subsidizing its cost and making it open to more people....it directly leads to costs rising to bubble levels....which means less and less people can afford it....OR WORSE they take on the costs anyways and get burned.

See: the crisis we're about to expirence when the student loan bubble explodes just like housing did, when government subsidized it and made it "affordable" to everyone. It turns out it just drove up prices and made less people able to afford a home...and worse the people who took on loans they couldn't afford lost everything. I hope you see the similarities.


It's a mistake in every sense of the term to push for what you want.
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

read the articles and come up with a counter point? thats kind of how these things work. i voice my opinion and show why i think how i do, and you show evidence to support your opinions.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Oh
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

thats not really what those articles are relating to, but yes that is also an issue when you introduce wage laws.
`NG
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:14 pm
Clans: {GSR}. Soul. rE. sG!. [][]SQ[][]
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by `NG »

I'm not going to read the past five pages of nancy-ing, but the fact is that our society has made it nearly impossible (notice I said nearly) to get a good paying job without a degree while at the same time price gouging the shit out of a demographic of naive kids. What Kirk is saying is right- pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt. College cost inflation over the past 20 years is fucking sickening. And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in. The system is broken, we don't need people to turn a cold shoulder and pull the " that's the way it is" bullshit. It flies in the face of everything so called "patriots" stand for, yet they are the ones dissenting the loudest because of some lame ass worries about tax increases. Stop listening to your TVs kiddies, it's lying to you.
User avatar
ward
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:31 pm
Clans: elephant shockwave infamy teamlol llama patrol
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by ward »

You could always join the military and have your college payed for in full. Not to mention the ability to retire at 20 years if you decided to stay in. You can also take free college classes using Tuition Assistance while you are on active duty. I plan on getting out in a year and a half, but I've been getting technical computer certifications (A+, Network+, Security+, etc) for free via the Marine Corps. They also have more advanced certifications like CCNA available as well. They aren't college degrees, but they are highly respected certifications that represent real world experience in that subject area.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

`NG wrote:I'm not going to read the past five pages of nancy-ing, but the fact is that our society has made it nearly impossible (notice I said nearly) to get a good paying job without a degree while at the same time price gouging the shit out of a demographic of naive kids. What Kirk is saying is right- pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt. College cost inflation over the past 20 years is fucking sickening. And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in. The system is broken, we don't need people to turn a cold shoulder and pull the " that's the way it is" bullshit. It flies in the face of everything so called "patriots" stand for, yet they are the ones dissenting the loudest because of some lame ass worries about tax increases. Stop listening to your TVs kiddies, it's lying to you.

there are ways to fix these issues that dont involve tax increases, all ive been trying to say. the cost of education is artificially inflated, why not get rid of the reasons for the inflation and watch the costs drop naturally?
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

pursuing an ideal that is rammed down our throats shouldn't lead to a lifetime of debt.
Except, as I've said, pursuing this ideal and having it rammed down our throats, is precisly what leads to spiraling costs and more (excess)competition for limited jobs(driving down salaries and giving companies the "pick of the litter"). You and Kirk are saying what "should be". By trying to force what "should be", you're creating the very problem in which you seek to avoid. What "should be" is the market will decide what majors can be funded and are needed. That way we don't end up with artfically created distortions that destroy people's lives for 50 years.


The more people that are "given" the opportunity to go to school, the higher the costs go. The more people that go to school, the lower starting salaries will be and the more feirce the competition will be. Do you see what has happened? They've convinced people you have to pay MORE AND MORE for something that continues to be worth LESS AND LESS. The tension between the dream and reality continues to build and build until it snaps, leading to the suffering of millions. It's a train wreck


See, now we've expanded all these schools, created online schools, made new campus, which has created excess need for maintenance jobs, IT, campus police, professors, books, apartments, coffee stores, you name it. It's exactly what happened in housing. As soon as people realize on their own, or have reality shoved in their face(not enough jobs for educated and costs are rising significantly faster than inflation), the education bubble will burst--if it hasn't already. It's nothing but an illusion.
And for what? Sports arenas. Publicity. Landscaping to lure more naive kids in.
I would say generally large college football programs are contributors from the athletic fund to the general fund. Of course the programs make profit, but it's transferred over and redistributed for the benefit of the campus at large. As far as landscaping and such, that's probably such an insignificant line item that it's not worth mentioning, but the reality is you have to have a campus look nice to COMPETE for the best and brightest-just like any business.

Most decent universities do not advertise AT ALL, let alone like some huckster. Sure garbage schools have some hot girl singing and snapping about how great college is. LET ME PICK WHICH COLLEGE IS GREAT FOR ME AND MAKE A HIGHER SALARY!!!! Yeah....I'm not investing a dime in THAT.
stile
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:53 am
Clans: dpk

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by stile »

Weren't you a big Ron Paul supporter I 2008 Kirk? Most of you guys would fit in real nice in San francisco
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

unpro wrote:read the articles and come up with a counter point? thats kind of how these things work. i voice my opinion and show why i think how i do, and you show evidence to support your opinions.
No, it's not how things work. You can't just throw me anything you want and tell me to come up with a counter point. You are to provide unbiased information. I come from the world of empiricism, and you are not doing it correctly.

Give me studies, give me unbiased information, give me numbers and graphs and objective measurements. Surely your article cites some of that stuff, so just click on the citations and post them up here.
stile wrote:Weren't you a big Ron Paul supporter I 2008 Kirk? Most of you guys would fit in real nice in San francisco
I was a big fan of his foreign policy regarding the wars as he was the most outspoken candidate against those wars. I was a fan for about two weeks. Then I abruptly came back to reality.

Strong memory, Asian man.
stile
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:53 am
Clans: dpk

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by stile »

What immediate changes would you make to government to create a more suitable society?
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.

i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?

having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".

here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be fucked in our current system to actually get a job.

it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

basically the theory is removing the minimum wage laws would decrease unemployment on average 3%.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

unpro wrote:oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.
It comes from a site dedicated to Austrian economics...of course it's biased. The Youtube I posted was opinion; not something I'm trying to pass off as empirical truths. Just something to describe the purpose of the movement.
i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?
Difference in opinions does not =/= biased. Site dedicated to a SINGLE PERSPECTIVE in economics = biased. Understand the difference?

I'm telling you how it's actually done. You make the claim, you present proper material from an unbiased source. It's kind of like when you said it was "hilarious" that I said eating 1 meal per day was not unhealthy - the reason you believed that is because you believed bullshit sources (much like the one you are posting here) rather than credible sources (much like the ones I am demanding).
having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".
I'm not saying that. I'm telling you the standard for presenting objective material. If you want to post something that is an opinion, that's cool. But you're trying to prove that minimum wage is objectively bad, and you're trying to support that by providing a biased website that supports this stance. Provide me sources that aren't trying to support your perspective, but rather aren't trying to prove ANY perspective; just delivering the facts.
here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be fucked in our current system to actually get a job.

it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.
How does someone afford to cover the bills if they are getting paid $3/hour to flip burgers?
`NG
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:14 pm
Clans: {GSR}. Soul. rE. sG!. [][]SQ[][]
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by `NG »

Image
gwolf_
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:03 pm
Clans: r5, losgueros, ENE, GLOCK

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by gwolf_ »

unpro wrote:oh thats lovely, i show you something to read or look at and you call it biased. you link me something and i watch it, im still not swayed in the least bit, but i read or watched what you linked. except that essay.

i love how you think a different view on economics is somehow biased. im not going to find shit that favors your opinion to support my view points, nor would i expect you to link something from mises to support a viewpoint you have. why dont you read the articles, check the sources(i did what i could without buying a book when i read the articles), and then come up with a counter point?

having any sort of debate does not revolve around "you dont agree with me, your dumb. im ignoring everything you say or link regardless of potential for debate because you hold a different viewpoint than me".

here, ill give a point thats made. unemployment leading up to the stock market crash in the early 20th century was under 5% on average. it was as low as i believe 1.8%. since the minimum wage laws came into effect we have rarely dropped below 5% unemployment. the argument is we decreased jobs based on inflating the wage by intervention, and we enable employers to selectively hirer while favoring certain demographics. say an ex con tries to get a job at mc donalds, at the same time a 18 year old with no criminal record and no prior work experience also applies. the con has 5 years exp working in management at a fast food restaurant. 9 times out of 10, the kid with no experience will get hired over the con. without minimum wage laws, that ex con could say "well ill take this lower wage" and get the job by directly competing with his labor, not his past. or the employer could offer a lower wage to the con so he could "prove" himself a valuable employee, and hire both of the applicants. thereby increasing employment overall, while enabling a person who would otherwise be fucked in our current system to actually get a job.

it wouldnt effect most people in this country, since they already get paid over the minimum wage. it directly benefits the poorest of this country by providing more jobs.
I had an ex gf in college whose dad owned a kingdom of fast food restaurants. She would always talk about abolishing the minimum wage and how it would be so great. For dad's business absolutely, he would improve his margins. Would this improve the common good? Absolutely not. Artificially lowering the unemployment rate by paying people wages that even when multiplied by two (IE two person family) do not reach above the poverty line does not make sense to me. I see this as a way that makes sense from a raw economic efficiency perspective, but that in practicality does nothing but help the rich. Those people don't need help, even when top marginal tax rates were 90% there weren't any soup kitchens at my local country club.

We don't need 1.8% unemployment, 4-5% is optimal.
unpro
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 am
Clans: mvpz

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by unpro »

there is no such thing as an unbiased view in economics. its like that in pretty much anything we do. history? biased along the lines of who wrote it. science? easily biased based on what evidence someone chooses to look at or the way they choose to interpret the data. government? biased on the opinion of the majority or minority depending on the type of government you have.

why is it so hard for you to look outside of current standards and think about how thinks could be done differently? you want to relate everything i say to the exact same system we have right now. what im saying is change the system. its no longer relative to what we accept as normal today when you change it based on theories of Austrian economics.

and im glad you think 5% unemployment is a good number. way to encourage people who went to jail for robbing a 7-11 to do it again when they cant get a job. yea, some people might get fucked on a wage, but they dont have to work there. thats the awesome part of a free market not constrained by government influence in all aspects of business, they can hire whoever is willing to accept the pay, and you can take your labor somewhere else if you think you deserve more. the market will even itself out if you let it.

i would rather be making 3 dollars an hour than be unemployed. the sense of entitlement that you somehow deserve to be paid x amount regardless of actual value for labor is ridiculous.

as for your 1 meal a day thing, im not going to find old school books, and medical articles from 20 years ago. i just dont give that much of a fuck on the subject. was pretty sure i made that clear in that thread.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

unpro wrote:there is no such thing as an unbiased view in economics. its like that in pretty much anything we do. history? biased along the lines of who wrote it. science? easily biased based on what evidence someone chooses to look at or the way they choose to interpret the data. government? biased on the opinion of the majority or minority depending on the type of government you have.
There is such a thing as unbiased data. It's called peer-reviewed empirical research. Provide some numbers for your views. Why do you believe what you believe? What FACTS? That's what you need to be posting if you want to solidify your point, and not further opinion.
why is it so hard for you to look outside of current standards and think about how thinks could be done differently? you want to relate everything i say to the exact same system we have right now. what im saying is change the system. its no longer relative to what we accept as normal today when you change it based on theories of Austrian economics.
I think the changes I want to make to the system are significantly more radical than what you want to make. I simply want to make changes on the opposite end of the spectrum from you.
and im glad you think 5% unemployment is a good number. way to encourage people who went to jail for robbing a 7-11 to do it again when they cant get a job. yea, some people might get fucked on a wage, but they dont have to work there. thats the awesome part of a free market not constrained by government influence in all aspects of business, they can hire whoever is willing to accept the pay, and you can take your labor somewhere else if you think you deserve more. the market will even itself out if you let it.
I didn't say 5% is a good number; gwolf did. I'm not okay with paying someone $2/hour for shitty work though, sorry. You think it's okay for some people to be at extreme advantages in life and for the system to do nothing to fix that. Thank God I was born to upper-middle class parents so we could afford the higher cost of housing in a neighborhood with a good school system. If I wasn't, my odds of success would decline significantly. Your solution? Just get a job that pays you $2/hour because "it's better than nothing." To which I say that's fucking ridiculous.
i would rather be making 3 dollars an hour than be unemployed. the sense of entitlement that you somehow deserve to be paid x amount regardless of actual value for labor is ridiculous.
And you saying apparently saying it's okay for some cunt in a free market to make billions without higher taxes (than they already have) while other people have to work for $3/hour is infinitely more ridiculous. You choose to abandon what is decent for what is "logical" or whatever the hell your justification is.

Curious, if you could build your perfect society, what would you tax for? Army, police, school, etc.? How far would you go with taxation, and what would you leave up to the individual to cover?
as for your 1 meal a day thing, im not going to find old school books, and medical articles from 20 years ago. i just dont give that much of a fuck on the subject. was pretty sure i made that clear in that thread.
Simply saying you have a history for accepting shit with zero empirical foundation, based on our previous engagements. I have a high standard for what constitutes "proof" - and a site DESIGNATED to promote a specific agenda is NOT good proof.
gwolf_
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:03 pm
Clans: r5, losgueros, ENE, GLOCK

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by gwolf_ »

I didn't say 5% is a good number; gwolf did. I'm not okay with paying someone $2/hour for shitty work though, sorry. You think it's okay for some people to be at extreme advantages in life and for the system to do nothing to fix that. Thank God I was born to upper-middle class parents so we could afford the higher cost of housing in a neighborhood with a good school system. If I wasn't, my odds of success would decline significantly. Your solution? Just get a job that pays you $2/hour because "it's better than nothing." To which I say that's fucking ridiculous.
Agreed with all of that. The 5% number was approximately what unemployment was in the 1990s. When unemployment is too low inflation goes up because wages increase. Now granted a little wage increasing particularly right now would be good but not down all the way to 1.8%.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

1.8% unemployment is bordering on impossible. 5% is considered the best case scenario, and even that would lead to "overheating" and bubbles that, if left unchecked by monetary policy, would lead to a collapse. See: the 90's...which eventually boomerangs back to what we're seeing today.

That's a social expirement that cannot work in the real work. You're advocating taking the American standard of living, and instantly rebalancing it to the rest of the world. IE, if we let the "real" minimum wage come out, it would match the global standard for low skilled labor. Americans are at the peak of the pyramid and the rest of the world is the base. Right now, we're trying a slow, controlled rebalancing of the imbalances, and you can already see the problems that it causes. Outrage as people lose what they once had.

And you saying apparently saying it's okay for some cunt in a free market to make billions without higher taxes (than they already have) while other people have to work for $3/hour is infinitely more ridiculous.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

Image

I don't care if the wealthier have to pay more. You're barking up the wrong tree. Lots of other countries do it, and it works great. My family is part of the class that would get taxed more, and they accept that responsibility as having benefited from the system with an unfair advantage.

What's funny is my dad left America because everything about it is too political - his work in public health, the tax system, etc. Went back to mother Canada with my step-mom and two brothers. Some people leave for the opposite reason.
Rambizzle
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:17 pm
Clans: high.p, 3h, h8, LP^, jetty

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Rambizzle »

Image
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

Rambizzle wrote:Image
You can't just post pictures whenever the fuck you want. There's an art to appropriately posting funny pictures/gifs. You can't just blow your internet picture load over any thread you want because you feel like it.

Fuck, Ricky.

Image
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Clever little poster. By almost any measure (IMF, World Bank, Forbes) America have living standards that are the envy of the world. If people think things are so great elsewhere, they are free to leave, and I'll give it a month before they're begging to come back. You come back to me when Americans are on rafts to leave America the way others risk their lives to come here.

I am throughly disgusted by the average American when I look around. They use credit cards to purchase TV's, shoes, clothes, and vacations----paying HIGH interest on things that have no expected return. They pursue degrees that put them worse off financially than had they never went to school at all. They purchase the fanciest car they can find, eat the depreciation, or lease time and again. Well, all these decisions stack up year and year, until one day there's a wreckening. The longer you live above your means, by utilizing credit, the more debt service you expend until it eventually crowds out the rest of your spending. It's a treadmill that they put themselves into because they lack disapline and do not put their money to work for them, like the rich do.

I often hear people say you can't make it on minimum wage with a family. No shit. Minimum wage is just that. The minimum. It's designed to be just enough for someone to basically exist and sustain themselves to be able to go to work the next day.
I don't care if the wealthier have to pay more. You're barking up the wrong tree. Lots of other countries do it, and it works great. My family is part of the class that would get taxed more, and they accept that responsibility as having benefited from the system with an unfair advantage.
And will others accept responsibility that maybe they don't work hard enough to work themselves up the social latter? While they were out making 2 children and drinking and partying for their 20's, others were studying their ass off. Networking at job fairs. Spending money on suits instead of cigarettes and lottery tickets. Spending Saturday evening over a book.

I see pictures in our newspaper at job fairs of people slouched over and dressed in what I wouldn't even consider business casual. They can't write a resume or a cover letter without littering it with errors. If I can't trust you to write correctly on the one glance I have at you, how can I expect you'll do anything correct on the job?

When I just left my corporation for a better opportunity, they practically begged me to stay. She had over 25 interviews and was absolutely stunned by the "slim pickens" in an area with 15% unemployment. RIght down the street a well known company had 100 engineering jobs. They could not fill any of them.

Another business is pulling out because they cannot get people who are willing to take a drug test or who can actually fill out a god damn application.

Do you expect me to have sympathy for these people? Do you expect me to believe that they are doing everything they can? They are lazy, ignorant, and place the blame everywhere but on themselves. They THINK everyone got to where they were because someone else handed it to them or they "knew" someone.

They only see the end product of where people are and say "look at those successful or rich people". They fail to see the daily journey of struggle that people overcame to get to that point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPmiIusW ... re=related

What's funny is my dad left America because everything about it is too political - his work in public health
So he moved to Canada, where there's government run healthcare? Does it get any more political then that?
Last edited by BrentMusburger on Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:23 am, edited 6 times in total.
Rambizzle
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:17 pm
Clans: high.p, 3h, h8, LP^, jetty

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Rambizzle »

fu bro.

Image
kirk
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 pm
Clans: feat6, aids, x[m], ptm, snowmen, NoGo, GI, 50cal, moNster, te amo, gameslaves, winnfield, koala, iwa
Contact:

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by kirk »

BrentMusburger wrote:Clever little poster. By almost any measure (IMF, World Bank, Forbes) America have living standards that are the envy of the world. If people think things are so great elsewhere, they are free to leave, and I'll give it a month before they're begging to come back. You come back to me when Americans are on rafts to leave America the way others risk their lives to come here.
Correction: the upper-middle class has living standards that are the envy of the world. If you take the "net living standard" of our entire population, it's arguably really shitty compared to places like Canada or France.
I am throughly disgusted by the average American when I look around. They use credit cards to purchase TV's, shoes, clothes, and vacations----paying HIGH interest on things that have no expected return. They pursue degrees that put them worse off financially than had they never went to school at all. They purchase the fanciest car they can find, eat the depreciation, or lease time and again. Well, all these decisions stack up year and year, until one day there's a wreckening. The longer you live above your means, by utilizing credit, the more debt service you expend until it eventually crowds out the rest of your spending. It's a treadmill that they put themselves into because they lack disapline and do not put their money to work for them, like the rich do.
Okay. I agree that people should be smarter with their money...
I often hear people say you can't make it on minimum wage with a family. No shit. Minimum wage is just that. The minimum. It's designed to be just enough for someone to basically exist and sustain themselves to be able to go to work the next day.
Which sucks for people who lose their job once they already have a family and then can't make enough to sustain. From basic sociology courses I've taken, it's pretty clear that the minimum standard of living is NOT covered by minimum wage alone.
And will others accept responsibility that maybe they don't work hard enough to work themselves up the social latter? While they were out making 2 children and drinking and partying for their 20's, others were studying their ass off. Networking at job fairs. Spending money on suits instead of cigarettes and lottery tickets. Spending Saturday evening over a book.
This story is totally typical of unemployed people. Good job.
I see pictures in our newspaper at job fairs of people slouched over and dressed in what I wouldn't even consider business casual. They can't write a resume or a cover letter without littering it with errors. If I can't trust you to write correctly on the one glance I have at you, how can I expect you'll do anything correct on the job?
See above comment.
When I just left my corporation for a better opportunity, they practically begged me to stay. She had over 25 interviews and was absolutely stunned by the "slim pickens" in an area with 15% unemployment. RIght down the street a well known company had 100 engineering jobs. They could not fill any of them.

Another business is pulling out because they cannot get people who are willing to take a drug test or who can actually fill out a god damn application.

Do you expect me to have sympathy for these people? Do you expect me to believe that they are doing everything they can? They are lazy, ignorant, and place the blame everywhere but on themselves. They THINK everyone got to where they were because someone else handed it to them or they "knew" someone.
See above comments.

Your anecdotal experience means nothing when we're talking about the pervasive and wide-spread nature of this problem.
They only see the end product of where people are and say "look at those successful or rich people". They fail to see the daily journey of struggle that people overcame to get to that point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPmiIusW ... re=related
Do you believe America is a system based on achievement? Or is it more an ascribed system?

Which is a greater predictor of future success: what family you are born to coupled with the geographic region you are raised in, or simply working hard? And let me elaborate for a second here on what I mean: if you can rate how hard someone works with 0 being "not at all" and 10 being "as hard as possible" - do you believe two people, regardless of who they are born to and where they are raised, both working at a "7" WILL see equal success? Or even have the same opportunities at equal success?
So he moved to Canada, where there's government run healthcare? Does it get any more political then that?
Canada's health care = take care of everyone. American's health care = take care of the elite and the rich.

I think you understand what I mean when I say "political." There should not be a political nature when it comes to who gets treated. Canada understands that, while America does not.
gwolf_
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:03 pm
Clans: r5, losgueros, ENE, GLOCK

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by gwolf_ »

BrentMusburger wrote: Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Except that's not how it works. The tenth man in theory pays $59 but in actuality its more like that he pays his accountant 7 and pays the bar 11. That's due to intelligent tax planning and strategy along with a large sum of income being capital gains. The people who pay the most in taxes are people who make good money from pure w2 income with little that they're allowed to deduct.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Except that's not how it works. The tenth man in theory pays $59 but in actuality its more like that he pays his accountant 7 and pays the bar 11. That's due to intelligent tax planning and strategy along with a large sum of income being capital gains. The people who pay the most in taxes are people who make good money from pure w2 income with little that they're allowed to deduct.
You aren't telling me anything that I don't already know (see my PM). People who plan their finances intelligently, on average, acheive a better outcome. And why shouldn't they? People who plan their workouts intelligently get better fitness results. Football teams that put in more preperation have better execution of the feild. That's life.

The person earning capital gains is risking THEIR capital whereas the person getting pure w-2 income is not. This is simply the case of the tax code funneling rich people's money into creating cheaper capital by dangling lower tax rates. They receive better treatment, but they could very well have suffered a capital loss--let us not forget the burden of the RISK.
gwolf_
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:03 pm
Clans: r5, losgueros, ENE, GLOCK

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by gwolf_ »

Of course I know you know. That was for the benefit of other non-accountants. The point is just because the tax code has higher rates doesn't mean those rates are being paid. And that logic justifies a 25% capital gains rate down from a 39.6% ordinary rate but I don't think it justifies 15% as it stands now.
BrentMusburger
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by BrentMusburger »

Correction: the upper-middle class has living standards that are the envy of the world. If you take the "net living standard" of our entire population, it's arguably really shitty compared to places like Canada or France.
America is about competeing. This creates winners and losers. By and large, the average American is a HUGE winner compared to 90% of the world, even if they are "losing" compared to others. P.s why shouldn't they be losing out if they are not as good? If I'm the 127,000th best lawyer....well sorry I guess.

Places like Canada or Switzerland have high living standards because they have the benefit of not having to run empires, but see the benefit from ours. IE get to export to us on seas we keep open and not have to really worry about speading a trillion dollars a year on their military.

Okay. I agree that people should be smarter with their money...
Good.
Which sucks for people who lose their job once they already have a family and then can't make enough to sustain. From basic sociology courses I've taken, it's pretty clear that the minimum standard of living is NOT covered by minimum wage alone.
When I say minimum wage it literally means you should be able to make enough to eat bread or noodles and have enough to maybe take the bus or walk to work just to earn enough to make it another day to work again. It's basically a harsh exsistance rather than actually being able to live and enjoy life. However, what I routinly see it people with cellphones, cable, and any number of things that I would consider luxory items complaining that they can't "make it" anymore on this wage. Well, no shit.

Just a few weeks ago, I was watching that AE intervention show. The lady was complaining she didn't have enough money for gas to get to work anymore. As she pulled a $6 pack of cigarettes out of the car.

This story is totally typical of unemployed people. Good job.

See above comments.

Your anecdotal experience means nothing when we're talking about the pervasive and wide-spread nature of this problem.
My anecdotal expirences would certainly form a statistical trend. People with several kids struggle more. People who spend their time on "trivial" tasks for years on end, spinning their wheels not working towards acheivement, end up less succesful. People who can't write or communicate effectively will struggle. People who do not keep up on their physical appearence will pay a price for it.

Do you believe America is a system based on achievement? Or is it more an ascribed system?
There's a little of both. That has always been the allure. There's the OPPORTUNITY to make it big no matter what your beginnings were. That's not to say that some people haven't been successful while being lazy, and that's not to see that some people who gave it their all every day ended up not succeeding.

Warren Buffet built his fortune from $2000 when he started investing as a 21 year old. Bill gates started microsoft from a basement.

And let me elaborate for a second here on what I mean: if you can rate how hard someone works with 0 being "not at all" and 10 being "as hard as possible" - do you believe two people, regardless of who they are born to and where they are raised, both working at a "7" WILL see equal success?

Of course not. Just like a business, individuals can be hampered by systemic or unique risk. However, I will say that there are opportunities for grants and assistance to help people pave their own way. The government loves to help boost people and turn them into productive citizens so as to not have to be burdened by supporting them. Of course being born in an affluent neighborhood and school district gives you a better chance than someone with shitty parents and a poor district.
Which is a greater predictor of future success: what family you are born to coupled with the geographic region you are raised in, or simply working hard?
A little story about the "importance" of family in acheiving your dreams. I worked in a miserable section 8 hell hole doing maintenance. It was the most vial and disgusting place on this earth filled with drug addicts and lazy scum. My aunt and uncle (the administrators) hired an accounting student in their office out of my same program and school. I was struggling to even be able to afford to attend school (I get ZERO assistance), and this girl drove around in a Mustang. I quit immediatly, and their decision rocked my world as a 19-20 year old kid (as you put it).

I could have easily let it destroy my dreams. I will never forgive them for it. A lot of people let things spiral out of control, give up, make excuses, or turn to drugs to dull pain.

Instead, I wore it as a cloak of defiance.

I graduated at the top of my class. I secured two accounting internships in school and built a relationship with an MBA and a CPA. Both of them served as mentors in my life, as professional references, and provided letters of recommendations. In the end, I got opportunities with all of the CPA firms that I wanted.

"Do not ever let anyone tell you that you cannot do something. You want something go get it. Period."
Sym
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by Sym »

America is about competeing. This creates winners and losers.
I keep hearing this from people, especially in my more conservative area of Arizona, that America is about competition, or Capitalism is competition and that usually leads into this theory about how competition is just a manifestation of the natural world and therefore all these systems we have in place are 'perfectly natural'. But i really have to wonder why you don't willingly give weight to the many many systems and decisions that you make daily which are in the spirit of cooperation. Let me try and build my argument by showing a flaw in yours.

You seem to use competition as a synonym for survival. And "Survival of the fittest" certainly has an agressive tone, but it is commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted. You and I do not compete against the natural world, If we want to champion competition as the pure and glorious truth of human living then I suggest you start with your own body. Breathe something other than air, transport yourself on a surface that isn't land, consume something other than food. That is competition at an environmental and biological level. But when we talk about "survival of the fittest" we're really talking about cooperation just as much IF NOT MORE than competition. A group or organism able to co-operate with its environment will succeed. Whereas a group unable to will fail. The species isn't expected to dominate their environment in order to survive, it's meant to adapt. We just so happen to believe that we do an excellent job of bending the universe to our will. Whether that's delusion or reality is a different discussion, i think.

The place where your belief falls short is when you accept this human system as 'the way things are'. This is evident in the way you talk about America, the way you treat people who 'wear their defiance as a cloak' versus (presumably) the "vial(sic) and disgusting place" filled with "drug addicts and lazy scum." But america and the american system are not real things, they are cooperative values we (humans) accept and follow. That's called society, civilization, aka cooperation. So when you talk about "The way things are" as being reality, as being of the same class as the rising sun, you're equating an abstract value with as close to a natural fact as exists. You're engaging in illusion.

If we took your life story and ran back 200 years to Imperial England, or further, to the Roman Empire they'd probably call it utopic. And if we were to go back to each 'great civilization' as I think it's been called in this thread we could probably find both people like you AND people like Alex claiming the exact same side but using different setpieces. Nevertheless, it's abundantly clear that the environment as well as the quality of life IN those environments have been drastically different. Egypt different from Italy different from England different from America. Because each abstract system is implemented by multiple disconnected human beings, using concrete methods and institutions. It makes no sense, then, for us to talk about 'the way things are' when we have historical, verifiable evidence that 'the way things are' changes.

Each time we compete on a larger scale we cooperate in larger and more profound ways. Each time we shed boundaries we build new ones. We engage in competition AND cooperation. Becuase, ultimately, we are all merely surviving. And it will be better for us to recognize that america and the american system is, firstly, a cooperative system. For a nation is not built to compete with itself. And an economy begins with a fundamental cooperative agreement as well. In a system of currency. It behooves us not to forget that point because, in essence, it represents the thread that binds our economy.

The moment we consider our mutual agreements as anything otherwise we invite any and every ill upon us. And what I see from these occupy protests, or tea party protests, or arab spring protests, is a monumental gaze being leveled at those very institutions and values that have spent a long time casting themselves as 'natural' and 'right' and 'good' and 'immovable'; those values and institutions you seem to consider axiomatic of the American Way. But they are all fantasy, and what we're seeing happen across this planet is a slow recognition of the edges of that fantasy.

So if we should follow your advice and "not ever let anyone tell you that you cannot do something" then we really shouldn't listen to anything you say about how 'life is' right? Because if we want a different world, then we should go get it. Period.
gwolf_
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:03 pm
Clans: r5, losgueros, ENE, GLOCK

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Post by gwolf_ »

Sym wrote:
America is about competeing. This creates winners and losers.
I keep hearing this from people, especially in my more conservative area of Arizona, that America is about competition, or Capitalism is competition and that usually leads into this theory about how competition is just a manifestation of the natural world and therefore all these systems we have in place are 'perfectly natural'. But i really have to wonder why you don't willingly give weight to the many many systems and decisions that you make daily which are in the spirit of cooperation. Let me try and build my argument by showing a flaw in yours.

You seem to use competition as a synonym for survival. And "Survival of the fittest" certainly has an agressive tone, but it is commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted. You and I do not compete against the natural world, If we want to champion competition as the pure and glorious truth of human living then I suggest you start with your own body. Breathe something other than air, transport yourself on a surface that isn't land, consume something other than food. That is competition at an environmental and biological level. But when we talk about "survival of the fittest" we're really talking about cooperation just as much IF NOT MORE than competition. A group or organism able to co-operate with its environment will succeed. Whereas a group unable to will fail. The species isn't expected to dominate their environment in order to survive, it's meant to adapt. We just so happen to believe that we do an excellent job of bending the universe to our will. Whether that's delusion or reality is a different discussion, i think.

The place where your belief falls short is when you accept this human system as 'the way things are'. This is evident in the way you talk about America, the way you treat people who 'wear their defiance as a cloak' versus (presumably) the "vial(sic) and disgusting place" filled with "drug addicts and lazy scum." But america and the american system are not real things, they are cooperative values we (humans) accept and follow. That's called society, civilization, aka cooperation. So when you talk about "The way things are" as being reality, as being of the same class as the rising sun, you're equating an abstract value with as close to a natural fact as exists. You're engaging in illusion.

If we took your life story and ran back 200 years to Imperial England, or further, to the Roman Empire they'd probably call it utopic. And if we were to go back to each 'great civilization' as I think it's been called in this thread we could probably find both people like you AND people like Alex claiming the exact same side but using different setpieces. Nevertheless, it's abundantly clear that the environment as well as the quality of life IN those environments have been drastically different. Egypt different from Italy different from England different from America. Because each abstract system is implemented by multiple disconnected human beings, using concrete methods and institutions. It makes no sense, then, for us to talk about 'the way things are' when we have historical, verifiable evidence that 'the way things are' changes.

Each time we compete on a larger scale we cooperate in larger and more profound ways. Each time we shed boundaries we build new ones. We engage in competition AND cooperation. Becuase, ultimately, we are all merely surviving. And it will be better for us to recognize that america and the american system is, firstly, a cooperative system. For a nation is not built to compete with itself. And an economy begins with a fundamental cooperative agreement as well. In a system of currency. It behooves us not to forget that point because, in essence, it represents the thread that binds our economy.

The moment we consider our mutual agreements as anything otherwise we invite any and every ill upon us. And what I see from these occupy protests, or tea party protests, or arab spring protests, is a monumental gaze being leveled at those very institutions and values that have spent a long time casting themselves as 'natural' and 'right' and 'good' and 'immovable'; those values and institutions you seem to consider axiomatic of the American Way. But they are all fantasy, and what we're seeing happen across this planet is a slow recognition of the edges of that fantasy.

So if we should follow your advice and "not ever let anyone tell you that you cannot do something" then we really shouldn't listen to anything you say about how 'life is' right? Because if we want a different world, then we should go get it. Period.
Well written sir.
Post Reply