The number of people talking about making college "Free" is.. sad.
It's not free and it will never be free. Someone has to pay for it.
You bitch about student loans and then suggest that taxpayers should have to pay for what you don't want to pay for. In effect you want to make EVERYONE pay for your fucking schooling. Then you drag up the "it's beneficial to society" LIE!
If it's so goddamn beneficial to society, then why are a lot of people who graduate with degrees having such a hard time making ends meet? If having a degree is so desirable, then why aren't companies snatching you people up the moment you are holding the sheepskin?
I see news report after news report about people with Bachelor and Master degrees working at Starbucks or McDonald's. Is anyone going to admit that maybe we've saturated the market for degreed workers? I've watched every single state/tax-funded trade school, in my area, disappear. There are massive shortages of workers to fill high paying blue-collar jobs. But everyone has been fed this lie that a degree is a requirement for a successful career.
LIE
A lot of the time it helps.. No argument there. But right now, at this point in time, it doesn't seem to be a requirement. We appear to have hit saturation. Yet we keep cranking out folks with degrees when there are no jobs to take them in.
Then, you get hit with the old double-whammy. Not only can't you get a job that pays well enough to make those loan payments, but a lot of the time you can't even get a shitty job because you are over-qualified and employers know you'll bounce the moment something comes along that pays better. Who the fuck wants to train someone who'll bolt at the first opportunity?
The solution a lot of you keep parroting is the "make college free". Yeah.. that'll help with the saturation.. If you people had taken any economics classes, you'd know that would have the exact opposite effect. You mouth-breathers want to dump even more degreed people on the market and then what? You don't think wages will drop even further for those fields? I mean, for fuck's sake, if you have 1000 applicants (all with Bachelor's degrees) applying for XYZ job, do you think any company is going to offer top dollar? They're all qualified... so how do you reduce the demand? You reduce the wage you are offering..
You find that happy (and natural) balance between wage offered and qualified applicant who will accept said wage. Consensual...
You lefties always going on with your "what two consenting adults do in the bedroom", but you sure change your tune when it's "two consenting adults in the boardroom".
Did you go to school? You used that word "Free" so I don't think you did. It's not free, asshole. It's just being paid for by someone else... (Taxpayers)
Nationally, 31% of all home sales end in foreclosure...
30-31% of our population makes really shitty financial decisions.
One could also say that 69-70% do not. But ya know... people are gonna bitch about how rigged the game is.. Even though it works for the VAST majority of people.
This implies that attending college is a stupid decision. However, there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Honestly, someone should hit you upside the head for submitting that post because stupid decisions should be painful.
Attending a college you cannot afford and then bitching about it, after the fact, is a stupid decision. Someone needs to smack you upside the head with a clue stick.
You are absolutely correct. if the GP had bothered to do even 5 minutes of research, he/she would have seen that college prices began climbing the EXACT SAME YEAR THAT STUDENT LOANS WERE INTRODUCED.
But, apparently that's too much work and he/she would rather just talk out of their ass.
It's not free, asshole. It's being paid for by taxpayers. So tired of you people using that word. IT IS NOT FREE.
And yes, the problem is the availability of student loans. May I suggest that your very first course be Economics 101?
When everyone can afford to go to college and there are more students than seats, a very efficient way to reduce demand is to raise prices. This is true for every single item on the market. Any competent company will price their products at the maximum they think the market will bear. If demand drops too low, you reduce your prices a little. If demand spikes, you raise your prices up a little. You seek the balance.
Could you be any bigger of an asshole? You admit you made one poor decision after another and yet you want to penalize everyone else. First the colleges have too much money, then the professors are being paid too much... You even have a problem with how much money researchers are being paid.
Why are colleges jacking up tuition? Think that maybe it's supply and demand? The government got involved, via the student loan program, and massively increased the amount of people who had the money to go to a university. The universities can't take everyone who applies, so how do they reduce the demand? Simple, they jack up the prices. This is a consensual arrangement. 100% of their student population is there voluntarily. If someone doesn't like, or cannot afford, the tuition they don't go to the fucking school. If demand falls too low, the school will reduce tuition until it hits a balance between available seats and applicants.
I'm fairly certain your university didn't force you to attend either. You saw the prices and you decided that the prices were what you were willing to pay. And now, like a spoiled millennial fuckwit, you want to bitch about it after the fact.
Everyone bitches that education is underfunded in this country and here you are suggesting that even more money should be taken from the schools. How about you man up, take responsibility for your decisions, and move on like a fucking adult?
Here's a bit of advice. These kinds of situations will keep coming up your entire adult life.. Purchase a house you can't afford? Yeah, the bank is gonna take it back. I bet you'll bitch about that too. Most people aren't going to have a lot of sympathy for your foreclosure either. See, most of us buy what we can afford, and when we make a mistake we learn from it. We don't run around bitching about how stacked the deck is, because it isn't.
I can think of very few jobs in the US that include even three weeks of vacation. 4 weeks is nearly unheard of.
Most blue collar jobs contain zero guaranteed vacation time. You might get vacation, but it's usually a "hey boss, can I have a week off?" situation. Your employer doesn't have to give you any vacation time.
What's next? Bitching about all those kids who committed suicide because their girlfriend/boyfriend broke up with them? Yeah.. it does happen.. Do we ban people from breaking up?
You might dismiss this as being stupid... But you can't fix every problem.. What you consider stupid, or what I consider stupid, is considered rational by someone...
Bullying sucks.. But, you can't fix it and maintain a free society. To fix bullying, you have to erode free speech. Maybe you consider this a reasonable trade.. I don't.
I oppose it, I teach my children to not do it, and if I ever caught them doing it, I'd tan their hides.. But...what I consider bullying and what I consider rough kid-play are probably not lined up exactly with your definitions. Do you wish to impose your definition on me? How would you feel if I imposed my definition on you?
There will always be bullies... We deal with them and move on.
Once? They're still called thongs by a sizable portion of the population. Mostly the elderly, as you pointed out... But the "once" is incorrect. They're still called that by a lot of folks..
All words convey meaning, and offensive words convey offensive meaning.
Bullshit. Offense is an individual emotion. For example, that word at the beginning of this reply may (or may not) have offended you. But, there will be those people whom it did not offend at all.
Your entire post is nonsensical. There is no such thing as an offensive word. Even the word "cunt" is only offensive to a certain portion of the populace. But it's not 100%, probably not even close to 100%....
Offense can only be defined by an individual. Labeling speech as offensive is STUPID unless you qualify it by adding "to me".
Furthermore, nobody gives a shit what you find offensive. You can't run a society based on the whims of a single person. If we banned all offensive words, we'd end up banning most words.. I find the word "liberal" to be offensive.. Should we not use it?
Typical leftie bullshit... Couple gets pregnant, but it's not their fault (or choice, depending on how you look at it). Now someone who had no say in the decision (business owner) has to foot the fucking bill.
Idiocracy will come to pass because of lefties. Conservatives (generally) plan their children. Lefties act surprised that anything happens when the weenie goes in the honey hole.
Is there anything you lefties do that you'll take responsibility for?
Can you even go 5 minutes without contradicting yourselves? First we have too many people (overpopulation) and now we don't have enough for sustainability.
I love how you think employees will run the company better than "greedy cunts".
Mass decision is even more ineffective and dangerous than smaller pluralities. Mass decision was one of the reasons the Roman Republic fell into dictatorship.
Have you never read this famous quote? Or do you think it's bullshit?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of The Republic.”
Benjamin Franklin
Why is there only about ten employee owned companies on the Fortune 400?
Do you really think Joe's (in legal) vote on where to direct the company should be worth the same as Sam's (in accounting)?
You don't think that a person with a legal degree should have more to say, in the running of a company and it's compliance with various laws, than a guy who does math all day?
Yeah.. Let's have companies ran and owned by the employees.. I can just see how many times the "let's vote ourselves a raise" vote will fail.. And then will be the inevitable bankruptcy....
Do you know how stupid that sounds? Enough vehicles are on the road, so much so that if each one was driven at the exact same time, 88% of the public (in this country) would be on the road.
Pretty much everyone has a car, is my point. Statistically, at least. So yeah, since everyone who could buy a car has, things don't look all that bad to me. And considering the same number of people who have bought a car can only drive one at a time, I don't think it would be markedly worse in this country if everyone who could buy a car, bought 3 of them.
You think a command economy is the solution? You want fascism? If the CEOs are so selfish and greedy, why can we trust that the komissars, politburo, and general secretary won't be just as greedy?
I mean, a CEO is a CEO.. Be he the head of a corporation or a country.
We will never achieve anything like a communist utopia. It is against our very nature. People will always aspire to be a little better than those around them. That makes for a pretty tail and very pointy pyramid.. With someone always at the top. ALWAYS.
The gun is a metaphor, but it has the potential to become literal.
Tax evasion is a crime that CAN result in a prison sentence. You will be escorted to prison by guards with guns.. If you attempt to flee, that can shoot you.
Don't sit there and tell us that taxes aren't enforced with guns.
The government enforces ALL of it's edicts with the threat of violence. if it did not, more people would ignore those decrees.
In this country (USA) the rules were written specifically to prevent the majority from stripping the rights away from the minority.. To strip away basic rights you need a super majority (3/4).
Unless you can get 3/4 of the states to take away my guns (for example), your 51%-74% can go fuck itself..
Democracy sucks. I prefer a representative republic.
One other thing, you are aware that, for most people (not counting royalty), the wealth doesn't make it very far down the generations right? I read somewhere, once, that it's 3 generations... Then it's gone...
Gen 1 earns the money through hard work or sound investments.. Whatever..
Gen 2 has it way easier than Gen 1 and treats money with less respect...
Gen 3 was born into wealth, has no concept of work, and squanders it..
I've observed this with my own eyes.. When I was a kid, we had a family here that owned 300,000 acres.. Grandad had built up this vast business empire.. He had passed on and his kids were treating it like their own personal slush fund... The grandkids (my age) were spoiled beyond belief.. Arrogant, wasteful, you name it.... Their land holdings today are about 100 acres.. They had to sell off everything else to maintain the opulent lifestyles.. and even those are gone..
So, propose a solution that doesn't strip people of freedom and I'll listen. But when you draw arbitrary lines in the sand and say "this is too much", well, we have a problem.
In the last 50 years America has doubled it's manufacturing output while cutting manufacturing jobs by 1/3. Our public policy has almost completely ignored that.
Cherry picking statistics? What was the growth in manufacturing jobs for the 50 years prior to that? 500%? What about the 100 years before that? 1000%?
We had an explosion of manufacturing and then it leveled off and retracted some.
How do you propose to fix this? Do we go full blown fascist? Do we give the government the power to dictate everything? You say we cut manufacturing jobs by 1/3.. I'll accept that as fact. How do you fix it? Do you order factories to keep jobs they don't need? I'll remind you of the fact that that is _exactly_ what happened in Venezuela...
If we are going to tell factories how many employees they have, do we also force them to create positions that they don't need? It's not that big of stretch... If a factory can't cut a job, but no longer needs a body in a position, then that person has to just stand around all day doing nothing.. That is way worse than doing busywork.. So does the government create a task for them?
Maybe that's not how we handle it... Do we order factories to not move abroad? How do they compete with goods built overseas for far less? Do we impose huge tariffs? Do we force our own citizens to pay higher prices for goods that could be had more cheaply? Do we effectively force them to live poorer (economically) lives because the government has decided that the cost of a good should be higher than it needs to be?
You people keep argue that all the good jobs are leaving.. Well, how the hell do we fix it without fascism? (and I'm not being flippant). Maybe the jobs leaving isn't a bad thing.. Maybe we're going to enter an age of self-employment. You might think that's preposterous, but 200 years ago the idea that a huge percentage of the population would work in cubicles was just as preposterous, in fact it wasn't even an idea.. Nobody could have even imagined that.
There will be jobs tomorrow that we can't even imagine today. 60 years ago the idea of a globally accessible internet, and all the jobs that come with it, wasn't a thought.. None of those jobs were even imaginable... No webpage coders.. No server room attendants.. No router designers... No system administrators... So, if you think you can see the jobs of the future, or the lack thereof, you are being self delusional..
Nothing happening today, with our society, is new. We've been through it many times before... It all ebbs and flows.. The jobs we do today.. They are new jobs.. They didn't exist just a few years ago (in the grand scheme of our time). The jobs back then, they were new jobs.. Some guy was running a cotton gin.. it was a brand new job.. All jobs are new jobs at some time. And every time a new job is created, somewhere else a job is being phased out, because it is no longer needed. You must realize that at one point, even being a farmer was a new fucking job.. Some bastard was the first farmer.. He was doing work nobody had ever done before.. For fuck's sake, even being a plumber is a new job. There's been plumbing for less than 1% of human history. Do we mourn all those jobs that dealt with manually disposing of shit? The loss of those jobs was 100% by technology. Every fucking shit hauler lost his job.. Should the government have had a policy to keep them as a thing?
The only way we fuck this up is to let the government decide how we go forward. Those brain dead morons are the last assholes that should have any say in this. I'd rather we left it up to a vote by McDonalds workers than a vote by the cunts that run our government (and I almost really mean that).
Are we really back to this "concentration of wealth" BULLSHIT?
When has wealth not been concentrated? It has _always_ been concentrated. I'd argue that it's less concentrated today. Back in the day, some asshole of a King owned everything, including your LIFE.
Or are we just choosing to measure between... say 1776 and 2018? Yeah, there was a reset for a bit.. In the Americas and in most of Europe. But this is a 250 year time slice out of.. what? 20,000 years of human history?
When, in the vast majority of human history, not wealth not been concentrated (not counting the aforementioned 250 years)?
Wealth will always concentrate unless you are willing to strip humans of freedom and free will.. One guy will always be just a tiny bit better at his business... He'll make just a tad more profit, save an iota more on expenses.. Slowly his fortune will grow.
But in the end, you want to prevent that. You want to strip away any motive to work a little bit harder.. to scrimp a bit more, to save up for some desire or luxury...
Anyone who starts with "Wealth Concentration" or "Income Inequality" is a communist. Not a socialist.. A communist. At some point, you want some elected or appointed group of people to decide "This is enough and no more!" You want to draw a line in the sand and say "No man may earn or have more than this"
I say to you: "Go fuck yourself, I'll decide how much or how little is enough for myself"
You are no more qualified to tell me how much is enough, than I am to tell you how much you should have or what you should spend it on"
I'm so tired of you spoiled and jealous cunts thinking you have the moral superiority to decide for EVERYONE what is reasonable..
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Pretty sure I have quite a few modded games on my XBox One..
Welcome to 2018....
The number of people talking about making college "Free" is.. sad.
It's not free and it will never be free. Someone has to pay for it.
You bitch about student loans and then suggest that taxpayers should have to pay for what you don't want to pay for. In effect you want to make EVERYONE pay for your fucking schooling. Then you drag up the "it's beneficial to society" LIE!
If it's so goddamn beneficial to society, then why are a lot of people who graduate with degrees having such a hard time making ends meet? If having a degree is so desirable, then why aren't companies snatching you people up the moment you are holding the sheepskin?
I see news report after news report about people with Bachelor and Master degrees working at Starbucks or McDonald's. Is anyone going to admit that maybe we've saturated the market for degreed workers? I've watched every single state/tax-funded trade school, in my area, disappear. There are massive shortages of workers to fill high paying blue-collar jobs. But everyone has been fed this lie that a degree is a requirement for a successful career.
LIE
A lot of the time it helps.. No argument there. But right now, at this point in time, it doesn't seem to be a requirement. We appear to have hit saturation. Yet we keep cranking out folks with degrees when there are no jobs to take them in.
Then, you get hit with the old double-whammy. Not only can't you get a job that pays well enough to make those loan payments, but a lot of the time you can't even get a shitty job because you are over-qualified and employers know you'll bounce the moment something comes along that pays better. Who the fuck wants to train someone who'll bolt at the first opportunity?
The solution a lot of you keep parroting is the "make college free". Yeah.. that'll help with the saturation.. If you people had taken any economics classes, you'd know that would have the exact opposite effect. You mouth-breathers want to dump even more degreed people on the market and then what? You don't think wages will drop even further for those fields? I mean, for fuck's sake, if you have 1000 applicants (all with Bachelor's degrees) applying for XYZ job, do you think any company is going to offer top dollar? They're all qualified... so how do you reduce the demand? You reduce the wage you are offering..
You find that happy (and natural) balance between wage offered and qualified applicant who will accept said wage. Consensual...
You lefties always going on with your "what two consenting adults do in the bedroom", but you sure change your tune when it's "two consenting adults in the boardroom".
Fucking hypocrites....
Did you go to school? You used that word "Free" so I don't think you did. It's not free, asshole. It's just being paid for by someone else... (Taxpayers)
Nationally, 31% of all home sales end in foreclosure...
30-31% of our population makes really shitty financial decisions.
One could also say that 69-70% do not. But ya know... people are gonna bitch about how rigged the game is.. Even though it works for the VAST majority of people.
This implies that attending college is a stupid decision. However, there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Honestly, someone should hit you upside the head for submitting that post because stupid decisions should be painful.
Attending a college you cannot afford and then bitching about it, after the fact, is a stupid decision. Someone needs to smack you upside the head with a clue stick.
You are absolutely correct. if the GP had bothered to do even 5 minutes of research, he/she would have seen that college prices began climbing the EXACT SAME YEAR THAT STUDENT LOANS WERE INTRODUCED.
But, apparently that's too much work and he/she would rather just talk out of their ass.
It's not free, asshole. It's being paid for by taxpayers. So tired of you people using that word. IT IS NOT FREE.
And yes, the problem is the availability of student loans. May I suggest that your very first course be Economics 101?
When everyone can afford to go to college and there are more students than seats, a very efficient way to reduce demand is to raise prices. This is true for every single item on the market. Any competent company will price their products at the maximum they think the market will bear. If demand drops too low, you reduce your prices a little. If demand spikes, you raise your prices up a little. You seek the balance.
Could you be any bigger of an asshole? You admit you made one poor decision after another and yet you want to penalize everyone else. First the colleges have too much money, then the professors are being paid too much... You even have a problem with how much money researchers are being paid.
Why are colleges jacking up tuition? Think that maybe it's supply and demand? The government got involved, via the student loan program, and massively increased the amount of people who had the money to go to a university. The universities can't take everyone who applies, so how do they reduce the demand? Simple, they jack up the prices. This is a consensual arrangement. 100% of their student population is there voluntarily. If someone doesn't like, or cannot afford, the tuition they don't go to the fucking school. If demand falls too low, the school will reduce tuition until it hits a balance between available seats and applicants.
I'm fairly certain your university didn't force you to attend either. You saw the prices and you decided that the prices were what you were willing to pay. And now, like a spoiled millennial fuckwit, you want to bitch about it after the fact.
Everyone bitches that education is underfunded in this country and here you are suggesting that even more money should be taken from the schools. How about you man up, take responsibility for your decisions, and move on like a fucking adult?
Here's a bit of advice. These kinds of situations will keep coming up your entire adult life.. Purchase a house you can't afford? Yeah, the bank is gonna take it back. I bet you'll bitch about that too. Most people aren't going to have a lot of sympathy for your foreclosure either. See, most of us buy what we can afford, and when we make a mistake we learn from it. We don't run around bitching about how stacked the deck is, because it isn't.
I can think of very few jobs in the US that include even three weeks of vacation. 4 weeks is nearly unheard of.
Most blue collar jobs contain zero guaranteed vacation time. You might get vacation, but it's usually a "hey boss, can I have a week off?" situation. Your employer doesn't have to give you any vacation time.
What's next? Bitching about all those kids who committed suicide because their girlfriend/boyfriend broke up with them? Yeah.. it does happen.. Do we ban people from breaking up?
You might dismiss this as being stupid... But you can't fix every problem.. What you consider stupid, or what I consider stupid, is considered rational by someone...
Bullying sucks.. But, you can't fix it and maintain a free society. To fix bullying, you have to erode free speech. Maybe you consider this a reasonable trade.. I don't.
I oppose it, I teach my children to not do it, and if I ever caught them doing it, I'd tan their hides.. But...what I consider bullying and what I consider rough kid-play are probably not lined up exactly with your definitions. Do you wish to impose your definition on me? How would you feel if I imposed my definition on you?
There will always be bullies... We deal with them and move on.
Once? They're still called thongs by a sizable portion of the population. Mostly the elderly, as you pointed out... But the "once" is incorrect. They're still called that by a lot of folks..
All words convey meaning, and offensive words convey offensive meaning.
Bullshit. Offense is an individual emotion. For example, that word at the beginning of this reply may (or may not) have offended you. But, there will be those people whom it did not offend at all.
Your entire post is nonsensical. There is no such thing as an offensive word. Even the word "cunt" is only offensive to a certain portion of the populace. But it's not 100%, probably not even close to 100%....
Offense can only be defined by an individual. Labeling speech as offensive is STUPID unless you qualify it by adding "to me".
Furthermore, nobody gives a shit what you find offensive. You can't run a society based on the whims of a single person. If we banned all offensive words, we'd end up banning most words.. I find the word "liberal" to be offensive.. Should we not use it?
Typical leftie bullshit... Couple gets pregnant, but it's not their fault (or choice, depending on how you look at it). Now someone who had no say in the decision (business owner) has to foot the fucking bill.
Idiocracy will come to pass because of lefties. Conservatives (generally) plan their children. Lefties act surprised that anything happens when the weenie goes in the honey hole.
Is there anything you lefties do that you'll take responsibility for?
Can you even go 5 minutes without contradicting yourselves? First we have too many people (overpopulation) and now we don't have enough for sustainability.
Make you your fucking mind already...
I love how you think employees will run the company better than "greedy cunts".
Mass decision is even more ineffective and dangerous than smaller pluralities. Mass decision was one of the reasons the Roman Republic fell into dictatorship.
Have you never read this famous quote? Or do you think it's bullshit?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of The Republic.”
Benjamin Franklin
Why is there only about ten employee owned companies on the Fortune 400?
Do you really think Joe's (in legal) vote on where to direct the company should be worth the same as Sam's (in accounting)? You don't think that a person with a legal degree should have more to say, in the running of a company and it's compliance with various laws, than a guy who does math all day?
Yeah.. Let's have companies ran and owned by the employees.. I can just see how many times the "let's vote ourselves a raise" vote will fail.. And then will be the inevitable bankruptcy....
What color is the sky in your world?
That's your comeback? The poster pens a well written comment, and you reply that he needs to grow up? No rebuttal? No argument of ideas or facts?
You need to grow up. Your response was identical to something a 3 year old would say...
Do you know how stupid that sounds? Enough vehicles are on the road, so much so that if each one was driven at the exact same time, 88% of the public (in this country) would be on the road.
Pretty much everyone has a car, is my point. Statistically, at least. So yeah, since everyone who could buy a car has, things don't look all that bad to me. And considering the same number of people who have bought a car can only drive one at a time, I don't think it would be markedly worse in this country if everyone who could buy a car, bought 3 of them.
You think a command economy is the solution? You want fascism? If the CEOs are so selfish and greedy, why can we trust that the komissars, politburo, and general secretary won't be just as greedy?
I mean, a CEO is a CEO.. Be he the head of a corporation or a country.
We will never achieve anything like a communist utopia. It is against our very nature. People will always aspire to be a little better than those around them. That makes for a pretty tail and very pointy pyramid.. With someone always at the top. ALWAYS.
If I hadn't commented on this story, I'd mod you up. You, sir, are probably 100% correct.
The gun is a metaphor, but it has the potential to become literal.
Tax evasion is a crime that CAN result in a prison sentence. You will be escorted to prison by guards with guns.. If you attempt to flee, that can shoot you.
Don't sit there and tell us that taxes aren't enforced with guns.
The government enforces ALL of it's edicts with the threat of violence. if it did not, more people would ignore those decrees.
Really? So Wesley Snipes wasn't in prison for tax evasion?
In this country (USA) the rules were written specifically to prevent the majority from stripping the rights away from the minority.. To strip away basic rights you need a super majority (3/4).
Unless you can get 3/4 of the states to take away my guns (for example), your 51%-74% can go fuck itself..
Democracy sucks. I prefer a representative republic.
One other thing, you are aware that, for most people (not counting royalty), the wealth doesn't make it very far down the generations right? I read somewhere, once, that it's 3 generations... Then it's gone...
Gen 1 earns the money through hard work or sound investments.. Whatever..
Gen 2 has it way easier than Gen 1 and treats money with less respect...
Gen 3 was born into wealth, has no concept of work, and squanders it..
I've observed this with my own eyes.. When I was a kid, we had a family here that owned 300,000 acres.. Grandad had built up this vast business empire.. He had passed on and his kids were treating it like their own personal slush fund... The grandkids (my age) were spoiled beyond belief.. Arrogant, wasteful, you name it.... Their land holdings today are about 100 acres.. They had to sell off everything else to maintain the opulent lifestyles.. and even those are gone..
The wealth will be recycled..
So, propose a solution that doesn't strip people of freedom and I'll listen. But when you draw arbitrary lines in the sand and say "this is too much", well, we have a problem.
In the last 50 years America has doubled it's manufacturing output while cutting manufacturing jobs by 1/3. Our public policy has almost completely ignored that.
Cherry picking statistics? What was the growth in manufacturing jobs for the 50 years prior to that? 500%? What about the 100 years before that? 1000%?
We had an explosion of manufacturing and then it leveled off and retracted some.
How do you propose to fix this? Do we go full blown fascist? Do we give the government the power to dictate everything? You say we cut manufacturing jobs by 1/3.. I'll accept that as fact. How do you fix it? Do you order factories to keep jobs they don't need? I'll remind you of the fact that that is _exactly_ what happened in Venezuela...
If we are going to tell factories how many employees they have, do we also force them to create positions that they don't need? It's not that big of stretch... If a factory can't cut a job, but no longer needs a body in a position, then that person has to just stand around all day doing nothing.. That is way worse than doing busywork.. So does the government create a task for them?
Maybe that's not how we handle it... Do we order factories to not move abroad? How do they compete with goods built overseas for far less? Do we impose huge tariffs? Do we force our own citizens to pay higher prices for goods that could be had more cheaply? Do we effectively force them to live poorer (economically) lives because the government has decided that the cost of a good should be higher than it needs to be?
You people keep argue that all the good jobs are leaving.. Well, how the hell do we fix it without fascism? (and I'm not being flippant). Maybe the jobs leaving isn't a bad thing.. Maybe we're going to enter an age of self-employment. You might think that's preposterous, but 200 years ago the idea that a huge percentage of the population would work in cubicles was just as preposterous, in fact it wasn't even an idea.. Nobody could have even imagined that.
There will be jobs tomorrow that we can't even imagine today. 60 years ago the idea of a globally accessible internet, and all the jobs that come with it, wasn't a thought.. None of those jobs were even imaginable... No webpage coders.. No server room attendants.. No router designers... No system administrators... So, if you think you can see the jobs of the future, or the lack thereof, you are being self delusional..
Nothing happening today, with our society, is new. We've been through it many times before... It all ebbs and flows.. The jobs we do today.. They are new jobs.. They didn't exist just a few years ago (in the grand scheme of our time). The jobs back then, they were new jobs.. Some guy was running a cotton gin.. it was a brand new job.. All jobs are new jobs at some time. And every time a new job is created, somewhere else a job is being phased out, because it is no longer needed. You must realize that at one point, even being a farmer was a new fucking job.. Some bastard was the first farmer.. He was doing work nobody had ever done before.. For fuck's sake, even being a plumber is a new job. There's been plumbing for less than 1% of human history. Do we mourn all those jobs that dealt with manually disposing of shit? The loss of those jobs was 100% by technology. Every fucking shit hauler lost his job.. Should the government have had a policy to keep them as a thing?
The only way we fuck this up is to let the government decide how we go forward. Those brain dead morons are the last assholes that should have any say in this. I'd rather we left it up to a vote by McDonalds workers than a vote by the cunts that run our government (and I almost really mean that).
Are we really back to this "concentration of wealth" BULLSHIT?
When has wealth not been concentrated? It has _always_ been concentrated. I'd argue that it's less concentrated today. Back in the day, some asshole of a King owned everything, including your LIFE.
Or are we just choosing to measure between... say 1776 and 2018? Yeah, there was a reset for a bit.. In the Americas and in most of Europe. But this is a 250 year time slice out of.. what? 20,000 years of human history?
When, in the vast majority of human history, not wealth not been concentrated (not counting the aforementioned 250 years)?
Wealth will always concentrate unless you are willing to strip humans of freedom and free will.. One guy will always be just a tiny bit better at his business... He'll make just a tad more profit, save an iota more on expenses.. Slowly his fortune will grow.
But in the end, you want to prevent that. You want to strip away any motive to work a little bit harder.. to scrimp a bit more, to save up for some desire or luxury...
Anyone who starts with "Wealth Concentration" or "Income Inequality" is a communist. Not a socialist.. A communist. At some point, you want some elected or appointed group of people to decide "This is enough and no more!" You want to draw a line in the sand and say "No man may earn or have more than this"
I say to you: "Go fuck yourself, I'll decide how much or how little is enough for myself"
You are no more qualified to tell me how much is enough, than I am to tell you how much you should have or what you should spend it on"
I'm so tired of you spoiled and jealous cunts thinking you have the moral superiority to decide for EVERYONE what is reasonable..
Go fuck yourself twice