It's much worse if you're not financially literate.
I work retail, at Home Depot. And some of my coworkers who actually have very good brains (one is a plumber), have made the interesting mistake of quitting their previous jobs, taking the cash from their 401k, and then not rolling it over to a new 401k within the 60 day period, which led to them a) paying full income tax on it, and b) paying a 10% penalty. One found out from his tax guy before he spent it, so he ended up with enough to pay off his house note and not much else; the plumber is still paying off the IRS.
This is a whole lot more complicated then operating a pension, and there's nobody you can call from your Union (who a) knows you personally because you worked together, and b) probably has a long history of dealing with the issues of people like you and your pension system) to talk to when you get confused.
And to top it all off, then Wall Street takes advantage of people's financial illiteracy to fleece them with fees, all the while calling them "muppets". I would say that finance is something that should be taught in school, but I can't really see teenagers giving a crap.
How about a blast from the past.. "within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital."
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production
Can there be any mystery as to why Marx is so vilified in a country beholden to a Capitalist system?
I arrived at America in the 1970's, and immediately plunged into the job market (Chinatown) because I practically had no money with me
After schooling and so on (paid for with the slave wages I got from working in Chinatown and other places) I 'upgraded' my career into research institutions
I think you would have a hard time doing that today. Slave wages have not kept up with inflation. While there has never been a 'job security' clause in the agreement, there used to be a more reciprocal relationship between employer and employee. I don't think employees are as valued today as they were 40 years ago. It's much more one-sided as the article says. Aided by technology, more is expected of today's workers, while employers seem to think they are doing them a favor just by offering them a job.
The reason is to learn how to do it again. Right now the US can't even put astronauts in orbit.
We like to think we *can* but just don't want to. Its a very comforting thought.
This is part of what I don't get. We were putting people on the moon every 6 months from 1969 to 1972. Now it's described as some huge undertaking, requiring all this money and R&D. I'm not saying it's not a huge undertaking. It's sitting a crew on top of a controlled explosion, hurling them into the void and then steering them across 239,000 miles to the moon. It's a big deal, no doubt. But like I said, we were doing it every 6 months for 3 years with 40-year-old technology and materials. So what's the trouble now? Is it simply funding priorities?
Then we all stay here and die. I can't fathom why science enthusiasts can't accept what science has been repeating for decades now: there is no place other than Earth for us in the Solar System and we can't reach other systems. You either accept science even when it brings bad news or you don't. There's no middle ground. And science says: there's a whole universe out there for us to see... But only to see.
We do things now that were impossible 100 years ago. You seem to think that we have discovered all about physics that there is to discover and that what was the case yesterday will be the case tomorrow. Science and history have shown both of those views to be incorrect. I think our aspirations should look beyond our current capabilities. After all, it was once thought that ships heavier than water could not float and craft heavier than air could not fly.
I do agree with your assessment of our leaving this planet, however. I think that given enough time we could manage to do it. But we don't have that time, in my estimation. The problems we must overcome on this planet to forge a sustainable civilization need to be addressed now. We won't have 1000 years to wait, or even 100. In fact I believe that we must produce that stable, sustainable, and peaceful society before we can reach for the stars. We won't be able to put forth such a concerted effort until we are no longer competing and fighting with each other. So saying we must find a new planet because this one will be all fucked up is foolish. We must take care of this one (which is fully within our power, we just have to re-prioritize) because it's the only one we'll have for the foreseeable future.
What YOU don't apparently get is that when we talk about "free speech," we're talking about your speech being free from government infringement. That has nothing to do with private businesses and gathering places. They have the freedom to assemble and conduct themselves as they see fit, without you telling them that they must support, for example, rape/race/kiddie forums, just because you think they should. That's the whole point. If YOU think that's the sign of freedom, YOU can run your own web site where those are the things that are celebrated.
The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must shut down race-baiting or fat-shaming forums. That's a personal editorial decision made by the people who actually own and operate the site. That you can't make the distinction between government limits on speech and editorial decisions made by private businesses suggests that you should really stop saying anything on the subject, because you're just poisoning the well. Also, please do not vote - you're too uneducated to do it safely.
Calm down. The post was in response to Daemonik sarcastically saying that he's "so glad" that voat.co will continue to be a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Voat.com seems to be more into free speech than reddit.com. That's fine; both are private sites, as you point out, and can make their own editorial decisions. I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with private vs. government censorship.
So glad to know that the defenders of free speech still have a place to share pictures of underage girls, openly discus raping those underage girls, share racist rants and generally discuss how those uppity bitches are keeping men down. Our founding fathers would weep.
I am glad too, because that's actually what free speech is all about. Unpopular or offensive speech is the speech that requires the most protection. Otherwise the thought police will be trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this.
And who pays for his medical injuries if he gets injured while trespassing in an abandoned building that may well be structurally unsound or otherwise hazardous?
His parent's health insurance, I would imagine.
There's typically a fence around such structures for a reason. One can laugh at the absurdity of the SWAT team getting involved over chemistry experiments without condoning the previous trespass. And, come to think of it, the SWAT team/bomb squad would never have gotten involved if he had procured his mercury legally.....
I will indeed laugh at the absurdity of a SWAT team being involved over chemistry experiments. Because it is absurd. Since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have been scared of our own shadows. We act like frightened children, lashing out at the slightest indication of the possibility of a threat (and yet ironically not noticing or responding to actual threats). It is alternately amusing and infuriating to me.
I don't know why this comment is marked troll, because it's absolutely not a troll, it is the absolute truth. I have had the EXACT same experience. I get an average of 2-4 recruiters contacting me with offers each month. I've worked hard on honing my skills, I've worked hard on networking locally/regionally, I've worked hard to ensure that my resume is up to date and relates my track record well, etc.
Lumpy is exactly right. If others reading this think that he's bragging (and that's why they marked it a troll) they're missing the point. I cannot tell you the enormous difference in negotiation when you are confident (not arrogant) and put yourself in a position where people know you before you walk in the room. It's not that hard to do, and it absolutely puts you in the driver's seat.
I'll tell you the same thing I told Lumpy. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is be a superstar. Superstars are, by definition, a small percentage of the population. We cannot all do this. The vast majority cannot do this. Therefore it isn't really valuable advice. A goal to shoot for, absolutely. But if the key to success is to be in the top 10%, it leaves out the other 90% by definition.
It's why I am fending off job offers monthly. I have a skillset that is in very high demand and I am in a field that has never had a lot of people in it.
All of this makes you an outlier by definition. You don't seem to understand that. Can we all be in the top 10%? I don't think so.
This is what always gets me about this type of example. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is have a rare skill set in a field that has few people in it. Well that's great, but it is something that only a relative few people can do. If more people did it, the field would have more people in it, the skill set would be more common, and you wouldn't be getting calls every day.
How is that feasible when it reportedly costs $6,000 for a driver's license? Some jurisdictions reportedly require 120 hours of logged supervised driving on a learner's permit before they will issue a license (source), and not everybody has parents who both drive and are willing to sit in the car that long. At $50 per hour for a professional instructor, it starts to add up.
Thank God. In America anyone who can avoid crashing into things during their test can get a license. It's stupid easy, with the emphasis on stupid.
How about a commute that's easily over 1.5 hours each way every day? Sitting still on highway 95 at 4:00 in the afternoon is about as far away from a brain clearing exercise as I can imagine. There's nothing better I'd rather do than literally waste 3+ hours a day with the other worker bees.
Fuck that. I would have to be desperate for a job to take one that is over 1.5 hours away. I know some people are indeed desperate for a job, but otherwise I would not waste so much of my day. Hell, I pay for a monthly parking spot in the city just to cut my commute from an hour and 15 to 30 minutes.
If being rich is your only measure of success than Bernie Madoff is a big success. How ironic you end your rant with the name Jesus since he was, by all accounts, a total failure dying penniless on the cross.
This is America; success is measured in dollars. Bernie Madoff was a success, until he turned himself in to the authorities. Modern Americans would step over Jesus and tell him to get a job.
"Why waste so many years learning how to code? Why not just pay someone else to build your idea?"
Yeah, I mean why learn a skill yourself when you can just hire someone to do the work for you and then hire someone else to market the product to make you millions, while paying the guys you hired as little as possible? It seems the most important skill is being able to pay people while keeping most of the money for yourself.
You got lucky in the genes, that's it. You're just to arrogant to realize it.
I am not too arrogant to realize I have awesome genes. In fact, I'm pretty awesome in general, and rather smart too! How's that for not being arrogant?
After all, data about money can't be more important than money itself and money safeguarding/management has already outsourced to banks since, when? always?
"Next time there's a server security breach, I'll call my accountants to come fix it right?"
How's this any different to a physical bank security breach (aka robbery)? Next time the bank your accountants work with is robbed will you call them to fix the mess too?
You should look into how much people trusted banks with their money before the advent of FDIC. People trust banks with their money because the government is insuring it against theft or loss. No such guarantee comes with Cloud storage.
And you realize the purported purpose of the bailouts was so people don't lose their life savings, homes, and businesses, right?
Emphasis on "purported". If the Fed or Treasury's priority was helping regular people they would have helped people pay their mortgages. Instead they threw money at the banks to make them whole, while letting Main Street get foreclosed upon. You can say the banks were forced to take the money, and they may have said that in public. But it doesn't hold up to assert that the banks didn't need the money. It obviates the whole bailout.
Finally, who's to say what the "correct" duration of time to hold a house is? If the banks really need the cash, they can put them to auction. And they frequently do.
But Drinkypoo's point is that they aren't selling the houses because they don't need the money because they are being propped up by the government.
The problem is that we spent so long subsidizing the demand side that the supply for housing is hopelessly outpaced. The prices have skyrocketed over the past 15 years to the point where first-time buyers are largely priced out of the market. Want to drive home ownership in a sustainable way? Drive it at the supply side. That means subsidizing the whole supply chain, from land to materials to labor. Drive a massive swell of building to bring supply well above demand and watch as homeownership rates rise quickly but sustainably even as market speculators (who really just drive up prices further) get crushed under the weight of falling home prices.
Haven't we tried supply-side economics? What is to keep the supply side from simply pocketing the subsidy and continuing on at current prices?
If a fraction of the money that was used to bailout the banks had been used to just pay down the mortgages of those homeowners, the worst of the economic collapse would have been averted and the banks would have still gotten their money. Then, the bailouts wouldn't have been necessary at all.
But, but then you'd just be giving money to people! Some of them might not have been responsible! We can't just do that! Moral hazard! Whaargaarble!
Nope, better to just give, I mean loan, money to the banks. They're the responsible ones after all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much worse if you're not financially literate.
I work retail, at Home Depot. And some of my coworkers who actually have very good brains (one is a plumber), have made the interesting mistake of quitting their previous jobs, taking the cash from their 401k, and then not rolling it over to a new 401k within the 60 day period, which led to them a) paying full income tax on it, and b) paying a 10% penalty. One found out from his tax guy before he spent it, so he ended up with enough to pay off his house note and not much else; the plumber is still paying off the IRS.
This is a whole lot more complicated then operating a pension, and there's nobody you can call from your Union (who a) knows you personally because you worked together, and b) probably has a long history of dealing with the issues of people like you and your pension system) to talk to when you get confused.
And to top it all off, then Wall Street takes advantage of people's financial illiteracy to fleece them with fees, all the while calling them "muppets". I would say that finance is something that should be taught in school, but I can't really see teenagers giving a crap.
How about a blast from the past.. "within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital."
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production
Can there be any mystery as to why Marx is so vilified in a country beholden to a Capitalist system?
I arrived at America in the 1970's, and immediately plunged into the job market (Chinatown) because I practically had no money with me
After schooling and so on (paid for with the slave wages I got from working in Chinatown and other places) I 'upgraded' my career into research institutions
I think you would have a hard time doing that today. Slave wages have not kept up with inflation. While there has never been a 'job security' clause in the agreement, there used to be a more reciprocal relationship between employer and employee. I don't think employees are as valued today as they were 40 years ago. It's much more one-sided as the article says. Aided by technology, more is expected of today's workers, while employers seem to think they are doing them a favor just by offering them a job.
Creates a gravity well and then falls into the dip.
Isn't that the way Robert Lazar's flying saucer was supposed to work?
One wonders what kind of educational path leads someone to wonder if ions have mass... Jesus wept.
Realistically, the average person on the street does not know whether or not ions have mass.
First you'll have to convince Gen. "Buck" Turgidson over at the Pentagon.
The reason is to learn how to do it again. Right now the US can't even put astronauts in orbit.
We like to think we *can* but just don't want to. Its a very comforting thought.
This is part of what I don't get. We were putting people on the moon every 6 months from 1969 to 1972. Now it's described as some huge undertaking, requiring all this money and R&D. I'm not saying it's not a huge undertaking. It's sitting a crew on top of a controlled explosion, hurling them into the void and then steering them across 239,000 miles to the moon. It's a big deal, no doubt. But like I said, we were doing it every 6 months for 3 years with 40-year-old technology and materials. So what's the trouble now? Is it simply funding priorities?
Then we all stay here and die. I can't fathom why science enthusiasts can't accept what science has been repeating for decades now: there is no place other than Earth for us in the Solar System and we can't reach other systems. You either accept science even when it brings bad news or you don't. There's no middle ground. And science says: there's a whole universe out there for us to see... But only to see.
We do things now that were impossible 100 years ago. You seem to think that we have discovered all about physics that there is to discover and that what was the case yesterday will be the case tomorrow. Science and history have shown both of those views to be incorrect. I think our aspirations should look beyond our current capabilities. After all, it was once thought that ships heavier than water could not float and craft heavier than air could not fly.
I do agree with your assessment of our leaving this planet, however. I think that given enough time we could manage to do it. But we don't have that time, in my estimation. The problems we must overcome on this planet to forge a sustainable civilization need to be addressed now. We won't have 1000 years to wait, or even 100. In fact I believe that we must produce that stable, sustainable, and peaceful society before we can reach for the stars. We won't be able to put forth such a concerted effort until we are no longer competing and fighting with each other. So saying we must find a new planet because this one will be all fucked up is foolish. We must take care of this one (which is fully within our power, we just have to re-prioritize) because it's the only one we'll have for the foreseeable future.
What don't you get about free speech?
What YOU don't apparently get is that when we talk about "free speech," we're talking about your speech being free from government infringement. That has nothing to do with private businesses and gathering places. They have the freedom to assemble and conduct themselves as they see fit, without you telling them that they must support, for example, rape/race/kiddie forums, just because you think they should. That's the whole point. If YOU think that's the sign of freedom, YOU can run your own web site where those are the things that are celebrated. The government isn't stepping in to say that Reddit must shut down race-baiting or fat-shaming forums. That's a personal editorial decision made by the people who actually own and operate the site. That you can't make the distinction between government limits on speech and editorial decisions made by private businesses suggests that you should really stop saying anything on the subject, because you're just poisoning the well. Also, please do not vote - you're too uneducated to do it safely.
Calm down. The post was in response to Daemonik sarcastically saying that he's "so glad" that voat.co will continue to be a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Voat.com seems to be more into free speech than reddit.com. That's fine; both are private sites, as you point out, and can make their own editorial decisions. I am actually glad there is a place where kiddie diddlers can discuss kiddie diddling. Not because I engage in that, or in any way approve or condone it, but because it is in line with the ideals and philosophy behind our Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with private vs. government censorship.
So glad to know that the defenders of free speech still have a place to share pictures of underage girls, openly discus raping those underage girls, share racist rants and generally discuss how those uppity bitches are keeping men down. Our founding fathers would weep.
I am glad too, because that's actually what free speech is all about. Unpopular or offensive speech is the speech that requires the most protection. Otherwise the thought police will be trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize this.
And who pays for his medical injuries if he gets injured while trespassing in an abandoned building that may well be structurally unsound or otherwise hazardous?
His parent's health insurance, I would imagine.
There's typically a fence around such structures for a reason. One can laugh at the absurdity of the SWAT team getting involved over chemistry experiments without condoning the previous trespass. And, come to think of it, the SWAT team/bomb squad would never have gotten involved if he had procured his mercury legally.....
I will indeed laugh at the absurdity of a SWAT team being involved over chemistry experiments. Because it is absurd. Since 9/11/2001 we as a nation have been scared of our own shadows. We act like frightened children, lashing out at the slightest indication of the possibility of a threat (and yet ironically not noticing or responding to actual threats). It is alternately amusing and infuriating to me.
Dig that, thanks for the clarification.
I don't know why this comment is marked troll, because it's absolutely not a troll, it is the absolute truth. I have had the EXACT same experience. I get an average of 2-4 recruiters contacting me with offers each month. I've worked hard on honing my skills, I've worked hard on networking locally/regionally, I've worked hard to ensure that my resume is up to date and relates my track record well, etc. Lumpy is exactly right. If others reading this think that he's bragging (and that's why they marked it a troll) they're missing the point. I cannot tell you the enormous difference in negotiation when you are confident (not arrogant) and put yourself in a position where people know you before you walk in the room. It's not that hard to do, and it absolutely puts you in the driver's seat.
I'll tell you the same thing I told Lumpy. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is be a superstar. Superstars are, by definition, a small percentage of the population. We cannot all do this. The vast majority cannot do this. Therefore it isn't really valuable advice. A goal to shoot for, absolutely. But if the key to success is to be in the top 10%, it leaves out the other 90% by definition.
People dont understand that.
It's why I am fending off job offers monthly. I have a skillset that is in very high demand and I am in a field that has never had a lot of people in it.
All of this makes you an outlier by definition. You don't seem to understand that. Can we all be in the top 10%? I don't think so.
This is what always gets me about this type of example. You seem to be saying that all one needs to do is have a rare skill set in a field that has few people in it. Well that's great, but it is something that only a relative few people can do. If more people did it, the field would have more people in it, the skill set would be more common, and you wouldn't be getting calls every day.
How is that feasible when it reportedly costs $6,000 for a driver's license? Some jurisdictions reportedly require 120 hours of logged supervised driving on a learner's permit before they will issue a license (source), and not everybody has parents who both drive and are willing to sit in the car that long. At $50 per hour for a professional instructor, it starts to add up.
Thank God. In America anyone who can avoid crashing into things during their test can get a license. It's stupid easy, with the emphasis on stupid.
How about a commute that's easily over 1.5 hours each way every day? Sitting still on highway 95 at 4:00 in the afternoon is about as far away from a brain clearing exercise as I can imagine. There's nothing better I'd rather do than literally waste 3+ hours a day with the other worker bees.
Fuck that. I would have to be desperate for a job to take one that is over 1.5 hours away. I know some people are indeed desperate for a job, but otherwise I would not waste so much of my day. Hell, I pay for a monthly parking spot in the city just to cut my commute from an hour and 15 to 30 minutes.
If being rich is your only measure of success than Bernie Madoff is a big success. How ironic you end your rant with the name Jesus since he was, by all accounts, a total failure dying penniless on the cross.
This is America; success is measured in dollars. Bernie Madoff was a success, until he turned himself in to the authorities. Modern Americans would step over Jesus and tell him to get a job.
Unfortunately, far too many people are worshipping at the church of Steve Jobs for the concept of the unskilled idea person to die out any time soon.
The PTB have also put this idea into the larger culture as a way to justify their disproportionate wealth.
"Why waste so many years learning how to code? Why not just pay someone else to build your idea?"
Yeah, I mean why learn a skill yourself when you can just hire someone to do the work for you and then hire someone else to market the product to make you millions, while paying the guys you hired as little as possible? It seems the most important skill is being able to pay people while keeping most of the money for yourself.
LOL at gluten. Fuck off, fad dieter.
You got lucky in the genes, that's it. You're just to arrogant to realize it.
I am not too arrogant to realize I have awesome genes. In fact, I'm pretty awesome in general, and rather smart too! How's that for not being arrogant?
After all, data about money can't be more important than money itself and money safeguarding/management has already outsourced to banks since, when? always?
"Next time there's a server security breach, I'll call my accountants to come fix it right?"
How's this any different to a physical bank security breach (aka robbery)? Next time the bank your accountants work with is robbed will you call them to fix the mess too?
You should look into how much people trusted banks with their money before the advent of FDIC. People trust banks with their money because the government is insuring it against theft or loss. No such guarantee comes with Cloud storage.
At least it wasn't the code to the planetary air shield generator: 12345.
That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!
And you realize the purported purpose of the bailouts was so people don't lose their life savings, homes, and businesses, right?
Emphasis on "purported". If the Fed or Treasury's priority was helping regular people they would have helped people pay their mortgages. Instead they threw money at the banks to make them whole, while letting Main Street get foreclosed upon. You can say the banks were forced to take the money, and they may have said that in public. But it doesn't hold up to assert that the banks didn't need the money. It obviates the whole bailout.
Finally, who's to say what the "correct" duration of time to hold a house is? If the banks really need the cash, they can put them to auction. And they frequently do.
But Drinkypoo's point is that they aren't selling the houses because they don't need the money because they are being propped up by the government.
The problem is that we spent so long subsidizing the demand side that the supply for housing is hopelessly outpaced. The prices have skyrocketed over the past 15 years to the point where first-time buyers are largely priced out of the market. Want to drive home ownership in a sustainable way? Drive it at the supply side. That means subsidizing the whole supply chain, from land to materials to labor. Drive a massive swell of building to bring supply well above demand and watch as homeownership rates rise quickly but sustainably even as market speculators (who really just drive up prices further) get crushed under the weight of falling home prices.
Haven't we tried supply-side economics? What is to keep the supply side from simply pocketing the subsidy and continuing on at current prices?
If a fraction of the money that was used to bailout the banks had been used to just pay down the mortgages of those homeowners, the worst of the economic collapse would have been averted and the banks would have still gotten their money. Then, the bailouts wouldn't have been necessary at all.
But, but then you'd just be giving money to people! Some of them might not have been responsible! We can't just do that! Moral hazard! Whaargaarble!
Nope, better to just give, I mean loan, money to the banks. They're the responsible ones after all.