French economist Thomas Piketty is raising a ruckus

[Amberchgo]

Richard, UD, Merc, Sean, king of Ass Tards....are not men. They do not want to work and feel that 'the man' is holding them down.

the people that I mentioned are less than human, and classic examples of failures

so be successful one has to be willing to do the work, most here on GB are not willing and give up before even getting out of bed

I'm no going to go as far as saying they're not men. And I'm not going to comment on any one person.

But certainly in society it is certainly much easier to assign blame to others.

If you fail .. not your fault.
Minimum wage job? Not your fault
Can't afford a house or nice car? Not your fault


The reality is (and always will be) is that an individual must be responsible for their own life. I work tons of hours. I work Saturdays and Sundays. I am successful. I have nice things. And appreciate nice things. None of them were given to me. I earned them. Went to college. Went to Grad school. Both I paid for either thru loans or working on campus.

If people think the Gov't is the solution to their problem, they will be waiting a lifetime for the fix. One that will never come.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm no going to go as far as saying they're not men. And I'm not going to comment on any one person.

But certainly in society it is certainly much easier to assign blame to others.

If you fail .. not your fault.
Minimum wage job? Not your fault
Can't afford a house or nice car? Not your fault


The reality is (and always will be) is that an individual must be responsible for their own life. I work tons of hours. I work Saturdays and Sundays. I am successful. I have nice things. And appreciate nice things. None of them were given to me. I earned them. Went to college. Went to Grad school. Both I paid for either thru loans or working on campus.

If people think the Gov't is the solution to their problem, they will be waiting a lifetime for the fix. One that will never come.

Nobody is saying if you fail it's not your fault. Admitting you didn't have the same opportunities and striving to provide those for others is not the same as blaming someone else. Same with minimum wage and to some extent a house and "nice" car.

The reality has NEVER been that an individual was responsible (solely) for their own life. We've been living in clans and societies since long before we evolved into Homo Sapiens for just that reason.

I'll assume you're not lying about how you got through college. What you claim is nearly impossible today but I'll take you at face value. However that makes you an extraordinary human being and we shouldn't be holding everybody to your standard.

The government has fixed A LOT of things over the years so there is no reason to think that it's not going to come. It might be a long time coming but that's mostly because you and Jen are gonna fight it every step of the way, not because the government couldn't snap it's fingers and improve a great deal of things.

 

[Amberchgo]

Nobody is saying if you fail it's not your fault. Admitting you didn't have the same opportunities and striving to provide those for others is not the same as blaming someone else. Same with minimum wage and to some extent a house and "nice" car.

The reality has NEVER been that an individual was responsible (solely) for their own life. We've been living in clans and societies since long before we evolved into Homo Sapiens for just that reason.

I'll assume you're not lying about how you got through college. What you claim is nearly impossible today but I'll take you at face value. However that makes you an extraordinary human being and we shouldn't be holding everybody to your standard.

The government has fixed A LOT of things over the years so there is no reason to think that it's not going to come. It might be a long time coming but that's mostly because you and Jen are gonna fight it every step of the way, not because the government couldn't snap it's fingers and improve a great deal of things.

Working and taking out loans for college in nearly impossible ???

 

[Sean Renaud]

Working and taking out loans for college in nearly impossible ???

Without some sort of assistance and making enough that they'll let you take out those kinds of loans. Yep, pretty much. Least assuming your talking minimum wage and did your schooling in a reasonable amount of time.

Which wasn't exactly the important part of that statement.

 

[Amberchgo]

Without some sort of assistance and making enough that they'll let you take out those kinds of loans. Yep, pretty much. Least assuming your talking minimum wage and did your schooling in a reasonable amount of time.

Which wasn't exactly the important part of that statement.

Apparently you've never applied for college loans.



In the meantime, keep waiting for the Gov't "payoff." Its right around the next "hope and change" campaign slogan.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Apparently you've never applied for college loans.



In the meantime, keep waiting for the Gov't "payoff." Its right around the next "hope and change" campaign slogan.

I have, and so has everybody in my immediate family. My sister needed co-signers, my little brother's been in college for going on a decade paying mostly his own way through and having two full time jobs and I used the GI Bill and still needed loans but I have excellent credit.

So I've actually already gotten a government pay off. It's not right around the next slogan, it's ten years in my past and absolute evidence of it.

 

[richard_daily]

And your solution?

Caps on income for the heads of companies. They can't take home more than 100 times what they pay their lowest waged worker, or the worker of any company they hire. Problem solved.

If they REALLY want to create a "rising tide" then they'll take care of their workers to ensure that they can make more money.

And that's not anywhere near socialism... although I'm sure AJ will still find something to cry about.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Caps on income for the heads of companies. They can't take home more than 100 times what they pay their lowest waged worker, or the worker of any company they hire. Problem solved.

If they REALLY want to create a "rising tide" then they'll take care of their workers to ensure that they can make more money.

And that's not anywhere near socialism... although I'm sure AJ will still find something to cry about.

The only problem with this plan (and I do like it) is that often the heads of companies don't make income the way everybody else does. They might have a year with very little income for whatever reason and then a year (say a new product comes out) where they make epic fucking shit tons.

Also most of the uber rich make a good chunk of their income via investments and that wouldn't have anything to do with what their company does or doesn't make.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm no going to go as far as saying they're not men. And I'm not going to comment on any one person.

But certainly in society it is certainly much easier to assign blame to others.

If you fail .. not your fault.
Minimum wage job? Not your fault
Can't afford a house or nice car? Not your fault


The reality is (and always will be) is that an individual must be responsible for their own life. I work tons of hours. I work Saturdays and Sundays. I am successful. I have nice things. And appreciate nice things. None of them were given to me. I earned them. Went to college. Went to Grad school. Both I paid for either thru loans or working on campus.

If people think the Gov't is the solution to their problem, they will be waiting a lifetime for the fix. One that will never come.

The lying idiot you quoted has fucked up in the past and admitted she doesn't work. Check her stories and ask yourself if that illiterate dipshit could even fill out a job application.

 

[richard_daily]

If people think the Gov't is the solution to their problem, they will be waiting a lifetime for the fix. One that will never come.

So what is the solution to people in poverty, who don't have access to jobs, good education, or decent health care?

Just working hard doesn't work for most people, I can give you countless examples of how the system is rigged against the poor, but I doubt you'd listen.

 

[Amberchgo]

Caps on income for the heads of companies. They can't take home more than 100 times what they pay their lowest waged worker, or the worker of any company they hire. Problem solved.

If they REALLY want to create a "rising tide" then they'll take care of their workers to ensure that they can make more money.

And that's not anywhere near socialism... although I'm sure AJ will still find something to cry about.

"Problem solved" ??? ... Think Warren Buffett.

 

[richard_daily]

The only problem with this plan (and I do like it) is that often the heads of companies don't make income the way everybody else does. They might have a year with very little income for whatever reason and then a year (say a new product comes out) where they make epic fucking shit tons.

Also most of the uber rich make a good chunk of their income via investments and that wouldn't have anything to do with what their company does or doesn't make.

Admittedly, that would be hard to figure out a way to cap, but it should be done. I think that would absolutely be the challenge.

But let's be real. Someone making 100x the "minimum wage" doesn't need to make any more. And that allows those born with a silver spoon in their mouths to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, without completely fucking over everyone else, and essentially stealing from them.

 

[richard_daily]

"Problem solved" ??? ... Think Warren Buffett.

So.... you have no rebuttal or answer then.

Good to know.

 

[Amberchgo]

So.... you have no rebuttal or answer then.

Good to know.

My answer is that your "solution" isn't one.

Price controls or income controls don't work.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Admittedly, that would be hard to figure out a way to cap, but it should be done. I think that would absolutely be the challenge.

But let's be real. Someone making 100x the "minimum wage" doesn't need to make any more. And that allows those born with a silver spoon in their mouths to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, without completely fucking over everyone else, and essentially stealing from them.

I agree that it's a good plan, I'm just saying that it's gonna require a lot of very smart people doing a lot of math.

My answer is that your "solution" isn't one.

Price controls or income controls don't work.

Course they do. You claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact one tiny bit.

What precisely is so important about Warren Buffet by the by?

 

[Amberchgo]

[QUOTE=richard_daily;...... Someone making 100x the "minimum wage" doesn't need to make any more.





How is it anyone's job to say someone else "doesn't need more."

 

[Sean Renaud]

How is it anyone's job to say someone else "doesn't need more."

It's part of societies purpose actually. So it's our job to say someone doesn't need any more and that is measured by when they have so much that they are hurting the group as a whole.

 

[Amberchgo]

So.... you have no rebuttal or answer then.

Good to know.

How do handle IPO's? Zuckerberg made billions. You limiting innovation as well?

 

[richard_daily]

How is it anyone's job to say someone else "doesn't need more."

If you see someone holding someone else up at gunpoint, do you have an obligation to do something about it?

 

[richard_daily]

How do handle IPO's? Zuckerberg made billions. You limiting innovation as well?

Zuckerberg, you mean the guy who stole his business model from other people?

Why should he make billions off of that, if he can't pay his workers at the very least, millions?

I mean, if you're cool with theft, that's fine, just come out and say that.

 

[richard_daily]

I agree that it's a good plan, I'm just saying that it's gonna require a lot of very smart people doing a lot of math.

I think there could be simple language, that would take into consideration most of the circumstances, but you'd have to have very solid language that would prevent people from finding loopholes, that's where the real challenge is. Rich people (the actual rich, not people making a few hundred k) will do just about anything to steal more money from the rest of society, so it wouldn't be an easy task.

Course they do. You claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact one tiny bit.

What precisely is so important about Warren Buffet by the by?

I honestly didn't understand the response... or rather, the non-response.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Zuckerberg, you mean the guy who stole his business model from other people?

Why should he make billions off of that, if he can't pay his workers at the very least, millions?

I mean, if you're cool with theft, that's fine, just come out and say that.

I'm less than concerned about Zuckerberg for starters I only half believe the "stolen business model" stuff. I've done a bit of reading on it. Regardless the idea that you'd stifle innovation by . . .really any limitation you put on him is kinda silly. By his own admission he made the damn thing to get invited to parties. It turns out extremely creative people are rarely motivated by money and as long as they have enough money to live comfortably you really don't need to worry much about them one way or the other. Because that's not how they function and more to the point offering people boat loads of money to be them doesn't work because those people are largely "magical".

I would however admit that IPOs would present an interestin challenge, but one I think that could be solved by giving away stock in the fucking company. As he gets richer so to do their employees.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm less than concerned about Zuckerberg for starters I only half believe the "stolen business model" stuff. I've done a bit of reading on it. Regardless the idea that you'd stifle innovation by . . .really any limitation you put on him is kinda silly. By his own admission he made the damn thing to get invited to parties. It turns out extremely creative people are rarely motivated by money and as long as they have enough money to live comfortably you really don't need to worry much about them one way or the other. Because that's not how they function and more to the point offering people boat loads of money to be them doesn't work because those people are largely "magical".

I would however admit that IPOs would present an interestin challenge, but one I think that could be solved by giving away stock in the fucking company. As he gets richer so to do their employees.

Ah, the solution for what the other guy was bringing up was so simple that I missed what his point was...

if you hold 100 shares of stock, all of your employees have to have at least 1 share... so simple it hurts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is interesting watching people argue about how they can design a better mousetrap.

The biggest fallacy that I see in the discussion of a model system designed by government is the idea that it stops and does exactly where and what I imagine will actually occur if only others could see the simple brilliance of my plan. That has been the goal of many failed governments and when they collapsed under the weight of their dreams a lot of people got hurt economically and sometimes they even got dead.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Get Rich or Die Trying
Hate economic inequality? Support Social Security reform.
Kevin D. Williamson, NRO
APRIL 27, 2014

The Left’s favorite economist of the moment, Thomas Piketty, organizes his argument in Capital in the Twenty-First Century around the statement r > g, where r is the rate of return on capital and g is the rate of economic growth. If r > g, he argues, then economic inequality will inevitably increase and will indeed be compounded, as the income derived from capital outpaces the income derived from other sources, such as wages. Putting it in the shape of a formula gives a certain science-y panache to the utterly uncontroversial observation that people who save and invest their money will generally end up richer than those who don’t. Professor Piketty argues that preventing the growth of corrosive inequality requires reducing the wealth of investors, which he proposes to accomplish through a fancifully conceived global tax on capital.

As Tyler Cowen and Arpit Gupta have argued, r > g is a stronger argument for privatizing Social Security than it is for a global capital tax. (Professor Cowen opposes such privatization but writes that he would be better disposed toward it if he agreed with Piketty’s assumptions.) If investment income really is to grow at a much faster rate than other kinds of income, then the most sensible thing to do is to encourage — or even require — investment. Much as I dislike federal mandates, redirecting the money hijacked out of Americans’ paychecks through Social Security taxes — subsequently to be micturated away on various political enthusiasms — and putting it in real investments is a very attractive option. And not only for the returns.

But let’s consider those returns. You pay, officially, 6.2 percent of income up to $117,000 a year for Social Security. Your employer pays another 6.2 percent, and many economists and nine out of ten people who were born at night but not last night assume that you really pay that part, too, in the form of lower wages. The IRS even seems to believe that, which is why self-employed people pay 12.4 percent. That money is not invested, so there is no return on it. The theoretical return you get on your Social Security “investment” depends on many factors: how long you live, when you retire, average monthly income during the 35 highest-earning years of your life, etc., along with — and this is important — future public-policy decisions that will be entirely out of your hands.

Professor Piketty estimates that the return on capital over the coming decades will be between 4 percent and 5 percent; historical returns to equity investments run about 7 percent, but let’s be conservative and split Professor Piketty’s estimate, assuming a 4.5 percent return. And in keeping with the first theorem of English-major math, let’s replace that 12.4 percent Social Security tax with a poet-friendly 10 percent. Investing 10 percent of your income at a 4.5 percent return over the course of a 45-year working life produces a higher income in retirement than you enjoyed in your working life, regardless of your income level. It’s true if you make $10 an hour or $10,000 an hour. Example: Assume you make the modest sum of $20,000 a year and never get a raise. You invest $2,000 a year at 4.5 percent for 45 years and end up with just over $300,000, which, taking the most risk-averse course, can be converted into an annuity paying $1,800 a month, more than you made in your job. In fact, by the end of your working life, the returns on your investment — just the returns — would add up to about 70 percent of your salary. Start working a few years earlier or work a few years more, and the numbers are even better, enough to have a substantially higher income in retirement than you had when working.

Professor Piketty rejects such investments, citing the volatility of investment income. (As several critics have pointed out, he gives scant consideration to the risk of holding capital when considering the question of inequality, which is odd: Returns on investments are the payment one receives for bearing risk.) He writes: “For a person of sufficient means who can wait ten or twenty years before taking her profits, the return on capital is indeed quite attractive.” And it’s even more attractive at 45 years or 50 years, which is precisely what we should be encouraging.

...

I suppose we have to consider the politics, too: A guy who works as a retail manager and has $700,000 in his retirement account smells like a Republican to me, somebody who’s going to be damned surly about things like inflation, income redistribution, and the imposition of punitive taxes and regulations on businesses in which he is invested with his own money; the same guy dependent on a pitiful little check from the government smells like a Democrat, one inclined to moaning about the fat cats and inequality and the general unfairness of it all.

And that, I suspect, is why Democrats will fight all the way down to bloody stumps to stop Social Security reform. It’s harder to recruit a guy with a fat portfolio into your harebrained class war, whereas a guy getting a government check is an easy mark. He might not be depressed enough to read Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which I suspect will join A Brief History of Time among the best-selling-least-read books of our time. (“A classic,” Mark Twain said, “is something everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read.”) But if he’s eating the federal cheese, he’ll keep voting for Democrats, even if he never stops to appreciate the irony in Harry Reid (D., Ritz-Carlton) getting rich peddling envy to rubes like him.