89 replies to this topic

[Ash]

That's the global organism of human civilization for you. We work boring jobs that are vital for society and get a slice of the cake of our labour. It is the way civilization works, and if we don't accept it we will fall like great civilizations have fallen before us. Not everyone can be an rock star, but that seems to be what most people think.

Such a shame that the undeserving seem to always get a bigger slice of the cake of everyone else's labour.

E.g.: I bet the staff at the bottom of the banking food chain didn't get any bonuses in their wage-packets.

By the same token, those unsightly dole-wallowing parasitic scrotes at the bottom who've never worked a day in their lives and have their squalid little world paid for by the honest decent working folk.

Not everyone can be a rock star, that's true, but everyone has a God-given right to a decent, comfortable life so long as they work. And frankly that isn't the case.

But I digress

[Hostile]

That's the global organism of human civilization for you. We work boring jobs that are vital for society and get a slice of the cake of our labour. It is the way civilization works, and if we don't accept it we will fall like great civilizations have fallen before us. Not everyone can be an rock star, but that seems to be what most people think.

Such a shame that the undeserving seem to always get a bigger slice of the cake of everyone else's labour.

E.g.: I bet the staff at the bottom of the banking food chain didn't get any bonuses in their wage-packets.

By the same token, those unsightly dole-wallowing parasitic scrotes at the bottom who've never worked a day in their lives and have their squalid little world paid for by the honest decent working folk.

Not everyone can be a rock star, that's true, but everyone has a God-given right to a decent, comfortable life so long as they work. And frankly that isn't the case.

But I digress

Oh my poor me. Who exactly is the "undeserving?" Those who figured out how to succeed while the rest of you all plead poverty? Not all rich people came from rich families. Do we really need to play victims because some people figured out how to kick ass and some of us feel we deserve some of their thunder because we "failed" to find that same thunder?

Do you think I feel sorry for myself because I had and than lost? NO! Because I will find again. I will rebuild and come again smarter than before. There is no need to lie in the gutter and die because fame and fortune didn't find you. Go find fame and fortune and stop blaming the rich people for your own epic life failures.

Who cares if the lower end banking people got bonus checks. Maybe you should stop worrying about other peoples bonus checks and CREATE your own bonus check by thinking outside of the box and working towards a goal instead of playing the professional victim. Maybe?

[Mathijs]

That is not at all what he meant, but just to argue, I will say that indeed, most of the rich kids in this world inherited.

[Hostile]

And so what if they did (some people inherited)? Does that make them "enemies of the state?" So what if someone got an inheritence because their parents worked hard to provide it? Should they be punished? Should they be made to turn it over to the state? I plan on leaving as much as possible to my children with one clear message: that the state gets as little as possible.

[Mathijs]

Yes, yes. That's what I'm saying. Enemies of the state.

[Ash]

Did I even fucking mention people who inherited their wealth? So what if someone is born a billionaire. Lucky them. They aren't the ones sponging off the system or awarding themselves huge bonuses for bugger all while the little guy - once again - gets shit on.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That's all I really expect. That's all anyone could expect. The problem is some people get paid far too much for too little work, while far too many people work far too hard for too little pay.

The former category are the undeserving. The latter category are the unappreciated.

Why shouldn't the person on the bottom rung expect a bit extra in his payslip owing to the success of the company? Why should the man who already has more money than he knows what to do with at the top (read: banking boss or similar category) get an absurd amount (of what is now taxpayer's money in any case) as a result of record bank "profits" (not really - that money should be paying the taxpayer back, not the shareholder). What about the front-desk clerk who does the real banking...yknow, the bit that is real. With real money, not imaginary large numbers? Why shouldn't they benefit? They work every bit as hard, albeit in a different capacity?

Do you think that's fair?

[Hostile]

Did I even fucking mention people who inherited their wealth? So what if someone is born a billionaire. Lucky them. They aren't the ones sponging off the system or awarding themselves huge bonuses for bugger all while the little guy - once again - gets shit on.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That's all I really expect. That's all anyone could expect. The problem is some people get paid far too much for too little work, while far too many people work far too hard for too little pay.

The former category are the undeserving. The latter category are the unappreciated.

Why shouldn't the person on the bottom rung expect a bit extra in his payslip owing to the success of the company? Why should the man who already has more money than he knows what to do with at the top (read: banking boss or similar category) get an absurd amount (of what is now taxpayer's money in any case) as a result of record bank "profits" (not really - that money should be paying the taxpayer back, not the shareholder). What about the front-desk clerk who does the real banking...yknow, the bit that is real. With real money, not imaginary large numbers? Why shouldn't they benefit? They work every bit as hard, albeit in a different capacity?

Do you think that's fair?

The inherited wealth part was directed at Matias not you.

So you are angry at rich people and poor people? One group has too much and the other is sucking you dry. So where are you located in that equation? Middleclass? You can't hate the rich man because he achieved a position that eludes you. You ethically shouldn't hate the poor because it's supposively not their fault. Who is left for you to hate? Do you think i like having my government bail out banks? I despise it but so does the Tea Party. Yet you hate them as well.

I despise the government touching anything that rightlyfully does not belong to them. Namely my life and my possessions. My privacey as well. But you can't walk around hating everyone and everything can you?

[Puppeteer]

You can't hate the rich man because he achieved a position that eludes you.

The point is he didn't achieve anything. He benefited from a system which exploits, and from a system which entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy.

[Hostile]

You can't hate the rich man because he achieved a position that eludes you.

The point is he didn't achieve anything. He benefited from a system which exploits, and from a system which entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy.

Are you sure that everyone who is rich didn't achieve it? So "he" had to exploit someone in order to gain wealth? And which system entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy? Communism or capitalism?

Just because some guy somewhere came up with a great idea from scratch and made a fortune from it doesn't mean he had to exploit someone to do it. You never know, "he' may have even created some nice paying jobs because of "his" idea.

How many people are making a nice paycheck from Google or Facebook because someone came up with an idea? This guy could have been your best friend but because he made a fortune, now he is evil. Eat the rich baby!

[Mathijs]

You can't hate the rich man because he achieved a position that eludes you.

The point is he didn't achieve anything. He benefited from a system which exploits, and from a system which entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy.

Are you sure that everyone who is rich didn't achieve it? So "he" had to exploit someone in order to gain wealth? And which system entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy? Communism or capitalism?

Um, well, not communism, you know, what with the whole equality deal it's largely based on. It's kind of the anti-thesis of hierarchy of any kind. But I'm sure you knew that already, what with your vehement disliking of leftism. Only a fool would dislike that which he doesn't know, after all.

[Puppeteer]

You can't hate the rich man because he achieved a position that eludes you.

The point is he didn't achieve anything. He benefited from a system which exploits, and from a system which entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy.

Are you sure that everyone who is rich didn't achieve it? So "he" had to exploit someone in order to gain wealth? And which system entrenches people into a fixed social hierarchy? Communism or capitalism?

Just because some guy somewhere came up with a great idea from scratch and made a fortune from it doesn't mean he had to exploit someone to do it. You never know, "he' may have even created some nice paying jobs because of "his" idea.

How many people are making a nice paycheck from Google or Facebook because someone came up with an idea? This guy could have been your best friend but because he made a fortune, now he is evil. Eat the rich baby!

Ahem. A system which exploits. The man may not consciously exploit workers and those lower down the ladder. The system is made such that those at the top remain at the top, often without having worked hard, enabling those with the right opportunities and the right connections to become rich with little effort. Conversely, those at the bottom may have few redeeming opportunities or are stuck in their position, with promotion either out of their reach (because working a few jobs/finding a job whilst running a family on small expenses takes its toll on one's career) or denied to them. Managerial jobs/other high level jobs have a natural tendency/obligation to have inordinately high wages. Just because that is the case, it doesn't make it fair or right. It isn't a fact of life.
Also, fair shout about communism. I forgot how much communism aims towards a society of classes and inequality.

[Elvenlord]

They're not talking about the people that built the company from the ground up. They're talking about the people that get appointed high-paying positions for whatever reason. For example, The Home Depot had a CEO who was paid millions, purposely screwed over the company, then made Home Depot pay him millions to get him to leave, while many hard-working employees took a paycut. That's the kind of shit they're talking about. High-paying officials who get paid millions to do very little while many slave away at the lower levels for nothing in comparison.

Here's some nice little graphs for you:

From Business Insider


Surprise surprise, the super rich are making more than everyone else, and the gap has skyrocketed lately.


More of the same.


Again.


Seeing a trend?


Wages have actually fallen for the average American.


Not in a fixed social hierarchy, eh?


Another.


I think this one explains itself.

This one is just because I thought it was interesting.

[duke_Qa]

Capitalism and communism, they mean very little these days. The most important ideologies of communism has been somewhat integrated into our western societies throughout the last century. Some are fighting it more than others(US, being the big-ass prodigy of capitalism and the victor of the cold war, is going to be doing that for another recession I bet), Scandinavia embraced it in their own way pretty quickly, while Europe is being held by the ears by big-nanny EU and doing baby steps into it these days(Although combined with a unification-dream where bureaucratic politicians, tired of their "backwater" countries, run off to Brussels to play USA with even less connection to their subservient and divided member-nations).

If there was no ideological influence from marx's writing in the western world, 95% of us would still be in the mines and the rich would be gene-splicing their children into über-mensch capable of killing with prophetic economic foresight.("Reduce this man's pay with 0.14%, then he will have to buy the cheaper car model s442honda. In the planned economic recession in q4-2013, This car's lack of hijack security will give him an 85% chance of being hijacked by the criminal organization known as "the red-stitches", causing death by organ-theft. That should give me a new pair of kidneys")


What we are seeing these days is Marx slowly crawling into the garage of your average fat-cat, the people demanding that the rich shall be less rich, and that future economic troubles should be paid by those that get paid to avoid them. There will be plenty of opportunity to get rich still, but there will be safety measures to avoid depressions put into place.


Elvenlord: awesome visualizations. I'ma gonna read. btw. We need to fix the quote colors. they are too fabulous imo, and if they stay we are going to need this smiley: ...We might need that one anyway.

[Hostile]

@Matias and his Puppet

Communism does not allow much room for vertical movement. Hence the entrenched social....blah blah.

Ahem. A system which exploits. The man may not consciously exploit workers and those lower down the ladder. The system is made such that those at the top remain at the top, often without having worked hard, enabling those with the right opportunities and the right connections to become rich with little effort. Conversely, those at the bottom may have few redeeming opportunities or are stuck in their position, with promotion either out of their reach (because working a few jobs/finding a job whilst running a family on small expenses takes its toll on one's career) or denied to them. Managerial jobs/other high level jobs have a natural tendency/obligation to have inordinately high wages. Just because that is the case, it doesn't make it fair or right. It isn't a fact of life.

I have been accused of over generalization. Don't you think this is abit of the same. Not all people at the top are guilty by association. So some guy runs a company and is exploiting his employees even if he doesn't mean to. Come on man! Really! And many of those people you consider at the bottom are gainfully employed people, not poverty stricken. They feed their families with those jobs!

@Elvenlord

Maybe the problem is people spend too much time complaining about big salary CEOs instead of picking up a few books written by them and learning how they did it. The education system in my country sucks because it fails to teach people how business works and how to use the system, instead it does nothing but prepares them to be good little worker bees.

I'd recommend Rich Dad/Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki for a starter.
http://www.amazon.co...ch+dad+poor+dad

I'm short on time right now or I'd go into greater depth...

[Elvenlord]

The problem is not everyone can be CEOs, a company needs the people to do the lower work. I don't so much have a problem with higher-level executives making more, it's how much more they make and how fast it has been increasing in comparison to the average worker. For example, one of the graphs above shows the increase of pay. Average workers' wages have gone up just above 4%, while CEOs' have increased almost 300%. Doesn't that seem like a problem?

[Pasidon]

Well... not to them. And that's all that matters is that the people in power look good so the company looks good. 121 reasons why capitalism doesn't work. I like the subject... just not quite reliant enough to the slavery thing to get into detail. Make a new topic with this issue on top.

Now we are moving into more rational territories. I can somewhat agree that abruptly ending slavery like that could have caused displacement trauma for an entire ethnic group. But I somehow doubt that they were cast out of the deep south the instant slavery was abolished, and I guess they did stick around and did the same jobs in more humane conditions for a few years before they learned a different trade or found a different job. Maybe they didn't work for the same guy that whipped them all the time as slaves, but they probably didn't go too far away to find a new unknown plantation owner to work for.

It's not that blacks were kicked out of the south... alot did go north, but most stayed in the south. Hostility for them ran higher there, and some even stayed at the plantation they have been working at, but now the farmers didn't have to pay them a set wage. Most didn't stay since they were being offered even less, but actually, a lot of plantation owners kept their same wage and their former slaves stayed as employees. That started to change after a few years when the American dollar went up and blacks had more opportunities elsewhere. An actual factor into the Great Depression 60 years later.

We work boring jobs that are vital for society and get a slice of the cake of our labour. It is the way civilization works, and if we don't accept it we will fall like great civilizations have fallen before us. Not everyone can be an rock star, but that seems to be what most people think.

Actually, we can be pretty close. If the wages were split right without corrupt politicians, we all would be able to live decently rich lives. But... the world population is at 7,000,000,000 now, officially. LGR is thinning... But let's save that for another topic.

[Hostile]

I'm going to go on a rant here...

For 8 years that I've been here I've heard nothing but hate the rich people holding me down. Enough already. Anyone can be a CEO. I stupidly spent $600 to inc my last business, my fiance inc'ed my bosses company for $75 because she took the time to learn how to fill out the correct forms.

People need to educate themselves on how corps work, how the tax structure works in their nation, and how to read a profit and loss statement instead of crying "REVOLUTION COMRADES!"

People are capitalist by nature, even drug addicts know how to steal a tv and sell it for drugs. But a communist has to be trained. Proper brainwashing in the fine art of feeling like "proffessional victims."

Use your fucking brain to create some product or service that benefits consumers while still being able to make a profit. Sounds ridiculous I know, but imagine that. And also understand that 120years ago most people were self employed. Running their own little market shops. Then we had the industrial revolution which was a communist dream. Because now we can create unions to suck money from the workers while still argueing that it's in the best interest of the worker. Workers of the world unite! But don't forget to pay your union dues, oh nevemind we'll simply take it from your paycheck like taxes.

Sound familiar? Right from the communist manifesto.

People need to stop complaining and start innovating. There are so many smart people wasting so much time complaining about what they can't have because they never EVEN tried to achieve it. They think that somehow society owes them something. The world doesn't owe anyone anything. it just is, and so are you, for alittle while...

[Mathijs]

People are capitalist by nature

Prove it. Indeed, define "nature". I'll give you a tip though, to save time: You can't. So don't try to argue something as rediculous as this. If you insist though, be my guest. This is something I'm pretty well-versed in. But I digress.

Either way, just because something is "natural" to man doesn't mean it's a clever thing to do in a modern, developing world. Obvious examples: Rape, murder, oppresion. This is a general statement, I do not in any way agree that mankind is naturally capitalist. In fact I find the statement absolutely ludicrous.

If people are naturally capitalist, explain the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where everybody provides for the community as a whole? Sure, later developments allowed instincts of greed to get a foot between the door, but originally, we were all a bunch of communists. And if people are naturally capitalist, why are some more inclined to be capitalist than others? Why would there be counter-capitalist ideologies? Isn't human nature a more general term than that? Or perhaps you mean to say that some people grow up to be capitalists, while others don't? Or are they all closet-capitalists?

So Hostile, are you one of those people who actually believe bullshit like The Secret? Because that's what your "achievers" rhetoric stinks of. Do you really think it's the people's fault they're being cut short?

Note: I am not a communist, nor do I think communism is human nature. I don't believe in either capitalism or communism because both require a certain kind of faith or will to follow. Communism requires a belief in the eventual good of man, while capitalism requires me to believe that competition can lead to improved lives for all. I have no such pretentions or desires. As for what is human nature; nothing. No such thing as a concrete definition of human nature.

Edited by Matias, 26 January 2011 - 04:25 AM.

[duke_Qa]

Most ideologies are pretty useless at defining human nature. If anything, Darwin is the closest, combined with Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Left and right are just excuses for those in a advantageous position to keep their status quo.

If you want to call that capitalist then a lot of things can be called capitalist. Nature would be the biggest capitalist of them all. And I really wouldn't call that an ideology well-developed by human philosophies.

[Hostile]

People are capitalist by nature

Prove it. Indeed, define "nature". I'll give you a tip though, to save time: You can't. So don't try to argue something as rediculous as this. If you insist though, be my guest. This is something I'm pretty well-versed in. But I digress.

Either way, just because something is "natural" to man doesn't mean it's a clever thing to do in a modern, developing world. Obvious examples: Rape, murder, oppresion. This is a general statement, I do not in any way agree that mankind is naturally capitalist. In fact I find the statement absolutely ludicrous.

If people are naturally capitalist, explain the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where everybody provides for the community as a whole? Sure, later developments allowed instincts of greed to get a foot between the door, but originally, we were all a bunch of communists. And if people are naturally capitalist, why are some more inclined to be capitalist than others? Why would there be counter-capitalist ideologies? Isn't human nature a more general term than that? Or perhaps you mean to say that some people grow up to be capitalists, while others don't? Or are they all closet-capitalists?

So Hostile, are you one of those people who actually believe bullshit like The Secret? Because that's what your "achievers" rhetoric stinks of. Do you really think it's the people's fault they're being cut short?

Note: I am not a communist, nor do I think communism is human nature. I don't believe in either capitalism or communism because both require a certain kind of faith or will to follow. Communism requires a belief in the eventual good of man, while capitalism requires me to believe that competition can lead to improved lives for all. I have no such pretentions or desires. As for what is human nature; nothing. No such thing as a concrete definition of human nature.

Based on your negative reply and your link, I don't think I'd like "The Secret." Sounds spooky and definately not what I'm talking about unless you try to make those words fit into my mouth. IMO capitalism is nature for human beings. The whole idea of bartering and trading something for something else.

Does the hunter gatherer thing really need to be explained? People go out and gather food in many forms through gathering and hunting for the greater good of the tribe. While it worked in the day, aren't we abit more evolved than having to go back to living in communes (tribes) ?

I see where you are going, what came first the commune (tribe) or the barter/trader. I'd assume the tribe. Is that what you want, to return to the ways of the commune? And to answer your second question about why some are more capitalist than others, easy because some people think they deserve something from the tribe and others teach the tribe to better themselves.

Remember the old saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I'd rather learn to fish than have to be forced to take a fish from the fisherman without giving him anything in return because "he owes the tribe so."

Most ideologies are pretty useless at defining human nature. If anything, Darwin is the closest, combined with Maslov's hierarchy of needs. Left and right are just excuses for those in a advantageous position to keep their status quo.

If you want to call that capitalist then a lot of things can be called capitalist. Nature would be the biggest capitalist of them all. And I really wouldn't call that an ideology well-developed by human philosophies.

I agree, nature is the biggest capitalist. Small fish eat parisites of the skin of large fish. Bees trade pollin for honey. Small mammals deposit seeds in their feces in exchange for the nutrition provided by the fruit they ate. I totally agree...