|
I went into the business/finance subforum and there was a thread on generational wealth where a bunch of goons talked about how to pass wealth to their children. One person mentioned having 8 rental properties and others implied that they basically had the option to make it so their children would never have to work. Another mentioned how it's annoying to inherit property from your parents and that cash is preferred because it's less of a pain to deal with. It legitimately confuses me how people can feel comfortable talking about that sort of thing. Like, shouldn't there at least be some shame?
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I define middle class as anyone who derives their standard of living from both labor and capital. If someone works and draws a wage while also drawing any amount of income from investing, they are middle class. So, if a hypothetical someone makes six figures (pure wage, no stock) and rents while otherwise blowing their money on living, they are still working class, but that's where the whole labor aristocracy thing comes in... Like "ate poo poo on live tv" said, I think proletariat/bourgeoisie better describe this. The problem with using the terminology in the way you're using it is that it doesn't really leave any clear way to denote the huge different in quality of life between someone making, say, $30k/yr and someone making $150k. I feel like there are 2 important distinctions. One is the one you mentioned - whether someone draws most of their income from capital or whether they draw it from labor. The other is whether someone makes significantly more than people could expect to make under a hypothetical truly equitable society. I consider the latter important, because anyone who meets that standard stands to lose out from positive progress and can't be counted on to be an ally in the long run. While someone making $200k/yr with labor is still being exploited by capital, they are still doing better than they would under a more equitable, non-capitalist system. edit: Also, the term "middle class" very clearly carries connotations of "an 'average' amount of income/wealth," and there's no way anyone making, say $200k could be considered to fit this interpretation. Your definition would also probably leave out at least the bottom 50% of Americans (unless you're counting people who draw a relatively insignificant amount of money from capital relative to their labor income). Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 23:01 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:“This month we expected to behead Warren Buffet, but the crafty Oracle of Omaha has accelerated his philanthropy to an impressive degree, buying himself at least another month and moving Mark Zuckerberg to the top, making him the first millennial to be purged! Congrats Zuck!” I feel like it would unironically be a good idea to have the government threaten to execute the richest person in the country, leading to the richest people giving away their wealth/assets to try and avoid being at the top. Could probably result in a lot of redistributed money for the cost of only a handful of lives. The main issue would probably be related to the difficulty of calculating the total value of individuals' assets, since the value would fluctuate and wealth could be hidden.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/budget-breakdown-of-couple-making-500000-a-year-and-feeling-average.html Hahahahha, $2000/month on food and 3 vacations a year, averaging $6000 each. Almost $800/month spent on clothes. So what's the deal with Trudeau? Is he just a typical Obama-esque liberal? Or is he a person like Macron or Merkel who is basically just a conservative that uses some rhetoric about social justice that liberals like (or is merely opposed to Trump)? Wikipedia seems to indicate more the former. It's always the most pathetic thing when liberals hold these folks up as icons. Someone in the Trump thread posted some Trudeau tweet and said how "it was totally a dig at Trump" when it wasn't at all and was just a normal tweet. It's like they view everything through this bizarre lens where a bunch of clean-cut/well-spoken (read: wealthy) people are valiantly battling the crude and rude Trump. vvv To be fair they apparently have 2 kids IIRC, but it's still a lot. I think the three $6000 vacations and spending "literally more than most people spend on rent" each month on clothes are the biggest stand-outs. (I mean, most people don't even get enough time off work to take 3 vacations, and that cost heavily implies a vacation lasting at least a week or two and involving some pretty high class lodging, etc) Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 22:54 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:these are both the same thing, also yes I mean, there is a distinction between someone like Macron who actively and explicitly wants to take action to gently caress over workers, and someone like Obama who just sorta does a mix of minor good things and harmful compromises that probably average out to either maintenance of the status quo or a gradual decline in quality of life. Like, Macron is almost indistinguishable from actual Republicans economically. wizard on a water slide posted:I'm more wondering about almost $3000/mo on sports and lessons for their kids It comes out to $1000/month, not $3000/month. It's definitely a lot, but I can understand how you'd end up with that amount. $100 music lessons once a week for 2 kids could get you up to $800, and when you include stuff like tutoring or sports it's not that inconceivable. So while it's definitely a huge privilege, I can at least comprehend how you could end up spending that much without just burning money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:some good juicy guillotine steaks here - What's behind rich people pretending to be self-made? Lol at the main guy they're talking about being all conflicted. Has he considered, you know, just giving most of his money to the poor? It's not like being wealthy is some innate condition that can't be changed. If you really feel so bad about it, you can always choose to stop being wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. You could just execute that one man and give 1,200,000 people 100,000, which is a completely life-changing amount of money. On a global scale you could probably save literally tens, if not hundreds, of millions of lives. edit: I'm aware that actually converting his net worth to cash would cause the share price of his holdings to drop, so it would actually come out to less than that if you tried to liquidate everything, but it's still a ridiculous amount.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:those born into wealth are no more to blame for their affliction than a rabid dog, and it is not with hate in our hearts that we must put them down but rather love and compassion, for by their very nature they must be destroyed regardless of their innocence This is basically the way I unironically feel. I think that being wealthy, especially if you've been wealthy all your life, just fucks with your head in a way that is pretty much irreversible. Even if you don't end up a "gently caress you got mine" type, you'll be so hopeless divorced from the reality of normal people that you're still harmful simply by virtue of being that ignorant while still having the power wealth conveys.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:I don't know if this is true. I mean it's very likely but I've met a few people from wealthy families (sub 10 million) who were aware of luxuries they had and used it as a safety net to pursue low paying actual good work like housing nonprofits or adult education outreach programs. I've also seen kids from the same families get to their 50's having never worked a real day in their life act like they earned and deserve everything from the world and more -like that archetype of the snooty rich kids everyone hates as villains come to life. I think you misunderstood what I meant (in a completely understandable way, given the context). By "fucks with your head" I don't necessarily mean become some FYGM person. Many wealthy people can be very kind in their individual interactions, be aware of their privilege, etc. But even for those people, being wealthy distorts their perception of the world in a way that renders them incapable of ever addressing societal problems in an effective way. The fact that they choose to remain wealthy is all that is needed to prove this - anyone who is really wealthy (like >$5M or something) and chooses to retain that wealth is inherently demonstrating that they either 1. don't understand the magnitude and consequences of inequality or 2. are just bad and selfish. Even if a wealthy person decides they want to help the poor, they aren't going to know how to do so, and they're always going to have a bias against solutions that would cause them to sacrifice their wealth (because if they didn't, they would have already given away most of it).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I wouldn't say the problem is that wealth infantilizes people, it's more that it gives them options to the point where they genuinely can't understand that some people are out of options. They can't grasp the sheer anxiety of people who genuinely don't have choices. Yeah; more broadly I think that just knowing you'll never have serious material concerns has a significant psychological impact on a person. Someone who is wealthy will never have any realistic threat of not being able to house or feed themselves unless they do something tremendously stupid with their money. This even applies to people who aren't super wealthy; someone whose parents make six figures and save up a couple million dollars will also have a pretty easy time dealing with failure in their regular life; they'll have a big enough buffer that things like unemployment aren't a real risk. And then there's the fact that someone with parents who make a lot of money through "professional" labor (like being a doctor or lawyer or whatever) is more likely to receive advice and opportunities that allow them to acquire the sort of skills that will provide them lucrative and reliable employment later in life. It may not be the same as someone who is so wealthy they don't even need to work, but it still provides them a higher level of security than someone whose parents don't make much money and has to figure out everyone on their own. For most normal people, the fact that they'd be in a bad and stressful situation if they ever lost their job (or had a big sudden expense) is a constant stress existing in the background. I grew up in a middle class family (my parents' combined income was about $60k), but my parents were only able to save up about $15-$20k. That's a lot better than many people, but it's a small enough amount that I'll quickly be in big trouble if I ever run into problems with employment or have a big medical expense or something. I can't even imagine what life would be like with the absolute knowledge that things would always be okay and I'd never have to realistically worry about money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Some of these nerds have major hangups about any situation in which they might not be in full control of their faculties. I used to see this as a trend in E/N during the virgoon years, they were terrified of getting drunk/high because they had no clue what they might do. It doesn't help that drug education gives an extremely misleading idea of what drugs are like, and the sort of kids who aren't particularly rebellious (like nerds) will eat that poo poo up. This can be actually-dangerous when someone like that discovers something like opiates or stimulants later in life and realizes that there's a reason people use those things. It's better to be honest and tell people "yeah, the reason these things are addictive and dangerous is because they actually make you feel good."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Telephones posted:I used to think that all this kill the rich talk was just a joke but these days I feel the beat down. Yeah, I've always thought there was an undercurrent of it being an exaggeration, but I seriously and unironically believe that the best solution is to seize the wealth/assets of the wealthy and if, at a later date, they're discovered to have hidden/disguised some of their wealth, they should be immediately executed (with no chance for excuses, because otherwise they'd always figure out some way to get around the system). Since the "being wealthy" part is the problem, I'm not opposed to just taking their money away and letting them live like a normal person, but in practice it would be difficult to ensure cooperation, so there needs to be an extremely draconian and inevitable consequence for those who are later revealed to have not fully complied. Exceptions should also be made for the children of the wealthy and other people who don't actually have control over the wealth they benefit from (again with the "unless later discovered to have squirreled something away" provision, though). I mean, it's not like I'd lose any sleep over the "just guillotine them" option, but in an ideal world you could just separate people from their money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:"After a lifetime of accumulating wealth, high-net-worth families are confronted with several obstacles when trying to maximize their legacy including confiscatory estate taxes, complex estate laws, and complicated family or business issues. " It's hard to even imagine what sort of garbage subhuman someone would have to be to have hundreds of millions of dollars and be upset/concerned about taxes. Like how does that even happen? I unironically think it's easier to understand the mindset of a murderer than someone like that; at least in the case of the murderer (or whatever) you can understand their actions through the lens of mental illness, being under the influence, a crime of passion, etc. But being super rich and concerned about losing a portion of your insane fortune requires a sort of active evil that is difficult to comprehend.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:But the rich rarely lose even when they gey swindled there. They'll get to claim it as losses/tax write offs for their other ventures. As nice as it is to think otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the ex-CEO of Theranos was still able to at least wind up with some sort of six figures job. She might have a bad reputation among the general public, but well-off and privileged people tend to take care of their own and I imagine she has at least some people willing to give her a high paying job.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:tbh just strip them of their riches & put them on our level so we can laugh in their faces all day every day The best option is a compromise where you strip them of their riches, but if they're later found to have squirreled any away (as the rich are prone to do) there should be a zero tolerance guillotine-without-trial policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Do you really not get the irony in "those who have a tendency toward reactionary authoritarianism and psychopathy should be unceremoniously relieved of their lives and their bodies recycled into compost" The basis for my opinion is mostly that, if you don't take such an extreme hard line, the wealthy would inevitably hide a significant portion of their wealth and use it to reestablish some sort of power base. Like, there are actual pragmatic considerations going into my "relieve them of their wealth and offer them a punishment-free future on the level of regular people, but zero tolerance if ever found to have 'cheated'" idea. If you don't have zero tolerance in such a scenario, there's a good chance they'll figure out some way to leverage their wealth, even if they're in prison (and keep in mind that under these circumstances the wealthy would be more unified than ever before and even more willing to cooperate with one another than they are now). edit: I guess the easiest way to avoid the "they'll leverage their hidden wealth" idea is to abolish the concept of money, but that represents such a radical change that I don't feel comfortable saying it would definitely be a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
What political ideology is the Corolla supposed to correspond to here? Truga posted:yeah. i'm sure she won't mind when we only take the money and leave her excellence. I feel like the woman writing that article is also using a somewhat different definition of "elite" that includes people like teachers who technically have "professional" jobs but don't make much money, even though that's usually not what people are referring to when they talk about "elites" (particularly if it's liberals using the word). Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 17:13 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Well, I guess he's technically not wrong about other people starting from the different value system of "cares about the well-being of individuals other than themselves." It's like a person saying "Convince me the Holocaust is wrong. But first I should mention that I am a white protestant German whose values include believing it is good to kill Jewish people."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
LGD posted:But the power to resist those kinds of manipulations always lies in the hands of the people, and I've not yet seen a hypothetical large scale system that doesn't either create incentives for similar behavior by an existing/nascent elite, or rely on models of human behavior that are as risible as homo economicus. I genuinely don't think there's any (human-run) solid state system that's not prone to being undermined by self-interested behavior over time. The anarcho-libertarians Halloween Jack was citing who talk about what true idealistic capitalists would do are clearly dumb as hell, but how much daylight is there really between that and someone who insists every attempt at building socialism on a large scale in the real world doesn't count because the participants lacked sufficient ideological commitment and it usually devolved into state capitalism? Nah, you can absolutely make changes to the structure of society that significantly lessen the issues inherent to capitalism. For example, you can structure society such that private ownership of land* or investment in businesses (in the sense of private investors being able to own shares) aren't legally allowed. That won't fix all issues that result in exploitation and power imbalances, but it would certainly be an improvement over our current society/economy. * You can still allow people to lease land and what have you under a system like this
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
^^^ People who have a lot of money and enjoy reading about the process of acquiring expensive property.LGD posted:Well yeah, obviously! You can clearly substantially improve things and change incentives to prevent a lot of the issues that emerge under our current economic system, and we should be striving towards that as much as possible. Just because you could improve a real-world capitalist system through, say, aggressive anti-trust enforcement doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives (and conversely it also doesn't mean aggressive anti-trust enforcement wouldn't be a real improvement). I just don't think you'll get to those alternatives and actually have them be good by ascribing every bad thing that happens in a capitalist regime to the inherent nature of the regime itself and not being extremely attentive to the fault lines in the new system being proposed, and I think the idea that even much better designed systems are anything more than corrosion resistant is dangerously naive. I don't think anyone is saying that any other system will be perfect, but there are very deep flaws in capitalism can be avoided by non-capitalist systems. You can never eliminate stuff like corruption, but you can at least minimize the extent to which people are able to accrue and exercise power over others. Even the best capitalist systems leave in place the ability of the wealthy to directly profit off the labor of the working class, which is something you can mostly avoid through alternative systems. It'll always be possible to transform wealth/assets to some degree of power, but capitalism just makes it extremely easy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:luckily Good Capitalist Bill Gates will very publicly donate some money somewhere and everyone will be reassured that the system, while flawed, works The thing that I find surprisingly difficult to communicate to most liberals is that, on a basic logical level, it is impossible for anyone to "deserve" their wealth in a system with a huge amount of unfairness. Like, they'll acknowledge the unfairness while simultaneously believing some people deserve their wealth, which is logically incoherent. It's like winning a race where over half the other contests are injured or sick; no matter how hard working you are, you'll never be able to accurately claim that you're the best runner, since a significant number of people were prevented from winning through no fault of their own. Even if you explain things like this, it's like their eyes just glaze over at the contradiction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:For christ's sake this is just petit bourgeois.txt I kinda hesitate to refer to people like that as not "regular" bourgeois, since in many cases the only reason they can't live without continuing to work is that they're choosing to live a very expensive lifestyle. If this guy chose to live like a normal person who makes $35k or whatever, he would very quickly save enough money to live off capital returns. The only reason he doesn't is that he's choosing to live an expensive lifestyle that requires his continued labor. I mean, I can see this argument for people who make, say, $200k or whatever, but this guy has a 7 figure income. It's his choice to continue to need to work. As a side comment, that guy is so hilariously whiny; he spends all this time whining about how he's okay with paying higher taxes, but other people should at least thank him for it. It's just so pathetic. Old Binsby posted:there is no unfairness or inconsistency in a meritocracy, ‘no one is sick, they didn’t try hard enough/as hard as me’ sounds rational if you repeat it often enough and you’re living in an echo chamber. If you’re always coming out on top it’s an attractive way of thinking because if you put a little effort in that reasoning you can even eke out an absolution for being absurdly wealthy (you deserve it because you suffered through grueling 50 hour office weeks) Well, that's the thing; a lot of liberals will openly acknowledge that society isn't a meritocracy, but then also claim that some people deserve to be wealthy. At least the conservatives/libertarians who think it's already a meritocracy are logically coherent, but liberals try to simultaneously acknowledge the unfairness inherent to society while also believing some people are deserving of their financial success. Main Paineframe posted:they think they can just pause the race, fix the problems, and then resume it. maybe adjust some people's positions a bit to account for the effect of the problems, maybe not. they think there's just some mistakes and abuses in the system, they don't get that the system is fundamentally broken Yeah, I think this is it; they think that the rich people they like would still be rich even after you fixed the problems that they think are making society unfair. Then again, the same liberals will sometimes comment how "no person needs billions of dollars" and then turn around and talk about Bill Gates being a "good billionaire," so I think it's mostly that they just have the memory of a goldfish and no coherent ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:hot take: everyone deserves to be rich Whoa, wait a second! Have you even thought about how that white coat investor guy would feel is this were the case? It would be like other people had just as much merit as him, and that would be an unthinkable injustice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:why cant we launch things into space by yanking the earth out from underneath the thing we want to launch What about pulling space down to the things?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:At best that would delay it because you need to pay an automaton $0 per hour, only what the electricity costs Well, maintenance for automation will always be greater than 0; that's part of what limits it now, since a lot of workers are paid so incredibly little that automation still isn't worth it. The idea of a bunch of people at the World Bank who undoubtedly make at least six figures coming up with recommendations like this is pretty infuriating (this is actually a bit of an understatement, but the rest can be inferred from the title of this thread).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the best part is that the author was already rich by the time she decided she wanted to be rich Haha, holy poo poo, at first I assumed you were referring to the college she went to, but yeah, no one who isn't rich can spend that much on private school (no one who isn't fairly well-off to begin with goes to any private school, but one that expensive is particularly exceptional).
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Like 5% of the country actually qualifies as middle class, the rest of us are peasants. Even if we own refrigerators Eh, I'd say 10-20%. The top 10-20% is basically the percent of people who actually have a non-negligible amount of wealth (that isn't tied up in their house, anyways), unless they're just living incredibly stupidly and trying to own property in Manhattan or whatever. Everyone below the top 20% has almost no wealth, which is why I think the top 20% is a useful statistic in addition to the top 1%, just for the purposes of not only emphasizing how much the rich have, but also emphasizing what the bottom ~80% of people don't have. quote:A 26 year old middle school teacher making $55,000 a year plus her $250,000 a year VP of Marketing wife This is my favorite. To make it even more ridiculous, it should have said "A 19 year old McDonald's cashier, and her $400,000 a year Goldman Sachs MD wife." Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 23:12 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
This fits exactly what I'd expect. The public high school I went to is probably the perfect example of "the kind of school that sends non-rich people to ivies," and it seems pretty doable provided you have a very comfortable upbringing, with a family that makes enough money to provide you with ample extracurricular opportunities, test prep, etc. But if you don't at least have the money to do that extra stuff, it's going to be damned near impossible. In the end, every one of the people I knew in HS who got into an ivy, or ivy-equivalent (like MIT or whatever), came from at least a six-figures family with one or both parents working in some professional career. And this is a pretty good sample size of at least 20 people. Getting into those schools is so competitive that a high GPA and perfect SAT scores aren't enough, and those are the only things you can really argue that the student has semi-direct control over (and even then, the well-off student has a huge advantage through test-prep services, etc). The sad thing is that a school like Harvard has no excuse at all. I can at least sort of understand other schools saying "well, we need the donation money," but Harvard doesn't. They have a loving huge endowment. There is no reason not to just flat-out mandate some sort of quota on the percent of well-off people who can get in.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:There are two big things that are incredibly important to prestigious universities - producing doctoral students who publish stuff with the university's name on it, and more importantly, stuff like this Why in god's name would someone think "hmm, I have a lot of money, which university should I give it to? I know, I should give it to the one with a loving huge endowment that will literally never run out of money!"
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm not gonna say the classes at the commuter school and the elite school were exactly the same. NYU, at least with the classes I took (mostly in Stern since I interally transferred from CAS to Stern after freshman year) was actually pretty good about this. Maybe this was because professors in the business school don't have quite the same publishing pressure or something, I dunno. I only remember one or two classes being taught by non-professors, and a lot of the teachers had actual industry experience. I took this one class that only had ~10 students, and the professor was this guy who was some expert in the field of electronic/algorithmic trading (he worked a lot as an expert witness for trials and stuff), and the class consisted of him just discussing the industry with us, with no actual classwork aside from the final exam. That class strongly convinced me that "high finance" is effectively leeching a poo poo-ton of money from the markets at almost zero risk to themselves, though I don't remember a lot of the specifics anymore (and things may have changed a lot since 2008 also). Goon Danton posted:That's the big thing. A degree from a "good school" means you have brand recognition on your resume, and you had the opportunity to meet big impressive names who can write you recommendations. The big name professors might be able to explain concepts a little bit more clearly or in more depth if they feel like it, but they never feel like it unless they're talking about the topic they do research on. I feel like this is only the case if you go to an absolute top-tier school, like Harvard or MIT or whatever. A school one or two "tiers" down like NYU or Boston University or something doesn't seem to offer much benefit over going to a random state school. Main Paineframe posted:only for the really well-known top schools Yeah, basically this, though even being recognizable doesn't seem to help much unless it's specifically recognizeable as "one of the ivies/pseudo-ivies."
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:Harvard and the ivys are good to have around because it's a formative learning experience the day you learn that the people who get accepted there aren't necessarily very smart or hardworking, but often rich entitled failsons. Of the people I knew who got into ivies (or places like MIT), the ones who got into MIT and Cal-Tech were both genuinely smart/talented (though still from upper-middle class families, because literally everyone I knew who got into them was) while the ones who got into Princeton/Yale/Stanford/Harvard were your typical "students who study ridiculously hard and take a zillion practice SATs, but aren't exceptionally smart." Those people now mostly work for consulting firms (it's actually kind of uncanny how many went on to work in consulting now that I think about it; it seems like the elite consulting firms hire heavily from the ivies), though one went into law.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Most Ivy grads I've met are smart, well rounded individuals and they work in varied fields, from the Law to dream interpretation / Shamanistic stuff I used to think the same thing, until I realized that what I was actually seeing was "the impact of being materially well-off enabling a person to do a bunch of interesting/fun things." edit: I think that the "smart" part is often less about actually being smart and more about fitting the cultural image we associate with "smart," though.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Significant Ant posted:even after their tuition waiver for lower income, Stanford still found themselves with students whose families had a median income of like 180K+ A girl I dated in HS went to Stanford. Her dad was someone fairly high up in International Paper (which is centered somewhere in or near Memphis). I remember that her family was Republican and that this surprised me because most of the other Asian (mostly Chinese/Korean) students at our school were liberals. I have a very vivid memory of playing ping pong at her house and the topic of the election coming up (this was near the end of 2000) and her mentioning that she was happy Bush won and that I was very shocked about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
megalodong posted:Incredible. I feel like the most remarkable/terrible thing isn't the OP being a racist shitheel, but the fact that hardly anyone in the thread (at that point in time, at least) reacted that negatively, and even the few who did comment on it did so in a "you might want to change that language to avoid getting probated  " sort of way that made certain to establish that they didn't think poorly of the OP.It's kind of interesting how over the years the user base of SA, that used to be composed of late teenage/early 20s nerdy people, seems to have split into two groups - normal people suffering under the conditions of 2018 America and super privileged people making six figures. It's like earlier this difference wasn't at noticeable because a lot of people were still in college, but now the difference between the kids from normal families and the kids from well-off families is obvious and translates to things like the liberal/leftist arguments in D&D.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:one thing I do think is interesting is seeing the amount of 2000-2005 accounts that still actively post and noting how many of them seem to have ended up with lucrative techy/white-collar jobs as Ytlaya pointed out It is fascinating as a representation of the way the cohort of educated/politically engaged ~20/30-something year olds has progressed politically over the years, where it seems like they've split to a large extent based upon background and economic outcomes. I've mentioned before how strange it is that there's this "leftists are actually dudebros with cushy tech jobs" stereotype thrown around, given that I'm constantly seeing people posting in C-SPAM who make <$30k while repeatedly seeing the complete opposite from the sort of liberals who make those claims (of leftists all being super privileged) elsewhere. This obviously isn't to say leftists with tech jobs don't exist (I'm technically one of them, though I make $37k with 8 years of experience, so probably not what most people have in mind when they say that), but they definitely seem to be less well off on average within the cohort of "politically engaged left-leaning young people." Anecdotally speaking, all my "mainstream liberal" acquaintances are the people working in finance/consulting/law and the radical leftists are the ones working in lovely retail/service jobs. It's just hard for me to comprehend the gall of someone who makes like $90k or whatever sitting down at their keyboard and being like "GRR LEFTIST TECH BROS WITH THEIR CUSHY JOBS!!" I remember there was this one guy who would always talk about how urban areas are culturally superior or something and was attributing the economic problems of such people to this cultural inferiority, and then later it was revealed that this guy's grandfather is/was a multi-millionaire. Like, people who are rich and condemn others for economic problems are trash to begin with, but when you add the extra element of "compassionate" liberal sensibilities it becomes especially bizarre. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 22:13 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Does "not to have checked the bank account" just imply not living paycheck to paycheck? Because I managed to stop that a about half a year ago for various reasons, but I still check it regularly out of force of habit (and to see the numbers go up, because it's very reassuring after having lived all the rest of my adult life, up until the age of 32, without ever being able to save anything).
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:what in gods name even is animal cruelty then? Suddenly pouring acid into the eyes of an animal after treating it like a beloved pet for years. To truly qualify as animal cruelty, an action must meet the standards of both physical and emotional cruelty.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Most rich people are incredibly boring, when you've never actually been challenged or faced adversity you don't develop much of a personality In my experience it's kinda the opposite in that the rich people can afford to do all sorts of fun and interesting things if they want to, without constantly being consumed by stress and fear. It's hard to enjoy hobbies if you're struggling just to get by. It's true that many might choose to still do boring/lame things, but it still allows for a more interesting life than someone stuck in some small town who can never afford to leave or do much other than work every day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:art collecting is basically trading cards but for billionaires I just had a brilliant idea. You know stuff like gacha mobile games or loot boxes? Someone should do that, but with art. Like rich people buy a mystery art with 0.1% of being a Van Gogh or something. They can brag to their rich friends about pulling an SSR Picasso or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
I feel like having the freedom to just choose to become well-off is its own privilege. Like, a big part of why being poor (or otherwise financially insecure) sucks is that you don't have any clear way out of that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 05:38
|
|