What Planet Does Larry Page Live On?

PurduEE said:
People tend to live in groups. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a per capita number. ~$200k for a family of four will more than keep most in a car, house and put food on the table.

I'm not suggesting that we distribute wealth, go communist, go socialist, eliminate the poor, etc. - just correcting some math.
Click to expand...

GDP is a bad number to use because it fails to take into account the investment put into obtain that number.

If you too the entire income growth of the united states (includes stock gains, and personal pay, and individual sales, etc...) from the top 5% income bracket, and redistributed all of it, then the number would hardly blip in per capita income.
 
travbrad said:
Do you really think many corporations pay that tax rate? Rates are irrelevant when there are a million loopholes (same goes for personal tax rates)
Click to expand...

Total $$/Monetary wise, yes US companies do pay more per employee and per net profit.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Must be amazing to worship a god who punishes untold Billions of people for the screwup of 2. :rolleyes: How about you keep fairy tales and voodoo our of adult conversations.
Click to expand...

I've seen more proof of God than I have proof socialism or communism works.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
A socialist says, "No one should live in excess wealth"

A capitalist says, "Everyone should live in excess wealth"
Click to expand...

Nice troll, but I'll bite because some may take what you wrote to be true.

Capitalism dictates that excess wealth is created by some at the expense of others. That's the whole principle of capitalism, that those who produce are being compensated below the value they create, but just enough to not have them break out the torches and pitchforks.

What makes capitalism great is that everyone can achieve excess wealth, except that most people are too inept to do so, which again makes capitalism work in the first place.

"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"
 
dgingeri said:
I'd rather see all those who work have their quality of life improve, while those who don't get shoved to the bottom. That's where they belong. We all suffer from God's curse (Genesis 3:17) for the first sin. They shouldn't get any sort of out for it just because they don't want to work.

I have no problems helping people who have gotten into trouble though no fault of their own, or even those who are having a hard time because of a bad decision. I do help those people. I have no help supporting those who can't support themselves, those who are too old or have disabilities that prevent them from being able to hold a good job. I donate to help those people all the time.

Who I don't like to support are those people who work entry level jobs at age 40 because they haven't bothered to work on their own skills to get better jobs, and strongly proclaim that they want $15/hour for service fast food or working entry level retail. They don't deserve it. Those jobs are supposed to be for teenagers, so they can learn to work while making what their work is worth, and slowly work on their skills to become more and make more. They are like the servant in on of Jesus' parables (Matthew 25:14-30) qho is given one talent to invest and protect, so he buries it rather than investing it despite knowing his master intended him to invest and grow that money. (A talent is a unit of money roughly equal to a year's pay for the average person back then, iirc.) We are all supposed to work and become more than what we're given. Those who sit at one job, complaining about their pay, and never work to get any better are a millstone around society's neck, dragging us all down. They are the reason we have these issues on "income inequality."
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite. I'm trying to understand your view here, so I'd like to address it in chunks. I guess my first is, you'd say you'd rather see people who don't want to work to get shoved to the bottom. My question is, how low is that bottom? Does that mean homeless on the street, having to beg to survive? Does that mean fed and having shelter, but very poor conditions? I see the former as barbaric, the latter as appropriate.

For the McDonald's thing, I think you may not be informed of the current economic situation. A lot of people who are 40 working at McDonalds may have had skilled jobs in the past where the market and economy forced a lot of people out and this is all they can get. You say these are jobs for teens, that was traditionally true, nowadays, the economy is so bad people are taking any job that can get. I feel like you're kind of damning the unlucky who didn't have better education or job opportunities, or people who have made poor decisions and are trying to get back on track. Saying they shouldn't be working at McDonalds is fine, but then where SHOULD they be working? Especially when the job market is hell. I think everyone should be entitled to survive (especially those willing to work) so long as society can afford it, and the USA can definitely afford it. Minimum wage is $7.25 right now. You have to pull a LOT of strings to survive on that, in some areas it's practically impossible. Maybe you think $15 an hour is too high, or maybe you have another solution altogether, I don't know. You can condemn these people all you want, but without giving a SOLUTION, it just makes you come across as hateful towards humanity. Seriously, the working poor trying to survive get shit on more than just about anyone. Anyone who doesn't believe that has never been in that situation.

And since you go the religious route, Jesus talked about helping and giving to the poor at pretty much every turn. I don't think he was discriminate against what the circumstances surrounding them were, since being poor is kind of its own punishment. I understand you don't like the people who expect handouts, but all too often punishing them punishes ALL poor.
 
Thuleman said:
Nice troll, but I'll bite because some may take what you wrote to be true.

Capitalism dictates that excess wealth is created by some at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

Completely and UTTERLY FALSE. That's a victims altitude, external locust of control view. Which means you are likely liberal leaning.
 
Thuleman said:
What makes capitalism great is that everyone can achieve excess wealth, except that most people are too inept to do so, which again makes capitalism work in the first place.
Click to expand...

To further illustrate your point and expand on it, much excess wealth is a direct result of low cost labor. People often mention that around here that the fast food worker isn't worth $15/hour, however without these low wage workers, there is no fast food industry, at least working under its current economics.

As much as low wage workers are bemoaned by so many, our economy is VERY dependent on them, particularly to many who do achieve great levels of wealth. Unless our economy no longer needs low wage workers for so much of its total economic output there's no possible way that everyone can achieve great wealth. Almost by design.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Completely and UTTERLY FALSE. That's a victims altitude, external locust of control view. Which means you are likely liberal leaning.
Click to expand...

You say it's false yet you offer no support of your argument. Then you continue with what you intend to be a personal attack. You really need to learn to be better at Internet.

I believe in capitalism because I firmly believe that some people are better at life than others. Poor people are poor by choice, but capitalism doesn't support excess for everyone. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon for figure out that people who are employed are getting paid less than the value they create, and rightfully so because they are after all employed and don't have to worry about a thing with regards to owning and/or running the business.

Still, as an employee you will never live in excess compared to those who create the conditions for employees to actually have jobs. That's the nature of capitalism and to insist that everyone should have excess wealth is naive.
 
heatlesssun said:
To further illustrate your point and expand on it, much excess wealth is a direct result of low cost labor. People often mention that around here that the fast food worker isn't worth $15/hour, however without these low wage workers, there is no fast food industry, at least working under its current economics.

As much as low wage workers are bemoaned by so many, our economy is VERY dependent on them, particularly to many who do achieve great levels of wealth. Unless our economy no longer needs low wage workers for so much of its total economic output there's no possible way that everyone can achieve great wealth. Almost by design.
Click to expand...

And if fast food workers were paid $15/hour, the price of fast food would go up significantly, and people would respond by eating significantly less fast food. Sometimes they would go to a real restaurant instead; some will start cooking more.

You do realize that increasing the amount that so many people make is going to cause major inflation, right? Perhaps what you intend to do is clear out large portions of the money hoarded by large corporations and rich people, but that is not a goal that can be accomplished. Especially not by just the USA. If only the USA is cracking down, doing so is only going to hurt the US while driving some of these rich people and companies to other countries not looking to "penalize" them so much.

While I think it's an issue that rich people sit on hoards of wealth, thinking that raising minimum wage to $15 is going to fix it is just childish.
 
dandragonrage said:
And if fast food workers were paid $15/hour, the price of fast food would go up significantly, and people would respond by eating significantly less fast food. Sometimes they would go to a real restaurant instead; some will start cooking more.
Click to expand...

And my guess is that a lot of well paid doctors would see this as a good thing.

dandragonrage said:
While I think it's an issue that rich people sit on hoards of wealth, thinking that raising minimum wage to $15 is going to fix it is just childish.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making the case for a higher minimum wage in my post. I was point out the logical flaw in the idea that everyone can have excess wealth in a capitalistic system when that system depends enormously on lots of low wage labor. Low wage workers around here are constantly bemoaned for stupidity and laziness but I guarantee that if everyone making less that $15/hour in the US called in sick for a day, everyone would notice and a lot wouldn't get done that day.

Again, I'm not making the case for a higher minimum wage. I am making the case that we live in an economy that would collapse without a large low wage workforce. And as such, it's just not possible that everyone have excess wealth in an economy that practically by design is dependent on many NOT having excess wealth.
 
PurduEE said:
People tend to live in groups. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a per capita number. ~$200k for a family of four will more than keep most in a car, house and put food on the table.

I'm not suggesting that we distribute wealth, go communist, go socialist, eliminate the poor, etc. - just correcting some math.
Click to expand...

We have a 3 person (and one dog) household with an income (unadjusted) of about 110K/yr. The house is paid off, the 3 cars are paid off and this was on a single income that was 'only' 36K 20 yrs ago.

So yes, $200K *should* keep a family of four in at least a house, car and food...but it depends on where you live...and your definition of "must" vs "want" to haves.

Most folks confuse the latter for the former and get trapped by "easy" monthly payments.

I had to learn, painfully, that wealth isn't what you have, it's what you *save* and *invest*. Stuff isn't wealth.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. Fiscal efficiency in business is basically expenses/revenue, this ratio is especially important in the baking sector. The lower expenses are on each dollar of revenue generated, the higher the efficiency (i.e. the lower this ratio) and the greater the profit.
Click to expand...

In a pure capitalist system, any company making huge profits would have other companies move in to the same sphere, increasing competition, driving down prices and reducing profits.

tetris42 said:
I disagree this is "the real problem", but simply "a problem". The thing to understand is we're fighting over table scraps. Again, since 2009, 95% of gains have gone to the upper 1%. So if this was 100 pizzas for 100 people, one person would walk off with 95 pizzas, leaving 99 to argue about who is being greediest or not deserving with the the remaining 5.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Thuleman said:
Nice troll, but I'll bite because some may take what you wrote to be true.

Capitalism dictates that excess wealth is created by some at the expense of others. That's the whole principle of capitalism, that those who produce are being compensated below the value they create, but just enough to not have them break out the torches and pitchforks.

What makes capitalism great is that everyone can achieve excess wealth, except that most people are too inept to do so, which again makes capitalism work in the first place.

"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!"
Click to expand...

Anyone cannot achieve excess wealth in capitalism; in fact, the system would break down if that was the case.
 
heatlesssun said:
I wasn't making the case for a higher minimum wage in my post. I was point out the logical flaw in the idea that everyone can have excess wealth in a capitalistic system when that system depends enormously on lots of low wage labor. Low wage workers around here are constantly bemoaned for stupidity and laziness but I guarantee that if everyone making less that $15/hour in the US called in sick for a day, everyone would notice and a lot wouldn't get done that day.

Again, I'm not making the case for a higher minimum wage. I am making the case that we live in an economy that would collapse without a large low wage workforce. And as such, it's just not possible that everyone have excess wealth in an economy that practically by design is dependent on many NOT having excess wealth.
Click to expand...

I would. I don't know where the appropriate level is. But there is a level out there that should create wealth/demand greater than the level of inflation.

If that wasn't the case, freeing the slaves and having to pay them to work would have permanently crippled the US economy. Talk about a minimum wage increase...
 
TwistedAegis said:
I would. I don't know where the appropriate level is. But there is a level out there that should create wealth/demand greater than the level of inflation.

If that wasn't the case, freeing the slaves and having to pay them to work would have permanently crippled the US economy. Talk about a minimum wage increase...
Click to expand...

Slaves were no longer working the fields and were replaced by mechanisms that required no pay, but, at roughly the same time, there was job creation in factories to absorb some of the new workers. (And by the way, there was NO MINIMUM WAGE IN 1865)

And there was little work in the reconstructionist south so for those former slaves who did not or could not migrate, they became tenant farmers aka sharecroppers, which is almost slave labor. You will note that MS is one of the poorest states in the USA
 
tetris42 said:
Okay, I'll bite. I'm trying to understand your view here, so I'd like to address it in chunks. I guess my first is, you'd say you'd rather see people who don't want to work to get shoved to the bottom. My question is, how low is that bottom? Does that mean homeless on the street, having to beg to survive? Does that mean fed and having shelter, but very poor conditions? I see the former as barbaric, the latter as appropriate.

For the McDonald's thing, I think you may not be informed of the current economic situation. A lot of people who are 40 working at McDonalds may have had skilled jobs in the past where the market and economy forced a lot of people out and this is all they can get. You say these are jobs for teens, that was traditionally true, nowadays, the economy is so bad people are taking any job that can get. I feel like you're kind of damning the unlucky who didn't have better education or job opportunities, or people who have made poor decisions and are trying to get back on track. Saying they shouldn't be working at McDonalds is fine, but then where SHOULD they be working? Especially when the job market is hell. I think everyone should be entitled to survive (especially those willing to work) so long as society can afford it, and the USA can definitely afford it. Minimum wage is $7.25 right now. You have to pull a LOT of strings to survive on that, in some areas it's practically impossible. Maybe you think $15 an hour is too high, or maybe you have another solution altogether, I don't know. You can condemn these people all you want, but without giving a SOLUTION, it just makes you come across as hateful towards humanity. Seriously, the working poor trying to survive get shit on more than just about anyone. Anyone who doesn't believe that has never been in that situation.

And since you go the religious route, Jesus talked about helping and giving to the poor at pretty much every turn. I don't think he was discriminate against what the circumstances surrounding them were, since being poor is kind of its own punishment. I understand you don't like the people who expect handouts, but all too often punishing them punishes ALL poor.
Click to expand...

They should be working higher in the food chain. If you can't find a job that will make enough, start your own business. I did. After getting laid off in 2002, I had a hard time finding work back until 2004. I wound up working with several contracting agencies to get small jobs at various places for computer work. I'd spend three nights a week moving computers for one place and another two full days temping for a company having trouble keeping up with their IT ticket volume. (No, they wouldn't hire me directly, because upper level management wouldn't allow for an additional position even though their staff couln't keep up. All the would authorize was a contractor for two days per week.) Through all that, I set up two servers and one full network rework for small businesses. I didn't make much, but it was barely enough to survive on.

I'm not completely oblivious on the troubles people have. I've been there and done that. I've had everything I built up taken away twice in my life, and been hounded by bill collectors for months after I finally started to work my way back up. I've been poor. I've been to the place where I just have one meal a day, and can barely afford even that. Trouble is the name do the game in life. We all have it.

The problem I'm pointing out is that many people get down like that and just give up. They shouldn't. The liberals are pushing the idea that people shouldn't feel ashamed for this, and that is the major part of this problem. Shame is a significant motivator. Being ashamed of something motivates people to change it, and change themselves. They become more through the process. Shame is NECESSARY for human survival. If someone is out of work and has to take charity to survive (as I did for much of 2002) then they should feel the shame in it and work to change that circumstance.

In case you hadn't heard it before, IT BUILDS CHARACTER.

It's that shame, that trouble, that pain that makes up work harder and move forward. It makes us more than just the useless (but cute) lump of flesh and bone that came out of our mothers. A person who doesn't work to move forward and become more is a detriment to all of humanity.

What fascinates me the most watching my nieces and nephews grow up is how they have grown and changed and become so much more. They're brilliant, and they show it. The thing is, only one of them is really anything more than an average human. (One is quite the genius, and possibly even smarter than me.) They're real people, average people, and yet they work and have become so much more. One, barely out of high school and just finished her first year of college has started her own business to help pay for that college. She's tired of working a campus job, and tired of the student loans, so she's taken it in her hands to do more. She's brilliant, and of average intelligence.

I see them, and I know humanity, every single person, even the least intelligent, can be so much more if they just work at it. Everyone can be. Working and persisting are the key, not strength, intelligence, or talent. We all move forward and become a greater society and everyone does better when most of us work through troubles and work to become more.

However, so many in this country, and in western society, just choose to sit back and do nothing, be nothing. More and more become these millstones around everyone else's necks. The political movement these days is to ignore and disarm the shame of it. "There's more to life than work!" they say. "We all run into trouble, and you shouldn't feel ashamed of it." they say. They're WRONG. The shame is necessary. Working and becoming more is the only great thing in life. All else is entertainment, and useless at that. While the work may not always pay that much, it is absolutely necessary. Being a weight on others is the ultimate shame that everyone should feel, but it is something we can work through and leave behind.
 
dgingeri said:
It's that shame, that trouble, that pain that makes up work harder and move forward. It makes us more than just the useless (but cute) lump of flesh and bone that came out of our mothers. A person who doesn't work to move forward and become more is a detriment to all of humanity.
Click to expand...

If you really mean that, you are absolutely insane.

We're not here to make progress. We're here because we happened to evolve through a series of events throughout history.

Humans are indeed perhaps the only animal you might say achieves progress. Some other animals are able to build their own homes (bird nests, beaver dams) but have no concept of inventing things for other uses. This does NOT make humans BETTER than other animals. It makes humans DIFFERENT than other animals.

Humans, like all animals, do want (yes, WANT, NOT have) to survive. Different people manage this different ways and this has changed over time. It is certainly a drain on society and the other members if someone can but is not willing to put forth the effort required to survive, but insist on surviving anyway via welfare and other things that some people do. However that's not what you said. You said if someone isn't making progress, they are a drain on humanity.

We're not here to make progress. It doesn't matter if an individual makes progress. We're not even here to survive. We're here. We like surviving as much as possible for sure. People who like to survive ought to be putting in at least enough effort to do so. But for you to press your expectations onto other people (be it a parent wanting their child to have a certain career or hounding them about when they will get married, whether someone should be "advancing their career" or letting it take a back seat to actually living their life, whether or not someone should drink alcohol (or do other stuff) or not, whether they are "making progress" for the species, etc.) is absolutely ridiculous. And completely common. I don't know what it is with people expecting other people to live a certain way, but it needs to stop.

If you are physically able to work hard enough to survive, do it. If you want to work beyond that, do it. If you want to discover new things and make progress for the species, do it. If you want to just live your life and enjoy the simple things, do it. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a simple life.

Again, I do agree that if someone can work and chooses not to, and instead abuses welfare, they are a drain on everyone. But your statement was much broader than that. I hope you just made a statement more broad than you intended to, rather than believing what you actually wrote.
 
His comment is not out of line. I've been saying something similar for years. It's not socialist, it's societal. We SHOULD be live in an age of abundance for our core needs, and yet those core needs cost more in real wealth than they have in almost 50 years. It makes no damn sense with the technological advancements we've made just within our own lifetimes.

You remember those old 60s "home of the future" / "world of the future" videos?

Obviously real life doesn't work quite that way, but if you think about this for a minute, we really SHOULD have more of the "technology and efficiency creating less need for work" than we do now.

Effectively, our output is being wasted horribly at all levels. Some by government, some by corruption some just by poor societal choices on the whole. I don't expect any of those 3 things to be perfect but we are way over the line on taking individual's work output and redirecting it to waste.

Things could be 10 times better for us individually with only relatively small improvements to the incredible waste of our output by either taxes or regulations or whatever.

I'm trying to keep this out of the purely political and keeping the concept general. In short, life has way, WAY more middlemen and middle layers between us and our basic necessities than is necessary.
 
Redditors were swarming to suck off Page and Brin after that excuse of a chat. Those guys are so detached from reality they have no clue what the hell they're doing. Thats why they kill products after only a few years of use despite their users going "wtf are you idiots doing?!".
 
dgingeri said:
It's that shame, that trouble, that pain that makes up work harder and move forward.
Click to expand...
Again, I have to ask, how far to the bottom do you think people who aren't working (or hell, even ones that ARE working) should be pushed? I think you're mixing up "shame" with "survival." Do you think someone who has the BARE MINIMUM to survive in a society where everyone around him doesn't feel shame? The point is, you're not providing answers, you're just saying "things should be this way" and not explaining how that's going to happen other than utter desperation at trying to survive SHOULD make things work. Well it really doesn't for a lot of people, whether they have drive, shame or not. You've been lucky and have recovered from poverty. What if you didn't have any support from family or friends? What if you didn't have a computer and had a lame leg? You say people should "start a business", how the hell does someone do that who can't read, has no capital, and no support?

The point here is you're advocating a system where extra unlucky people will simply die a very miserable death. People don't avoid that out of shame, that's fear of survival. That's how packs of wild wolves operate, it's not civilized. Shame is punishment in itself, you don't need to add "everyone poor AND unlucky dying" on top of that.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Anyone cannot achieve excess wealth in capitalism; in fact, the system would break down if that was the case.
Click to expand...

You are confusing anyone with everyone.
In capitalism life is what you make it and many people choose not live up to their potential, they either settle, or they blame others for their own misfortunes and give up. Capitalism isn't to blame for that.
 
Thuleman said:
You are confusing anyone with everyone.
In capitalism life is what you make it and many people choose not live up to their potential, they either settle, or they blame others for their own misfortunes and give up. Capitalism isn't to blame for that.
Click to expand...

"There is always choice. We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with the decision we have already made. If you understand that, there's hope. If not .." - Babylon 5

I think that sums up a lot of society ... we say there is no choice or no opportunity but it is often because we make bad choices, not because of some nefarious plot to keep us down ... capitalism isn't a perfect system but a person has the best chance for success in it rather than in any other system :)
 
My only big problem; if you have two men. Both with the same income, say, $250,000. One is a manager, spends his day thinking up ways and implementing them, to make his company's business expand, hire more people, make more stuff. The other sits at his desk every day, watches the ticker, and plays the stock market. Why should the second get a special tax rate less than the first? Both spend the same amount of time 'at work'. Both have the same income. But if you're an 'investor' you get the 'special' capital gains tax rate.
And the old wash 'well, that money was already taxed' doesn't hold, never did, it was just a play on words to tell people that don't deal in money. The profit was not taxed before, and the principal was not being taxed again.
 
The answer is obvious: labor is for suckers, our betters can't be hassled by the burdens of society.
 
Thuleman said:
You are confusing anyone with everyone.
In capitalism life is what you make it and many people choose not live up to their potential, they either settle, or they blame others for their own misfortunes and give up. Capitalism isn't to blame for that.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The simple fact is that many morons in this world refuse to acknowledge that some people, no matter what, will never prosper no matter what you give them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top