Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

EDIT: Also, you're talking out both sides of your ass. You went from "Irrational fear of investment is a hilariously common problem, but most people rent because, for whatever reason, they prefer it." to "Well, the key point of that is that homes are not a good investment." in the span of two posts.

Not investing in homes would be rational fear of a particular investment, which, ironically, plenty of people don't appear to have. On the other hand, people irrationally fear actually good investments. These are not incompatible, and, in fact, are linked.

You have no idea what it's like to struggle, yet you feel entitled to make sweeping pronouncements about how it's their own fault.

No, you're right, I have no idea what it's like to struggle, even though I was brought up by a single mother making wages less than $30k (over half of which she saved up). She has no idea what it's like to struggle either, and she grew up on a literal farm. Because there's no need to struggle when you allocate scarce resources well.

I guess he means the poor should be playing the stock markets to get ahead.

No, lol, they should be using dividend-paying mutual funds to produce a reliable income from their savings while keeping the money highly liquid. You can start this successfully with less than $100. Of course, what the poor should actually be doing is ceasing reproduction and going gently into that good night, but that's beside the point.

[RedKing]

I guess he means the poor should be playing the stock markets to get ahead.

... despite a statistically insignificant proportion of people actually having made their wealth that way. very few people, statistically, are wealthy as a result of playing the markets, it's more that people with good-paying jobs stick their money in markets because that keeps up with inflation.

Also, the top 10% own roughly 85% of the entire market. It's a safer place to hoard excess wealth than a home like those filthy proles use. To say nothing of the plebs who can't even afford *that*, and have to rent like a loser.

What people like Max seem to miss is that the more people you crowd out of a meaningful stake in the game, whether through deliberate malice or simply a system with little to no safety net, the more people you have sitting on the sidelines who have no vested interest in preserving the game AT ALL.

Of course, what the poor should actually be doing is ceasing reproduction and going gently into that good night, but that's beside the point.

I'm gonna assume that's tasteless sarcasm, cause otherwise we're done here.

You have no idea what it's like to struggle, yet you feel entitled to make sweeping pronouncements about how it's their own fault.

No, you're right, I have no idea what it's like to struggle, even though I was brought up by a single mother making wages less than $30k (over half of which she saved up). She has no idea what it's like to struggle either, and she grew up on a literal farm. Because there's no need to struggle when you allocate scarce resources well.

$30K when? I was raised by my grandparents on roughly $30K a year, which back in the 1980s would actually net you a decent lower-middle class lifestyle and even allow you to afford healthcare and maybe send a kid to school.

[Maximum Spin]

Of course, what the poor should actually be doing is ceasing reproduction and going gently into that good night, but that's beside the point.

I'm gonna assume that's tasteless sarcasm, cause otherwise we're done here.

I mean, it's already happening, have you seen our fertility rates? This is why I'm allying with the Amish, who will inherit pretty much the eastern half of the country, with the Mormons taking the west.

[RedKing]

Of course, what the poor should actually be doing is ceasing reproduction and going gently into that good night, but that's beside the point.

I'm gonna assume that's tasteless sarcasm, cause otherwise we're done here.

I mean, it's already happening, have you seen our fertility rates? This is why I'm allying with the Amish, who will inherit pretty much the eastern half of the country, with the Mormons taking the west.

I'm going to ask you again: is that sarcasm or not? Cause if you're on the side of the "forced hysterectomies for immigrants/poor" crowd, you better pray we never meet in RL.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm going to ask you again: is that sarcasm or not? Cause if you're on the side of the "forced hysterectomies for immigrants/poor" crowd, you better pray we never meet in RL.

You can ask as many times as you want. Who said anything about hysterectomies, forced or otherwise, anyway? You're just projecting now, besides the totally laughable threat.

[wierd]

I think somebody is just triggered.

I took it as "Ironic sarcasm of the view held by ivory tower rich people, as concerns the poor", and not "OH YEAS! MORE FORCED STERILITY 1930s STYLE PLZ!" like RedKing apparently interpreted it.

[Maximum Spin]

I think somebody is just triggered.

I took it as "Ironic sarcasm of the view held by ivory tower rich people, as concerns the poor", and not "OH YEAS! MORE FORCED STERILITY 1930s STYLE PLZ!" like RedKing apparently interpreted it.

It's complicated. I was aiming for a mixture of "stereotypical-rich-person-speech (more to satirise everyone calling me an awful rich guy)", "describing what is actually currently happening and is the reason why there is zero hope for any kind of redistributionist uprising at any point in the future", with a little bit of "and, you know, having kids you can't afford actually is a bad idea and it's good that people aren't doing it as much".

[Reelya]

Defunding planned parenthood can't be helping on that front, so i'd expect you to support providing those sorts of services.

[wierd]

I am personally of the opinion of:

1) The substitution of 401ks for actual pension plans was a faustian deal orchestrated in order to further enrich the plutocrat caste, by eliminating any direct obligation to their employees after they retire, (and thus further reinforcing the notion that employees are not investments, but instead disposable like tissue paper), while pulling a slight of hand trick that they (employees) are now shareholders (assuming they buy stock options in their 401k plans), and thus benefit from the very policies that eliminate the assured income streams pensions provide later.

2) The reliance on 401ks in the market to provide for the elderly, is unreliable at best. The assertion that it keeps with inflation is farcical-- not that it does not do that thing, but that it somehow retains its value during times of economic uncertainty (which it most certainly does not), and is when these populations need reliable income the most.  It is a terrible vehicle to assure the providence of those who have done their time at the grindstone, and need to be taken to pasture. (and not the goddamn abattoir.)

3) Wages, which are required to pay into a 401k, have NOT held steady with inflation for the better part of a century. Even with employee matching, employees cannot afford to have that much of their pay diverted to the 401k, and this is done (low wages) precisely to further enrich the plutocrat class.

So, excuse me while I look very disgustedly at the whole damn notion of 401ks.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't even know anyone who uses 401(k)s.

[wierd]

It's every-fucking-where in the US.

It is what they replaced pension/retirement plans in big businesses with.  Now only the fed offers pensions, and they want to get rid of those real bad too. (at least the republicans do, because "Fuck those old people, austerity for everyone not of the rich caste!")

[Maximum Spin]

Now only the fed offers pensions, and they want to get rid of those real bad too. (at least the republicans do, because "Fuck those old people, austerity for everyone not of the rich caste!")

I'm pretty sure it's because we don't actually have the money to pay our obligations.
You have to admit that's kind of a problem, even if you don't think that's the right solution.

[Reelya]

Well you could instantly save $90 million a year by not minting pennies. They cost the treasury more than 2 pennies per penny right now.

(in fact it's estimate that niggling over pennies costs the economy around $300 million a year in wasted time too, so an instant GDP boost too).

[Maximum Spin]

Well you could instantly save $90 million a year by not minting pennies. They cost the treasury more than 2 pennies per penny right now.

The problem with that statement is that the government does not sell pennies for a penny. It's okay that it costs more than a coin's face value to make it because the face value is not the "price" of the coin or the expected value of providing the service of minting it; the question is whether the government gets more than 2 pennies of value out of making each penny, which studies have suggested that it does, many times over.

[Reelya]

You'd be in disagreement with just about every economist then.