» GC Stats |
Members: 329,760
Threads: 115,670
Posts: 2,205,214
|
Welcome to our newest member, starck |
|
 |
|

10-12-2011, 06:21 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northeastern US
Posts: 889
|
|
Here's a thought- I read a quote today about how much it's costing NYC to provide police to the protest areas. The number quoted was astronomical and uncited, so I'm fairly certain it's not accurate...but there's a point to that line of thought. I know in NJ the cuts to police departments have been absolutely brutal within the past few years. Occupying Trenton, for example- that's going to take up time and energy from officers who work for a force that lost almost half its strength last year. And Trenton isn't exactly crime-free, so who knows what is going on while officers are "watching" this protest? If they have to staff with additional officers this = overtime, and their budgets are probably stretched to the point of screaming already.
I'm waiting for the "occupy" movement to come here. The irony of using the tern "occupy" would become apparent if they were to protest in a neighborhood where the ratio of occupied:vacant homes is >50% (and there's many that meet that criteria!) "Wow, people are moving in now!" Sorry I'm a word/bad joke dork!
__________________
* Winter * "Apart" of isn't the right term...it is " a_part_of"...
|

10-12-2011, 09:51 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 3,760
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I can't say I don't disagree with them. I'm not sure I agree with them 100% either. I'm not convinced they will effect change though. I share the anger and frustration about the economy. I don't know that there's a "fix" for it though. I guess I'm in a more hopeless place. These folks seem to have hope that they can effect change. I'm too cynical to believe that.
|
You're not being cynical, you're being realistic. As long as these groups protest in front of the mansions and townhomes of the rich all they are really participating in is class warfare(IMO). They really need to focus their frustrations on the politicians who allow themselves to be bought and sold by the corps, not wealthy individuals (whom many of deserve their success and wealth).
|

10-13-2011, 11:21 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chi
Posts: 988
|
|
I first heard about the OWS protests through the We Are the 99 Percent blog/tumblr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
I think it is a large movement that is wearing too many hats. When there are too many hats, it is difficult to understand the point being made.
|
I absolutely agree with this point and makes me wish that there were a more central message, so people [read: the media] wouldn't brush these people and their message off.
__________________
We shall embody in our lives the truths that make for finer womanhood.
|

10-12-2011, 11:44 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
|
|
|

10-13-2011, 09:54 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: naples, florida
Posts: 18,659
|
|
looked thru the thread and didn't see any theories on how these protests are being funded
: http://www.discoverynews.org/2011/10...wall051821.php
be sure to order your $32 t-shirt.
__________________
I live in Fantasyland and I have waterfront property.
|

10-13-2011, 09:58 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Monica/Beverly Hills
Posts: 8,634
|
|
My friends had a flyer for Occupy Phoenix last night. I think it's the 15th. We were arguing about what income level makes you the 1%.
__________________
AOII
One Motto, One Badge, One Bond and Singleness of Heart!
|

10-13-2011, 11:29 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 3,760
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
My friends had a flyer for Occupy Phoenix last night. I think it's the 15th. We were arguing about what income level makes you the 1%.
|
I read that it's $353,000 and up.
|

10-13-2011, 11:34 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NooYawk
Posts: 5,478
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
I read that it's $353,000 and up.
|
That's all? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.
__________________
ONE LOVE, For All My Life
Talented, tested, tenacious, and true...
A woman of diversity through and through.
|

10-13-2011, 11:34 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
My friends had a flyer for Occupy Phoenix last night. I think it's the 15th. We were arguing about what income level makes you the 1%.
|
It's not as high as I'm sure many protestors think. There are different numbers quoted, but the consensus seems to be in the mid to high $300,000 range ($350,000-$380,000) a year. So a household where you have two wage earners each earning $175,000-$190,000 a year will more or less get you in. Still an incredibly commendable salary, but far from "evil corporate tycoon" status.
|

10-13-2011, 02:58 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?
With that said, I won't occupy shit - the only portion that carries weight with me is the notion of unequal/lack of opportunity in the United States. In fact, the best-rewarded "skills" appear to be "born rich" and "born white" (in that order), closely followed by "born male."
|

10-13-2011, 03:49 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?
|
So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".
|

10-13-2011, 04:45 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD Alum
So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".
|
The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...
You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.
However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.
Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?
You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.
Last edited by KSig RC; 10-13-2011 at 04:52 PM.
|

10-13-2011, 05:20 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 244
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...
You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.
However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.
Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?
You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.
|
Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.
In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.
Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.
|

10-13-2011, 05:27 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nasty and inebriated
Posts: 5,772
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD Alum
Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.
In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.
Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.
|
What about the other 2999900 in the top 1% though?
__________________
And he took a cup of coffee and gave thanks to God for it, saying, 'Each of you drink from it. This is my caffeine, which gives life.'
|

10-13-2011, 05:30 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD Alum
Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.
In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.
|
OK, this explains the disconnect - I wasn't saying those "top 50 or 100" lacked skills at all, or that they are there because something was 'given' to them. I said they all had broadly or roughly similar skill sets (which you acknowledge yourself), and that the list completely lacked other, important skill sets that are often found in the smartest individuals in the world (who generally make lots of money, but not the "FU money" of the titans of industry).
Anyway, you make my entire point for me - if the skills are comparable to Nobel winners (which I'd say that, in terms of uniqueness and ability, is largely correct), then there's something endemic to the system that doesn't allow Nobel winners onto the list. Many scientists have "irreplaceable skills" as well, and aren't in the 1% at all. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, so it's bad language.
Also, don't lay "capitalism" out as an argument - it's reductionist at best, since government interference in the marketplace is one of the key issues for both sides here (and I think both sides are wrong, for whatever that's worth).
My argument was in 2 parts, which you have needlessly conflated. I'm not claiming the top 50 Americans got there by heredity. I AM claiming a large number of the top 3,000,000 (1%) Americans had advantages to get where they are. Many worked hard, too - the "lazy millionaire heiress" is not my target here.
Last edited by KSig RC; 10-13-2011 at 05:35 PM.
|
 |
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|