• The Free-Time Paradox in America: How Having Leisure Time Shifted from the Rich to the Poor
    75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=space1;51084073]Not 100% true for all industries. Some have ridiculously invasive patents and whatnot that require smaller businesses to license things.[/QUOTE] I am not saying that doesn't happen. Of course we all know how mega corporations use crony capitalism to rig the system in their favor. But that's not what this article is about. People really like to pretend that adding extra time and effort into work won't get you anywhere. That is a myth.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51084104]No the percentage is higher. Your government spends 22% on healthcare, ours spends 20%. You also pay a load yourself seperately. How can it be so inefficient?[/QUOTE] Because the US healthcare industry fleeces both consumers and the government by jacking up prices by orders of magnitude over what they should be. Something that would never be allowed to fly if every American had nationalized health insurance.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51084153]Because the US healthcare industry fleeces both consumers and the government by jacking up prices by orders of magnitude over what they should be. Something that would never be allowed to fly if every American had nationalized health insurance.[/QUOTE] I was hoping for an american to try and defend their exploitative healthcare system It's a sad situation where the US government doesn't act in its people interests.
It's more about choice and drive or the lack of. I meet a lot of wealthy people in my line of work, some are consumed with work because they like the power trip or they just need the mental stimulation, others are more leisure orientated so they delegate. Obviously being wealthy affords you the choice. The less wealthy people basically do the best they can under the circumstances, some strive to be wealthier and others accept their fate and don't. It really boils down to the individual persons makeup.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51084117]I am not saying that doesn't happen. Of course we all know how mega corporations use crony capitalism to rig the system in their favor. But that's not what this article is about. People really like to pretend that adding extra time and effort into work won't get you anywhere. That is a myth.[/QUOTE] Your supposition is a myth, particularly in the creative, tech and interpersonal industries. Whom you know is far more important than how long your list is, and this has been true for [i]decades[/i].
[QUOTE=catbarf;51083396]The article is saying that low-income jobs are much less satisfying than they used to be, decent work is harder to get, and people don't want to work shitty dead-end jobs when there's much more satisfying leisure available. It also says that rich people work longer hours not because they're smarter or harder workers, but because they've been cultured that way, actually enjoy their work, or are uselessly trying to emulate longer-working peers. And here you clowns are ranting about how the article thinks you must be dumb and lazy if you don't want to work long hours on a terrible job when that's [I]literally the opposite[/I] of what it's saying.[/QUOTE] This is the only rational conclusion, really. When you get that rich, you honestly don't really need to work anymore. You can get yourself a small house in the suburbs or an apartment in the city and live the rest of your life off of your returns on your investments alone and afford to go out every night. So the super rich must in some way, shape, or form choose to work because they don't need to. They must enjoy their work.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;51082752]I must be lucky or something because all I did was apply for Wal-Mart and I got hired pretty quickly[/QUOTE] gj for you, but i'm actually trying to start a career not a long chain of hairnets and nametags
[QUOTE=27X;51084643]Your supposition is a myth, particularly in the creative, tech and interpersonal industries. Whom you know is far more important than how long your list is, and this has been true for [i]decades[/i].[/QUOTE] 'Who you know is as important as what you do' is the advice that's been accepted as true for decades, and it means you need to spend as much effort on interpersonal relationships as you do on actual work. It does not mean 'what you do is meaningless and won't get you anywhere so there's no point in trying', which is what Pantz Master is arguing against.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51083097] I keep hearing about this evil conspiracy theory among the rich to demonize the poor. Also I've never seem the poor blamed for economic problems, only for their voting power (due to being the majority). The hostile mentality to the poor is more about shifting a mindset towards taking responsibility for one's actions instead of trying to divert blame to circumstance. Starting in a wealthy family gets you a head start, but without knowing what you're doing you'll lose the money right away. Just within people I've seen, who all had the same opportunities growing up, their success in life directly correlated with their locus of control.[/QUOTE] its not so much the rich blaming the poor, its the rich convincing the poor that they're better off without the government doing something about it. Kentucky is THE BIGGEST BENEFACTOR of the healthcare law, but they also are the home state of Mitch Mcconnel. their new governor promised to tear up their exchange once elected, even though it would cost the state hundreds of millions, and kill coverage to a significant portion of the electorate in that state. The wealthy have convinced people that cutting their taxes will benefit everybody, that our faults lie in our tax policy, that deficit spending is killing our economy, that killing regulations is what we need to do. what has happened though is that the wealthy have massively benefitted from these policies for decades while the working class has seen barely a bump in status from it. the economy should be booming with 0% interest rates because businesses should be massively expanding and massively hiring because money is cheap. What has happened though is that they're using the money to consolidate, buy out their competition, close factories and ship jobs around, while buying up their own stock to boost dividends what's even worse is that it used to be there was an opposition to these economic thoughts, but since the clintons got into the democrats, they've pushed the same conservative agenda as the right. further down the line, look at what the new wealth is doing. Silicon valley is starting to replace traditional industries in terms of lobbying effort. They publicly proclaim to be progressive, but look at their business practices, they spend billions trying to keep the government out of their books, off their shoulder, while violating labor laws, using outsourcing under the guise of diversity to replace high paying jobs with low paying jobs, and they've been every bit as successful as wallstreet and big oil has been the secret has always been getting the public to not hate you enough for action, and today when companies can toss hundreds of millions into PR campaigns, people fall for it
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853]Snip long quote[/QUOTE] I agree with some of what you say but you are ignoring the fact that work can be mentally demanding and still leave you just as exhausted as physical labor.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51084761]'Who you know is as important as what you do' is the advice that's been accepted as true for decades, and it means you need to spend as much effort on interpersonal relationships as you do on actual work. It does not mean 'what you do is meaningless and won't get you anywhere so there's no point in trying', which is what Pantz Master is arguing against.[/QUOTE] Semantic solipsism at best. There is a distinct personality curve and a general set of social methods that does not involve 'putting a bunch of time in', and the very industry you work in is an operating testament to that, unless you think that the 9000 people currently at Ubi$oft currently put out exactly the same amount of effort to a person, homogeneously across the company. Go try working fast food for three or four years and see if your hypothetical meritocracy holds equal sway.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51084161]I was hoping for an american to try and defend their exploitative healthcare system It's a sad situation where the US government doesn't act in its people interests.[/QUOTE] I can live with fully nationalized healthcare or full free market but this half assed shit they pulled with obamacare (ie forced to buy insurance from specific companies which just jacks up the price for everyone) just doesn't work. I think my opinion on the matter is one of the more common ones among americans
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51084777]If you don't know anyone, no one can vouch for you. If you don't know your shit, no one is GOING to vouch for you. In these interpersonal, interconnected, industries, knowing people can only go so far, and those people aren't very keen on saying "yea, bob is great" when bob actually is a piece of shit and can't show up to work without the smell of booze on his breath. Your skills will allow you to network. Your network will land you a job. Without both you're fighting an uphill battle.[/QUOTE] Sorry to disagree with you, but the last part is kinda bs. The correct phrase is: Your [I][B]social[/B][/I] skills will allow you to network. Your network will land you a job. There are hundreds of engineers here in BA that have skills no one else has and they work for 30k pesos a month. A chemical engineer intern working in a multinational such as rhoemers can get 18-22k for his first job (Minimum salary is around 9k pesos). Meanwhile there are guys who only know how to use excel, yet they are socially one hundred times faster -the argentine slang being "avivado"- than those engineers and get to know where to find resources/solutions in case someone asks them for one. Therefore they end up getting a better salary and a powerful position. You can even see that in college. There will a guy who's busting his ass studying the whole day and making resumes for himself, and then there's the guy who knows everyone from each year, hangs out with everybody and connects people needs (Hey, do you know someone who's got resumes for X subject?) while syphoning/taking something for himself which then allows him to go and sit for an exam, passing it with minimal effort. Then you combine both and generally you get a good ceo, someone who ends up creating a company, etc etc [QUOTE]further down the line, look at what the new wealth is doing. Silicon valley is starting to replace traditional industries in terms of lobbying effort. They publicly proclaim to be progressive, but look at their business practices, they spend billions trying to keep the government out of their books, off their shoulder, while violating labor laws, using outsourcing under the guise of diversity to replace high paying jobs with low paying jobs, and they've been every bit as successful as wallstreet and big oil has been [/QUOTE] Amen brother For fucks sake, engineers working in one of the most powerful companies of the world have to sleep on the parking lot because they can't afford a house. Rly n? And you're right, the PR people from silicon valley have been pushing the "People who bust their ass are the only ones who progress" bs for some time now. Hell, there was an article at Vox.com some time ago showing the leaked powerpoint of a guy who trained execs in silicon valley to exploit and find people who would work a lot for little $.
[QUOTE=sb27;51082714]With less-wealthy people, many work in dead-end jobs where they are often paid a wage. Voluntary unpaid overtime isn't really a thing because there aren't many (or any) prospects of a promotion, or not as much pride in the job etc. And as for paid overtime, managers are careful to give it out because obviously those extra hours have to be paid for, unlike in salaried jobs.[/QUOTE] From my understanding the intent of salaried positions has kinda been perverted from what it was originally intended to be anyways. It was originally intended to provide economic stability to a position that would normally work inconsistent hours. (Ie: A position where there would be little work for a chunk of the year then a crap load for another chunk.) Instead it gets used as a cop out by companies to save money on a position that's going to be required to work overtime more often than not. Several years ago I worked security at a paper mill sort of place (this factory didn't make the paper itself but processed the paper for other stuff) and the entire time I was at that place, which was about 14 months, there were maybe 6 weeks where the floor manager didn't work an extra 12 hour shift on top of the extra 4ish hours per shift on his normal days. That's approximately 72 hours per week while getting paid for only 40 of them due to his salaried position. In my personal opinion a company should need to show explicit proof for why a position should be salaried before being allowed to do so in order to prevent abuses such as this.
[QUOTE=27X;51084850]Semantic solipsism at best. There is a distinct personality curve and a general set of social methods that does not involve 'putting a bunch of time in', [/QUOTE] Solipsism is claiming that the idea that additional time or work doesn't result in personal gain constitutes a universal constant. [QUOTE=27X;51084850]and the very industry you work in is an operating testament to that, unless you think that the 9000 people currently at Ubi$oft currently put out exactly the same amount of effort to a person, homogeneously across the company.[/QUOTE] FWIW I moonlight as a game dev from time to time to stay sane, but I'm a fed. I work in an environment where everyone in a given position has a stated salary and benefits you can look up on a chart, so clearly hard work results in no immediate, tangible benefit- but I rose to my position through recognition of my past accomplishments, while I have worked alongside a few people who put in the bare minimum to keep their jobs and will likely never advance. I have tangible evidence of hard work being rewarded- and while I would never claim that it holds true for all companies, all industries, and all situations (foodservice is a dead-end, no argument there, and of course I've seen bad managers promote people they personally like over those who are most qualified), the equally universal claim that hard work is meaningless is equally unsupportable.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51084761]'Who you know is as important as what you do' is the advice that's been accepted as true for decades, and it means you need to spend as much effort on interpersonal relationships as you do on actual work. It does not mean 'what you do is meaningless and won't get you anywhere so there's no point in trying', which is what Pantz Master is arguing against.[/QUOTE] It can be very hard to make in roads in a lot of industries. It's not impossible but it's hard and doesn't lead as far up the chain as you might think. Networking is the real world, but there is legitimate nepotism in the world that can affect you in the search for a lot of these jobs.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51084972]From my understanding the intent of salaried positions has kinda been perverted from what it was originally intended to be anyways. It was originally intended to provide economic stability to a position that would normally work inconsistent hours. (Ie: A position where there would be little work for a chunk of the year then a crap load for another chunk.) Instead it gets used as a cop out by companies to save money on a position that's going to be required to work overtime more often than not. Several years ago I worked security at a paper mill sort of place (this factory didn't make the paper itself but processed the paper for other stuff) and the entire time I was at that place, which was about 14 months, there were maybe 6 weeks where the floor manager didn't work an extra 12 hour shift on top of the extra 4ish hours per shift on his normal days. That's approximately 72 hours per week while getting paid for only 40 of them due to his salaried position. In my personal opinion a company should need to show explicit proof for why a position should be salaried before being allowed to do so in order to prevent abuses such as this.[/QUOTE] Salaried jobs always have "or the hours required" written into the contract. As a freelancer I have always steered clear of direct employment as it usually benefits the employer. The amount of times I have worked with employed guys who don't have the balls to go freelance and would rather get raped by their employers for and I quote "the job security." [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51085010]It can be very hard to make in roads in a lot of industries. It's not impossible but it's hard and doesn't lead as far up the chain as you might think. Networking is the real world, but there is legitimate nepotism in the world that can affect you in the search for a lot of these jobs.[/QUOTE] In some industries maybe but jobs for the boys only goes so far if those involved aren't cutting the mustard, so to speak.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51085021]Salaried jobs always have "or the hours required" written into the contract.[/QUOTE] I never suggested otherwise? The entire point of my post was to explain that salaried positions are very commonly abused by companies as an excuse to pay an employee significantly less than they would if they were paid hourly. In the example given in my post the floor manager made something like $60-65k/year. With the hours given in the example post that amounts to ~$18.30/hour when he got that position from an hourly position that was somewhere around $24-25/hour.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51085010]It can be very hard to make in roads in a lot of industries. It's not impossible but it's hard and doesn't lead as far up the chain as you might think. Networking is the real world, but there is legitimate nepotism in the world that can affect you in the search for a lot of these jobs.[/QUOTE] A certain degree of nepotism is inevitable. And its unsolvable. What, do you want to regulate it somehow?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51085057]I never suggested otherwise? The entire point of my post was to explain that salaried positions are very commonly abused by companies as an excuse to pay an employee significantly less than they would if they were paid hourly. In the example given in my post the floor manager made something like $60-65k/year. With the hours given in the example post that amounts to ~$18.30/hour when he got that position from an hourly position that was somewhere around $24-25/hour.[/QUOTE] I wasn't disagreeing with you, as I said in my post I always avoid salaried or direct employment jobs as they are always stacked in favour of the employer. [editline]21st September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;51085079]A certain degree of nepotism is inevitable. And its unsolvable. What, do you want to regulate it somehow?[/QUOTE] Especially in a family run business. :smile:
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51085089]I wasn't disagreeing with you, as I said in my post I always avoid salaried or direct employment jobs as they are always stacked in favour of the employer.[/QUOTE] Fair enough then, it came across somewhat differently to me. Bad reading on my part or weird wording on yours or something. Pretty much in agreement though for the most part. I don't 100% agree on the direct employment bit but there's no way in hell I would ever accept a salaried position. In my example if that guy worked the same hours but got an hourly wage at his previous pay rate he'd be making $105-110/year which is like 80% more than he was actually making. Though he was still making ~$10k per year more in this new position than his old one (probably a bit less actually since the hourly floor positions do work a fair bit of overtime themselves, just not as much as the floor manager does) but it's still something that really doesn't actually favor him at all.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51083734]Stop the train! [url]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart[/url] 7% on welfare 22% on healthcare 19% on pensions Thats less than 50%[/quote] I stand corrected, but that still totals to 48%. [quote] How does your government spend more on healthcare (percentage wise) than the UK while alos being far far far more expensive for the consumer also? (private healthcare I guess competition made everything better amirite) Sounds like inefficiency... which I guess leads into your next point So the rich/corperations avoiding to pay tax isn't because they're greedy, its because they disagree with how their country is run? One might argue that your government (or system) is inefficient looking at the stats above, specifically healthcare. But its the rich and the corporations who helped create that situation and inefficiency (again healthcare being the example with insurance and treatment costs being sky high and being 1 of the least efficient healthcare systems in the world, the cost of which is handed on to the government). Sorry buts its a bs arguement. They're benefitting from the welfare nets provided by the state, they're benefitting from the states existence. They should pay up or fuck off. Thats like me going to a hotel using a room and not paying. If they have a problem with the state they should lobby (and they do, far more effectively than you or I) they don't have the right to withold their taxes or find sneaky ways to shirk paying it or carrying their burden. If they're going to sell their goods and services in the country they ought to be taxed for it, because they are DIRECTLY benefiting from the country. In my eyes a company avoiding paying taxes is nothing less than a parasite or thief, enjoying benefits, services and perks which they are not paying for.[/quote] There is a portion of the extremely rich that tries to get the government to give them special treatment by basically making competition illegal which is what got us our disastrous health care system. Almost all of the price increases can be traced back to something being made illegal in order to cater to some large corporation, and I don't think that should be allowed to happen. It's kind of the fault of both sides, because a compromise between capitalism and socialism often gets you the downsides of both systems without the upsides of either. But government influence aside - can you really blame them for being angry about [i]40%[/i] of their money just vanishing? Would you happily write off that much of your income? If you decrease the tax rate, you would actually see more money coming in. Everyone loves to point to the mid 20th century when the tax rate was something like 90%, but government spending is actually higher now than it was back then. Tax evasion was rampant when people had to give up all of that money. The idea becomes a lot less attractive if the rate fell to like 20% or something. Everyone needs to pay taxes because the services such as police apply to everyone, but the rich are being made to pay way more than what their fair share should be. So they evade taxes, government isn't getting as much money as it wants, so they increase taxes again, but this time the tax burden propagates down to the lower and middle class. [quote] No you're buying the bullshit. Some people won't make it. They're forced to get a job to care for themselves and their family and that gives them no flexibility, time or option to self improve to get a better situation. Some people do manage to climb up in such a way, good on them. They're lucky they had a good break, they met the right person or were in the right place and had the right opportunity, if they claim it was all pure hard work without any measure of luck at some point they are lying. I agree you can learn to handle your money but for that you have to be fairly lucky in the first place. If you are at the bottom you probably aren't paid enough to have money to handle. People have to work 2 jobs, they're trying hard. Look at social mobility figures, look at inherited poverty the figures speak for themselves. By you saying "its your fault you're poor, you should have tried harder" without fully understanding their situation you are part of the issue, you're one of the " you are told to blame yourself, you are the failure, if you had tried harder you could have done it but you're a sad failure and worse than everybody else, you don't deserve success because you didn't try hard enough." people We need safety nets and welfare because not everybody can be rich and successful. Sadly society as it is wouldn't work if everyone was.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between being broke and being poor. Being broke can be out of your control, and even as a wealthy person, maybe you take a financial risk and everything goes to shit. But the people who can't find a way to bounce back from losing all their money are the ones who end up being poor. Opportunities come up for everyone, they just come disguised as hard work. One thing that I found interesting, one of my relatives lived through Germany in WWII, and they were in one of the lower class families. Following the war, the economy crashed, the currency was a disaster, nobody had anything, so the government started up a new currency and handed everyone an equal amount of it. It only took about a week for the people who were formerly rich to be rich again, and for the formerly poor to be poor again. I never see this mentality in the people who immigrate to the US with absolutely nothing. Disasters happen to everyone, what you do about that disaster is where "your fault" starts to come into play. About 80% of American millionares are first generation rich. [QUOTE=elowin;51083923]You realize people don't have some kind of magical decision making ability to just decide "hey im going to learn how to manage my economy super well and trade stocks and shit out of nowhere!" right? Everyone is a product of their environment (and their genes and a few other things) If they don't know how to manage money well, it's because their environment never taught them. If they don't go out and take some classes on it or learn it some other way, it's because their environment never taught them to do it, how to do it, or gave them the opportunity to do it.[/QUOTE] There are an unbelievable amount of ways to learn something like money management, even if the opportunity doesn't just get handed to you. Read a book, take a free online class or something like that. I have no sympathy for people who have never tried to learn money management while also complaining about having no money. It may not be their fault that they didn't get to go to school for it, or learn from their parents, but it is 100% their decision to pick it up later on in life.
This thread feels like an annual communist meetup 2016
[quote] “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”[/quote] God what a nightmarish and spiritually/culturally/emotionally bankrupt existence that must be
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51082853]After all, while the rich may be "workaholics," I highly doubt their jobs are nearly as strenuous as say, someone who works in a tomato field or stocks shelves. In fact, "the rich," often have jobs that guarantee them certain holidays and [I]paid vacation.[/I] You know what I would have to do to get paid vacation at my job? Have something heavy fall on my leg, crush it, and take worker's comp. Weird, isn't it. I also doubt, say, graphic designers, software engineers, mortgage adjusters and the like have to lift fifty to sixty pounds on a regular basis, remain standing/walking for full eight hour shifts, or work two jobs to be able to afford their rent. Simply put, [B]longer hours[/B] is a bullshit metric for "hard work," given that those longer hours often translate in to paid luncheons, higher over-all pay, little physical demand, and a slew of other gratuities and benefits.[/QUOTE] Because you're replaceable with nearly every single person in this thread, on the street, and in general, who is relatively healthy. 'Effort' is irrelevant, what matters is the demand and supply of the skills that you bring. If you bring no specific skills, bad qualifications, and everyone can do your job, expect poor pay. That applies whether the job is manual labour or working retail. The fact that this post got 29 stars is embarrassing. You are paid what you are paid, ultimately. Government attempts to control wages are generally harmful and usually result in unemployment, beyond a (low) minimum wage to prevent exploitation of the exceptionally weak in society. A second option are unions, but they were ultimately crushed in the UK because they were most interested in trying to overthrow capitalism and the government and being inefficient luddites rather than cooperating with corporations like in Germany. [QUOTE=elowin;51083923]Everyone is a product of their environment (and their genes and a few other things) If they don't know how to manage money well, it's because their environment never taught them. If they don't go out and take some classes on it or learn it some other way, it's because their environment never taught them to do it, how to do it, or gave them the opportunity to do it.[/QUOTE] Actually, we're mostly a product of our genes. Our environment doesn't matter too much, and neither does school quality, parenting (as much as the middle-class helicopter parents think otherwise) or any other factor that people like to trumpet. IQ is the best predictor of income, and IQ is 65 - 75+% heritable. All other factors are tinkering around the edges in comparison. This isn't justifying inequality, by the way. In fact, it could do the reverse - if you, for the most part, simply inherit the right intelligence enhancing alleles, then why do you deserve a higher income? An issue that deserves more exploration and less condemnation and denial from people. [QUOTE=ElectricSquid;51088413]God what a nightmarish and spiritually/culturally/emotionally bankrupt existence that must be[/QUOTE] Building a career or a business is 'nightmarish' and 'spiritually/culturally/emotionally bankrupt'? #decline
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51088502] -snip- [/quote] me next me next! [quote] Building a career or a business is 'nightmarish' and 'spiritually/culturally/emotionally bankrupt'? #decline[/QUOTE] "and the closest thing they have to fun" He meant that part. It implies they aren't having fun because its only the closest thing. So they're dedicating all their time and effort and they're not even having fun. I'd rather live in a barrel and have fun than live without fun. Do me next! I've eagerly awaited your return, without you to pull me back to good sensible Keynesian economics tinged with healthy centre left policy I've gone full anarcho marxist! You gotta help me man. People shouldn't be coerced to work in a job which pays shit and doesn't offer opportunities to change! see! I can't help it. Help me become a centrist again please. People are forced into wage slavery through unavoidable debt, taxes without an implicit social contract and social conditioning making them think that happiness is attained through belongings and property with the sole purpose of maintaining a commercialist system which requires constant growth to fulfil its promises and cover its debts. You are bombarded with adverts associating physical goods with "spiritual" needs such as happiness, belonging and purpose so you associate them with the good and feel the urge to purchase the good to fill a hole/want which would previously be provided by a strong community, a sense of freedom, a sense of identity or satisfaction from seeing the (now divorced and obfuscated) fruits of your labour. Please dude. you gotta help make me feel ok about it all
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51088561] "and the closest thing they have to fun" He meant that part. It implies they aren't having fun because its only the closest thing. So they're dedicating all their time and effort and they're not even having fun. I'd rather live in a barrel and have fun than live without fun.[/quote] Generally the people who do well in business are the ones who enjoy it. [quote] People shouldn't be coerced to work in a job which pays shit and doesn't offer opportunities to change! see! I can't help it. Help me become a centrist again please. People are forced into wage slavery through unavoidable debt,[/quote] Who took on the debt? [quote]taxes without an implicit social contract[/quote] Taxes aren't supposed to burden the poor but the effects usually propagate to them, after the policies are hardened by the people who are trying to help the poor. [quote] and social conditioning making them think that happiness is attained through belongings and property with the sole purpose of maintaining a commercialist system which requires constant growth to fulfil its promises and cover its debts. You are bombarded with adverts associating physical goods with "spiritual" needs such as happiness, belonging and purpose so you associate them with the good and feel the urge to purchase the good to fill a hole/want which would previously be provided by a strong community, a sense of freedom, a sense of identity or satisfaction from seeing the (now divorced and obfuscated) fruits of your labour.[/QUOTE] So it's not their fault that they want to blow their money on needless items? Is it really out of their control whether they are materialistic or not?
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51088743]Generally the people who do well in business are the ones who enjoy it. [/quote] Perhaps My uncle owns a business it takes up p much all his time, his marriage failed because of it. He might enjoy it but I'm not so sure. I wouldn't give up my life for his. [quote] Who took on the debt?[/quote] Debt to society (see below for views on this, I'm pro society but believe there should be the opportunity for choice) and its more a matter of. If you want to live you have to eat, if you have to eat you have to get money (gl sustaining yourself on self grown food) if you want money you have to work. So work is presented as a choice but you aren't expected to say no and if you do you are branded as some sort of loser. You might be happier not working and living some alternative way and in the absence of meaning the pursuit happiness is a pretty good thing to live for. [quote] Taxes aren't supposed to burden the poor but the effects usually propagate to them, after the policies are hardened by the people who are trying to help the poor. [/quote] I'm very much pro taxes and my issue is that participation and social contract are assumed. Generally if you are expected to pay a debt its because you entered some kind of deal, you didn't get that opportunity the deal was made for you unless you immigrated in which case the deal was likely made elsewhere. Just because some warmongers centries ago carved up the land you are expected to be a thrall to their legacy, its dressed as benevolent and in many ways it is benevolent, but you don't have the choice and if you actually try to act on this you will likely end up in prison. I advocate for companies to be taxed and to close loopholes, I see someone setting up a company as them agreeing to the social contract and thus to not pay taxes is to have entered an agreement and reneged on the terms. [quote] So it's not their fault that they want to blow their money on needless items? Is it really out of their control whether they are materialistic or not?[/QUOTE] It's not their fault. Food is made to trick our bodies. Sugar and fat make something very irresistible, biologically we struggle to turn it down. They're using our bodies against us. Advertising again is used to trick us, we're not infallable. You see an advert about Turkey and think "wow I need a holiday" you don't really need a holiday, you [b]could[/b] be happy being at home but the advert made you feel like you need to be in turkey. Stuff like coca cola and macdonalds, they're not advertising the ~experience~ rather than the product, your mind is made to believe you're not buying a product you're buying happiness and excitement, you're buying being a teenager sat round a table smiling with your friends, you're buying frolicking in the fields without lifes worries. Stuff like products for girls. They pick really beautiful girls for those adverts and photoshop them to look unattainably beautiful. Teenagers and young adults see that and think "that is what I'm meant to look like, I need the product to help me". They target older people with threats of wrinkles. Wrinkles are a natural part of aging. "Hey are you worried about wrinkles? you should be! people will love you less! buy this product and you won't have wrinkles". Sure we have agency but when are you ever taught self control or that you can be happy without possessions? Your childhood is a mass of adverts preparing you to be a good consumer when you grow up. Once you're a young adult and are old enough to be wiser and better equipped its too late, you're already spending £45 (5 times more than you can get by with) per month on the second latest phone contract and eating shit which is awful for your body. Ha they irony "get by with" people survived for 100,000 years without phones and I think a £7 monthly giff gaff package is necissary to get by with, they got to me too! run while you can! Happiness is a default, happiness bought through possessions is fleeting and is just filling a void, worse still is in the event of that void being left unfilled you trick yourself into thinking you need that useless stuff. You make a slave of yourself. We are technically in control but billions are spent per year on conditioning you into thinking you need a bunch of shit. It's not even companies fault, they're told to make money and making you buy their useless bs is the best way to make money.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51088743]Generally the people who do well in business are the ones who enjoy it. Who took on the debt? Taxes aren't supposed to burden the poor but the effects usually propagate to them, after the policies are hardened by the people who are trying to help the poor. So it's not their fault that they want to blow their money on needless items? Is it really out of their control whether they are materialistic or not?[/QUOTE] It's definitely out of poor people's control. Have you ever been poor? Tried to save up a meaningful amount without some magical boon landing in your lap? It doesn't work. There is a certain threshold (usually around/above the poverty line) where people are able to afford longer-term investments instead of focusing on material goods, but below that the opportunity for such investments is virtually nil. Compound that with the increased likelihood of mental and physical illness in the poor and you have an all-consuming cycle of day-to-day living.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;51086301]Tax evasion was rampant when people had to give up all of that money. The idea becomes a lot less attractive if the rate fell to like 20% or something.[/QUOTE] You seriously believe that companies will suddenly stop avoiding taxes if we lowered them? They are profit making machines, why would they go from paying next to nothing to 20%? Beyond a certain size the amount of money required to evade taxes is peanuts compared to yearly profits, there's just no way you'll get large corporations to cooperate out of the goodness of their heart. What you need is to close all the loopholes they are using to avoid paying for the services the public provides them, but that will never happen when those who are supposed to represent the people serve these companies' interests.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.