Pages

Wilbur Ross "Take a Loan" Comments

ironman32's picture
ironman32 - Certified Professional
Rank: Neanderthal | banana points 3,099

Heard Wilbur Ross's comments early about government employees going to homeless shelters/food banks as they are on the eve of missing a second paycheck.

Just wanted to hear the finance/"Oasis" thoughts on this matter. For me, on one hand, obviously this isn't right, people should not be forced to work for no pay. On the other hand, is it the government's fought that people don't have emergency savings.

(side note: just read "Evicted" by Matthew Desmond, got it off of Bill Gates recommended list. Good book to read, made me think about this topic in a different way. It's crazy to think about how people live/act in the slums of our of country.)

Comments (201)

Jan 24, 2019

Just more ammo for the socialist movement. Those are my thoughts about his comments.

    • 7
    • 2
Jan 24, 2019

Given these folks are experiencing hardships through no fault of their own actions I say he is delusional and really don't have a problem them doing that. Many folks working for the fed are doing it for the benefits more than the $$.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

The comments are predictably out of touch.

    • 10
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

His 5th or so "let them eat cake moment" since he started sleeping on the job. An 81-year old billionaire who has been accused of fraud is affecting the lives of everyday Americans, and couldn't care less for their plight. And you guys wonder why people like AOC are becoming popular?

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 10
    • 2
Jan 30, 2019

That's what I'm saying...I think his comments/ideas are horribly misplaced, but I also question is it on the people to at least have some emergency savings for ~6 months. Emergencies happen.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 24, 2019
ironman32:

I also question is it on the people to at least have some emergency savings for ~6 months. Emergencies happen.

Should they have 6-months of savings in a perfect world? Of course. Is that even mathematically possible for many of our country's workers with families? No.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 30, 2019

Mathematically possible-yes.

You don't build emergency savings in one day, it takes multiple paychecks. I feel for these people--but they can't save $50, $20 out of a paycheck? When I hear paycheck to paycheck, I think, what luxuries do you have, cable, new cars, new phones?

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
ironman32:

Mathematically possible-yes.

You don't build emergency savings in one day, it takes multiple paychecks. I feel for these people--but they can't save $50, $20 out of a paycheck? When I hear paycheck to paycheck, I think, what luxuries do you have, cable, new cars, new phones?

Huh? Ok, so say someone saves $50 from each pay period (assuming 2x mo.) for 6 months...that's $600. How is that going to cover a month's worth of expenses?

I think the sad thing about the shut down is that it's the poor that are bearing the brunt of it.

    • 5
Jan 24, 2019
ironman32:

Mathematically possible-yes.

You don't build emergency savings in one day, it takes multiple paychecks. I feel for these people--but they can't save $50, $20 out of a paycheck? When I hear paycheck to paycheck, I think, what luxuries do you have, cable, new cars, new phones?

Let's say modest living expenses for a family = $2000 per month; 6 months = $12,000
$20 a paycheck = 600 paychecks = 25 years

Why haven't 28-year old government workers been saving $40 a month since they were three?!?!?!

    • 3
Jan 30, 2019
cecilburrito:
ironman32:

Mathematically possible-yes.

You don't build emergency savings in one day, it takes multiple paychecks. I feel for these people--but they can't save $50, $20 out of a paycheck? When I hear paycheck to paycheck, I think, what luxuries do you have, cable, new cars, new phones?

Let's say modest living expenses for a family = $2000 per month; 6 months = $12,000
$20 a paycheck = 600 paychecks = 25 years

Why haven't 28-year old government workers been saving $40 a month since they were three?!?!?!

Might not be able to pay rent, but it can get you food. Dont' want to give you the "per my last email", but in my first comment I talked about people going to homeless shelters for food. Rent is a different topic.

Side note, people could also get side jobs to build it up.

Also, I agree, it is sad that the poor have to bear the brunt. Absolute shame people need to go homeless/foodless so we can build a wall so Trump can get reelected.

    • 2
Jan 24, 2019

How are you just dismissing rent as a "different topic"? Overdue bills are overdue bills.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 30, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

How are you just dismissing rent as a "different topic"? Overdue bills are overdue bills.

I've seen people miss rent payments and utility payments and still survive for a while. I haven't seen someone survive that long without eating.

Also, we live in an economy where it is soooo easy to make a quick buck, that everyone should at least have 1-2months of rent saved up. If you don't, drive uber, work part time on the weekends, cut out cable for a couple of months, don't eat out/seamless. I'm not saying you have to do those, but don't complain if you didn't.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

Non-skilled public sector employees earn a good deal more than their private sector counterparts. the possibility of a government shutdown is high during partisan times so the shutdown was not a shocker. Sucks to suck but the deliberations that lawmakers undertake to set the right fiscal agenda should not be highjacked by a small group of individuals who lack fiscal discipline.

Jan 24, 2019

Would love to hear from the people throwing MS about how Wilbur's statement was actually a good thing. Cmon guys.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
Jan 24, 2019

Brings a tear of joy to my eye every day how much Trump is draining the swamp. This swamp drainage is absolutely a thing of beauty.

    • 12
    • 2
Jan 24, 2019

I have a problem with people's sole reliance on the size and large infrastructure of this country. Dems do it when they want to provide universal free stuff, Trump does it with his border wall shit and the tax cut. Now Willy Wilbur is doing it.

Those politicians in Washington should be the first ones taking on the brunt of the problem to blunt if for everyone else. They're the strongest, right? They can take it and transfer it, making it more easily receptible. Isn't that what these OD billionaires are supposed to be here for? Is that not why people voted for Trump and his cronies? What are we doing people?

And the moving around wealth by taxation wouldn't be fair either, because that's not what this is. It's about leaders being leaders and simply taking responsibility. You can't correctly discriminate on who gets taxed. The only way for leadership to work is that they are actual leaders and just step up.

Leadership is about being the first one in the line of duty, standing alongside your brothers in arms. This is not leadership what these politicians--and a lot of business people--are doing.

Dems think freedom is free stuff and republicans think freedom is free from giving a shit. These guys are not even trying. That's the real broken system. When commies and fascists took over the world, they did it by putting themselves and their needs first. Especially the communists, they separated themselves from people. And fascists deliberately drew a line in the sand between whites and non-whites.

We're in a really shitty world because the so called leadership is off in La La Land, thinking they're gods or something.

    • 7
Most Helpful
Jan 24, 2019
BobTheBaker:

Just more ammo for the socialist movement. Those are my thoughts about his comments.

Alt-Ctr-Left:

And you guys wonder why people like AOC are becoming popular?

iBankedUp:

That's the real broken system. When commies and fascists took over the world, they did it by putting themselves and their needs first. Especially the communists, they separated themselves from people. And fascists deliberately drew a line in the sand between whites and non-whites.

I agree with all of this. SBs all around.

When the millennial generation elects more and more socialists and implements more and more socialist policies, the far right will have no one to blame but themselves. The amount of angry, tone-deaf, hypocritical nonsense coming from the Republican party has been maddening. Everyone loves Trump "owning the libs" - whatever that means - but no one seems to realize or care about what the backlash will be.

Gone are the days of reasonable debate and compromise.

    • 17
    • 3
Jan 24, 2019

Completely agree here. The government is currently being shut down for 5 billion dollars. That's way less than what the shutdown has already cost. The issue is that democrats can't give in because they will look weak, and republicans won't because the tea party took over a large portion of their constituency.

Trump won't give in because if this somehow works, he can shut down the government whenever he doesn't get what he wants.

    • 2
Jan 24, 2019
Forex Swings:

Trump won't give in because if this somehow works, he can shut down the government whenever he doesn't get what he wants.

This is the actual reason the Dems won't cave. Nor should they. It's an ongoing challenge to legislate in this country when one of the two major parties has outright disdain for the very body they control. Many in the GOP including Mick Mulvaney are happy to have less government through whatever means possible, including shutting it down.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Forex Swings:

The government is currently being shut down for 5 billion dollars.

NumbersUSA is a hardline right wing anti-immigration advocacy group. Their tagline is literally "for lower immigration levels." They published a list of "Ten Steps to Fix the Broken Immigration Enforcement System" and unsurprisingly, "The Wall" doesn't even make the list.

Why? Because it's a stupid idea that was used as a memory tool by Trump's campaign staff to get him to remember to talk about immigration. Poor people aren't getting paychecks, not because of an ideological battle (i.e. illegal immigration - good or bad?) but because the president backed himself into a corner on an idea that is neither intelligent nor effective at solving the problem he wishes it to address.

    • 9
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

This is actually really interesting. I always new it was a talking point for Trump to rally up his base but I figured every right wing outlet was pandering to it at this point.

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019
CRE:
Forex Swings:

The government is currently being shut down for 5 billion dollars.

NumbersUSA is a hardline right wing anti-immigration advocacy group. Their tagline is literally "for lower immigration levels." They published a list of "Ten Steps to Fix the Broken Immigration Enforcement System" and unsurprisingly, "The Wall" doesn't even make the list.

Why? Because it's a stupid idea that was used as a memory tool by Trump's campaign staff to get him to remember to talk about immigration. Poor people aren't getting paychecks, not because of an ideological battle (i.e. illegal immigration - good or bad?) but because the president backed himself into a corner on an idea that is neither intelligent nor effective at solving the problem he wishes it to address.

The gov't wastes $200 billion per year on waste, fraud, and abuse. If the wall is such a bad idea then let Trump build it with $15 billion over 5 years (a rounding error) and in exchange achieve all kinds of liberal priorities? At worst, the wall won't achieve anything and you'll achieve all kinds of leftist policy goals. The reason the Dems won't do it is because they hate Trump that much.

Jan 24, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

If the wall is such a bad idea then let Trump build it with $15 billion over 5 years (a rounding error) and in exchange achieve all kinds of liberal priorities? At worst, the wall won't achieve anything and you'll achieve all kinds of leftist policy goals.

No

And one hardly has to be a liberal to disagree with Trump

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 29, 2019

Lmao that memory tool bit is hilarious. Incredible that arguably the most powerful man on the planet is easily the dumbest person in any room he walks into.

    • 2
Jan 30, 2019
Forex Swings:

Completely agree here. The government is currently being shut down for 5 billion dollars. That's way less than what the shutdown has already cost. The issue is that democrats can't give in because they will look weak, and republicans won't because the tea party took over a large portion of their constituency.

Trump won't give in because if this somehow works, he can shut down the government whenever he doesn't get what he wants.

A lot of it is done mainly for Trump to begin re-election.

I think the main problem is that the "wall" is an actual, physical thing. Meaning, if Trump doesn't get it built or actually in production, he's not getting reelected; he'll get torn to shreds. Among many of his faults, he campaigned on a physical thing. Every other political when you listen, their ideas are all lacking a benchmark for completion.

For example, "make America great again", can't be fit into box, how do you measure where America started when Trump took office, and where it ended?

    • 3
Jan 25, 2019
CRE:

the far right will have no one to blame but themselves. The amount of angry, tone-deaf, hypocritical nonsense coming from the Republican party has been maddening. Everyone loves Trump "owning the libs" - whatever that means - but no one seems to realize or care about what the backlash will be.

Gone are the days of reasonable debate and compromise.

Says the guy throwing around the pejorative "far right." I'm surprised you didn't say "alt-right"--is this your new bid for reasonableness and compromise?

Jan 24, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

Says the guy throwing around the pejorative "far right." I'm surprised you didn't say "alt-right"--is this your new bid for reasonableness and compromise?

The "far right" isn't a pejorative - it's an apt description of people on the far right of the traditional American political spectrum, just like "far left" is an apt description of the people on the far left of the American political spectrum, "conservative" is a fair way to describe generally right-wing people, "liberal" is a fair way to describe generally left-wing people, and "centrist" is a way to describe people in the middle. Shit isn't controversial.

Grass won't be green next, I assume.

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

This is wrong. The American political spectrum has gradually shifted further and further left since our country was founded. Those that are "traditional" conservatives are demonized by a biased left-wing media.

Immigration control, prudent fiscal policy, and defense of the 2nd amendment are traditional conservative objectives. The "alt-right" or "far-right" is a made up catch-phrase by some now unemployed BuzzFeed journalist seeking virtue signaling points.

The real scary issue in this country is the growing extreme on both sides - left and right. Communism and Fascism are two terrifying sides of the same coin which inevitably pave the way to tyranny. The further the left pushes the race-baiting tactics and constant wanton demonization of traditional white conservative men, the faster identitarian movements grow. These movements will morph into Fascism.

    • 3
    • 3
Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

prudent fiscal policy

hahahahahahaha - my man, have you seen what this crop of fiscally prudent Republicans has done to the national debt? "Fiscally prudent" is just code for "cut benefits to minorities"

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Not an argument.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 28, 2019

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

I notice your graphs didn't include the Trump years, which was the whole point of my argument. Below I see high deficits in the early part of Obama's tenure ( much of which was due to salvaging the Bush Recession and a lower tax base) and then leveling out before skyrocketing again so billionaires could buy a third yacht. Neither party is fiscally responsible; only the GOP pretends to be when a Democrat is in office.

https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/15/15-tax-cuts-deficit.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.png

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 28, 2019

We are on the same page here. I don't support Trump's fiscal policy in any way, shape, or form. Trump is clearly "all bark, no bite" when it comes to seriously reforming our completely out of control Federal government.

That said, after 8 years of Obama we have reached a point of no return. No one knows what the aftermath of eventual American insolvency will be. Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc... will eventually stop being able to pay out.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

We are on the same page here.

This is the internet, we're not allowed to agree!

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

We are on the same page here. I don't support Trump's fiscal policy in any way, shape, or form. Trump is clearly "all bark, no bite" when it comes to seriously reforming our completely out of control Federal government.

That said, after 8 years of Obama we have reached a point of no return. No one knows what the aftermath of eventual American insolvency will be. Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc... will eventually stop being able to pay out.

So, I love your absolutisms and everything. But do you account for the financial crisis or worst financial recession since the Great Depression, biggest economic turmoil in almost a century at all, anywhere? Or do you just need a boogeyman. If you want a boogeyman in Obama, don't treat Trump like you don't like him. If anything, that's the one common denominator among his supporters.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Trump has been a terrible President. Obama was a terrible President. W Bush was a terrible President. Clinton was a great diplomat and balanced the budget but primed the entire financial crisis through deregulation and the Community Reinvestment Act.

Ignoring his massive failure to not drive our country completely in to bankruptcy, Obama...
1. Weakened the US influence across the world through passive limp-wristed reactions
2. Allowed China to dominate our trade relationship by agreeing to disastrous trade policies which has helped cause a record low workforce participation rate
3. Massively expanded Executive powers, which our country was founded to resist
4. Ushered in the worst approval rating of the Federal government in the history of our country
5. Highest % of Americans on food stamps, largest rise ever in per capita healthcare costs, record detachment of stock market growth from real wage growth, fastest growth of Federal debt, and doubled the US money supply

    • 2
Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Clinton was a great diplomat and balanced the budget but primed the entire financial crisis through deregulation and the Community Reinvestment Act.

Ignoring his massive failure to not drive our country completely in to bankruptcy, Obama...

  1. Highest % of Americans on food stamps, largest rise ever in per capita healthcare costs, record detachment of stock market growth from real wage growth, fastest growth of Federal debt, and doubled the US money supply

These are the points where I disagree. As far as China and US influence around the world, I'm well aware that these are the biggest Obama failures.

As far as Obama on national money/debt levels, how would you have countered the greatest economic threat to world stability? Austerity like your European friends? Because Angela Merkel suffered big time from that decision too. In the US, we were able to plug the hole, and eventually, within the past 2-4 years, have seen pretty decent nationwide comfort. All of that was brought on by policies under Obama.

Bush was a failure with regards to the financial crisis. The failure to react to get the economy going, Lehman failure, even the shitty slow reaction as the thing was getting going, were all Bush. One theory as to how we were able to avoid absolute turmoil, is that regime change was necessary to take action. That's where Obama came in.

His moderate support to the economy with the reinvestment/recovery/jobs act put people back to work by cutting taxes and increasing spending, in an actual time when it was needed. He then extended the Bush tax cuts to keep it going. When you look at projections for how hard the economy could've fallen, that, with fed stimulus, was needed without a doubt.

I just don't think that if Obama doesn't make the choices to stimulate the economy, we would've been able to get through it without much more pain.

As well, you don't account for the tech revolution, that was expanded specifically to create high paying jobs, which shifted employment and was probably inevitable. As well as the federalism process that Obama had little to no influence over. One flaw here is Obama did not see or understand how the tech revolution would affect jobs and culture.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 31, 2019

Instead of shovel ready jobs, he shoveled money to the ultra wealthy. He let his Wall Street donors choose his Federal Reserve Board nominees. their gameplan was giving away free cash to banks instead of pouring money into real economic improvements. Low-interest rates incentivized employers to automize tasks that were previously performed by human labor. consequently, wages and employment rebounded later than they should have. It wasn't that Obama chose to stimulate the economy, its that he did a terrible job of doing so and created bigger problems for later (deficit, stock market detachment, rising wealth inequality).

Jan 29, 2019

The vast majority of the increase in national debt during the Obama administration is paying for Bush's tax cuts and wars

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

Why would you want to ruin this discussion by introducing facts.

Jan 28, 2019

Vast majority is a stretch. No argument on Bush being a shitty President...

Jan 31, 2019

Obama stuck around Iraq for the entirety of his presidency after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his pledge to end US involvement. People like the director of Vice forget that.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Oh, I can't stand modern day Republicans. Constant out of control military spending.

The truth, that no one here seems to understand, is in order for the US to sort out this unprecedented Federal debt mess we are in, our current Federal government needs to be cut by 2/3. The track we are on is complete insanity.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2019

Second this

Jan 28, 2019

I mean, you can argue those days were never really "here" to begin with. 150 years ago people were mauling each other on the Senate floor.

That being said, the strongest argument in favor of an incremental increase in taxes, or a living wage, or whatever, is that eventually the far more populous poor will make their will felt and no amount of dollars or racism will stop that. It happens often throughout history. Why not give up an inch today to save yourself a foot tomorrow?

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Ozymandia:

eventually the far more populous poor will make their will felt

42% of Americans aren't saving for retirement at all. 69% of millennials, aka people between the ages of 23 to 38 are saving for retirement.

It's coming

    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

I worry about this exact problem. What the fuck does the Republican party become after Trump? I certainly don't love Republican politics anymore, but I was once a Republican because I believe strongly in fiscal responsibility. But that's not what this party represents these days. In truth, I'm not sure what it represents. Right now, there's a crowd of fanboys getting semi-erect every time Trump sticks it to lib-tards, feeling like they're getting their just desserts for eight years of Obama and his posse of pinko pussies. That's neither sustainable nor coherent.

I was hoping that after two years of picking the same scabs, the MAGA crowd would eventually allow old wounds to heal, but they've got a sadistic streak in them that wants those scabs to scar. The problem is--each of these are self-inflicted wounds. A policy disagreement doesn't weaken the country. Attacking the holder of a dissenting opinion and not the policy itself does.

The Trump administration is one seemingly endless onslaught on the people who disagree with him. There is no debate because the issues matter much, much less than the jibes. As a matter of tactics, the backlash to those jibes could be massive. The Dems are so incompetent that they may cannibalize themselves in the primaries and put forth and un-electable leftist as their candidate. Or perhaps Schultz or Bloomberg will become a third-party spoiler for the Dems.

But there is a real chance that the Dems will trounce the Republicans again in 2020, they'll take a shitload of state houses and governorships, they'll gerrymander their state districts in the new census, and we'll be stuck with a decade or more of unnecessarily liberal politics. And since the Republicans have been shunning the Latino community instead of embracing them, the demographics of societal change are against the party. If Republicans lose the advantage currently afforded to them by the gerrymandered districts following the 2010 election when they swept through countless state houses, they could be out of power for a very, very long time.

These sorts of 'let them eat cake' comments only add to the problem. I worry because I don't actually want to live in a society dominated by the AOCs, Elizabeth Warrens and Bernies of the world. I think they're wrong on a lot of things, but you never hear them telling workers to go fuck themselves, do you?

    • 11
Jan 29, 2019

Well said!

Jan 29, 2019

I'd prefer the people who just 'like' my comments to comment on them.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

Totally with you on this. I'm from Alabama and we came uncomfortably close to electing a child rapist to the Senate because of this pettiness.

Jan 24, 2019

Just lock all of Washington in a room / building until they can sort something out. Feel horrible for the 20 - 25 year olds that have to deal with no pay.

Jan 24, 2019

And now we have Larry Kudlow saying that government employees are working without pay due to their "respect for the office for the presidency and presumably, their allegience to President Trump" in a press conference just now.

Eat the uber rich.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

And now we have Larry Kudlow saying that government employees are working without pay due to their "respect for the office for the presidency and presumably, their allegience to President Trump" in a press conference just now.

Eat the uber rich.

This is real life.

Jan 25, 2019

Larry Kudlow has always had such a punchable face

Jan 24, 2019

I feel for those that are going through hardships due to this... but I think we need to do better as a nation teaching the younger generations about their financial health. Life sucks, and it certainly isn't always fair. But I believe the vast majority of the younger crowed are not ready when life throws curve balls. Is the general 6 months of savings guideline always attainable for everyone, no... not at all... But I think that stems from a lack of financial literacy at a younger age when personal spending habits begin to form. It's obvious many parents fall short in teaching their children the importance of being prepared and accumulating a reserve pool should shit hit the fan, and I think that's where our public education system should step up.

As noted by my tagline I'm part of that younger generation, and it's painful to see how deep the lack of knowledge truly spreads. Few of us have north of $10,000 in savings, let alone retirement assets, yet the majority have an iphone worth significantly >10% of their net worth... often multiples of that.

Is that a problem a few classes in junior high building in high school could solve.. I'm not sure... But looking at the growing student debt, and the ever increasing ill-advised money decisions friends make.. I can't imagine it would hurt.

Cultivating mass and wealth since '95

    • 3
Jan 24, 2019

You see this often in the lower-income community where the person on Food Stamps has the new Nike/Jordan shoes, or iPhone, or Modified Cars.

No pain no game.

Jan 24, 2019

It's prevalent across all socioeconomic levels. Higher levels just finance more extravagant purchases further than they should. Third home, bigger yacht etc

Cultivating mass and wealth since '95

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

I took a personal finance course in a public high school, and even that didn't do a good job of teaching basic budgeting, savings, etc. For a month the project was basically building a monthly car payment calculator in excel...I agree there really needs to be a much higher level of financial literacy in this country, but I guess I've struggled with who should provide it? The government / public education, private institutions (which would then charge for it), just free internet resources, etc.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

I think it should be built into the public education curriculum starting in grade 6, building throughout completion of high school. It would start incredibly simple, but over time it would build a very general base foundation for each student to at least have some background knowledge on how loans work, the basic investment vehicles, the benefits of compound interest etc.

Building on this I think the argument could also be made for it to be beneficial in secondary education as part of a requirement for an undergraduate degree. I know I, and many others, took bullshit filler classes like Power Walking and Theater 100 that literally had 0 applicability to my life / what I wanted to do. If more personal finance classes were included, I believe students would then have a better idea of the severity of the student loans many of them were taking out to essentially dick around. But hey, what do I know, just another mindless millennial.

Cultivating mass and wealth since '95

    • 2
Jan 25, 2019

My husband has been a concierge at a number of high-end rental buildings. The extremes he sees are mind-boggling.

The teenage kids of the $12,000 per month penthouse renters taking Uber to and from school versus hopping on the subway. The adult tenants that order virtually everything online from groceries to take-out to Rent the Runway and treat the package room like it's a spare storage space exclusively for them and leave packages there for days or weeks on end.

Then there are the security guards making $10 an hour at these buildings who go to check-cashing places to cash their paychecks and to buy money orders because they don't have a bank account. He actually tried explaining to one security guard that he was paying others to access his own money but he couldn't grasp it because no one in his immediate family had a bank account so he had never seen another way to do things.

Hubby also tried to show him how much he was blowing on breakfast and lunch on the outside, upwards of $15 a day versus buying bread, cold cuts or other groceries that he could use to make his own cheaper and vastly healthier breakfast and lunch options compared to the fast food meals he buys. Hubby even tried explaining that the first couple of hours of this guy's shift each day were going to food costs and all the kid wanted to bitch about was "But then I'd have to carry my breakfast and lunch with me everyday." Seriously?

It feels like it should be simple and straight-forward and yet you can't fix and correct habits that the person doesn't want/doesn't think they should or need to correct and fix, especially if they want to argue "but that's the way I've/my family has always done this/that!"

But I agree, Home Economics or Family Consumer Sciences or whatever the contemporary term is these days, is a step in the right direction and should be brought back into the school curriculum with a focus on learning how a budget works, income versus outgoing bills and setting aside savings, learn basic nutrition and food prep/basic cooking skills, how to stock a pantry, how to curate a home first-aid kit and how to do basic personal business like how to shop for estimates on work that you need done on your car or home.

    • 3
Jan 26, 2019

I think the system makes it very hard for the poor to save. You have these families in lower-income communities living in shitty run down buildings with roaches, and rats. Most families have multiple kids/adults crammed into 1 room with insufficient resources to go around.

Then they set up these deli stores all around them so they develop the habit of purchasing unhealthy, expensive single serving items like honey buns and chips, instead of going to a wholesaler like costco where they can buy things for a cheaper price.

Maybe its because they don't have a car to get to a wholesaler, or maybe they are used to having no personal space. Why would they go to a grocery store to buy a big bag of chips that their cousins/siblings will rummage through when they can just buy a single serving size item for themselves. This habit of thinking of the next meal, instead of the weeks meal probably carry over into other areas of their life.

No one taught them any better. These 40k elementary/ high school teachers aren't going to get through to them.

And don't get me started on studying/ self improvement. Doing homework with no distractions is hard enough. Now think about being in a situation where you have to not only battle distractions from inside your house, but also your neighbors who love to play music from 3pm-3am. The hill is too steep to climb.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

It's not the "system", it's IQ + work ethic + sheer determination. Those that work extremely hard in America will, the vast majority of the time, succeed and jump into the middle class.

    • 2
Jan 26, 2019

Its harder for the lower income families to move up. If you don't believe that you're delusional.

Jan 28, 2019

Of course it is, but there is no realizable method of completely leveling the playing field. Reallocation of wealth does not work - capital will pack their shit and leave.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2019

I never said level the playing field. I said the playing field isn't leveled. And then I gave examples.

Jan 29, 2019

Talent/natural givens * effort = skill/development. Skill/development * effort = success. Effort counts twice.

Not too high, not too low

Jan 28, 2019

This. The truth is that someone of average intelligence in America that works hard and applies themselves diligently in a growing sector with room for growth (anything from skilled trades to insurance sales to IT) will a vast majority of the time make it into the middle class.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2019

Middle class income is 40-120k.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2019

What grade are you in?

Jan 29, 2019

If you took some time to look at what I wrote, you'd realize not only how dull your insult was but that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. People get shitty hands in life (No father, non-athlete, no resources) or they get good ones (great family, gifted physically, network/well-off family). If one from either side is gunning for a job, the one well-off can simply ask their dad's friend from college or some shit for an interview. The other might have to head to the town library and get on a computer, learn about nearby businesses/industries, then maybe have a sit-down with a professional and then earn a chance to shoot a resume in. They both achieve development but one had to put way more effort in. But once both of those people get the job and job skills/development is equal, the person with more effort is going to eat the other person's lunch and achieve success. The hill for a lot of people is incredibly steep but it means you're just going to have to want it that much more. This can be applied to anything where some are born better than others (everything).

Not too high, not too low

Jan 26, 2019

okay, so I read what you wrote, and I gathered that English is your second language. lol. I assumed you are very young since your made up formula is rather rudimentary.. Like put some exponents in there or something.

I mean I'm not sure how we got regressed to this, but my initial comment was aimed at trying to shed some light on why these "straight forward habits" like cooking a weeks meal, or saving aren't easy to come by.

Edit~ oh now I remember, @InVinoVeritas decided to try and lecture me on how anybody in America with sheer hard work can make 40k a year.

Jan 28, 2019

Most people in America can achieve an income of $40K if they work hard... It is easy as apprenticing in any skilled trade for 2-3 years - labor is so tight right now that they are even taking ex-felons (minor charges).

The truth is that soft coddled millennial and Gen Z aren't willing to do any hard physical work.

    • 1
Jan 26, 2019

40k is peanuts. You need like 3 roommates to live on 40k in NYC.

Jan 28, 2019

NYC is not indicative of America as a whole. NYC may as well be another country (think Hong Kong compared to China). I am talking about the average person in an average American region.

Jan 31, 2019

How in the world is a low-income person supposed to learn what IB, PE, HF, RIETs, and CRE brokerage are if they never heard of them growing up? Blaming them for not entering those fields is like yelling at Hellen Keller for not knowing what the sky looks like.

Jan 29, 2019

I used the analogy of a well-connected individual and someone who isn't both going for a job to explain my overall point of people at a disadvantage in something having to put in more effort and grit. Did not use low-income and any of those industries in the same statement.

Not too high, not too low

Jan 28, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Reallocation of wealth does not work - capital will pack their shit and leave.

Go where? There is a finite amount of space in this world and there are other considerations besides the tax bill you pay. Sure, you could raise taxes and in theory rich people will move to a lower tax country, but where exactly is that place? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that given the choice between paying a 60% tax on income over $10,000,000 in the United States, or 24% in Nigeria, almost every single person subject to that tax will stay in the country. Many of the most desirable places to live already have significantly higher tax burdens than the US.

We had decades of higher marginal income taxes and didn't have billionaires fleeing the country. Hell, when the entire concept of income tax was introduced, you didn't see the wealthy flee the country in any large degree. This kind of theoretical fear-mongering is demonstrably false, it's why we should study history instead of consigning it to the dustbin. Capital doesn't "pack their shit and leave" for the same reason pure, unadultered capitalism has never worked and never will - human beings aren't commodities or inputs into an equation; they don't react in consistent ways, and in this case, have desires for community and socialization that are often prioritized over maximizing income.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Ozymandia:
InVinoVeritas:

Reallocation of wealth does not work - capital will pack their shit and leave.

Go where? There is a finite amount of space in this world and there are other considerations besides the tax bill you pay.

This kind of theoretical fear-mongering is demonstrably false, it's why we should study history instead of consigning it to the dustbin.

Exactly. You smart buyside guys review CIMs all the time, so think about the U.S. as a business, the taxpayers as customers, and the tax rates as your pricing. Your business has sticky customer relationships because you offer these customers the best employees, the best universities in the world, proximity to Silicon Valley (the best tech and startup environment in human history), Wall Street (the best capital markets environment in human history), and a relative stable governing body. Furthermore your "customers" have insanely high switching costs, personally and professionally. With all these built-in advantages, why in the world you feel you also need to compete on price?

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

Exactly. You smart buyside guys review CIMs all the time, so think about the U.S. as a business, the taxpayers as customers, and the tax rates as your pricing. Your business has sticky customer relationships because you offer these customers the best employees, the best universities in the world, proximity to Silicon Valley (the best tech and startup environment in human history), Wall Street (the best capital markets environment in human history), and a relative stable governing body. Furthermore your "customers" have insanely high switching costs, personally and professionally. With all these built-in advantages, why in the world you feel you also need to compete on price?

Eh, I'm a real estate developer, so it's even easier for me. NYC has some of the highest taxes in the country and is expensive as hell to boot, and yet wealthy people don't seem to be mass emigrating to, say, Wyoming, despite the low taxes. Shockingly, access to Broadway and a thriving nightlife and the NY Philharmonic and lots of great restaurants somehow actually matters, when compared to squeezing every last penny out of your income? Who knew! It's almost as if the additional ta on that 10,000,001th dollar isn't super important....

Economic theory is great but has a hard time when it collides with human nature. One might even argue that this is the main difference in modern conservative and liberal positions on the economy. Conservatives don't understand that when theory and reality collide, reality (that human nature is not subject to rational, predictable laws) always wins. Liberals acknowledge that at the price of bucking the theoretical framework of how economies should function.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

OK, I can buy into your case for America's built in infrastructure/talent/etc... advantages being able to retain capital that would otherwise go elsewhere. This is a decent point. That said, please tell me how the Federal government will efficiently allocate extra resources from increased taxation?

The Federal government has shown zero fiduciary agency to the American people. They will just collect the extra taxes and immediately spend the money on insanely wasteful programs and policies. See what has happened with social security. All of the money paid in was not earmarked and set aside for future liabilities - our criminal politicians used it as a general slush fund.

Giving more money to the Federal government won't solve anything. The only way this could work is if the money were injected directly into productive working lower/middle class families in the most efficient pass-through way possible. I still don't buy into the argument that capital will willingly pay these increased taxes though... There is a maximum increase before we see major flight to lower tax nations.

    • 3
Jan 28, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

OK, I can buy into your case for America's built in infrastructure/talent/etc... advantages being able to retain capital that would otherwise go elsewhere. This is a decent point. That said, please tell me how the Federal government will efficiently allocate extra resources from increased taxation?

The Federal government has shown zero fiduciary agency to the American people. They will just collect the extra taxes and immediately spend the money on insanely wasteful programs and policies. See what has happened with social security. All of the money paid in was not earmarked and set aside for future liabilities - our criminal politicians used it as a general slush fund.

Giving more money to the Federal government won't solve anything. The only way this could work is if the money were injected directly into productive working lower/middle class families in the most efficient pass-through way possible. I still don't buy into the argument that capital will willingly pay these increased taxes though... There is a maximum increase before we see major flight to lower tax nations.

I will beat the drum one more time - go learn a little about American history (or any history, it's fun!). Just because the federal government isn't maximally efficient, doesn't mean it is completely ineffective.

Moreover, unless you are a complete right wing nutjob (which I don't think you are), then we can dispense with the idea that there is a Deep State that exists for the purpose of secretly controlling the American people. Government can be responsive to the will of the people; a few decades of devaluing votes in favor of dollars has weakened this, but nothing says that can't come back. The federal government has achieved notable successes in the past, in many fields. The GI Bill is arguably the greatest engine of socio-economic advancement ever created. Whether or not you agree with it, mortgage based tax deductions have helped millions of Americans buy homes and build equity in them.

What we need are things like more gas taxes, which have dedicated uses, and moreover, for the body politic to hold politicians accountable when they abuse those dollars. Chris Christie should have been thrown into prison for defunding the ARC Tunnel, which may have such an adverse effect on the economy of the northeast in the next ten years that I wouldn't be shocked if it throws the entire country into a recession. Governor Cuomo treats the MTA as his personal political slush fund. No one holds them accountable at the ballot box.

To argue that the American people are stupid and lazy and unwilling to challenge politicians who raid their future to win votes in the present isn't an indictment of the federal government, its an indictment of the voting public.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Agree with Christie/Cuomo. Disagree with gas tax - just take a look at France. Truck drivers will take the burden of a gas tax, and most of them are blue collar workers who have already been crushed.

I hope you are right about America reversing course, but I don't see this happening. America has been so dumbed down by crippled ineffective education systems, mass uneducated immigration of people that don't even speak our native language, and social media (among the young generations) that I see a road to ruin ahead similar to ancient Rome. We are in the final stages of our empire before a collapse if things continue in this direction.

Most likely, at some point states will start seriously ramping up secession talks and the country will splinter apart because the truth is that American citizens in wealthy urban coastal areas versus flyover agriculture/manufacturing/energy hubs have nothing in common politically and frankly completely detest each other.

The American Revolution and the Civil War were fought over similar issues.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Agree with Christie/Cuomo. Disagree with gas tax - just take a look at France. Truck drivers will take the burden of a gas tax, and most of them are blue collar workers who have already been crushed.

I didn't mean to advocate for a regressive gas tax, but more that the idea of dedicated taxes that politicians can't plunder to buy votes is something worth pursuing. Bridges and tunnels are collapsing and American infrastructure is a mess in large part because one of the major funding sources is the federal fuel tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993 despite something like 70% inflation since then.

I hope you are right about America reversing course, but I don't see this happening. America has been so dumbed down by crippled ineffective education systems, mass uneducated immigration of people that don't even speak our native language, and social media (among the young generations) that I see a road to ruin ahead similar to ancient Rome. We are in the final stages of our empire before a collapse if things continue in this direction.

I'm not entirely sure what the immigration point has to do with anything. You keep trying to shoehorn immigration into the question without even attempting to address that both immigration and immigrants as a share of the overall population are within normal historical levels. People said the same thing about the Irish, Italians, "Hunks" (catch all for Eastern Europeans/"Hungarians"), Jews, and Chinese at various points in history. All of those groups were insular, many of them didn't speak English, all of them contributed to the economic and social vitality of the country. The vast majority of the time, immigrants want to assimilate. Their kids go to English-speaking schools and learn English as a primary language. The only issue of assimilation is with white supremacists who don't want a new influence on American culture.

Most likely, at some point states will start seriously ramping up secession talks and the country will splinter apart because the truth is that American citizens in wealthy urban coastal areas versus flyover agriculture/manufacturing/energy hubs have nothing in common politically and frankly completely detest each other.

People have been saying this since the Republic was formed.

The American Revolution and the Civil War were fought over similar issues.

Uh, okay? The latter was fought over slavery. The former was fought over because indebted country squires and coastal merchants resented the forced trade conditions Great Britain imposed. Also, don't pooh-pooh the fact that the Enlightenment and its ideals were in full swing in the 1760's and 70's.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Singapore. New Zealand, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Panama, etc...

You are naive to think that people worth 9+ figures will willingly pay 50%+ taxes on their income. Also, why would anyone want to pay taxes to our broken, ineffective, wasteful Federal government? You may as well pile all the cash up and light it on fire.

The major issue in this country is that corporate earnings are flowing disproportionately to equity, not labor. Our immigration policies of the past few decades have completely destroyed American blue collar workers, and this is now creeping into white collar fields such as IT.

Wages in this country are derived from demand and supply of labor. Demand has grown in conjunction with GDP growth while supply has outpaced due to out of control immigration. This dropped the real wage per capita equilibrium price down.

If America had not imported mass waves of subsidized labor for corporations, corporations would be forced to raise wages in order to fill needed positions and compete with other companies. Instead, politicians on both sides of the aisle have sold their own citizens down the road so their plutocrat donors will fund their reelection campaign.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Singapore. New Zealand, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Panama, etc...

Yes, of course, you're talking about the massive migration of wealthy people to those places. Buying a home in New Zealand, or Bermuda, is not the same as emigration. Opening a bank account there is not the same as emigration.

InVinoVeritas:

You are naive to think that people worth 9+ figures will willingly pay 50%+ taxes on their income. Also, why would anyone want to pay taxes to our broken, ineffective, wasteful Federal government? You may as well pile all the cash up and light it on fire.

No, not naive, just well read. Here's the problem - for fifty years from 1932 to 1981, the highest tax bracket was over 50%. Those were not only years of economic prosperity, but shockingly to anyone who takes your nonsense at face value, weren't years where wealthy people were marching around burning shit in protest of their tax bill!

You keep spouting off these doom and gloom predictions about the effects of a higher marginal income tax bracket (or rather, raising the rate in the top bracket) while completely ignoring the fact that we have historic precedent to compare to.

InVinoVeritas:

The major issue in this country is that corporate earnings are flowing disproportionately to equity, not labor. Our immigration policies of the past few decades have completely destroyed American blue collar workers, and this is now creeping into white collar fields such as IT.

It's truly amazing that you can have the cognitive dissonance to make this argument. Earnings are flowing to equity instead of labor because of insane tax policy and the constant assault on labor unions, not immigration policy. Once again, history shows us why idiots rambling about theory are wrong, because the same arguments have been used, and disproved, in the past. For example, take the 2017 reconciliation bill that cut corporate taxes. As most detractors guessed, all the savings from that went to equity and not labor, because that is what happens when you put management, and stockholders, in sole charge of where corporate profits get directed.

InVinoVeritas:

If America had not imported mass waves of subsidized labor for corporations, corporations would be forced to raise wages in order to fill needed positions and compete with other companies. Instead, politicians on both sides of the aisle have sold their own citizens down the road so their plutocrat donors will fund their reelection campaign.

Mass immigration into this country has been occurring since the 1840's, when the Irish began streaming over. Please provide evidence as to why the first 150 years of this process had a net positive effect on the American economy, while only in the last 30 has that reversed.

Or is it more likely that income inequality and stagnant wage growth isn't due to the fact that suddenly in 1982 there were too many immigrants, but perhaps something else, like the rise of a political belief that the poor were poor because they deserved it, and the rich were rich because they invariably bootstrapped their way there, and federal and state economic policies should focus on showering the rich with further wealth as a reward for their success, and systemically stripping any safety net or chance and gov't assisted advancement from the poor as a punishment for their lack thereof?

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 28, 2019

Address my point about immigration supply and demand. Higher labor supply with no change in demand lowers wages to labor. Lowered wages to labor lowers the standard of living.

You are completely ignoring (or are ignorant of) the immigration shift that occurred in 1965 when the The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 was signed. Yes, the amount of total immigrants did change massively - look at the fucking chart.

This is all compounded by the dramatic cultural and intelligence shift in our country, but in order to have a thoughtful debate about this we must agree on the principal that Social Darwinism/evolution applies to humans just like animals which creates racial/ethnic IQ disparities.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

I assume that the chart just didn't load properly, or else this is one of the most transparent uses of bad evidence in history.

Since I don't know where your chart starts, but I do know a great deal about how much of history you know (nothing before 1980, it often seems), I can make this great revelation to you that will blow your freakin' mind - immigrants made up a higher share of the US population from 1860 to 1920 than at any time until the 2010 census. Since I think we can all agree that wage stagnation and income inequality predate 2010 by some decades, you'll have to figure out a better argument as to why these trends are occurring now than the old canard of "it's the immigrants". Even if it isn't a sentiment born of bigotry (spoiler alert: 99.9999999% of times it is), it's wrong.

Also, you lose all credibility when you make this statement:

in order to have a thoughtful debate about this we must agree on the principal that Social Darwinism/evolution applies to humans just like animals which creates racial/ethnic IQ disparities.

I am not a biologist, nor do I play one on television, but I am an avid reader and, most of the time, not a total idiot. Therefore, I happen to know that Social Darwinism has long since been proven as junk science, and is literally only embraced by [insert ethnic background here] supremacist groups looking to justify why they are the best. This is a point on which there can be no reasonable debate, unfortunately: there is a broad scientific consensus that "Social Darwinism" in the sense that you're using it is just racism (and I hate that term) masquerading as science. If you think that evolution creates "ethnic IQ disparities" than you have no real clue how evolution works or what it means.

    • 2
    • 4
Jan 28, 2019

It's far from junk science. Ancestral history has an enormous effect on intelligence, predominantly in the way of food availability/climate harshness. Population groups located where food was readily abundant with easy temperate climate underwent less natural selection and had to develop less critical thinking/cooperation over long periods of time. This is why Scandinavians and Mongolians have higher IQ's than sub-Saharan Africans (for example). Obviously there are many exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in terms of the average or median.

The rule of thumb is that the more hostile the environment and climate, the higher the IQ required to survive. IQ tends to be at lowest at Equator (where the environment is most plausible for life) and rise towards both poles. Likewise, the IQ of people at steppes, mountains and islands tend to be higher than river valleys and arable lands.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 28, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's far from junk science. Ancestral history has an enormous effect on intelligence, predominantly in the way of food availability/climate harshness. Population groups located where food was readily abundant with easy temperate climate underwent less natural selection and had to develop less critical thinking/cooperation over long periods of time. This is why Scandinavians and Mongolians have higher IQ's than sub-Saharan Africans (for example). Obviously there are many exceptions to the rule, but I am speaking in terms of the average or median.

The rule of thumb is that the more hostile the environment and climate, the higher the IQ required to survive. IQ tends to be at lowest at Equator (where the environment is most plausible for life) and rise towards both poles. Likewise, the IQ of people at steppes, mountains and islands tend to be higher than river valleys and arable lands.

Source, please. You don't get to assert this without providing at least some evidence. Moreover, the holes which one can poke in this argument are... well, numerous, to say the least. IQ is not necessarily what is required to survive in a hostile environment. Less melanin, a propensity to store more fat or burn it more efficiently, these are genetic mutations that might be inadvertently spread. To the extent we even know what genes influence intelligence (we don't), it's highly unlikely that genetic mutation is what is causing an IQ difference, if one even exists. I'm not even sure why I'm engaging in this argument when you've prevented no evidence to back it up.

Show me a reputable study that backs up your assertion and I'll spend the time breaking it down

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

quality of life for Americans went to shit when all the new immigrants came and stayed that way for a damn long time. the rich got richer as labor cost fell, and they rigged the government in their favor. Today's elite are robber barons with better PR. Anytime an industry has trouble filling job positions they claim there is a "labor shortage" and get regulations decreased (trucking industry getting the CDL requirements loosened) or import foreign workers. One puts Americans lives and wellbeing at risk, the other increases the tax liabilities on local, state, and federal government without a corresponding increase future tax gains.

The Irish were fleeing a country suffering from mass starvation. The Germans had useful farming skills and America actually had more land than it hard labor to utilize it so their jobs did not come at the expense of someone else's job. The Italians didn't bring anything to the table that was in the national interest but saying "well we did it back then" is not an excuse for doing it now. it's hard to say that because they were our ancestors but its facts.

Jan 28, 2019

Right, but my point is that we all seem to be in agreement that at some point in the last century, America was "great" or at least better off than it is right now.

Given that mass immigration of unskilled labor has been a problem since long before that, it doesn't make any sense to blame the same monster in the closet. Mass immigration has been occurring almost since the moment this country was founded. Which means immigration cannot be the problem, because the country has and still does thrive despite it. You know what broke the backs of robber barons? Increased federal regulation and income/estate taxes. That's it.

If you made legal immigration easier, you'd find more legal immigrants who had the political and legal leverage to demand better pay, and you'd see management paying higher wages. If you didn't have right-wing politicians championing "right to work" legislation, you'd see organized labor (which is far from perfect as it is) with more bargaining power to demand living wages. If you had a federal government willing to buck it's donor class and impose higher income taxes instead of lower, and money out of politics (or at least scale it back), you'd see less income inequality and more attention paid to what most voters want.

All I'm saying is that blaming immigration is an old canard and one which anyone with even the most basic passing understanding of history knows is bullshit. The changes in income disparity in this country are due to many factors, but immigration is far down the list. We know this because we went through a similar period of massive and rapid technological change which disrupted the labor force and existing disparity of wealth once before, in the late 19th century. You know what caused that? A massive technological upheaval coupled with an unheard of increase in federal spending without any corresponding federal (or state) regulation, which led to massive fortunes being acquired with government complicity, or at least tacit acceptance, due to a massive influx of private lobbying dollars.

Sound familiar?

Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Singapore. New Zealand, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Panama, etc...

"Honey, I know you love living 10 minutes from your parents, and our daughter is in the middle of high school, and our third-generation family business is built on local relationships and my daily involvement, and we don't speak Spanish, but my accountants tell me our wealth can last 240 years instead of just 180 if we move everything to Panama. Pack your bags."

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

You envisioning some Leave it to Beaver vision of who owns/controls all the capital in this country is cute, but far from reality. Most of these decision makers are past the age of kids - late 60's to 70's or older...

Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

You envisioning some Leave it to Beaver vision of who owns/controls all the capital in this country is cute, but far from reality. Most of these decision makers are past the age of kids - late 60's to 70's or older...

Ok, how about this - "Honey, we've been going to the same country club for 40 years, and will probably only live another 15. My accountants tell us our money will last until we're 300, but if we move to a country we've never visited, where we know no one, that may not have the healthcare we'll need in our later years, it could last until we're 400! Old people like us are definitely known for trying new things - Bermuda here we come!"

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

You are underestimating just how fucking greedy these people are.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's not the "system", it's IQ + work ethic + sheer determination. Those that work extremely hard in America will, the vast majority of the time, succeed and jump into the middle class.

It's not IQ. Would you say that someone that purchases Jordans when they can barely afford food is detached from reality, a bit? Because that's what it is.

These people know that having money somewhere is good, they also know that they need to do things in order to earn that savings.

What they can't grasp is that the $100 they have before they spend it on that pair of sneakers is the last $100 they're going to get to get to $200, and then that 200 will get them to $400, and so on.

Why? Insecurity, depression, and a host of other emotional/mental issues that come with being on the last rung.

It's the same with school. Most can't see how focusing their effort on material they don't know how to use is beneficial. Unless it comes super easy (the focus, comprehension, determination, i.e., softer qualities that only the cream of the crop usually possess), they won't ever get school early enough and then it will be too late.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

It's IQ plus lack of discipline. Inability to control impulsive behavior.

Focus and determination are by and large a choice.

Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's IQ plus lack of discipline. Inability to control impulsive behavior.

Focus and determination are by and large a choice.

"Lack of discipline" "inability to control impulsive behavior", like poor mental health?

    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it. Our country has an enormous mental health crisis. However, this doesn't completely excuse poor decision making or lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking ability is determined in large part by genetics...

Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it. Our country has an enormous mental health crisis. However, this doesn't completely excuse poor decision making or lack of critical thinking. Critical thinking ability is determined in large part by genetics...

What critical thinking is used in a general practical sense, because that's what we're talkig here?

As well, the empirical data on this would be inherently biased. Not sure how you can even get to a conclusion on IQ levels based on ethnicity/race.

    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Long-term future planning falls well within the critical thinking category...

Jan 24, 2019

I'm not sure what this proves. At any rate, when you look in white ghettos, they're not much different than black ghettos.

Jan 31, 2019

Can we not go there? Even if there truly is a gap in cognitive ability between people of different races, it's not a good idea to explain social differences through genetic superiority. Empathy goes a long way; despite whatever you have going for you, you are not always going to be so fortunate.

Jan 28, 2019

I think we have to go there because affirmative action and other preferential treatment of certain groups is destroying meritocracy. Meritocracy is the only way civilization can continue to develop in a positive direction.

For example, my fiance's brother (Caucasian) grew up in a working class family and is the first to attend college. He finished top 13% with an SAT score of 1480/1600. He applied and failed to be admitted to the University of Florida, despite having exemplary work ethic, brainpower, and ability to overcome hardships (family sometimes has not enough money for groceries, no academic role model, etc...). Meanwhile, his friend (Black) gets in with a 2.7 GPA and a below average SAT score (1100 or so). Today, that friend is already failing out his freshman year while my fiance's brother just finished at the top of his organic chemistry class and has a 4.0 GPA at a less esteemed school.

Please tell me how the fuck this is a fair system? Why does skin color have anything to do with merit? Shouldn't "privilege" be equated to family wealth/income not ethnicity? It is no wonder that working class whites in this country are massively afflicted by opioid addiction. They are the ones truly discriminated against when it comes to university acceptance and corporate hiring.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2019

I understand where you're coming from and why you think it is unfair. However, there is space for nuance and interpretation in the discussion and in your definitions.

Preferential treatment of certain groups is destroying meritocracy, if you define meritocracy as a society that values pure measurable stats. Our progress towards a "positive direction" is only as good as our vision for what positive is. Taken to the extreme, we've committed many atrocities throughout human history in the name of progress.

Whenever you use heuristics, you get people who fall through the cracks; your fiance's brother looks like an example of this. I believe that our current affirmative action systems are in place because of both the optics of diversity and the recognition that there may be inter-generational handicaps for people of certain races.

Wealth is also generational. Perhaps the family of this black friend, under a different set of historical circumstances, may have owned significant amounts of property and sent him to a prep school. We're trying to adjust today for the historic handicaps of the past (and perhaps for current discrimination as well), which is an imperfect and messy endeavor.

For reference, I do well enough on tests that I personally will be a lot better off if our society values aptitude even more than it does now. Still, isn't it just so easy to see disadvantage and unfairness in the system when it's against you or those you care about?

I agree that poor whites are getting shafted today. If the shafting is excessive, don't worry; their time will come. Systems have a way of reaching equilibrium. Perhaps the plight of working class whites or generally economically disadvantaged folk will be recognized in the next cycle.

    • 2
Jan 28, 2019

Great reply. I do consider the history of slavery and how that has created a systemic disadvantage on many levels. I think the only way past this is forgiveness because all of the slave owners are now deceased; it is unfair to judge the current generation for the sins of their ancestors. The far left demanding reparations from a struggling middle class (Trump's bullshit economic statistics last night are a joke - decreasing workforce participation to compress unemployment is a farce) is only going to continue to stoke racial tensions in this country.

My thought process is that the fairest system (nothing will ever be completely fair) is to focus heavily on family wealth/background/hardships while ignoring ethnicity for the sake of affirmative action policies. Ability to overcome hardships equals determination/grit, which is just as (if not more) important than raw intellectual horsepower.

The college admissions process, in my opinion, needs to take a more holistic approach to candidate evaluation instead of focusing primarily on GPA, SAT score, and club leadership (though these are obviously important metrics). This might be more easily said than done, but the SJW political bias so evident in elite college admissions heavily discriminates against white and Asian candidates that may have come from challenging backgrounds...

    • 2
Jan 26, 2019

Yeah, an Artic hare is a lot smarter than a rabbit in a warmer climate for sure. 100%. Did you come up with all this yourself?

Its not genetics or a race problem. The difference in intelligence comes from the environment, and the resources that people have. And I'm not talking about the fucking weather. Lower income households don't have resources that the wealthy have and they lose out on learning. Wealthy families are able to send their kids to summer camps, after school programs, and other enriching experiences that lower income kids won't have a chance to experience. So they become smarter in the process. Type in summer learning loss on google for an example. You can also use google assistance if you're having trouble.

Jan 24, 2019
InVinoVeritas:

It's IQ plus lack of discipline. Inability to control impulsive behavior.

Now who does that sound like?

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

based on children's books or real statistics?

Jan 31, 2019

His problem is making 10/hour, not buying breakfast and lunch out every day.

Jan 24, 2019
Excelling:

I took a personal finance course in a public high school, and even that didn't do a good job of teaching basic budgeting, savings, etc. For a month the project was basically building a monthly car payment calculator in excel...I agree there really needs to be a much higher level of financial literacy in this country, but I guess I've struggled with who should provide it? The government / public education, private institutions (which would then charge for it), just free internet resources, etc.

Bank partnerships on a pro bono basis. It could literally take 1-2 hrs

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

In college I volunteered at local high schools & middle schools to teach basic personal finance, and I can tell you it is something the kids had 0 interest in...that's the hardest part is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"...I also think it needs to be very repeated exposure as someone mentioned. I'm passionate about it and still am constantly learning new things.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Excelling:

In college I volunteered at local high schools & middle schools to teach basic personal finance, and I can tell you it is something the kids had 0 interest in...that's the hardest part is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"...I also think it needs to be very repeated exposure as someone mentioned. I'm passionate about it and still am constantly learning new things.

I agree and had a similar thought. You can waste resources saying you're going to teach kids FT or you can spare little to no expense having a professional pop in and out pro bono, leaving minimal resources behind. I really have no idea on how a PF class would be received. But I agree, I don't see kids understanding the importance of this or wanting to.

    • 3
Jan 25, 2019

Glad to hear someone else had a similar experience (and that I'm therefore not entirely insane).

After thinking about it, maybe the burden should be more on employers (i.e. the ones giving them that money). One example is the drastic difference in employee savings for companies that auto enroll people in their 401(k) to the match and others that make you opt in. If an employer made it mandatory to take quarterly personal finance courses, that way you are actually making money at the time you are learning about it, maybe that would help more? For younger employees it could be about renting vs. buying, cars, loan paydown and for older employees it could be estate planning, kids' college accounts, savings, etc.

Curious to hear others' thoughts.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Excelling:

Glad to hear someone else had a similar experience (and that I'm therefore not entirely insane).

After thinking about it, maybe the burden should be more on employers (i.e. the ones giving them that money). One example is the drastic difference in employee savings for companies that auto enroll people in their 401(k) to the match and others that make you opt in. If an employer made it mandatory to take quarterly personal finance courses, that way you are actually making money at the time you are learning about it, maybe that would help more? For younger employees it could be about renting vs. buying, cars, loan paydown and for older employees it could be estate planning, kids' college accounts, savings, etc.

Curious to hear others' thoughts.

This is a good idea just generally speaking. I think it might be tough for accomplishing national financial literacy, though. Ideally, you want kids practicing good financial discipline early, when they're starting out and have the best potential they're going to get. So, you would need to start them at a much earlier age than a FT job.

Another issue is, there are a lot of people working in jobs where companies take 0 responsibility for their employee's well-being (hourly wage jobs, no benefits, etc), where there's no reason to believe that financial literacy would be any different.

And kids have greater resiliency for falling and getting back up. They have parents as a backstop when they make mistakes and even if they don't they could always recall the things they learn to employ later in life when they mature.

Otherwise, it would probably be a good idea for people to understand how meaningful savings/401K/HSAs, etc, help in the long-term as they have the options to choose what happens to their income as they are earning it.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2019

That suggestion is just ore bullshit regulation and paperwork to deal with if you're a small business. any feel-good proposal that employers should just "do" things is ignorant of its costs. A small business that spends the time and money to organize the things you mentioned will be bankrupt very quickly. The economies of scale that come with compliance are why starting a new business in America is impossible and why smaller firms are being bought up.

The cost of all the new healthcare regulations has consolidated what were once private practice doctor's offices into hospital groups and national chains. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez couldn't comply with current labor laws.

While I don't blame some people for not making it to the middle class early in life, by the time you're thirty you've had time to grow up. Dave Ramsey is on the radio and everything is on the internet so show some initiative and learn to wipe your own ass when it comes retirement planning.

Jan 28, 2019

I don't know if this is right, and I also think its a bit of trying to have it both ways. You can't blame the individual for not being financially literate and also hold it against them when they vote for what gives them the most economic return (think pro-Union policies, etc).

Moreover, I think it's a little sanctimonious to assume you know what these folks are going through. Easy to complain about people not having savings, but it's far more likely that the "impulse" or "luxury" purchases they make are having much less of an effect on their savings than high costs of living and stagnant wage growth. Moreover, buying a nice pair of shoes once in a blue moon isn't the same as blowing $500/mo on scratch tickets - at some point an average person has a right to expect some quality of life, and working 12 hour days, six days a week without a moment of leisure is a life that someone should absolutely be pushing back against.

    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

I think some of your comments are missing some understanding of most people's finances. Most people don't have $10K in savings. If you come from a poor or even middle class family, go to college and get a job in investment banking, consulting, or tech, your ability to save after tax money while paying your student loans is fairly slim. If you work in a lower-paid field, you might not have any disposable income for several years after college.

About 60% of Americans don't have $1000 in savings to cover an emergency. At such a high percentage, it's obviously not just young Americans who have no savings. A lot of the workers at TSA, the FBI and other government agencies are not making huge sums of money. Many of them are GS-9s and 10s if they're even that. If you're a GS-9 step 1 in a moderate COL locale, you're only making $43,857 per year. If you're a GS-10 step 1, you're making $48K. If you're a GS-11 step 1, it's $53K.

While that's not nothing, it's not much after rent, student loans, transportation, insurance, and food. For someone who makes $50K per year, if you live in DC, you take home about $3200 per month. That's $38000 per year after taxes to cover everything. Once again, that's not nothing, but saving $10K takes such a person a VERY long time. You're going to have to live in a shitty apartment in a shitty neighborhood, exclusively take public transportation, never eat out, never buy new clothes or go to a movie. At that salary, you'll have no creature comforts even if you're not supporting anyone else. But if your money gets drained by having to care for a family member, support your kids or pay alimony, you're going to have fuck all at the end of the month to put away for a rainy day.

A lot of government workers work for the government for the stability of the paycheck precisely because they live paycheck to paycheck. They rely on that money hitting their accounts every two weeks. And while many lack financial literacy, it's not clear to me they have the means to save 6-months salary for a rainy day.

I don't want to pick on you too much, because you don't seem to be making your case from a position of malice. You do, however, seem to be coming from a position of privilege where $10k doesn't seem like much money. My father was an Admiral in the US Navy. I grew up around people who relied on government salaries, and I'm telling you that's a lot of money to some low-level employee of the TSA.

    • 4
Jan 24, 2019

Not saying $10,000 isn't a lot of money, I'm actually trying to say that it is a ton of money for most people and that in itself is the problem! The majority of our nation does not plan long term and stick to the plan. The majority of our nation does not understand simple financial arithmetic and often does not understand what they are getting themselves into with an assortment of debt (Credit cars, car loans, HELOC's, etc).

Our high schools preach that everyone should go to college. Even the kids who have literally 0 idea of what they want to do and likely would be tenfold better off going into a trade program. Yeah, sign yourself up for 100k in debt for a job that will make a fraction of that. It doesn't make sense, and this is only one of a plethora of examples.

I do however completely agree with your third paragraph, life sucks and isn't always easy. I lived out of a van and showered + shaved at my gym for a couple semesters of school because I didn't want to go into debt and a few scholarships I thought I had fell through. Sure it wasn't fun, but I knew what I was signing up for and stuck to it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Sure as hell motivates one to kick it into a new gear.

Cultivating mass and wealth since '95

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 29, 2019

Add him to the list of people affiliated with the administration who have made insensitive comments. The answer to the shutdown is simple: open up the government immediately and put these people back to work with pay. Then, negotiate about border security, including a wall.

Jan 24, 2019

I think the big problem is there is no real negotiating anymore. Without holding people's pay hostage the left won't negotiate with the right and right won't with the left. No one will compromise anymore, it is all or nothing. There is no negotiations, it is win or lose now. It is a mess.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

I do not think the issue is that left will not negotiate with the right and vice versa. The issue is the dems will not negotiate with the POTUS. If the Potus was not involved, a deal would have been reached a long time ago.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Series7examtutor:

I do not think the issue is that left will not negotiate with the right and vice versa. The issue is the dems will not negotiate with the POTUS. If the Potus was not involved, a deal would have been reached a long time ago.

You seem to be struggling with the game theory here. If the Dems give ANYTHING to Trump before the government re-opens, he'll do this time and time again. Shutting down the government should not be a policy tool.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

No, I am not advocating that the dems should negotiate with the POTUS. In fact, I do not think they should negotiate with the Potus. I would not trust the results of the negotiation. It is a prisoner's dilemma but the prisoners don't have great choices. Other than that, I can't remember a thing about game theory, haha.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 25, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

You seem to be struggling with the game theory here. If the Dems give ANYTHING to Trump before the government re-opens, he'll do this time and time again. Shutting down the government should not be a policy tool.

Yes, this.
Trump has a proven track record of simply fucking over contractors as a form of "negotiation" - he only knows one type of dealing, and that is to bully someone into submission.

Trump is very simple and predictable in his actions - there's no 10D chess playing here.

If dems give in and pays the ransom, he'll do it again. And again. He's a one-trick pony that sticks to his guns.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

What about the fact that it's only $5M, its what he promised and it's what his voters want, he won the election and is willing to give the Democrats basically anything in return?

I guess fuck compromise and fuck democracy when it comes to Trump? Dems are only support democracy when it goes their way.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 24, 2019
mbahopeful88:

What about the fact that it's only $5M, its what he promised and it's what his voters want, he won the election and is willing to give the Democrats basically anything in return?

I guess fuck compromise and fuck democracy when it comes to Trump? Dems are only support democracy when it goes their way.

He had a republican house/senate for 2 years and they didn't pass a "wall" bill... But you expect the opposition party to?

    • 1
    • 3
Jan 25, 2019

The Senate was hostile to him. It wasn't functionally Republican, and everyone knows that. The Senate was riddled with sour Republicans that Trump thrashed during the primaries.

So it's a moot point. A talking point, really.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 24, 2019
mbahopeful88:

What about the fact that it's only $5M, its what he promised and it's what his voters want, he won the election and is willing to give the Democrats basically anything in return?

I guess fuck compromise and fuck democracy when it comes to Trump? Dems are only support democracy when it goes their way.

Dems offered Trump $25 BILLION for the Wall earlier last year, in exchange for DACA protection, and he said no. Tell me who won't compromise?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-immigr...

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
Series7examtutor:

I do not think the issue is that left will not negotiate with the right and vice versa. The issue is the dems will not negotiate with the POTUS. If the Potus was not involved, a deal would have been reached a long time ago.

And the Republicans in the Senate are too chicken shit to stand up to him. After all, he might tweet at them.

    • 2
Jan 25, 2019

This is so silly and so wrong.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats coalesced on an agreement a long time ago. There was no risk of a shutdown in late November to early December, except that we were left to wonder if Trump would throw a tantrum. Predictably, he did. That's not the fault of the congressional Democrats.

It is not acceptable to shut down the government as a negotiating tactic for policy under any circumstances. It is immeasurably worse to shut down the government for a policy that is universally recognized to be a bad idea. Why should the Democrats allow this to become the new normal? Why do you want them to allow this to become the new normal?

Jan 29, 2019

I never said any of what you are alleging. My follow up comment was, "No, I am not advocating that the dems should negotiate with the POTUS. In fact, I do not think they should negotiate with the Potus. I would not trust the results of the negotiation."

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 28, 2019
Series7examtutor:

I do not think the issue is that left will not negotiate with the right and vice versa. The issue is the dems will not negotiate with the POTUS. If the Potus was not involved, a deal would have been reached a long time ago.

This is wrong. Congress passed a CR and Trump vetoed it because Ann Coulter told him to. There was negotiation and an agreement was reached. The problem is that Donald Trump can't declare bankruptcy to get him out of it, so we see clearly that he doesn't understand the concepts behind the term.

The issue here is that Donald Trump can't afford to not "build his wall" and can't actually get it funded. For all that the voting public aren't geniuses, it's pretty abundantly clear tot he majority of them that the GOP had no interest in passing this when they controlled the government, and therefore now must own the fact that it won't be funded.

Even if Democrats were interested in negotiating with Trump, and there are some things, especially on infrastructure, where both sides could conceivably find common ground and get a win acceptable to both their bases that is also good policy, why should they trust him? POTUS has made it clear that any scenario in which a Democrat can claim to have "won" something is a non-starter for him, merits aside, and moreover, he's proven so fickle and so untrustworthy as a good-faith negotiating partner that its hard to imagine Democrats being willing to trust him on anything.

    • 1
Jan 29, 2019

You are preaching to the choir...

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

If they don't work for "free" now they shouldn't expect any back pay.

It was a horribly out of touch answer to Andrew's typical line of questioning, which is consistently repeat the same question until the answer is anti-right or fodder for the left.

This entire system is a mess, but having no savings and the inability to qualify for credit is a huge problem. People get laid off or fired probably every day, they don't have the ability to get back pay for when then finally go back to work (they also don't go to work anymore).

It is horrible, but unexpected things happen to people all the time. Just because your employer is a bloated government doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for losing your job.

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

The risk/reward calculus is not all that different from that of investors who purchase Treasurys - you accept lower pay in return for increased job security. Don't think anyone here would think it acceptable for the government to suddenly stop paying interest on Treasurys.

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

https://fee.org/articles/a-look-at-pay-for-federal...
A 2017 Congressional Budget Office study compared the compensation of full-time, year-round private sector workers to non-postal, civilian, federal workers in 2011 to 2015. It accounted for education, occupation, work experience, geographic location, employer size, and various demographic characteristics. The study found that:

Federal workers received an average of 17 percent more total compensation than comparable private sector workers.

Across various education levels, federal employee compensation premiums ranged from a low of -18 percent for workers with a professional degree or doctorate to a high of 53 percent for workers with a high school diploma or less

Jan 27, 2019

Good point but isn't security exactly what they're getting? They'll get their back pay and they'll get their jobs back. Happens 100% of the time. If they face a short term financing crunch, I think that was always one small known hazard in this deal.

Jan 25, 2019

Whether or not a proposal is a "stupid idea" doesn't really matter from a policy perspective. If that were the case, the democratic party wouldn't have a platform. Democracy is about what the people want.

My prediction is Trump wins in the long run because, again, the people want it.

Jan 24, 2019
mbahopeful88:

My prediction is Trump wins in the long run because, again, the people want it.

Back here on planet Earth, facts don't care about your feelings. A majority of those polled don't want the wall, blame Trump for the shutdown, and think the shutdown is a bigger crisis in this country than what is happening at the border.

Polled by that reliable left wing biased fake news organization....Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-vot...

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

The polls also said that Hillary Clinton won by a landslide. The people dont trust the polls. They dont respond to them.

The Democrats dont oppose the wall because it's a bad idea. We would be much better off if bad ideas from the federal government cost only $5b (remember when we bought defective jets for $500b).

This is a game played by the Democrats. Everyone sees it and we all know it. It's just that the Democrats are outnumbered. If Trump persists he wins. If he doesn't, his base will replace.

But keep relying on your polls.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

The polls said she'd win the popular vote by 3 pts, which she did.

The polls said Dems would take 35-40 House seats in the midterms, which they did.

I'm tired of arguing with ignorant people.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 4
Jan 25, 2019

Yeah they said she'd have close to 400 electoral votes too. I'm sick of arguing with people whose religion is politics and whose God is the state.

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019
mbahopeful88:

Yeah they said she'd have close to 400 electoral votes too. I'm sick of arguing with people whose religion is politics and whose God is the state.

Yes as a Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton voter, I've shown a strict adherence to political allegiance and inability to evolve when presented new information.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 3
Jan 25, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:
mbahopeful88:

Yeah they said she'd have close to 400 electoral votes too. I'm sick of arguing with people whose religion is politics and whose God is the state.

Yes as a Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton voter, I've shown a strict adherence to political allegiance and inability to evolve when presented new information.

That's a horrible fucking trackrecord. You basically stand on the wrong side of every issue while maintaining this fiction of neutrality.

If I were you, I wouldn't share that information so openly my friend.

    • 2
    • 4
Jan 24, 2019

You ain't wrong about the Bush vote.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
Jan 25, 2019

Ew.

Jan 28, 2019

Presidents are elected via the electoral college in this country. If you think Presidential election by popular vote is a good idea, go read Plato's Republic and revisit.

Jan 24, 2019

Where's @TNA to defend his daddy through this latest bout of nine-dimensional chess? Been awfully quiet since Dems took the House.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 12
    • 1
Funniest
Jan 25, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

Where's @TNA to defend his daddy through this latest bout of nine-dimensional chess? Been awfully quiet since Dems took the House.

Chaperoning Covington catholic field trips

Jan 26, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:

Where's @TNA to defend his daddy through this latest bout of nine-dimensional chess? Been awfully quiet since Dems took the House.

Outside of Bush, I'm pretty sure you have to go back more than 70 years to find a midterm election where the opposing party didn't take over the majority/make significant gains. I don't like Trump at all but please stop acting like this is a big deal.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 28, 2019

Shhhhhh that doesn't push the agenda

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

Jan 25, 2019

All for a wall that isn't going to do shit. At this point, it's just a Trump monument - and a battle for "owning libs".

This isn't a left or right issue anymore, it's about a narcissist holding the gov. hostage until he gets his wishes - and any moron knows that once you pay ransoms, more kidnappings will happen.

Hell, the GOP is probably playing along just to get Trump removed in a plausible way, so that they get swoop in and save the day - minimizing damage to their image.

Let's see how his base reacts to not receiving food stamps. Most people are not ideologically driven, and will not sacrifice anything for the greater good.

Jan 24, 2019
ironman32:

On the other hand, is it the government's fought that people don't have emergency savings.

Yeah I mean its hard for me to feel bad for people that have no emergency savings, but I guess there is always reasons why they don't other than them being financial illiterates. I feel bad for people that had a sudden unexpected hardship and are struggling, but I have no sympathy for dumbasses that buy every new pair of Jordan's that come out & eat out everyday and have no money.

That said, stupid ass comment but he is right... there's multiple banks/credit unions offering 0% loans. I'm sure CNN was foaming from the mouth when he said this.

    • 1
Jan 30, 2019
BBDreamin:
ironman32:

On the other hand, is it the government's fought that people don't have emergency savings.

Yeah I mean its hard for me to feel bad for people that have no emergency savings, but I guess there is always reasons why they don't other than them being financial illiterates. I feel bad for people that had a sudden unexpected hardship and are struggling, but I have no sympathy for dumbasses that buy every new pair of Jordan's that come out & eat out everyday and have no money.

That said, stupid ass comment but he is right... there's multiple banks/credit unions offering 0% loans. I'm sure CNN was foaming from the mouth when he said this.

I have your same feelings. I think that the number of people who don't have emergency savings from their own fault/bad spending far outweighs people who had hardships. It's kinda like people who are grossly overweight, a small percentage of them actually have a physical problem causing them to gain weight, but the majority just can't keep their hand away from their mouth.

Second part- I guess Ross is right, but that doesn't make it "right". You shouldn't force people to work, not pay them, and then say go get a loan no big deal. Most of these people who he's telling this to probably already have negative equity, and he's telling them to go more in debt.

    • 3
Jan 24, 2019

Agreed, definitely an out of touch individual.

Jan 24, 2019

Of the 800K, 47K are TSA agents. They make like $30-40K/ year. With a family of 4-6, don't expect these guys to build a savings cushion.

https://www.federallawenforcement.org/tsa/
Same probably applies for junior level coast guard, park staff, etc. These employees just don't make enough to have safety cushion. On a good note, this administration has relaxed predatory payday loan rules. No wonder Ross would promote that.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

what business does someone earning 30k-40k a year have raising 4-6 kids? Anyone who pulls that shit is an incredibly irresponsible human and parent. 4-6 kids is a big responsibility and it isn't any easier on a low salary. Amazing people make such shitty planning and then act like victims. Nobody fucked you, you just fuck raw dog too much.

Jan 24, 2019

BUT republicans are also against covering contraceptives or abortion unless it's their own mistress

    • 1
Jan 24, 2019

Want to know why I don't tell normal people I work in private equity