Author Topic: JP Morgan CEO can't explain how his low paid employee should budget her salary  (Read 39406 times)

crybaby

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
I don't doubt that USA is great for the ones that are strong, healthy, smart, driven. People in that conditions probably earns more money there that in any other place in the world.

The problem are the ones that are left behind. Those that are weak, unhealthy, really poor, less smart or without chance to do their studies. It can be any of us in a part of our lifes. Probably you know persons who had great jobs and suddenly were unemployed without any safety net.

You deeply believe that everyone has chances to suceed and if anyone doesnt is because they dont really want to. But someone stated it and I think its true, the social elevator is a bit broken right now and the healthy capitalism is gone.

I defend the hard work, and dont get me wrong, those who work more deserve more money. But, as I said before, no one works 1000 more than a coworker.

About comparations, I dont want to make this more than a healthy debate about social approaches, but:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-worlds-healthiest-countries-ranked/
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.dyn.le00.in
https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm
https://safearound.com/danger-rankings/

All the rankings about quality of life, health, security, inequality, poverty, put countries like the Nordic on top. In this countries you can study almost or even for free, you can have a severe disease and you will be treated, this is the real opportunity for everyone. And USA is richer than any of these, so imagine if money was well (or at least better) distributed...

Keep your work ethic culture, but put a break on your top executives please, or the money will be in fewer hands year by year.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
This line of reasoning is a total fabrication though. The US unemployment rate is at 3.7% arguably the lowest its been in over 50 years.
"arguably"

If you work a single hour in a week you're counted as employed. If you've given up looking for work you're not counted as unemployed. If you're a uni student with a job you're counted as employed, but if you've no job then you're not counted as unemployed. And so on.

A job is not equal to a job. There is a big difference between a permanent full-time job at an auto factory with sick and holiday pay where you know that so long as you don't actually clock anyone in the noggin you'll stay employed for decades and get a pension, and a couple of 4 hour casual shifts a week as a cleaner, which shift can be cancelled on you with two hours' notice, no sick or holiday pay, etc.

Quote from: Bloop Bloop
one of the things that annoys me about my own country is that there are a lot of jobs that pay $18/hour for fruit picking, toilet cleaning, sweeping floors etc and no one wants those because they don't lead to a professional career.
They're insecure jobs. So your income is $1,000 this week and $0 the next. This is the financial equivalent of the crazy BPD girlfriend who fucks you silly all night this week and next week won't talk to you. Nobody wants that. People want boring stability.

Secure permanent full-time jobs for the working class have gone overseas or been automated, and replaced with insecure casual part-time jobs. The professional salaried classes have not suffered from this, in fact they've benefited from it by access to cheaper goods and services. A failure of the professional salaried classes to understand or care about this is why the (formerly) working classes have voted for various dickheads across the Western world.


There used to be better opportunities for all. We have outsourced our opportunities. Free trade is a foreign aid measure. That's good, we want global prosperity after all, but that some Chinese or Indian people now have better lives is not much comfort to the laid-off Aussie, British or American worker who can no longer pay their rent.


"You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket." - Frank Sobotka, The Wire


Now, the well-off will read that and think, "yes, it's terrible to put your hand in my pocket!" But that wasn't what the guy meant. He meant that when you make something, you have pride in what you do. That sense of being a productive person, doing something of value. People want that. They're ashamed of having to put their hand in someone else's pocket. The idea that the unemployed are just lazy and idle is one that is very comforting to the professional salaried classes, because it absolves you of responsibility. The unemployed are not any more lazy and idle than the professional salaried, plenty of whom spend most of their day avoiding doing anything productive.


Most people want to be productive - but they also want fair pay for that productivity, and some security and respect.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business.  They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves.  I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.

This is a very important point.  Being rich comes with ridiculous benefits . . . one of which is that you can effortlessly give away your riches and become poor at any moment of the day.  That's quite a different situation from the one that poor people find themselves in.

This argument has elements of straw man and false equivalency. Firstly no one is defending billionaires. Most of us in this topic are defending plain rich people with maybe a low-to-mid 6 figure income (call them the top 1-3%) who pay punitive taxes in order to subsidise a lot of other people in society, but who don't have the mind boggling benefits of the top 0.1%. Also, saying that person A and person B are in 'quite a different situation' is a false equivalency unless you discuss the different paths that they took to get there.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Secure permanent full-time jobs for the working class have gone overseas or been automated, and replaced with insecure casual part-time jobs. The professional salaried classes have not suffered from this, in fact they've benefited from it by access to cheaper goods and services. A failure of the professional salaried classes to understand or care about this is why the (formerly) working classes have voted for various dickheads across the Western world.


There used to be better opportunities for all. We have outsourced our opportunities. Free trade is a foreign aid measure. That's good, we want global prosperity after all, but that some Chinese or Indian people now have better lives is not much comfort to the laid-off Aussie, British or American worker who can no longer pay their rent.


I think this post sums up as well as any post in this topic what the crux of the issue is about. From relatively egalitarian past to a somewhat cut-throat present, society has evolved. We have an obligation to ensure a safety net for the unlucky or incapable who get left behind - the question is how comprehensive that safety net ought to be.

A related issue is that the rise of female full-time workers has only exacerbated the shift. Not due to anything relating to gender, but rather because now a typical household has two income units instead of one, thus doubling the potential for inequality.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8822
  • Location: Avalon
But let's stop this 'rich people are treated so poorly and are so misunderstood' business.  They can always pull a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and give away their wealth if they want to be loved, and still have plenty left over for themselves.  I really do struggle to buy in to any argument that the billionaires are treated unfairly in the US.

This is a very important point.  Being rich comes with ridiculous benefits . . . one of which is that you can effortlessly give away your riches and become poor at any moment of the day.  That's quite a different situation from the one that poor people find themselves in.

This argument has elements of straw man and false equivalency. Firstly no one is defending billionaires. Most of us in this topic are defending plain rich people with maybe a low-to-mid 6 figure income (call them the top 1-3%) who pay punitive taxes in order to subsidise a lot of other people in society, but who don't have the mind boggling benefits of the top 0.1%. Also, saying that person A and person B are in 'quite a different situation' is a false equivalency unless you discuss the different paths that they took to get there.

Why are you assuming that taxation means taxing people with a low-to-mid 6 figure income?  Why not have a wealth tax on the 0.1%?  Why not have a turnover tax on Amazon and Facebook?  Why not more tax on the most damaging fossil fuels?  It's not just all about you, you know.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7512
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.

Enough money to pay taxes, not enough money to buy politicians.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Probably because to date, in all the western democracies, it is the 1-3%, not the 0.1%, not the large companies with huge turnover, who bear the most disproportionate burden.

Enough money to pay taxes, not enough money to buy politicians.

Hear hear

johndoe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Following the usnews ranking site (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings), it looks like France got ranked (and of course all these metrics could be debated) #10 worldwide.  Then you follow the "data explorer" page and see that their rank corresponds with a score of 87/100.  Meanwhile #20, Spain got a 63/100.  Let's say we compare USA (#8, 92 pts) with Australia (#7, 93 pts).  We're spending all this time debating about an overall score difference of one point?  Why are we worried about the systems in place in the top 10 when 90% of countries score so much lower?

The problem are the ones that are left behind. Those that are weak, unhealthy, really poor, less smart or without chance to do their studies. It can be any of us in a part of our lifes. Probably you know persons who had great jobs and suddenly were unemployed without any safety net.

You deeply believe that everyone has chances to suceed and if anyone doesnt is because they dont really want to.

I think both sides on these issues are guilty of painting them as "black and white".  From the "freedom" side we hear about lazy freeloaders, and from the "security" side we hear about people dying in the streets.  I personally think both of these fears are overblown, and while these discussions are interesting we're just debating shades of grey.  We all generally agree; as someone said it's just how comprehensive to make the safety net.  I mean, let's imagine one of us moved across the pond and lived in the other society.  Would we end up so drastically different?  I'd be willing to bet someone who achieves in one achieves in the other, and someone who struggles in one struggles in the other.  Even to be in the lower echelons of our societies is pretty good compared to any other location at any other time in history.

Not to make it TOO political, but it reminds me of thinking about presidential elections.  Had Clinton been elected, would my life be drastically different?  Did my life shift from Bush to Obama?  I get that some people would come out a little ahead and a little behind...and I'm no fan of Trump...but jeeze in the big picture I feel we put too much emphasis on the importance of politics.  My feeling is that my country has two parties offering slightly different shades of grey, and probably will for my entire lifetime.  Even responding to this thread I'm thinking "what good is this doing?". Maybe I'm just cynical, or simplifying things too much, but I think I can control my life way more than the politician in office. 

Maybe this is too simplistic, but a funny thing is that this site is made up of individuals who went down this financial rabbit hole.  We all got here after looking up some niche topic that the vast majority of people will never abide by.  We are trying to better ourselves; recognizing that we can learn from others who made similar choices.  Of course we had help from society to get to where we are and of course there are those less fortunate in society who we'll help... but at the end of the day, no one is going to work as hard for yourself as you will.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
The encouragement to not take personal responsibility and point fingers at someone ELSE for your misfortune is really what gets me about the video in the OP. "My poverty is the fault of society, or rich CEOs, or lack of a trust fund, so there is nothing I can do about it."

Many people end up in a hole because of a combination of bad luck + bad decisions. But very few people will acknowledge the bad decisions. All they talk about is the bad luck, and it is not socially acceptable for other people to point out their bad decisions. This does not encourage any sort of positive change.

You can bemoan your situation and wait for the next wealth redistribution, but even if it comes, will someone who's been taught to believe that they are not in control of their financial situation really be able to take advantage of it?

I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.

P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.

exterous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Following the usnews ranking site (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings), it looks like France got ranked (and of course all these metrics could be debated) #10 worldwide.  Then you follow the "data explorer" page and see that their rank corresponds with a score of 87/100.  Meanwhile #20, Spain got a 63/100.  Let's say we compare USA (#8, 92 pts) with Australia (#7, 93 pts).  We're spending all this time debating about an overall score difference of one point?  Why are we worried about the systems in place in the top 10 when 90% of countries score so much lower?

Interesting ranking categories in that site's rankings. I'm not quite sure how a ranking of "Sexy" works in the context of a country. And I'm guessing the "Pleasant Climate" is an average of the country's climate not a reflection of options within the country. Denmark ranks higher than the US in that category but I would think that having almost any sort of environment to live in would be more appealing. Not to mention you're comparing the climate average of a country the size of Ohio with a country ~230x larger. You want hot and dry? Check. Hot and wet? Check. North of the Arctic circle. I'm not sure why but ok. Island in a sea? Yep. Island in an Ocean? Check. House where the sun sets over the ocean. Ok. House where the sun rises over the ocean. Sure. Multiple mountain ranges. Check. Complete flat land. Yep. Massive fresh water lakes? Check. Thousands of small lakes? Yep we got that too. But, as you point out, all the metrics could be debated

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
-snip-
I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.

We just have to be careful that we have not weaponized that message.  Using the same logic, it would be easy for the Walt Disney CEO to justify keeping the vast majority of net income as his salary and stock appreciation as his net worth because all of the workers have enough to live on and just enough of a retirement plan to eventually retire.  In fact, this situation benefits the CEO because people are kept just out of the reach of poverty as long as they work.  And if they complain about this, then the problem is with THEIR lifestyle.

Any FIRE blog will tell you, achieving FIRE is a whole lot easier the higher the income.  At the working class end of the spectrum, the savings rate problem is both a spending problem and a lack of income problem, not always just spending.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
I think this post sums up as well as any post in this topic what the crux of the issue is about. From relatively egalitarian past to a somewhat cut-throat present, society has evolved. We have an obligation to ensure a safety net for the unlucky or incapable who get left behind - the question is how comprehensive that safety net ought to be.
"Evolved" implies a natural process, and economics is not a natural process. It's a series of decisions made by individuals working in their interest, directly or indirectly.

For example, as I said, free trade leads to the loss of secure full-time employment for the working class, sending this work to people overseas. This works in favour of the salaried professional classes, which is to say the middle class. The upper class will always vote right-wing, because the left will give them nothing, and indeed will take away some of what they do have. The lower class will always vote left-wing, because the left-wing will at least stop them being homeless and hungry. It's the middle classes who are swinging voters, and who must be appealed to.

That applies in ordinary circumstances. In the extraordinary circumstance of a permanently declining real economy, who knows who'll vote for whom. But the above explains why governments across the West have destroyed the working class.

But this did not "evolve." It was a series of decisions by people acting in what they believed was their interest. And decisions can be changed. We can have a massive social welfare net, which is morally just, but very expensive. Or we can bring secure working class jobs back, which is a bit more practical and a lot cheaper.

I don't object to paying taxes to help the poor. I was poor once. But I recognise that there are limits, at some point all our debts will be called in. And the poor would rather work productively, given the chance. I would rather give them the chance.

Unfortunately, while there are socially liberal and conservative parties about these days, there are only economically liberal parties, no economically conservative parties.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yes, when I said 'evolved', I meant that in a non-scientific and neutral manner. I wasn't suggesting that society 'had to' or 'was designed to' or 'should have' evolve(d) to the present situation, but it's what's happened, and now we face a series of choices about what we value.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Further:- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/underemployment-in-australia-rising-while-unemployed-rate-drops/11057794

"We don't have a good understanding of why underemployment has risen so much," Professor Roger Wilkins of the University of Melbourne said.

"It seems that employers and their demand for part-time jobs has been growing."

Yes, we do Professor Wilkins. Over the last generation we have liberalised trade and labour laws, and deunionised workplaces. Low-skill work has declined in prevalence, and moved from the manufacturing to the service sectors, which by their nature are more likely to be part-time. Employers would rather have 100 people working 20 hours a week than 50 people working 40 hours a week, because people working less hours than they want and without permanent status are easier to control, they don't take holiday or sick leave (casuals in Australia don't get it, instead getting 25% more per hour), they don't speak up about workplace safety, and so on. Absent union and legal protections, this is what you get.

Economic liberalism has caused the decline in low-skilled full-time permanent jobs and the rise in part-time casual jobs. But there are not economically conservative parties, in favour of unions, protectionism, and so on.

No party in Australia or the US addresses this.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).

Many people's skills aren't worth that much. The median wage is about $30 per hour, and it's silly to think that someone in the 5th or 10th percentile of economic productiveness is going to be worth 60% as much as someone in the 50th percentile of productiveness; bell curves and normal distributions just don't work like that. In fact I'd be interested to see a standard deviation chart. Anyway, my point is that when you have an income floor that is quite high, it's going to create precariousness at the bottom end.

There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.

crybaby

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
The encouragement to not take personal responsibility and point fingers at someone ELSE for your misfortune is really what gets me about the video in the OP. "My poverty is the fault of society, or rich CEOs, or lack of a trust fund, so there is nothing I can do about it."

(...)

I've always felt that one of the key differences between this forum and the rest of the Internet is the acknowledgement that no matter what your situation, YOU and ONLY YOU have the power to change your life for the better.



A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.

Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.

Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.

Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?

Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.

So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
I think perhaps the best argument against a "supposed" meritocracy / neoliberal economy is that, even in a perfectly functioning economy, there is still injustice wrought by the fact that people have differing abilities/skills by birth. Someone born with a 70IQ or with a severe impairment is never going to have the life opportunities of someone with 130IQ who is healthy.

Strangely, progressives' dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability (e.g. IQ) also hinders their ability to argue against the social darwinism inherent in modern capitalism.

calimom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
  • Location: Northern California
Oh good lord, bloop bloop, you're getting really tiresome here.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).
Not really. Other countries have high minimum wages, and don't have as much underemployment. Germany, for example, it's 9.19 euros an hour, which is $14.66 at today's exchange rates. In Switzerland it's $29.25ph.

Let's be honest: we could halve the minimum wage and the guy in the article wouldn't get 30hr pw instead of 15hr pw, his employer would just say, "bonza!" and pocket the difference, or spend it on something else.

Again: he's a hospital orderly. The hospital will have dozens of them. Why do they employ 100 doing 20hr pw when they could employ 50 doing 40hr pw? It's the same total hours, the same wage cost either way, so why the difference? Because it keeps the employees malleable, and the law and lack of unions allows that.

Quote
There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.
The communists thought that worldwide socialism was inevitable, too. No system, no ideology lasts forever. Eventually people get sick of its failures and try something else. The elites and those who benefit from the system have to be protected from themselves, saying, "nothing can be changed, this is great, why are you complaining?" is an invitation to revolution. Bismarck got it, politicians these days aren't that smart.

MrUpwardlyMobile

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
    • The Upwardly Mobile Life
Kyle, that is what happens when your min wage is $18/hour (and climbing).
Not really. Other countries have high minimum wages, and don't have as much underemployment. Germany, for example, it's 9.19 euros an hour, which is $14.66 at today's exchange rates. In Switzerland it's $29.25ph.

Let's be honest: we could halve the minimum wage and the guy in the article wouldn't get 30hr pw instead of 15hr pw, his employer would just say, "bonza!" and pocket the difference, or spend it on something else.

Again: he's a hospital orderly. The hospital will have dozens of them. Why do they employ 100 doing 20hr pw when they could employ 50 doing 40hr pw? It's the same total hours, the same wage cost either way, so why the difference? Because it keeps the employees malleable, and the law and lack of unions allows that.

Quote
There's not much you can do about it short of reverting, as you say, to huge economic protectionism - I think that ship has sailed.
The communists thought that worldwide socialism was inevitable, too. No system, no ideology lasts forever. Eventually people get sick of its failures and try something else. The elites and those who benefit from the system have to be protected from themselves, saying, "nothing can be changed, this is great, why are you complaining?" is an invitation to revolution. Bismarck got it, politicians these days aren't that smart.

In the US, employers are more likely to have more part time employees because various laws and regulations have made full time employees far more expensive.  As a result, there are a lot of instances where 20 people working 20 hours per week is cheaper than 10 people working 40 hours per week. It’s not a rich folks controlling the poor type thing.  It’s a “this restaurant will lose money and be forced to close if we take the more expensive route” type thing.

Unfortunately, low skilled and unskilled work frequently doesn’t have enough economic return to justify the expensive minimum wage and benefit requirements imposed by various state, federal, and local laws. As result,you either don’t hire anyone or you hire part time workers.

My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery.  That job doesn’t exist anymore.  The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time.  The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now.  The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.

I think you’re refusing to see that policies you advocate can have negative consequences in addition to perceived positives.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Oh good lord, bloop bloop, you're getting really tiresome here.

Thanks for your feedback.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I think perhaps the best argument against a "supposed" meritocracy / neoliberal economy is that, even in a perfectly functioning economy, there is still injustice wrought by the fact that people have differing abilities/skills by birth. Someone born with a 70IQ or with a severe impairment is never going to have the life opportunities of someone with 130IQ who is healthy.

Strangely, progressives' dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability (e.g. IQ) also hinders their ability to argue against the social darwinism inherent in modern capitalism.

Can you show some examples of "progressive's dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability" that you claim?


Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/dumbing-down-or-need-better--smarter-measure

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here, is the author the progressive who dislikes IQ tests?

Regardless, I'm sure we can find examples of what you've claimed but examples don't prove the absoluteness of what you said.

I would consider myself progressive on most issues but I don't dislike tests or studies that purport to quantify innate or shaped ability. Statements where you lump huge groups of people together for criticism are a conversation killer.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/dumbing-down-or-need-better--smarter-measure

Did you read the link you've posted?  This is an argument that the particular IQ tests under scrutiny are not very effective at measuring intelligence, not that there should be no measurement of intelligence.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?



mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Can you show some examples of "progressive's dislike of anything that purports to quantify innate or shaped ability" that you claim?

This meme drives me up a wall. I'm a progressive who spends a lot of time annotating my arguments with government data, only to be dismissed by people who shoot from the hip. Such is life though.


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4815
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
So I assume we all saw JP Morgan's rather tone deaf tweet?



In keeping with this thread, it would be interesting to know if Jamie Dimon ever did any of these things on his way to FI.

six-car-habit

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558

P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.

 A "good" parent will probably do Both of these things. It doesn't have to be either/ or....

   **My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery.  That job doesn’t exist anymore.  The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time.  The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now.  The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.**

  The job went away, not the work. The shelves need to be stocked and the floors mopped, to meet health standards, and to insure customers return for more items / future meals .   The owner was possibly frivilously wasting money by hiring young MrUpwardlyMobile to do the work years ago - or-  the owner is somewhat inept at running the business currently; by not being able to afford a worker to perform the lowest levels of responsibility within the business and taking those items upon themselves.
     What did the former wait staff/cooks [?] used to do during slower hours ?  Maybe the eatery had a better customer base back then, maybe the menu is stale and table turnover is worse today...

 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
In keeping with this thread, it would be interesting to know if Jamie Dimon ever did any of these things on his way to FI.

Dimon is the son of a banking executive. He attended a prestigious and expensive prep school in his youth.

I have no doubt he's an intelligent and capable business leader who brings a lot of value to JPM shareholders. But I think it's safe to say that mundane personal sacrifice is not a part of his overall story.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Didn't MrUpwardlyMobile specify that the minimum wage doubled? The owner could afford to hire a highschool kid for, say, $7 an hour. He probably can't justify the expense at $14 an hour, unless his business has boomed.

I would hire someone to clean my house for $100. I wouldn't do it for $200. At some point the returns are not worth the extra money. And that is one less job on the market. (I did in fact recently let go of my cleaners because Seattle's wage increase made it too expensive to justify having someone else clean my toilets.)

My first job paid $9 an hour. I actually probably provided much more value than what I was paid, since I was handling the entire Internet order department of a small computer store on my own, and after I left they hired two people to replace me. But I don't begrudge the low salary, as I had zero experience, was a kid with low expenses, and the job provided valuable life experience. The teenage versions of MrUpwardlyMobile and I are the "target market" for these kinds of low paying jobs, not 30-something parents with time and financial obligations. When you try to make employers compensate for people with higher living expenses, some of those jobs are just going to be gone for everyone.

There are definitely people who need to work these jobs who fall outside the "target market", and that is exactly what a social safety net is for.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556

A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.

Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.

Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.

Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?

Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.

So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.

I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.

Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.

This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.

I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.

robartsd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3342
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
I agree that many companies take advantage of employees by only paying low minimum wages. At the same time I'm sure the companies realize that there is a cost in employee turnover (recruitment and selection costs, training costs, risk of costs associated with terminating a poor employee). I'd like to see a Minimum Raise law that would increase the minimum that could be paid to an employee as they accrue experience. Current minimum wage is probably OK for starting wages, but requiring a raise of $0.25/hour for every 320 hours of experience until reaching a living wage might not be a bad idea.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Age: 95
  • Location: Upper Peninsula (MI)

A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.

Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.

Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.

Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?

Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.

So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.

I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.

Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.

This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.

I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.

Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.

I think it's pretty suspect to apply principles of natural selection to the outsized influence that global banking has. And I don't think many people actually want to go down that road anyway. Social contracts and all.

Statistically speaking, I'm probably bigger than you. I think I might just come over to your house and take all of your belongings because nature decided to make me big. Maybe that upsets you. Maybe you want to make an appeal to the rule of law. To the police or the courts. To which I would ask, why are you interfering with natural selection?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A man is a man and his circumstances. Someone smart said it, not only me.

Those who think that we control all our fate are clearly not touched by misfortune.

Saying "YOU have the power to change your life for the better" sounds OK, Saying that all depends on you isnt true.

Would you be the same if:
- You were born in Lesotho, Sudan or any other place where 2 dollars a day is the norm?
- You were born in a family of criminals, drug addicts or things like that?
- You were born with any disability?
- You were ran away by a pickup truck or got a hard disease?
- You were from a minority?
- You were raised really poor for american standards?
- For any reason, there was a massive global crisis or war?

Nothing of that depends on you and all of that shapes who you are or what you can accomplish.

So, yes, many thing are on us, but theres many things out of our control.

I've written in earlier posts about my views on the inherent inequality in nature, and that it is an inevitable fact of life. I do subscribe more to social Darwinism than the goal of trying to achieve ideal socialism, as I believe the latter doesn't exist.

Incidentally, I have a child with special needs who most definitely did not win the genetics lottery. There's a good chance that he may never be independent enough to support himself when he grows up. But he is also fortunate in that he was born into a family who can afford expensive therapies and can support him for the rest of his life if need be.

This balance of fortune and misfortune is reflected in the government programs that exist to support people like him. He qualifies for some programs based on disability alone, but not for others due to our family income. I think this is very fair. When he grows up, I would not expect any employer to hire him or pay a "living" wage if he could not provide the corresponding value.

I've had my share of head-wall-banging while dealing with the social safety net system through the years, so I believe that there are many improvements that can be made and inefficiencies reduced. A better corporate tax policy will provide more funds. I don't see how more government regulation of corporations is going to help anyone. The effort seems like it would be better spent working on improving our social safety nets.

Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.

From a behavioral standpoint if we were really obeying natural selection her son would starve to death as a non-productive member of society. When you won the genetic and skills lottery and have enough money to prevent natural selection from ever impacting your loved ones it's a lot easier to support.

Laserjet3051

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
  • Age: 95
  • Location: Upper Peninsula (MI)
Thank you for admitting this. Why is natural selection viewed in our current society (by some) as an evil force that must be destroyed? It serves a vital purpose, not only from a genetic standpoint, but also from a behavioral/sociological one as well.

I think it's pretty suspect to apply principles of natural selection to the outsized influence that global banking has. And I don't think many people actually want to go down that road anyway. Social contracts and all.

Statistically speaking, I'm probably bigger than you. I think I might just come over to your house and TRY TO take all of your belongings because nature decided to make me big. Maybe that upsets you. Maybe you want to make an appeal to the rule of law. To the police or the courts. To which I would ask, why are you interfering with natural selection?

Fixed it. Your response was readily predictable. My edit of your response now restores the forces of natural selection. Proceed as you may.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
But did you factor in that my dad can beat up your dad? ;)

All joking and silly hypothetical aside, I make a lot of money pushing numbers around on spreadsheets and I've never thought of it as the natural order rewarding me.

Was it social darwinism for the Standard Oil cartel to engage in price fixing and other anti-competitive practices? Maybe it was. There were a lot of smart guys involved, and they were able to secure and defend their claim on resources for a long time. Survival of the fittest right? But eventually, as a society, we realized that cartels, trusts, and monopolies were only good for the folks involved, and bad for everyone else.

We're at a similar point today. Who benefits from wealthy corporations paying low wages and getting tax breaks? The wealthiest 10% of households who own nearly all the capital.


crybaby

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
From a behavioral standpoint if we were really obeying natural selection her son would starve to death as a non-productive member of society. When you won the genetic and skills lottery and have enough money to prevent natural selection from ever impacting your loved ones it's a lot easier to support.


Its easy to like the game when you're winning it.

I'll get in this discussion again in few years.
By 2028 China will surpass US as the biggest economy of the world.
By 2040/2050, India will take the second place.
AI will take lots of jobs.
Big companies will get huge and get most of the market from small caps (look how they enter in all areas).
Theres full-times turning in side gigs everyday.
Sooner or later another big crisis will come.

Those are not my says, can get you data on all that.

Seriously, some things should be reassessed in my opinion, world is changing fast and we will all need a safety net and cohesive society.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
I don't think anyone is advocating for complete anarchy here. What we disagree on is the degree and extent of social safety nets and government regulation.

China, despite being purportedly socialist, has much less in the way of social safety nets than the U.S. If my son was born into a destitute family in China, he'd probably starve. In the U.S., if social services were aware of him, he would not. Moreover, he would be eligible for Medicaid and therapies to help him cope with his disability. I point this out to illustrate that we already have many systems in place to help the disadvantaged in our society, as we should. And we should continue to work on improving them so that those who need help can get it without having to jump through a million hoops or dealing with endless bureaucracy. But should we go so far as to try to achieve a utopia where everyone has the exact same chances in life? I would argue that this unattainable goal is not even something we should be striving for, as it comes with a slew of unintended consequences that ends up with everyone worse off.

MrUpwardlyMobile

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
    • The Upwardly Mobile Life

P.S. I've sometimes wondered if this is a whole mindset that starts from how we now educate our children. When your kid loses a toy and cries, you are supposed to commiserate with them so that they feel your empathy and it strengthens the parent-child bond. You are apparently not supposed to point out that they are responsible for their own toys and should take better care of things that are important to them.

 A "good" parent will probably do Both of these things. It doesn't have to be either/ or....

   **My first job was in high school stocking shelves and cleaning a local eatery.  That job doesn’t exist anymore.  The minimum wage doubled here in a relatively short time.  The elderly owner stays late and cleans the place now.  The existing workers stock shelves during the slower hours. Some kid isn’t getting his or her first job experience, isn’t getting training or moving up the ranks because it’s too expensive to justify the cost.**

  The job went away, not the work. The shelves need to be stocked and the floors mopped, to meet health standards, and to insure customers return for more items / future meals .   The owner was possibly frivilously wasting money by hiring young MrUpwardlyMobile to do the work years ago - or-  the owner is somewhat inept at running the business currently; by not being able to afford a worker to perform the lowest levels of responsibility within the business and taking those items upon themselves.
     What did the former wait staff/cooks [?] used to do during slower hours ?  Maybe the eatery had a better customer base back then, maybe the menu is stale and table turnover is worse today...

 

By way of reference
 $7/hr x 25 hrs per week x 52 weeks per year = $9100
 $14/hr x 25 hrs per week x 52 weeks per year = $18,200

If you add up all the various other costs associated with the raise, it’s an enormous difference in cost to the employer and that really doesn’t account for the various other costs and taxes.  Not every business has high margins.

Simpleton

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.

-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year

So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.

I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.






mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
I think what really gets me about this whole thread is the just utter disregard for personal accountability that MSM and most left-leaning commentators put on the situation.

-Unemployments has pretty much never been lower
-Wages have pretty much never been higher when including benefits
-Benefits continue to be more and more generous every year

So if someone cannot make it today, it says a lot more about that person than the country.

I am sure that some people genuinely fall through the cracks, but the fact is that MOST people in unfortunate situations put themselves there - and no one talks in a way that holds them accountable because its simply frowned upon to do so. Its always a sob story with excuses and rationals.
- housing costs are higher than ever
- medical insurance/ medical care costs have skyrocketed

are you even trying?
do you even...know people outside your bubble?

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
It's a lot easier to create an enemy, blaming the big bad system in place, than to place blame on individuals. I understand that sentiment in society, where people simply don't comprehend finances. In these forums, however, I find it very confusing. We are a collection of people who have personally done very well for ourselves, thanks to the principles taught by MMM and others. Everyone in here should understand that the majority of people have the same opportunity to be successful that we have. Instead, I see a lot of people who don't think others can do what we've done, instead defaulting to blaming political parties or corporations and absolving individuals of all guilt.

It's a lot easier to change the actions of individuals than to change the system in place.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Weird.

I find that it's a lot easier to place blame on individuals than the system.  After all, I am lucky enough that the system worked really well for me.  If a straight white guy from a good family who placed value on education and a series of generally pretty good interactions with the establishment that helped guide me to my current moderately successful place in society . . . why . . . certainly that should all hold true for every other individual!  They must just be lazy.  That's why they aren't doing as well.  To break out of that smug and relatively unfounded sense of self importance is hard.  It means recognizing that you might not be as great as you thought you were, and that other more deserving people might not be doing as well as you are.

It's scary to think that maybe the system that worked so well for me isn't optimal, and might need to be changed.  As mentioned, it's very hard to change the system in place . . . but we are not servants of that system.  It is beholden to us, as the people who keep it functioning.  If it's broken we need to focus on repairing it, regardless of the difficulty.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Weird.

I find that it's a lot easier to place blame on individuals than the system.  After all, I am lucky enough that the system worked really well for me.  If a straight white guy from a good family who placed value on education and a series of generally pretty good interactions with the establishment that helped guide me to my current moderately successful place in society . . . why . . . certainly that should all hold true for every other individual!  They must just be lazy.  That's why they aren't doing as well.  To break out of that smug and relatively unfounded sense of self importance is hard.  It means recognizing that you might not be as great as you thought you were, and that other more deserving people might not be doing as well as you are.

It's scary to think that maybe the system that worked so well for me isn't optimal, and might need to be changed.  As mentioned, it's very hard to change the system in place . . . but we are not servants of that system.  It is beholden to us, as the people who keep it functioning.  If it's broken we need to focus on repairing it, regardless of the difficulty.

I also agree that the United States in particular is very biased towards blaming the individual. Research into the "Fundamental Attribution Error" seems to confirm this. Anecdotally, it's like pulling teeth sometimes to get perfectly nice, perfectly smart people to even acknowledge that systemic racism or sexism is a thing.

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
I'm not white and was even homeless at one point in my life, yet here I am, doing quite well.

I guess the system in place didn't do a good enough job suppressing me. That's probably why I don't have much sympathy for people who blame their circumstances on outside forces. Can it be harder to succeed depending on life's circumstances? Of course. But you will always get better results by focusing on how you can improve the individual, rather than trying to change the system.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!