Author Topic: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"  (Read 15263 times)

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2404
  • Location: Avalon
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #150 on: September 13, 2017, 12:59:10 PM »
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #151 on: September 13, 2017, 12:59:17 PM »
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
I don't see government as inherently good or bad, it's a tool that can be used in either direction. Specific things:
  • Remove barriers artificially limiting housing supply along Coastal California. The cost of housing is a major problem for the poor, and pricing them out of vibrant urban centers to poor rural areas with limited job options just makes it worse. The wealthy may have to live with poor people moving into their neighborhoods.
  • Increase density of urban areas and vastly increase public transit options. There's a interesting bit of history around why BART does not extend down the wealthy SF Peninsula - those folks will need to get over their aversion to "riff-raff" riding public transit to/through their neighborhoods.
  • Increase school funding. Yes, I know this takes money, but improving education is the best long term option for addressing poverty. The wealthy *and* middle class will have to accept higher property or other taxes to pay for this.
  • Increase school choice. I'm familiar with the arguments about how school choice may negatively impact some public schools, but if a school/district is failing to meet certain standards we need to give poor parents options. The wealthy may have to accept poor students crossing district lines.
  • Single payer. Healthcare costs in the US are astronomical compared to other countries, and our outcomes aren't better. Like housing, healthcare is a burden for the poor. The wealthy will need to give up special tax treatment of employer provided insurance.

I agree, government is not inherently good or bad but it is easily corruptible via money and special interest.

I find it interesting that all the things you would change are things that the government is controlling. 1. I agree, get rid of zoning laws. 2. Goes with number 1 but peopel should be allowed to choose the density they want to live in and what transit they want to utilize. No one should be forced into a certain density. 3. I don't see how this helps anything. We currently spend more per student than anywhere on the globe. This is throwing good money after bad. 4. I agree, school choice is a move in the right direction. 5. If your saying we need single payer because our health care cost is to expensive, I disagree. I would like to see the health care industry deregulated, reform tort law, deregulate health insurance, etc. before me move to single payer.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #152 on: September 13, 2017, 01:00:35 PM »
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #153 on: September 13, 2017, 01:02:32 PM »
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.

Edit: I don't want to contribute to further derailing this thread. Let's not start with fake news.

But seriously, even though we have the internet as a source of information are you being genuine when you argue that you can't influence what people think by spending money? That's what advertising is, no matter the medium.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 01:05:40 PM by Dabnasty »

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #154 on: September 13, 2017, 01:02:51 PM »
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
If a child wants to work I don't see why they shouldn't be able too.

The 21st century is much different than the 19th. Also, why are you comparing one static time in history with another? The progress and technology innovations over those century's was astounding. The bottom 5% of Americans live better than the kings of of the 18th century, for example.

Happier? Debatable.

Healthier? I think your splitting hairs if your comparing the health of one industrialized nation to another. Overall global heath has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years due to free markets.

Safer? Same as above. Splitting hairs. Are you talking about murder rate, weather related deaths or health related deaths?
We have restrictions on child labor because it is easy to take advantage of them. It's more or less the same reason you can't have sex with a minor. How do you feel about that law?

Also, children can start working at 14 with additional restrictions on when and how much until they are 18. These laws came about for a reason, people were being abused. In an idealist view people choose where to work and how much but unfortunately someone who needs money or even someone who thinks they need a certain amount of money is at a disadvantage in negotiating their terms.


Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #155 on: September 13, 2017, 01:10:18 PM »
Someone wealthy enough can own a newspaper or a TV station. These have a strong influence over what people think and believe. Money can and does influence government policy. More money buys better lawyers...

There's plenty of examples but I kind of thought it was understood that money=power.

I realize this is inevitable and we can't force things to be what we want. I'm simply responding to the basic question of "What is the problem with income inequality"

That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?

Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.

I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth. 

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #156 on: September 13, 2017, 01:12:02 PM »
I'm not saying advertising doesn't work. Individuals have the responsibility to find the truth.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #157 on: September 13, 2017, 01:18:05 PM »
That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.
I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth.
I don't necessarily mean legally. They wouldn't run a known false ad. Admittedly in some cases it may be difficult to determine a statement true or false.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #158 on: September 13, 2017, 01:19:47 PM »
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
If a child wants to work I don't see why they shouldn't be able too.

The 21st century is much different than the 19th. Also, why are you comparing one static time in history with another? The progress and technology innovations over those century's was astounding. The bottom 5% of Americans live better than the kings of of the 18th century, for example.

Happier? Debatable.

Healthier? I think your splitting hairs if your comparing the health of one industrialized nation to another. Overall global heath has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years due to free markets.

Safer? Same as above. Splitting hairs. Are you talking about murder rate, weather related deaths or health related deaths?
We have restrictions on child labor because it is easy to take advantage of them. It's more or less the same reason you can't have sex with a minor. How do you feel about that law?

Also, children can start working at 14 with additional restrictions on when and how much until they are 18. These laws came about for a reason, people were being abused. In an idealist view people choose where to work and how much but unfortunately someone who needs money or even someone who thinks they need a certain amount of money is at a disadvantage in negotiating their terms.

Ok, clearly those two things are not at all the same thing.

If someone needs or thinks they need a certain amount of money and the government tells them its illegal for them to work they simply went from a shitty job with low pay to no job and no pay. They are worse off.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 01:22:11 PM by Pooplips »

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Age: 31
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #159 on: September 13, 2017, 01:21:09 PM »
That's why the internet is so fantastic. I can get my news from all kinds of difference sources and opinions. The centralized narrative of media outlets has been destroyed in the last few decades.

I agree, money buys influence in government. So we should shrink the government to limit that influence as much as possible.
What's your plan to shrink the influence of the Russian government through buying Facebook political ads?
Russia can't buy ads in the New York Times?
Not if they are false.
I'm going to have to do research on this because I'm not entirely sure that's accurate.

I think Russia can do business with Facebook anyway they see fit. If Facebook is running false Russian sponsored political ads so be it. I won't use their service. (and don't by the way)

Individuals have a personal responsibility to find the truth.
I don't necessarily mean legally. They wouldn't run a known false ad. Admittedly in some cases it may be difficult to determine a statement true or false.

So if the Russian Government runs true ads, is that wrong?

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #160 on: September 13, 2017, 01:27:46 PM »
I'm not saying advertising doesn't work. Individuals have the responsibility to find the truth.
If you truly believe it's ok to say whatever you want and that individuals are responsible for figuring out if it's true or not then we're on very different wavelengths.

With the amount of information available today, how can an individual possibly sort through it all and find the truth? If you have multiple sources of information available, how do you decide which one is true? Does everyone in the world go out and do their own investigative reporting? Do they just believe what feels right? Or whatever supports their previously held beliefs.

I feel I may be getting trolled at this point but if not I hope you really stop to think about what you're saying.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #161 on: September 13, 2017, 02:28:59 PM »

Do you not realise that companies only exist because governments make it so?  That they are an artificial legal structure entirely dependent on the will of government to create the laws that enable them to exist?  That the reason all the CEO's wealth is not at risk to pay the company's debts is because the government says so?  That the reason the CEO doesn't go to prison when the company kills someone, or defrauds someone, is because the government says so?  That in return for this limited liability it is entirely right that companies operate within the regulatory and tax structures that those governments think appropriate in return for those extraordinary benefits?  That there is no conceptual difference between regulating for a minimum wage and regulating for a maximum wage?

Good dog, people.  Such blinding ignorance.
well yes, I agree with this statement. Companies were conceived of to limit risk. People can join together to diversify and to limit going bankrupt if someone were to sue.

However, limiting pay does not discourage the problems(environmental, social, etc) caused by corporations. Simply change the legal sturcture so that someone is, at least partially, personally responsible for its actions; the CEO, board, etc. Why is someone not locked up in jail, right now, what the BP gulf spill?

BOLDED SHOULD BE MOD EDIT

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #162 on: September 13, 2017, 04:09:17 PM »
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #163 on: September 13, 2017, 04:58:24 PM »
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?

My wife has the same deal and I have not adequately modeled our plan for it.  How does it work if you stop early?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5339
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #164 on: September 13, 2017, 06:19:50 PM »
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4558
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #165 on: September 13, 2017, 06:56:28 PM »
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 07:01:42 PM by mm1970 »

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #166 on: September 13, 2017, 07:07:08 PM »
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #167 on: September 13, 2017, 07:09:27 PM »
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Yeah police and fire seem to have a sweet deal since they can rack up OT in their final years and juice their pensions.  And they seem to be able to collect early, and so have second careers while collecting the pension. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3437
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #168 on: September 13, 2017, 07:21:43 PM »
Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 
I have nothing against providing gold-plated benefits to the military. It's keeping 1.5 million people on payroll full-time I have a problem with.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
  • Age: 38
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #169 on: September 13, 2017, 07:36:12 PM »
I have a few times wished that those military recruiters on my HS campus had talked about the retirement plain more than whatever else they were going on about cuz I would have 20 years right now.... or have done some then GI bill and slid into GS...  but I would have been in during 9/11 so it would have been that much harder.

While we are on the subject a few years back a friend who is a medical doctor in the Navy was surprised to learn that I working for a private company could be fired via text message and given nothing other than back pay and 20 min to clean out my desk.  It was just not in her world view that this  could happen to anyone.
Be the person Mr. Rogers knows you can be.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #170 on: September 14, 2017, 02:22:22 AM »
I agree that taking or condemning wealth is not the answer. But at the same time the wealthy need to accept that their wealth confers an outsized amount of power and influence (including the ability to influence elections and policy), and that their self interests often come at the expense of those who are less fortunate. IMO the focus on how much CEOs make is a convenient distraction from more difficult issues.

Thank you for your response. The point you make is an important one. What would you like to see to change that situation?

I would like to see government power shrink. No wealthy person can influence labor laws in their favor if there is no Department of Labor. I should be able to decide who I work for and under what conditions.
We tried that already early in the 19th century and before. It was horrible. I propose that we instead not bring back child labor and other abuses like those discussed in Upton Sinclaire's The Jungle.

Here's a thought. Most other industrialized countries have happier, healthier, safer populaces than the United States. Most of them also have more protection for labor, higher taxes, etc. Maybe we should try emulating models that we know work, rather than ones we know don't.
Because merica is different/bigger/better/has more violent people/more mentally ill people/different mindset. No laws that are beneficial in other developed countries could possibly work here.

jlcnuke

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #171 on: September 14, 2017, 06:27:24 AM »
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8792
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #172 on: September 14, 2017, 07:24:59 AM »
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.

Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 07:55:31 AM by GuitarStv »

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #173 on: September 14, 2017, 07:42:40 AM »
How does it work if you stop early?

You can defer it until age 62, but you don't get any inflation adjustments in between.  So if you retire at age 40 with a pension worth $15k per year, you will collect $15k per year starting in 22 years.  22 years from now,  $15k will be worth a whole lot less than it is today, if future inflation looks anything like historical inflation.

Unless you're military.  Then the pension is based on a percent of the grade's pay at the time you collect it, not a percent of your grade's pay when you stop working.  They get a much sweeter deal all around, but for some reason people don't seem to complain quite so much about a veteran's gravy train pension the way they do about a civil servant's much less generous pension.

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1787
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #174 on: September 14, 2017, 07:46:37 AM »
It depends on what type of gov employee, what you do, how generous your pension is, and when you can collect it.

It's a sliding scale of hatred.

Scientist.  One percent of my average salary over three consecutive years of employment times my total years of public service, and at age 62. 

How much do you hate me?
I don't hate you.  I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek.    I know that pensions vary quite a bit.  (I remember joining the Navy right when they were making pension changes.  I didn't stay in long enough to get a pension, and opted not to switch to the GS civilian crew also.)

But locally, for example, you can retire from the Sheriff's dept or the police force at 50 with 100% of your highest year's salary.  Including overtime.  So the closer you get to 50, the more overtime they give you.  We have many retired folks who are retired and pulling 100% of their highest salary for decades.  Just a quick search of pensions in my county from 2014 (most recent year) found 7 retired sheriffs making > $175,000 in pension, per year.  Plus benefits.  Year of retirements?  Starting in 2001.  (Plus a few thousand in benefits.)  Overall there are 13 retired Sheriffs making an average of $170,000 a year, times...20 years?  That's 44 million dollars.  $2.2M a year.  Gee I wonder why we have a budget shortfall.

I only pick on Sheriffs because my friend and neighbor's brother is one (retired), and she was describing his pension to me this weekend.  One of the professors at the university that I happen to know retired 11 years ago and has made between $170k and $215k every year for the last 5 years.  Probably the first few were a little less.  Another prof I know (who is not retired), started putting money into a 401k.  He's in his 50s and said "yeah, there is NO WAY this is sustainable."

Edited to add: The military's gravy train is also interesting to me.  Similarly seems maybe a bit generous, depending on the person.  I have a hometown friend who is relatively conservative, and she is very anti single-payer or Obamacare because "you need to work for your benefits" and "get a better job if you don't have benefits".  Which, you know, on some level I respect (except for the fact that there aren't enough jobs that provide benefits compared to the number of people who need them.) 

But anyway, I could at least understand that whole attitude UNTIL I realized that her wife (who was in the military) was discharged for medical reasons and has VA medical!  (Obviously most people who get out of the military after 1-2 tours do not qualify.  I do not know why she qualified, she got out in her 20s.)  So, you are WELCOME for those two CHILDBIRTHS that were paid for by TAX DOLLARS.

Yep, at the state and muni levels, some of the pension schemes are insane.  At the federal level, no premium pay (i.e., OT, night diff, etc.) counts toward your High-3. It's based only upon your base salary (and locality adjustment). In addition, the FERS pension system is solvent out to the 2090's (that's as far out as they look); the old CSRS system still has unfunded liabilities, but those go away by like 2030, when all the CSRS folks die off.

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #175 on: September 14, 2017, 08:04:26 AM »

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.

Im going to have to disagree.  DW is a professional GS15 employee.   She is making approximately $155k in the DC area.  Plus the pension.  Plus TSP match.  Plus the best health care.  Plus a 40/hr a week job.  That pension is going to pay her 40-50k a year for life, possibly more,  guaranteed, by the time she retires, not to mention continued health insurance.  A pension like that is easily worth an extra 1-1.5million over her career, and having that much invested does not guarantee she doesn't run out of money.  So in reality she is making between 200-250k a year.  I keep telling her if she wants to go to the private sector she would need to get a minimum of 350k+, counting the extra hours she would have to work. 

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #176 on: September 14, 2017, 09:25:19 AM »
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

starguru

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #177 on: September 14, 2017, 09:45:38 AM »
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

I'm not up on the terminology but GS 15 is the highest non management grade.  There is an "SES" scale above the GS scale for extremely senior people.  We are hoping DW can get on that.  And then the pension would be even more nuts than it already is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4558
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #178 on: September 14, 2017, 10:01:45 AM »

I'm ambivalent to it, but I think the myth that government employees are not paid well is complete and utter BS.  That pension is extremely valuable.   With COLAS I'm thinking my wife's pension is going to be worth 40k or more in the future.  On top of SS.  And my SS.  We are going to have 80k+ in benefits before drawing on our savings.  I'm not counting on it being around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gov employees, at least at the federal level, are overpaid if you are non-skilled labor/clerical staff (relative to the private sector), but underpaid if you are in a technical/professional position, even accounting for the pension. So why would any professional work there?  Simple -- lifestyle and security.  That's why I chose it.

Im going to have to disagree.  DW is a professional GS15 employee.   She is making approximately $155k in the DC area.  Plus the pension.  Plus TSP match.  Plus the best health care.  Plus a 40/hr a week job.  That pension is going to pay her 40-50k a year for life, possibly more,  guaranteed, by the time she retires, not to mention continued health insurance.  A pension like that is easily worth an extra 1-1.5million over her career, and having that much invested does not guarantee she doesn't run out of money.  So in reality she is making between 200-250k a year.  I keep telling her if she wants to go to the private sector she would need to get a minimum of 350k+, counting the extra hours she would have to work.
+1.  I'm familiar with the GS grades, the military pay grades from my former life.

I'd say that had I stayed in - either military or civilian in the DC area, my salary would be about equivalent to current market rate (although I'm not making current market rate, my spouse is.  That's a whole other story.)  But then I'd have to live in DC again.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #179 on: September 14, 2017, 10:15:26 AM »
Isn't GS-15 the highest paygrade? What's the counterpart civilian position?

I'm not up on the terminology but GS 15 is the highest non management grade.  There is an "SES" scale above the GS scale for extremely senior people.  We are hoping DW can get on that.  And then the pension would be even more nuts than it already is...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might have to look into some government work....there's a SSA building just down the street from my house that would be an awfully convenient bike ride.

jlcnuke

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #180 on: September 14, 2017, 12:01:16 PM »
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.

The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.

Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.


I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8792
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #181 on: September 14, 2017, 12:13:32 PM »
Part of the purpose of a progressive tax system is to enact policies to make sure that the rich don't take an excessively large slice of the pie.  That's why it's progressive . . . because we as a society have decided that the highest earners probably don't need all of that money and the government should take some from him or her to redistribute to the poor.

47%MMM

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Location: South Jersey
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #182 on: September 14, 2017, 12:39:40 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #183 on: September 14, 2017, 12:44:12 PM »
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.
The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.
Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.
I think they can be one in the same, it's just a matter of the degree of increases.

Regardless, the suggestion that this was the downfall of the Soviet Union is quite a stretch.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #184 on: September 14, 2017, 12:45:28 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #185 on: September 14, 2017, 02:09:34 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #186 on: September 14, 2017, 02:14:27 PM »
I'm curious if the people complaining about CEO salaries believe it should be the government's role to dictate how companies distribute their payrolls?
The government cannot help but do so, as any tax has at least some distortive effect, and no one has yet devised a nation that can exist without revenue. I don't think that the government needs to explicitly set salaries for CEOs, but it should enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large. And they should balance those policies with the need for efficiency and growth.
The USSR did a great job of implementing similar policies.. while they lasted.
Yes.  We should all fear any sort of taxation on the rich because it will make everyone a godless commie.  I mean, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, oh yeah, and the US . . . all goose-stepping pinkos.  Totally seems well thought out and reasonable.
I thought everyone should be able to tell the difference between a progressive tax system and something which would "enact policies to make sure that their slice of the pie is not excessively large"? The former is a method of taxing income somewhat more as income increases, the latter is saying "he doesn't deserve to get the money he earned because it's too much and the government should thus take some of it from him". Apparently I was wrong, so hopefully you can now grasp the difference now that I've pointed it out for you.
I think they can be one in the same, it's just a matter of the degree of increases.

Regardless, the suggestion that this was the downfall of the Soviet Union is quite a stretch.

Income taxation is not the same as maximum salary setting, though. We don't try to set salaries in the private market, we tax your market wage and your capital income.

There's no convincing reason that we should be setting maximum wages for any jobs. Well, I mean the government obviously has to set pay-bands for people they directly employ, but there's no convincing reason we should tell Apple that they can only pay their CEO $X/year. It's just a hunch of "I think those people are paid too much."

Should be handled through progressive taxation, though I disagree that we have any idea what the "correct" level of inequality is.

Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!

Optimiser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Age: 34
  • Location: PNW
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #187 on: September 14, 2017, 02:19:47 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #188 on: September 14, 2017, 02:25:54 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal
We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Wasn't suggesting you buy regular bread, only that bread isn't a necessity or that you can make homemade (and still pay a premium for flour with gluten replacers admittedly)

Sorry if you have to deal with people who roll their eyes when you say "gluten free" in real life. There is ignorance on both sides of the whole gluten thing, those that think they need to be gluten free when they don't and those who think everyone who buys gluten free is silly.

47%MMM

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Location: South Jersey
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #189 on: September 14, 2017, 02:26:10 PM »
Quote
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

My wife & I thought celiac was an Oprah disease so when the doctor diagnosed her we laughed at the doctor and said we didn't believe it without some form of a positive scientific test. So we had our 4 y/o go through an endoscopy to test for it, and it was confirmed that she did indeed have celiac. Great parenting there...

To my other editor, I agree. We don't have to buy GF bread but at all but if we do, this is how much GF bread costs regardless of brand (if you can find other kinds). As an alternative, I even found a bread maker (free from neighbor) and tried 4 different recipes of homemade bread and my daughter will not eat any of it. Side note: homemade GF bread still costs $3+ a loaf.

I could just say "no bread for you" but it's already hard enough for her with other foods her sister can have.

On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:27:41 PM by 47%MMM »

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #190 on: September 14, 2017, 02:29:04 PM »
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.

Optimiser

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Age: 34
  • Location: PNW
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #191 on: September 14, 2017, 02:33:33 PM »
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
It's more an issue of texture than taste in my opinion.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #192 on: September 14, 2017, 02:42:33 PM »
Quote
I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.
Pretty sure that's what the poster was implying :)
I've had gluten-free bread before. Yuck. I'd rather go without bread, personally!
Yes. And now I want to try gluten free bread...just so I know what it tastes like. But I'm not paying $6.50.
It's more an issue of texture than taste in my opinion.

Yep. Gluten is mostly what gives dough its elasticity, which means CO2 is trapped during fermentation causing the dough to rise. Gluten free bread lacks much of this elasticity so most of the CO2 escapes resulting in much less rise and very dense bread. Whole wheat bread has a similar problem, the bran and germ interrupt the dough (think popping a balloon) so the resulting bread is relatively more dense.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #193 on: September 14, 2017, 02:44:46 PM »
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8792
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #194 on: September 14, 2017, 02:52:51 PM »
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #195 on: September 14, 2017, 02:54:39 PM »
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
Magic

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4558
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #196 on: September 14, 2017, 02:56:26 PM »
the shame of $6 bread...lol

most bread I see cost $3-4, what is the big deal


We have to buy Udi Gluten Free bread for my celiac daughter because it's the only kind she will eat. It's $6.50 at Costco. I calculated it's $0.50 PER SLICE! I freeze it and only get out what is actually going to eat then, not wasting any of that gold!

#bread1%er
FTFY :)

She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

I don't have celiac, but I don't eat gluten for other reasons. Most of the time I just don't eat bread, but I do occasionally splurge on expensive GF bread.

My grandmother did have celiac, when she was growing up there wasn't commercially available GF bread. She learned how to make her own gluten free bread, it was better than Udi's and didn't cost anywhere near $.50/slice.

You don't have to buy gluten free bread, you choose to. (and there is nothing wrong that)
I recently started avoiding gluten as an experiment - I don't think it agrees with me (I've tested the waters a bit lately...ugh).

I haven't made the jump to buying GF bread or learning to make my own.  I was hoping that the problem would go away.  Instead, been eating corn tortillas, rice, beans, potatoes.  I'd kill for a sandwich right now.

I might have to make that step, but man with 2 kids and a FT job, baking bread just isn't high on my list.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #197 on: September 14, 2017, 02:57:47 PM »
On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Have you ever tried cream cheese pancakes?

1oz cream cheese:1 egg ratio, blend to smooth and cook like a pancake. It's like an extra rich crepe. You will be amazed.

How does it rise?
They're fairly flat like a crepe but now that you mention it I might try adding some baking powder.

I must experiment.

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4558
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #198 on: September 14, 2017, 02:58:02 PM »
Quote
She's celiac. Assuming she's actually diagnosed then she can't eat it. Gluten is in so much of our food, makes it very difficult if you really must avoid it (rather than doing it for other reasons). I guess she could avoid bread altogether, but a small amount of $6.50 bread in this case seem reasonable.

My wife & I thought celiac was an Oprah disease so when the doctor diagnosed her we laughed at the doctor and said we didn't believe it without some form of a positive scientific test. So we had our 4 y/o go through an endoscopy to test for it, and it was confirmed that she did indeed have celiac. Great parenting there...

To my other editor, I agree. We don't have to buy GF bread but at all but if we do, this is how much GF bread costs regardless of brand (if you can find other kinds). As an alternative, I even found a bread maker (free from neighbor) and tried 4 different recipes of homemade bread and my daughter will not eat any of it. Side note: homemade GF bread still costs $3+ a loaf.

I could just say "no bread for you" but it's already hard enough for her with other foods her sister can have.

On the plus side of the bread maker, we discovered a kick ass recipe for GF pizza that everyone in the house likes and the kids love making it.
Please share?

47%MMM

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Location: South Jersey
Re: NY Times article -- "What the Rich Won't Tell You"
« Reply #199 on: September 14, 2017, 03:07:04 PM »

Please share?
[/quote]

Pizza Crust Dough in the Bread Machine

Wet Ingredients

   1. 1 cup of water
   2. 2 tablespoons of butter
   3. 1 tablespoon maple syrup
   4. 1 + 1/2 teaspoon apple cider vinegar

Dry Ingredients

   1. 1 + 2/3 cups brown rice flour
   2. 1/4 cup corn starch
   3. 2 tablespoons potato starch
   4. 2 tablespoons corn meal (just plain corn meal, not corn bread mixes - watch for gluten free status)
   5. 1 + 1/2 teaspoons xantham gum
   6. 1 teaspoon salt
   7. 1 teaspoon each: garlic powder, onion powder, Italian seasoning (see note above about spice substitution)

Yeast

   1. 1 teaspoon yeast

Instructions

   1. Combine the dry ingredients in a medium sized mixing bowl. Mix with spoon, smushing any lumps.
   2. Put ingredients in bread machine as listed below
   3. Add wet ingredients to the bread machine.
   4. Add dry mixture on top, making sure to completely cover the wet.
   5. Add the yeast on top of the center of the dry ingredients.
   6. Let the machine do its magic. (My dough cycle takes an hour and 30 minutes)

Once the dough is finished

   1. If you're not going to use it immediately, refrigerate or freeze it until ready to use
   2. When ready to use preheat the oven to 400 degrees
   3. Sprinkle pan or mat with a bit of corn meal - optional
   4. Divide the dough in to however many pizzas you want to make.
   5. Spread the dough on to the pan. If it's sticking to your hands, dust your hands with a bit of corn meal. You can spread the dough as thin as you want. Ours was pretty thick.
   6. Bake the dough (with no toppings) for about 15 minutes.
   7. Take the dough out, and add toppings as desired.
   8. Return to oven and bake for 10 - 15 minutes or until desired done-ness.
   9. Eat.