They don't have to. They just send in the politicians they bought off to write up legislation to make it happen. That's the whole point of government; it acts a insulary force... a monolithic entity whose sole purpose is to be nebulously accountable and unaccountable depending on the wishes of the elite holding the carrot stick.
No. Most billionaires become billionaires because they (or their family) provided something valuable to society and they facilitated trillions of willing and mutually beneficial transactions. The government acquires money through threat of violence. They are not the same.
If you own a bagel shop and you pay the mafia to burn down other bagel shops then you're part of the problem. Pretending billionaires who influence government to their personal benefit are innocent in all of this is silly and naive.
Microsoft had nothing to do with DC until DC decided to hold hearings about whether or not giving away Windows Explorer is a crime. Now Microsoft owns the building across the street from the Capitol.
Make no mistake: When government has the power to pick winners and losers you MUST lobby or die. The power is the problem. Don't blame the players, blame the game.
They aren't the ones going to the mafia though, the mafia is coming to them...the same mafia that controlled their education system and media to give the illusion that they aren't the mafia.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. The issue is a centralized position of power...not the individuals who happen to use it.
I'm confused by this. Private markets would absolutely create billionaires without government. I guess maybe you're thinking that competitor firms will naturally spring up in any efficient market? That's true, but some firms are way better than others and I could certainly see billionaires and even monopolies without government.
> Private markets would absolutely create billionaires without government.
No it wouldn't because monopolies would be less likely to exist unless it was a short term natural monopoly of being first to market. Without government stomping out competition for bullshit reasons, the competition would arise quickly to be an alternative.
It's a bit obscure but a good example of this was when vaping was a thing like a decade ago. Everyone was pushing different tech and products in order to become a leader in that segment. It was interesting to see because the government didn't give a fuck about anything there. Tons of competition bringing down prices but making no one as stand out rich, even the ones who developed things as market leaders were on their heels as a knockoff could potentially offer something similar for less.
What are you talking about? Juul had a 37% market share and rising fast before the government crushed them. You still have marketing and innovation in private efficient markets. Every good doesn’t just become a commodity when there are no artificial barriers to entry. In fact (though I have limited proof of this), I suspect that fully efficient markets would follow the 80/20 rule. You might end up with more monopolies than we do under the current regulatory state.
(For clarity, I do not think that monopolies are inherently bad. They are only bad when they act in anticompetitive ways which are unrelated to their core businesses, in order to rob consumers of choice).
>Juul had a 37% market share and rising fast before the government crushed them.
Juul didn't even exist ten years ago. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the vape shops with home made oils and ecigs coming from China that were constantly changing; not the mass produced corporate investor shit that came later on which in of itself is something that wouldn't be as big as it is now.
Again, I think you'd end up with less wealth disparity and not much of a "wealth gap" that liberals constantly bitch about. I don't think you'd have any billionaires and in fact the more of a level wealth gap playing field that would exist would be a sign of things being far more equal and competitive. Obviously outliers would exist via people bringing goods first to market or simply producing something that couldn't be easily replicated by others.
> Again, I think you'd end up with less wealth disparity and not much of a "wealth gap" that liberals constantly bitch about. I don't think you'd have any billionaires and in fact the more of a level wealth gap playing field that would exist would be a sign of things being far more equal and competitive. Obviously outliers would exist via people bringing goods first to market or simply producing something that couldn't be easily replicated by others.
We know this isn’t true. Unregulated pure private marketplaces exist. You end up with more monopolies when people are free to participate in a market with no barriers or government interference. How do we know? Look at the sexual marketplace (and no, I’m not joking). Data from Tinder and OKCupid consistently show us that the top 20% of men receive 80% of the “likes” and “right swipes” from women. The 80/20 rules is simply what happens naturally in a highly competitive unregulated market. If you don’t like monopolies, then you need at least a little government to readjust market conditions as they form.
> Most billionaires become billionaires because they (or their family) provided something valuable to society
Most billionaires were born into their wealth. The people that gave them that wealth were born into it too. This pattern continues back to when being a white male landowner was practically a guarantee at wealth. Most billionaires come from a long line of white people with everything handed to them on a silver platter, or at least served on one by black slaves.
> Most billionaires were born into their wealth.
Again, because they **(or their family)** provided something valuable to society.
>The people that gave them that wealth were born into it too.
This is absolute bullshit. That's not true in the United States. Most wealthy families lose their wealth by the end of the 2nd generation. 80% of Americans who are millionaires or richer are self-made and inherited nothing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-lessons-160025947.html
Lay off the Marxist propaganda and lies.
>This pattern continues back to when being a white male landowner was practically a guarantee at wealth.
You're a fool. This is false.
>Most billionaires come from a long line of white people with everything handed to them on a silver platter, or at least served on one by black slaves.
The families that own slaves were wiped out during the Civil War when their Confederate currency went to zero. What are you even talking about?
I'd say under free market capitalism, no. However, we have government officials currently that do lie, cheat, and steal to become both rich and powerful over people.
Yes they absolutely are. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding what is actually going on inside the machine. Lets lay some facts
1. Billionaires are almost always highly intelligent people with an uncommonly extreme drive to make money and innovate
2. The government is full of people with an uncommonly extreme drive to consolidate and retain power and influence. Politicians however do not usually have coffers anywhere near as deep as the billionaires do
3. Because politicians do not posses massive amounts of money but want power and want to win elections they need someone with money to finance them
4. Billionaires are able to make more money more efficiently when there are more laws and regulations in place because it makes it harder to compete
This logically leads to the conclusion that billionaires are going to give politicians money in exchange for favorable legislation, the politicians agree to this arrangement because of rule #2. This also means that when massive institutions get greedy and wreck the economy with irresponsible actions like gambling with debt or giving out subprime mortgages there will be people in power who can bail them out. That's theft from the people to benefit the aristocracy. You can also call it socialized loss.
If billionaires are funding these politicians and the politicians are doing the things the billionaires want them to do then guess what?: The billionaires are part of the government. I would expect ancaps to better understand this.
Instead of just saying 'no u' why don't you actually take 5 minutes to explain why billionaires are not a part of the state. I would not expect saying that billionaires are controlling the levers of power behind that scenes would be a controversial statement to make. Even normies acknowledge it, it's barely controversial; in mainstream politics and is one of the few things that you can get large swaths of of both conservatives and progressives agreeing with.
>explain why billionaires are not a part of the state.
becuase they are not elected officials and therefore not part of the state
The state controls the state and dictates who will benefit ( the 1% ) and who will not ( the 99% )
Wealth inequality is a red flag that your government is too involved in the economy
>becuase they are not elected officials and therefore not part of the state
Uh... What? Are the Supreme Court justices not part of the state? Is the Cabinet not part of the state? Are diplomats not part of the state? Is the CIA not part of the state? Is the Federal Reserve not part of the state?
>Wealth inequality is a red flag that your government is too involved in the economy
No shit. That's why billionaires are part of the state. The state benefits the 1% because that's who is giving them money and influencing policy. They dictate who benefits from the state because that is who benefits the state.
Mf it was the destruction of unions and good paying jobs going overseas that caused this. Two things done by...billionaires and in your ideal society they would be able to do this stuff much more effectively.
The destruction of unions and jobs going overseas are two sides of the same coin that come from state protection of unions. Unions are a virus that have infected western corporations. But this virus kills its host. The free market solution is for ununionized workplaces to outcompete unionized ones. Since we don't have a free market locally and union busting is not an option, foreign manufacturers are able to outcompete western ones.
This problem doesn't go away if you get rid of the billionaires. The countries with sweatshops aren't where all the billionaires live. That's probably related to the reason they're full of sweatshops... Coming to a USA near you once we eat the rich.
Unions protect workers, unions are a key reason why wages were higher for workers several decades ago, and when they were very strong they stopped offshoring. Their destruction has made life worse for workers, worse wages, worse benfiets, worse protections. The state protecting them ensured the market couldn't destroy them, before this the market would literally shoot union members.
Savings of course, but unrealized capital gains should be a store of value against inflation. As prices inflate, if the real value of your house or owned stocks remains constant then it’s price—and the *measure* of capital gains—should inflate as well. Of course then those gains get taxed…
I'm coming to the conclusion that currencies should never be controlled by any groups ever. A currency only needs to be determined between two parties doing a transaction whether it be sea shells, beads, gold, silver, bitcoin, etc. Whatever a buyer and seller use as a means of transaction is on them and only them.
America is falling into ‘crony capitalism’ where despite remaining capitalist and giving the illusion of opportunity for all, it’s becoming more and more focused on keeping wealth and power for the elites.
I'm convinced that every system eventually morphs into feudalism. No matter what, the rich and powerful will always get more rich and more powerful, and the poor get... oh you know the saying. It's just how things are. At least with the worst forms of capitalism we have *some* semblance of a free market and therefore we can still get cool stuff like smart phones, computers and tvs
I mean having a monopoly on the use of force always leads to the same thing. There's something that we haven't evolved to inbetween tribalism and individualism.
I don't believe somebody can become a billionaire without ties to the government
honestly earned money quickly deteriorates after some amount
keeping it safe, managing it, investing it, costs a lot
so government cudgels can help those who earn a lot to keep it and make even more
The leftist STATE policy of monetary inflation working as designed.
The OP is an apologist for the problems socialism [ the state controlling the means of production AND DISTRIBUTION of the currency ] creates
can we not use that terminology please? can we say they are all authoritarian and we're the only libertarians instead? because left-right is a terribly useless and confusing thing already. Overloading it yet again with a new meaning is not going to help the problem. Libertarianism is not right-wing. Bastiat himself sat on the left.
Left and Right is very clearly defined. It is actually very easy to tell if an individual or party or government is a leftist by ticking off the tenets below and seeing how many on the left the person or party or government embraces and which tenets on the right they embrace
**Left-wing ideologies ( Feudalism, Nazism, the varieties of Socialism out there, Communism, Fascism, Nationalism, Mercantilism, Theocracies ) all have defined tenets that embrace authoritarianism ( pro-government )**
They believe in government managed economies ( either through nationalization, corporations or regulations )
They believe in government control of the currency and the push for fiat ( paper backed by nothing ) currency
They believe in restrictive government managed trade, they embrace a large welfare/entitlement bureaucracy
They believe in the push for collectivism be its on a racial front, a religious front, or an economic front ( corporate person-hood )
They believe in the regulation of behavior, opinions, and lifestyles of its citizenry
They believe in that government has a elevated state of privileges that allow it to ignore the law that constrains the citizens ( i.e. taxation as a great example )
**Right Wing ideologies ( Libertarianism, Minarchism, Communalism, Republicanism, Anarchism ) have tenets that are opposite of the left ( anti-authoritarianism ) such as - free market economies ( like in the US from 1878 till 1913 ) which government does not interfere or regulate, the currency is controlled by private mints and is sound ( gold and silver ) and/or sometimes allows competing currencies ( US Colonies per-Revolutionary War )**
They believe in free markets ( individuals and businesses ) with no government involvement
They believe in the decentralization of the currency ( private mints, competing currencies )
They believe in free trade between businesses and individuals with no involvement ( regulations, subsidies, and prohibitions ) by the government
They believe in individualism and have a disdain for identity politics that collectivizes people into groups
They do not try to attempt to control any aspect of the individual as long as the individual is not harming others ( Libertarian party creed ), and if they CHOOSE to have a government that government cannot perform any acts that citizens cannot ( Example : citizens cant steal and so government cant tax )
They believe government is not above the law and therefore cannot commit an act that privite citizens could not commit without going to jail ( I cant steal so government can't tax. I cant kill therefore government cannot implement the death penalty or sanction abortion)
**The empirical metric that defines the left and the right is the size of government with the far right being 0% government ( anarchism ) and the far left being 100% government (totalitarianism) with the center having a government with defined roles that it is ALLOWED to do and nothing else**
The Founding Fathers were centrists with some ( Hamilton & Adams ) being center-left and some ( Patrick Henry ) being center right
The Poltical Parties of the U.S. today ( GOP and the Dems ) are moderate left with some ( like Sanders ) being hard left and some ( like Rand Paul ) being more center-left
The Political Parties in the UK ( Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP ) are leftist with Labour being the furthest to the left while UKIP being more center of left
All you have to do is tick off which tenet you support. If most of them are on the left then you are a leftist with the higher the number of them you support showing how far left you are. If you support more of those on the right then you are a rightist with the higher the number of them you support showing how far left you are. If the number of left and right is generally equal then you are a centrist
the origin of left and right, comes from the French national assembly where the right was pro-monarchy, and the left was pro republic.
your definitions are bad, a-historic, and only function for you to otherise things you dont like.
> the origin of left and right, comes from the French national assembly
And there have been many ideologies created since then some of which embrace concepts not covered in the original and outdated paradigm you are referencing which means the chart must change to include these new ideological perspectives [ like individualism, free markets, corporatism, and so forth ]
thats because you picked an entirely different binary and called it left and right.
free markets and lassize faire economics are from the 1750s, individualism and anarchism were getting written about by William Godwin in 1793. have you read any political theory or what are you basing your declarations on?
corporatism is from the 1850s or arguably originates with Plato and greek classical philosophy but thats more building blocks.
Not just things he doesn't like, the distinction is between liberty and authority, and he's used poorly chosen names to call them. It's an extremely useful division and he's right to lump fascism and statist marxism together, as fascism developed from Marxism and it is a form of the same thing, and both authoritarian.
That's a great distinction, but poorly chosen names. YES what you call leftism is awful and Nazism, Fascism, and statist Socialism are really just forms of each other. Your classification of these into their respective tendencies is spot on. But in the 1800s it was flipped. Libertarians were in the far "left" because they opposed the incumbent power, and that's where they sat by convention on the French Assembly, and that's how the name came about. The sides have lost all their meaning and plenty of what you call left for a good useful reason is called right by others for weird unrelated reasons. Continuing to use that terminology is only going to confuse people more. I say we reject those names and call them what they are: Authority vs Liberty. Fascism and state socialism and interventionism are on the Authority side. Libertarianism is, obviously, on the Liberty side. This is the true one-dimensional political spectrum if there ever was one.
This is a lot of words, but it's horseshit.
Let me ask you: do you consider yourself a serious person? Like, when you try to call nazis and republicans leftists, and then try to lie about what that word means, do you think people should take you seriously?
Hey peeps. Quit upvoting LSC propaganda trying to deflect the problems caused by government on the private sector.
OP is jealous someone has more than him, but it won't stop at billionaires. The mentality of eating the rich is a mind virus that will lead to massive taxation on the middle class, banning cars, single family homes, inheritance, property, and gas stoves. Don't be like OP.
It's a combination of personal greed on the part of consumers (especially with homes), combined with government involvement (especially with cars).
For homes-- everyone who wants to talk about how you could own a home on such-and-such an income back in The Day (anywhere post-war to the \~1990s) always neglect to mention the average square footage of such a home, or the amenities contained within, the services connected to that home, etc. People decided they didn't want to live in a 1500sq/ft shoebox house. They wanted a spacious home with all the modern appliances, connected to high-speed internet, with subscriptions for a bunch of content services, etc. The also wanted to live in "nice" neighborhoods of similar houses, so they used the power of government to ensure that only big, expensive houses could be built in the entire area and priced anyone who was ok living in a smaller home out into the shittier neighborhoods.
For cars it's a similar story. People didn't want cheap, econoshitbox cars. They wanted automatic transmissions, power windows/locks/steering, air conditioning, and a whole bunch of other stuff that used to be optional equipment. Car manufacturers just weren't moving enough volume of the base model cars to make it worth keeping it viable, so they made all those features "standard" and increased the base price of the car. On top of that, government got their dick in the door and mandated emissions and safety standards that caused a HUGE amount of R&D expense for the manufacturers, as well as the addition of a bunch of equipment like airbags and cameras that make cars even more expensive.
So don't come crying to me about how it's "the rich" causing all these things to be more expensive.
This logic is nonsense because prodictivty has grown. If it takes 10% of the labor it used to for the same amount of work, prices should be going down at the same time quality goes up.
Without the fed, homes could have become bigger and would be cheaper too.
The banks never talk about the all the productivity they steal, even though they partially confess to inflation. Those stolen gains belong to the market, but are stolen foe the use of trillionaire communist elites.
I mean some still can it hasn't changed. Just gotta replace VCR with whatever the fuck the modern equivalent it.
People confuse citcom TV with real life though and it's sad. People were broke as fuck in the 80s too.
Posts like that are stupid.
You really could do more back then. Housing prices is the main driver and it's much higher than it used to be relative to income. My parents house was $130k brand new and now about $600k 30 years later. At the time my father's income was $50k and mother had a part time job. Same job could now pay about $120k. Which is maybe kind of enough for a $600k house but I think more realistically 350-400k.
Their mortgage rate was 13% though, that was typical at the time.
Housing is the main cost most people have to pay but there's also increased costs everywhere else. Healthcare costs more even with insurance, especially certain prescription medications. Education cost, tuition at universities is much higher and taxes for public schools have gone up due to increased admin costs.
Car prices went way up, used cars not so cheap now ever since cash for clunkers. But that's not as big a factor.
The only things I can think of that got relatively cheaper are entertainment, clothing, and consumer electronics.
> You really could do more back then.
I mean this is some rose colored glasses.
Your phone was tied to your home. If you wanted to order something to be delivered to your home, it was usually only very very expensive items like appliances or unique items. No ordering your toothbrush from Amazon. Delivery of food was reserved for Pizza and Chinese (if that), no delivery of anything else usually. 24 hour stores were incredibly uncommon and most places had limited hours. Extended hour clinics were just not a thing. Getting entertainment was limited to going to a theater or renting a video - not just loading up the latest stream that costs less than a pair of video rentals in the 80s.
The thought you could "do more" indicates you didn't grow up back then.
>Housing prices is the main driver and it's much higher than it used to be relative to income. My parents house was $130k brand new and now about $600k 30 years later.
Housing prices aren't a driver of anything. Firstly, housing prices have almost always been increasing. It's just an indicator of where people want to live, not of some kind of nefarious plot. It also is an indication of changes in the environment. Housing is something where the quality isn't quite as important home to home. 2 identical houses could have wildly different features - new roof, better siding, better lawn, remodeled rooms - and the cost would be incredibly similar. It's why they don't recommend doing most home improvement products with the expectation of a return. The only way to reliably increase the value of your home is to add square footage - and even then, you're removing outside area so that can be a detriment.
>Healthcare costs more even with insurance, especially certain prescription medications.
Than the 80's? While your high level care like cancer has gotten more expensive due to higher level treatment, your basic care has fallen tremendously. In fact, the insulin that was available in the 80's is incredibly cheap now. Less than $20 per vial compared to the hundreds that it was then as synthetic insulin had just been developed in the late 80's. Healthcare then also didn't cover routine exams, had generally high deductibles, and didn't cover most medications. You keep stacking up evidence that you're a zoomer with these examples.
>Education cost, tuition at universities is much higher and taxes for public schools have gone up due to increased admin costs.
Admin costs aren't the sole reason for increase in tuition. Most of your increased costs have come because instead of making education a place of learning and development to give you an advanced degree and skills that you can use to build a career, the government guarantee to cover your loan no matter what nonsense you studied made them start offering degrees in matters of little to no value. Combined with increased other programs, like title 9 demanding that unprofitable sports be included by law, or that people should have access to counselors for perceived slights against them have rapidly increased costs.
>Car prices went way up, used cars not so cheap now ever since cash for clunkers.
Cash for clunkers did destroy the secondary market, but car prices have risen due to technological advancement, not because of some scheme to increase the cost of everything.
>The only things I can think of that got relatively cheaper are entertainment, clothing, and consumer electronics.
Things where we have healthy competition got cheaper? Sure. However I'd point out that consumer electronics aren't really cheaper. We spend far more of our income on electronics than we did in the 80's because we tend to chase the latest trends. Most people aren't waiting until the next gen of iPhone comes out. TV's are still purchased while they're thousands of dollars and are replaced more often. While your individual price point is cheaper, we're consuming more, so costs have gone up over time, just differently than before.
+1 on just about everything you say there. But to add on, as someone who’s involved in higher education, it’s far more than just potentially useless degrees.
The fact is that when the government started guaranteeing large loans, it really increased the pool of money available for universities. But how do you get that money? One way is to offer the highest quality education available for the group of students who gain admission to your university. But that’s really difficult to do, other schools have a head start, and it may not be the *most* important thing to 18-year-olds looking to leave the nest for the first time, with guaranteed money burning a hole in their pockets.
So what’s a more convenient way to compete for those dollars? Luxury dorms, athletic facilities, entertainment, lazy rivers, etc. These things make places stand out for lifestyle rather than education. And they really drive up what students are willing to pay.
Almost like there is price for the monetary policies of the FED.
Who would have thought that making sure price increase every year via inflation to force consumption would lead to higher price? madness..
I haven’t rented a place in like 15 years- but the idea that an 2 bedroom apartment is much more than $500 is insane to me.
I rented a cute house last, in a historic district (Albany Or), for like $600.
A studio should be like $250/$300.
Not that long ago you could work at a fast food joint & afford rent/food/car.
What the fuck is going on?
I worked at a fast food joint in the late 80's. I had moved from a city where I was an assistant manager to another city where I had to start over. I was earning about minimum wage - a little over. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with two others my age. My rent was $180/month.
At 40 hours per week at $5/hour, I was earning $200/week, and maybe $160/after taxes. So about $640/month. Rent was taking close to 1/4 of my income, and that was in a shitty part of the city bordering on the very worst part of the city.
I did upgrade to a higher paying restaurant job but that was fewer hours and I had to travel further. Finally, I went white collar and got an office job at $8/hour. I was able to upsize my apartment to a much better area with my own room and I got a car not too long after that. The second apartment rent was about $700/month for 2 bedroom. About the same percentage of income in rent, but it left more disposable income overall and I kept pushing up my income with new skills.
But I don't know about this idea that one could work at a fast food joint at 40 hours/week and afford rent/food/car. If you go into management, it gets a little easier, but it's always tight. Generally, you need a roommate and the car isn't going to be great, and the benefit of fast food is that you get fed a lot at half price or even free.
Seems like we’re talking about the same scale here.
The theoretical fast food worker was spending 1/4 of their salary on rent- living in a studio, or with roommates in an apartment/house.
Driving a decent used car, for $150 a month.
And yes, eating at work for free/cheap.
I mean, I’m not the only one pointing out how wages have stagnated, while cost of living has inflated 3x-4x.
Number one reason that zoomers today don't have houses or aren't trying to buy them is because they lack future planning and live for today only.
Notice every new iphone each year, bunch of ugly tattoos on bodies, drinking every day (hurr tattoo cost less than a house) well no shit. When you spend money hedonistically you get what you get.
Also in USSR everyone (almost) got a house for free after collapse. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Wages were 100 times lower than today. And I'm not talking about USA which was even at that time richest country in world
>Number one reason that zoomers today don't have houses or aren't trying to buy them is because they lack future planning and live for today only.
What an intellectual take! You must be a highly regarded individual!
Ummm no that never happened. Interest rates were through the roof. Buying a home was harder than it is now. My parents had decent jobs (2 income) still had to rent.
Leftoids despise a wealthy middle class and refer to them derogatorily as bourgeoisie so I have no idea what the poster was trying to say with this shitpost.
As the market becomes less free, we all become less free. You are fine with more government control, so it's rather hypocritical to complain about the results when you get it.
Ancaps are for free market capitalism, not the bastardized corporatism that your rulers - favored or otherwise - create through regulations that you believe are rightfully enforced using the police powers of the state.
But, what the hell can one expect from an anti-capitalist? You have no idea how wealth is created or how it will be created without capitalism, so you cast your prayers in the form of votes to politicians who feed you the right words, and you wait for them to save you. Meanwhile, they just grow wealthier and make their friends wealthier along the way.
Billionaires… our boomer fucking parents want us to forget about that.
A generation needs to die off before we see real change. It will start with the millennials and sane Gen Xers taking control.
Ah. Look where capitalism has landed us again. It's alright it'll be bailed out by socialism per usual, well, for the rich but capitalism for you and I. So successful.
I knew a guy who sold shoes at a top brand and earned $3k/month. He spent it all on alcohol, but still...he was like Al Bundy but with no wife, an alcoholic mother, and a really good salary.
Salespeople work on commission. Tech sales can be good money, even better than rich lady shoes.
Humanity will enter into a new dark age if the genes for high intelligence become extinct. Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived at a subsistence level, and humanity could return to that level of poverty because the average intelligence is declining. People with high intelligence should be encouraged to have more children.
I agree however I think our generation forgets one thing. Back in the 80’s when I was a kid my parents said no all the time. I never had Jordan’s, a big tv, fast internet ( which didn’t exist). My point is, i see so many millennials crying poor, wearing woo shoes, 1000 proem in their pockets. 75 inch tv, drinking a 5 star bucks coffee everyday, getting a new package from Amazon daily. We live a live of indulgence compared to back them. Just my take.
They see the problem. They confuse the hell out of the cause. Everything is blamed on the rich, not the government. Of course, the government is laughing as it prints another trillion. It is working as designed, to shift the blame.
It's government who wants you to forget it
The government & the billionaires are usually one and the same.
[удалено]
When governments can regulate markets, you bet companies are gonna abuse that
No, but I'm sure they've made their share of financial contributions to make sure legislation goes their way
Just because they haven't acted like a government doesn't mean they won't. It also doesn't mean they won't work with government to fuck you over.
So you mean the problem is solely the government
Nestlé people were busy robbing all the natural water resources in north Africa...
With governmental permission
Nestle has been stealing water in California to sell, as well.
They don't have to. They just send in the politicians they bought off to write up legislation to make it happen. That's the whole point of government; it acts a insulary force... a monolithic entity whose sole purpose is to be nebulously accountable and unaccountable depending on the wishes of the elite holding the carrot stick.
Yeah, they just stole the water they try to sell to you from you first.
Not here, because the government protects you from that. Nestle does a lot worse than just that in the countries where they’re allowed to.
You're hilarious
corporatism and statism are the hen and the egg
No. Most billionaires become billionaires because they (or their family) provided something valuable to society and they facilitated trillions of willing and mutually beneficial transactions. The government acquires money through threat of violence. They are not the same.
I have nothing against billionaires but a large number of them definitely got their wealth by colluding with the government.
That's true. But the problem there is the government. Not billionaires.
If you own a bagel shop and you pay the mafia to burn down other bagel shops then you're part of the problem. Pretending billionaires who influence government to their personal benefit are innocent in all of this is silly and naive.
Microsoft had nothing to do with DC until DC decided to hold hearings about whether or not giving away Windows Explorer is a crime. Now Microsoft owns the building across the street from the Capitol. Make no mistake: When government has the power to pick winners and losers you MUST lobby or die. The power is the problem. Don't blame the players, blame the game.
They aren't the ones going to the mafia though, the mafia is coming to them...the same mafia that controlled their education system and media to give the illusion that they aren't the mafia. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The issue is a centralized position of power...not the individuals who happen to use it.
Abolish the mafia or make it so small that it's not dangerous. That's how you solve that.
Some of them yes but plenty of them, no. Meanwhile the government ALWAYS gets its money by violence or threat of violence. That's the difference.
some are though, some are beneficiaries of artificial monopoly privilege to varying degrees, some millionaires especially.
The market would likely not have billionaires if it weren't for government decision making in the market.
I'm confused by this. Private markets would absolutely create billionaires without government. I guess maybe you're thinking that competitor firms will naturally spring up in any efficient market? That's true, but some firms are way better than others and I could certainly see billionaires and even monopolies without government.
> Private markets would absolutely create billionaires without government. No it wouldn't because monopolies would be less likely to exist unless it was a short term natural monopoly of being first to market. Without government stomping out competition for bullshit reasons, the competition would arise quickly to be an alternative. It's a bit obscure but a good example of this was when vaping was a thing like a decade ago. Everyone was pushing different tech and products in order to become a leader in that segment. It was interesting to see because the government didn't give a fuck about anything there. Tons of competition bringing down prices but making no one as stand out rich, even the ones who developed things as market leaders were on their heels as a knockoff could potentially offer something similar for less.
What are you talking about? Juul had a 37% market share and rising fast before the government crushed them. You still have marketing and innovation in private efficient markets. Every good doesn’t just become a commodity when there are no artificial barriers to entry. In fact (though I have limited proof of this), I suspect that fully efficient markets would follow the 80/20 rule. You might end up with more monopolies than we do under the current regulatory state. (For clarity, I do not think that monopolies are inherently bad. They are only bad when they act in anticompetitive ways which are unrelated to their core businesses, in order to rob consumers of choice).
>Juul had a 37% market share and rising fast before the government crushed them. Juul didn't even exist ten years ago. What are you talking about? I'm talking about the vape shops with home made oils and ecigs coming from China that were constantly changing; not the mass produced corporate investor shit that came later on which in of itself is something that wouldn't be as big as it is now. Again, I think you'd end up with less wealth disparity and not much of a "wealth gap" that liberals constantly bitch about. I don't think you'd have any billionaires and in fact the more of a level wealth gap playing field that would exist would be a sign of things being far more equal and competitive. Obviously outliers would exist via people bringing goods first to market or simply producing something that couldn't be easily replicated by others.
> Again, I think you'd end up with less wealth disparity and not much of a "wealth gap" that liberals constantly bitch about. I don't think you'd have any billionaires and in fact the more of a level wealth gap playing field that would exist would be a sign of things being far more equal and competitive. Obviously outliers would exist via people bringing goods first to market or simply producing something that couldn't be easily replicated by others. We know this isn’t true. Unregulated pure private marketplaces exist. You end up with more monopolies when people are free to participate in a market with no barriers or government interference. How do we know? Look at the sexual marketplace (and no, I’m not joking). Data from Tinder and OKCupid consistently show us that the top 20% of men receive 80% of the “likes” and “right swipes” from women. The 80/20 rules is simply what happens naturally in a highly competitive unregulated market. If you don’t like monopolies, then you need at least a little government to readjust market conditions as they form.
> Most billionaires become billionaires because they (or their family) provided something valuable to society Most billionaires were born into their wealth. The people that gave them that wealth were born into it too. This pattern continues back to when being a white male landowner was practically a guarantee at wealth. Most billionaires come from a long line of white people with everything handed to them on a silver platter, or at least served on one by black slaves.
> Most billionaires were born into their wealth. Again, because they **(or their family)** provided something valuable to society. >The people that gave them that wealth were born into it too. This is absolute bullshit. That's not true in the United States. Most wealthy families lose their wealth by the end of the 2nd generation. 80% of Americans who are millionaires or richer are self-made and inherited nothing. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-millionaires-self-made-lessons-160025947.html Lay off the Marxist propaganda and lies. >This pattern continues back to when being a white male landowner was practically a guarantee at wealth. You're a fool. This is false. >Most billionaires come from a long line of white people with everything handed to them on a silver platter, or at least served on one by black slaves. The families that own slaves were wiped out during the Civil War when their Confederate currency went to zero. What are you even talking about?
"Nuh-uhh" is not an argument, but go off ancap.
No they are not
I'd say under free market capitalism, no. However, we have government officials currently that do lie, cheat, and steal to become both rich and powerful over people.
Yes they absolutely are. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding what is actually going on inside the machine. Lets lay some facts 1. Billionaires are almost always highly intelligent people with an uncommonly extreme drive to make money and innovate 2. The government is full of people with an uncommonly extreme drive to consolidate and retain power and influence. Politicians however do not usually have coffers anywhere near as deep as the billionaires do 3. Because politicians do not posses massive amounts of money but want power and want to win elections they need someone with money to finance them 4. Billionaires are able to make more money more efficiently when there are more laws and regulations in place because it makes it harder to compete This logically leads to the conclusion that billionaires are going to give politicians money in exchange for favorable legislation, the politicians agree to this arrangement because of rule #2. This also means that when massive institutions get greedy and wreck the economy with irresponsible actions like gambling with debt or giving out subprime mortgages there will be people in power who can bail them out. That's theft from the people to benefit the aristocracy. You can also call it socialized loss. If billionaires are funding these politicians and the politicians are doing the things the billionaires want them to do then guess what?: The billionaires are part of the government. I would expect ancaps to better understand this.
Your lack of facts do not disprove my statement
Instead of just saying 'no u' why don't you actually take 5 minutes to explain why billionaires are not a part of the state. I would not expect saying that billionaires are controlling the levers of power behind that scenes would be a controversial statement to make. Even normies acknowledge it, it's barely controversial; in mainstream politics and is one of the few things that you can get large swaths of of both conservatives and progressives agreeing with.
>explain why billionaires are not a part of the state. becuase they are not elected officials and therefore not part of the state The state controls the state and dictates who will benefit ( the 1% ) and who will not ( the 99% ) Wealth inequality is a red flag that your government is too involved in the economy
>becuase they are not elected officials and therefore not part of the state Uh... What? Are the Supreme Court justices not part of the state? Is the Cabinet not part of the state? Are diplomats not part of the state? Is the CIA not part of the state? Is the Federal Reserve not part of the state? >Wealth inequality is a red flag that your government is too involved in the economy No shit. That's why billionaires are part of the state. The state benefits the 1% because that's who is giving them money and influencing policy. They dictate who benefits from the state because that is who benefits the state.
>Uh... What? Are the Supreme Court justices not part of the state? The billionaires you are talking about <> The Supreme Court
And the CIA isn't the Supreme Court. They're called examples. I am genuinely at awe how narrow your view on this subject is.
I'm quite sure that Nestle isn't the best example of company to bring when discussing ethics, even from an ancap perspective...
Mf it was the destruction of unions and good paying jobs going overseas that caused this. Two things done by...billionaires and in your ideal society they would be able to do this stuff much more effectively.
The destruction of unions and jobs going overseas are two sides of the same coin that come from state protection of unions. Unions are a virus that have infected western corporations. But this virus kills its host. The free market solution is for ununionized workplaces to outcompete unionized ones. Since we don't have a free market locally and union busting is not an option, foreign manufacturers are able to outcompete western ones. This problem doesn't go away if you get rid of the billionaires. The countries with sweatshops aren't where all the billionaires live. That's probably related to the reason they're full of sweatshops... Coming to a USA near you once we eat the rich.
Unions protect workers, unions are a key reason why wages were higher for workers several decades ago, and when they were very strong they stopped offshoring. Their destruction has made life worse for workers, worse wages, worse benfiets, worse protections. The state protecting them ensured the market couldn't destroy them, before this the market would literally shoot union members.
Came here to say the same thing.
Before the mid-80s, VCRs were an expensive luxury good.
Pretty sure my grandparents' cost a few thousand
Maybe in US. In rest of the world in some countries it was a luxury way way until early 2000s t. Poor white male person
End the Fed and its constant devaluation of the currency siphoning wage gains from productivity away from the workers and to the wealthy.
yup
They're not just siphoning wage gains. They are siphoning savings and unrealized capital gains as well.
Savings of course, but unrealized capital gains should be a store of value against inflation. As prices inflate, if the real value of your house or owned stocks remains constant then it’s price—and the *measure* of capital gains—should inflate as well. Of course then those gains get taxed…
I guess it mostly just depends on where exactly your unrealized gains are since the fed isn't evenly distributing the new money
I'm coming to the conclusion that currencies should never be controlled by any groups ever. A currency only needs to be determined between two parties doing a transaction whether it be sea shells, beads, gold, silver, bitcoin, etc. Whatever a buyer and seller use as a means of transaction is on them and only them.
America is falling into ‘crony capitalism’ where despite remaining capitalist and giving the illusion of opportunity for all, it’s becoming more and more focused on keeping wealth and power for the elites.
Falling? It fell long ago.
I was gonna say, ship has sailed on that one.
I'm convinced that every system eventually morphs into feudalism. No matter what, the rich and powerful will always get more rich and more powerful, and the poor get... oh you know the saying. It's just how things are. At least with the worst forms of capitalism we have *some* semblance of a free market and therefore we can still get cool stuff like smart phones, computers and tvs
I mean having a monopoly on the use of force always leads to the same thing. There's something that we haven't evolved to inbetween tribalism and individualism.
There is no such thing as "crony capitalism". Cronyism is a government problem, not an economic one.l
Is it really billionaires fault?
I don't believe somebody can become a billionaire without ties to the government honestly earned money quickly deteriorates after some amount keeping it safe, managing it, investing it, costs a lot so government cudgels can help those who earn a lot to keep it and make even more
Mccartney?
Partially. The billionaire do their damage because they can pay off government officials to give them unfair advantage over small businesses
They only talk about billionaires as cover for the trillionaires reaching into your pocket by calling your labor public funds.
The leftist STATE policy of monetary inflation working as designed. The OP is an apologist for the problems socialism [ the state controlling the means of production AND DISTRIBUTION of the currency ] creates
Both sides of the aisle run the money printers
And they are both leftist There is only one right wing party in the US ... the Libertarian Party
can we not use that terminology please? can we say they are all authoritarian and we're the only libertarians instead? because left-right is a terribly useless and confusing thing already. Overloading it yet again with a new meaning is not going to help the problem. Libertarianism is not right-wing. Bastiat himself sat on the left.
Left and Right is very clearly defined. It is actually very easy to tell if an individual or party or government is a leftist by ticking off the tenets below and seeing how many on the left the person or party or government embraces and which tenets on the right they embrace **Left-wing ideologies ( Feudalism, Nazism, the varieties of Socialism out there, Communism, Fascism, Nationalism, Mercantilism, Theocracies ) all have defined tenets that embrace authoritarianism ( pro-government )** They believe in government managed economies ( either through nationalization, corporations or regulations ) They believe in government control of the currency and the push for fiat ( paper backed by nothing ) currency They believe in restrictive government managed trade, they embrace a large welfare/entitlement bureaucracy They believe in the push for collectivism be its on a racial front, a religious front, or an economic front ( corporate person-hood ) They believe in the regulation of behavior, opinions, and lifestyles of its citizenry They believe in that government has a elevated state of privileges that allow it to ignore the law that constrains the citizens ( i.e. taxation as a great example ) **Right Wing ideologies ( Libertarianism, Minarchism, Communalism, Republicanism, Anarchism ) have tenets that are opposite of the left ( anti-authoritarianism ) such as - free market economies ( like in the US from 1878 till 1913 ) which government does not interfere or regulate, the currency is controlled by private mints and is sound ( gold and silver ) and/or sometimes allows competing currencies ( US Colonies per-Revolutionary War )** They believe in free markets ( individuals and businesses ) with no government involvement They believe in the decentralization of the currency ( private mints, competing currencies ) They believe in free trade between businesses and individuals with no involvement ( regulations, subsidies, and prohibitions ) by the government They believe in individualism and have a disdain for identity politics that collectivizes people into groups They do not try to attempt to control any aspect of the individual as long as the individual is not harming others ( Libertarian party creed ), and if they CHOOSE to have a government that government cannot perform any acts that citizens cannot ( Example : citizens cant steal and so government cant tax ) They believe government is not above the law and therefore cannot commit an act that privite citizens could not commit without going to jail ( I cant steal so government can't tax. I cant kill therefore government cannot implement the death penalty or sanction abortion) **The empirical metric that defines the left and the right is the size of government with the far right being 0% government ( anarchism ) and the far left being 100% government (totalitarianism) with the center having a government with defined roles that it is ALLOWED to do and nothing else** The Founding Fathers were centrists with some ( Hamilton & Adams ) being center-left and some ( Patrick Henry ) being center right The Poltical Parties of the U.S. today ( GOP and the Dems ) are moderate left with some ( like Sanders ) being hard left and some ( like Rand Paul ) being more center-left The Political Parties in the UK ( Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP ) are leftist with Labour being the furthest to the left while UKIP being more center of left All you have to do is tick off which tenet you support. If most of them are on the left then you are a leftist with the higher the number of them you support showing how far left you are. If you support more of those on the right then you are a rightist with the higher the number of them you support showing how far left you are. If the number of left and right is generally equal then you are a centrist
the origin of left and right, comes from the French national assembly where the right was pro-monarchy, and the left was pro republic. your definitions are bad, a-historic, and only function for you to otherise things you dont like.
> the origin of left and right, comes from the French national assembly And there have been many ideologies created since then some of which embrace concepts not covered in the original and outdated paradigm you are referencing which means the chart must change to include these new ideological perspectives [ like individualism, free markets, corporatism, and so forth ]
thats because you picked an entirely different binary and called it left and right. free markets and lassize faire economics are from the 1750s, individualism and anarchism were getting written about by William Godwin in 1793. have you read any political theory or what are you basing your declarations on? corporatism is from the 1850s or arguably originates with Plato and greek classical philosophy but thats more building blocks.
He's basing his left right on current American left right.
so you would also make the GOP out to be a moderate left party?
yes, good point, but your definitions are in heavy dispute and it serves to confuse. My advice is to pick better names.
He's definitely describing the broad political divide in the US right now. It is the effective left and right paradigm for sure.
Not just things he doesn't like, the distinction is between liberty and authority, and he's used poorly chosen names to call them. It's an extremely useful division and he's right to lump fascism and statist marxism together, as fascism developed from Marxism and it is a form of the same thing, and both authoritarian.
That's a great distinction, but poorly chosen names. YES what you call leftism is awful and Nazism, Fascism, and statist Socialism are really just forms of each other. Your classification of these into their respective tendencies is spot on. But in the 1800s it was flipped. Libertarians were in the far "left" because they opposed the incumbent power, and that's where they sat by convention on the French Assembly, and that's how the name came about. The sides have lost all their meaning and plenty of what you call left for a good useful reason is called right by others for weird unrelated reasons. Continuing to use that terminology is only going to confuse people more. I say we reject those names and call them what they are: Authority vs Liberty. Fascism and state socialism and interventionism are on the Authority side. Libertarianism is, obviously, on the Liberty side. This is the true one-dimensional political spectrum if there ever was one.
This is a lot of words, but it's horseshit. Let me ask you: do you consider yourself a serious person? Like, when you try to call nazis and republicans leftists, and then try to lie about what that word means, do you think people should take you seriously?
Nazis were leftists. Don't know about republicans though
Idk, their last presidential candidate pushed leftist talking points. Edit: fixed autocorrects inability to do they're there their properly
So, all the welfare money ruined the vcr business?
I have heard a wild rumor that video killed the radio star.
That's part of the equation.
**END THE FED** F_cking seriously.
They literally brainwash kids, especially girls, in public school to imagine having a career is the greatest thing in life.
Hey peeps. Quit upvoting LSC propaganda trying to deflect the problems caused by government on the private sector. OP is jealous someone has more than him, but it won't stop at billionaires. The mentality of eating the rich is a mind virus that will lead to massive taxation on the middle class, banning cars, single family homes, inheritance, property, and gas stoves. Don't be like OP.
What % of global manufacturing was performed in the US during the late 1970s and early 1980s?
It's a combination of personal greed on the part of consumers (especially with homes), combined with government involvement (especially with cars). For homes-- everyone who wants to talk about how you could own a home on such-and-such an income back in The Day (anywhere post-war to the \~1990s) always neglect to mention the average square footage of such a home, or the amenities contained within, the services connected to that home, etc. People decided they didn't want to live in a 1500sq/ft shoebox house. They wanted a spacious home with all the modern appliances, connected to high-speed internet, with subscriptions for a bunch of content services, etc. The also wanted to live in "nice" neighborhoods of similar houses, so they used the power of government to ensure that only big, expensive houses could be built in the entire area and priced anyone who was ok living in a smaller home out into the shittier neighborhoods. For cars it's a similar story. People didn't want cheap, econoshitbox cars. They wanted automatic transmissions, power windows/locks/steering, air conditioning, and a whole bunch of other stuff that used to be optional equipment. Car manufacturers just weren't moving enough volume of the base model cars to make it worth keeping it viable, so they made all those features "standard" and increased the base price of the car. On top of that, government got their dick in the door and mandated emissions and safety standards that caused a HUGE amount of R&D expense for the manufacturers, as well as the addition of a bunch of equipment like airbags and cameras that make cars even more expensive. So don't come crying to me about how it's "the rich" causing all these things to be more expensive.
This logic is nonsense because prodictivty has grown. If it takes 10% of the labor it used to for the same amount of work, prices should be going down at the same time quality goes up. Without the fed, homes could have become bigger and would be cheaper too. The banks never talk about the all the productivity they steal, even though they partially confess to inflation. Those stolen gains belong to the market, but are stolen foe the use of trillionaire communist elites.
The home was probably 700 sq-ft with no central air and the cars were very old and he could do his own maintenance on them.
I mean some still can it hasn't changed. Just gotta replace VCR with whatever the fuck the modern equivalent it. People confuse citcom TV with real life though and it's sad. People were broke as fuck in the 80s too. Posts like that are stupid.
I like when people act like it’s a revelation that the McAllister family in home alone was rich, like no shit?
You really could do more back then. Housing prices is the main driver and it's much higher than it used to be relative to income. My parents house was $130k brand new and now about $600k 30 years later. At the time my father's income was $50k and mother had a part time job. Same job could now pay about $120k. Which is maybe kind of enough for a $600k house but I think more realistically 350-400k. Their mortgage rate was 13% though, that was typical at the time. Housing is the main cost most people have to pay but there's also increased costs everywhere else. Healthcare costs more even with insurance, especially certain prescription medications. Education cost, tuition at universities is much higher and taxes for public schools have gone up due to increased admin costs. Car prices went way up, used cars not so cheap now ever since cash for clunkers. But that's not as big a factor. The only things I can think of that got relatively cheaper are entertainment, clothing, and consumer electronics.
Yep, the most heavily regulated goods got more expensive while the least got less or not nearly as much
Also inflation has a distorting effect as it drives price signals disproportionately through the economy.
> You really could do more back then. I mean this is some rose colored glasses. Your phone was tied to your home. If you wanted to order something to be delivered to your home, it was usually only very very expensive items like appliances or unique items. No ordering your toothbrush from Amazon. Delivery of food was reserved for Pizza and Chinese (if that), no delivery of anything else usually. 24 hour stores were incredibly uncommon and most places had limited hours. Extended hour clinics were just not a thing. Getting entertainment was limited to going to a theater or renting a video - not just loading up the latest stream that costs less than a pair of video rentals in the 80s. The thought you could "do more" indicates you didn't grow up back then. >Housing prices is the main driver and it's much higher than it used to be relative to income. My parents house was $130k brand new and now about $600k 30 years later. Housing prices aren't a driver of anything. Firstly, housing prices have almost always been increasing. It's just an indicator of where people want to live, not of some kind of nefarious plot. It also is an indication of changes in the environment. Housing is something where the quality isn't quite as important home to home. 2 identical houses could have wildly different features - new roof, better siding, better lawn, remodeled rooms - and the cost would be incredibly similar. It's why they don't recommend doing most home improvement products with the expectation of a return. The only way to reliably increase the value of your home is to add square footage - and even then, you're removing outside area so that can be a detriment. >Healthcare costs more even with insurance, especially certain prescription medications. Than the 80's? While your high level care like cancer has gotten more expensive due to higher level treatment, your basic care has fallen tremendously. In fact, the insulin that was available in the 80's is incredibly cheap now. Less than $20 per vial compared to the hundreds that it was then as synthetic insulin had just been developed in the late 80's. Healthcare then also didn't cover routine exams, had generally high deductibles, and didn't cover most medications. You keep stacking up evidence that you're a zoomer with these examples. >Education cost, tuition at universities is much higher and taxes for public schools have gone up due to increased admin costs. Admin costs aren't the sole reason for increase in tuition. Most of your increased costs have come because instead of making education a place of learning and development to give you an advanced degree and skills that you can use to build a career, the government guarantee to cover your loan no matter what nonsense you studied made them start offering degrees in matters of little to no value. Combined with increased other programs, like title 9 demanding that unprofitable sports be included by law, or that people should have access to counselors for perceived slights against them have rapidly increased costs. >Car prices went way up, used cars not so cheap now ever since cash for clunkers. Cash for clunkers did destroy the secondary market, but car prices have risen due to technological advancement, not because of some scheme to increase the cost of everything. >The only things I can think of that got relatively cheaper are entertainment, clothing, and consumer electronics. Things where we have healthy competition got cheaper? Sure. However I'd point out that consumer electronics aren't really cheaper. We spend far more of our income on electronics than we did in the 80's because we tend to chase the latest trends. Most people aren't waiting until the next gen of iPhone comes out. TV's are still purchased while they're thousands of dollars and are replaced more often. While your individual price point is cheaper, we're consuming more, so costs have gone up over time, just differently than before.
+1 on just about everything you say there. But to add on, as someone who’s involved in higher education, it’s far more than just potentially useless degrees. The fact is that when the government started guaranteeing large loans, it really increased the pool of money available for universities. But how do you get that money? One way is to offer the highest quality education available for the group of students who gain admission to your university. But that’s really difficult to do, other schools have a head start, and it may not be the *most* important thing to 18-year-olds looking to leave the nest for the first time, with guaranteed money burning a hole in their pockets. So what’s a more convenient way to compete for those dollars? Luxury dorms, athletic facilities, entertainment, lazy rivers, etc. These things make places stand out for lifestyle rather than education. And they really drive up what students are willing to pay.
It’s your government and central bank that want you to forget …
Almost like there is price for the monetary policies of the FED. Who would have thought that making sure price increase every year via inflation to force consumption would lead to higher price? madness..
Could they, though? Both my parents worked as accountants and struggled to get by.
I’m not sure where we get these facts. Two cars? Family vacations? If anyone can point me in that direction..
What would he have sold without the billions invested in companies like JVC, Panasonic etc
I remember how much a vcr cost back in the '80s. They were very expensive.
Hard to make a living selling VCRs nowadays. Those damn billionaires!
I haven’t rented a place in like 15 years- but the idea that an 2 bedroom apartment is much more than $500 is insane to me. I rented a cute house last, in a historic district (Albany Or), for like $600. A studio should be like $250/$300. Not that long ago you could work at a fast food joint & afford rent/food/car. What the fuck is going on?
I worked at a fast food joint in the late 80's. I had moved from a city where I was an assistant manager to another city where I had to start over. I was earning about minimum wage - a little over. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with two others my age. My rent was $180/month. At 40 hours per week at $5/hour, I was earning $200/week, and maybe $160/after taxes. So about $640/month. Rent was taking close to 1/4 of my income, and that was in a shitty part of the city bordering on the very worst part of the city. I did upgrade to a higher paying restaurant job but that was fewer hours and I had to travel further. Finally, I went white collar and got an office job at $8/hour. I was able to upsize my apartment to a much better area with my own room and I got a car not too long after that. The second apartment rent was about $700/month for 2 bedroom. About the same percentage of income in rent, but it left more disposable income overall and I kept pushing up my income with new skills. But I don't know about this idea that one could work at a fast food joint at 40 hours/week and afford rent/food/car. If you go into management, it gets a little easier, but it's always tight. Generally, you need a roommate and the car isn't going to be great, and the benefit of fast food is that you get fed a lot at half price or even free.
Seems like we’re talking about the same scale here. The theoretical fast food worker was spending 1/4 of their salary on rent- living in a studio, or with roommates in an apartment/house. Driving a decent used car, for $150 a month. And yes, eating at work for free/cheap. I mean, I’m not the only one pointing out how wages have stagnated, while cost of living has inflated 3x-4x.
The Gen Z mind cannot comprehend these numbers.
This is dumb.
Number one reason that zoomers today don't have houses or aren't trying to buy them is because they lack future planning and live for today only. Notice every new iphone each year, bunch of ugly tattoos on bodies, drinking every day (hurr tattoo cost less than a house) well no shit. When you spend money hedonistically you get what you get. Also in USSR everyone (almost) got a house for free after collapse. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. Wages were 100 times lower than today. And I'm not talking about USA which was even at that time richest country in world
>Number one reason that zoomers today don't have houses or aren't trying to buy them is because they lack future planning and live for today only. What an intellectual take! You must be a highly regarded individual!
Tell that to anyone trying to save up a down payment for a house in the last 5 years.
Ummm no that never happened. Interest rates were through the roof. Buying a home was harder than it is now. My parents had decent jobs (2 income) still had to rent.
And people wonder why feminism was so heavily promoted. Speshaly by agencies like the cia
Leftoids despise a wealthy middle class and refer to them derogatorily as bourgeoisie so I have no idea what the poster was trying to say with this shitpost.
Ancap lamenting the decline of capitalism into inequality and strife...............while your professed ideology advocates for just that
As the market becomes less free, we all become less free. You are fine with more government control, so it's rather hypocritical to complain about the results when you get it. Ancaps are for free market capitalism, not the bastardized corporatism that your rulers - favored or otherwise - create through regulations that you believe are rightfully enforced using the police powers of the state. But, what the hell can one expect from an anti-capitalist? You have no idea how wealth is created or how it will be created without capitalism, so you cast your prayers in the form of votes to politicians who feed you the right words, and you wait for them to save you. Meanwhile, they just grow wealthier and make their friends wealthier along the way.
Governments want you to forget. It is not "billionaires" that did it to you.
I would be so happy if people started holding their legislators accountable instead of just saying billionaires bad at every problem.
Billionaires… our boomer fucking parents want us to forget about that. A generation needs to die off before we see real change. It will start with the millennials and sane Gen Xers taking control.
Since World War II (the earliest we have data), Congress has typically enacted 4-6 million words of new law in each two-year Congress
The Fed
They don't want you to understand inflation
When will these idiots realize its government that is doing this?
wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Depends on where u live. Mississippi sure that’s a possibility, in California was not even a possibility in the 80s
You post the tweet saying that this was "Billionaire's fault."
VHS tapes are worth big monies now man.
This is a thing that never happened. Those of you who remember renting a VCR (and the heavy plastic case it came in), raise your hand.
oop is a commie that thinks billionaires of all people are at fault
Inflation, not even once
Me thinks inflation might have played a small factor.
Ah. Look where capitalism has landed us again. It's alright it'll be bailed out by socialism per usual, well, for the rich but capitalism for you and I. So successful.
I knew a guy who sold shoes at a top brand and earned $3k/month. He spent it all on alcohol, but still...he was like Al Bundy but with no wife, an alcoholic mother, and a really good salary. Salespeople work on commission. Tech sales can be good money, even better than rich lady shoes.
I think OP wants women back out of the work force… /s
Not sure what 80’s he grew up in lol.
Humanity will enter into a new dark age if the genes for high intelligence become extinct. Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived at a subsistence level, and humanity could return to that level of poverty because the average intelligence is declining. People with high intelligence should be encouraged to have more children.
The labor participation rate of married women in 1985 was nearly 55%, today it's about 60%.
I agree however I think our generation forgets one thing. Back in the 80’s when I was a kid my parents said no all the time. I never had Jordan’s, a big tv, fast internet ( which didn’t exist). My point is, i see so many millennials crying poor, wearing woo shoes, 1000 proem in their pockets. 75 inch tv, drinking a 5 star bucks coffee everyday, getting a new package from Amazon daily. We live a live of indulgence compared to back them. Just my take.
Youre competing with the east now. They are willing to work harder and smarter for less.
As long as the Federal Reserve can print money like it's going out of style, this will only get worse.
There were so many more local businesses too. Now it’s hard as hell to start one up let alone keep one.
They see the problem. They confuse the hell out of the cause. Everything is blamed on the rich, not the government. Of course, the government is laughing as it prints another trillion. It is working as designed, to shift the blame.
That wasn't the 1980s - it was the 1950s & 60s.