2370
submitted 1 year ago by eee@lemm.ee to c/workreform@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.

Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.

However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.

Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

[-] Miqo@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“We were very wealthy,” says Errol Musk. “We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe.”

With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.

“And then there'd still be all these notes sticking out and we'd sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”

You are willfully ignorant.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're an idiot if you thinks fucking safe holds any real amount of money, or that one South African semi-rich person counts as any sort of evidence.

Cash depreciates over time. No rich person keeps a ton of cash, because it means they get less rich every day.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah, all those poor folks literally sleeping on cash under their mattresses because they don't have to spend it immediately on things like, you know... staying alive.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Tell me you don't actually know any poor people without telling me you don't actually know any poor people.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 6 points 1 year ago

Lol. Sure sure. Apparently I've been living poor incorrectly by immediately spending my money on things like food, shelter and childcare instead of hoarding it like some kind of Scrooge McDuck wannabe.

You think poor people have money they don't need to spend, so they just keep it stashed away in a shoebox or something? How out of touch are you?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is an endemic problem with poor people, actually, because poor people are often conditioned not to "trust" banks.

You'd know that, if you knew them.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 6 points 1 year ago

You must be right. I've never lived in and among poverty. Thank you for explaining my life to me. Is there anything else I didn't actually experience?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Tact and schooling, apparently.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 6 points 1 year ago

Good to know you're keeping those gates safe. Keep up the good work!

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You'll eventually matter if you stay in school and work hard

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 4 points 1 year ago

No foolin'!? Gee, thanks mister!

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Eh I was being nice. Probably not.

[-] TruTollTroll@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, cause poor people and low income people are so much more rare to encounter during a day, then a millionaire/billionaire or people in top 5%..... /S

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, and a big part of that is that rather than get bank accounts, savings accounts, and any sort of money discipline, they fly blind and end up turning to terrible shit like payday loans.

See, one of us has actually worked to help change the spending habits of low-income people and the other person gets their information from memes.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Source- trust me bro!

That's a pretty cool story you've got going on in your head there lol. You're a fucking 🤡

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for driving my point home about your memes-based-worldview.

But if you want a source, because you can't Google basic facts, then sure

https://www.gao.gov/blog/more-7-million-u.-s.-households-have-no-bank-account.-why

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

7 million out of 39 million living in poverty don't have bank accounts. Lol, that's your proof for your argument. And that's not including the working poor. Wow, I don't know what's scarier- the fact that you think this is proof that the PoOr aRe CoNdItiOned tO noT uSe bAnKs- If OnlY thEy'D oPen Savinzgs AcCoUnts, or that you think that you "got me" with that stat. Fucking 🤡

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What I think is scary is that people born into immense privilege, like you, think you understand how the "working man" feels, but I console myself with the knowledge that you're not very important.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Lol, go console yourself you fucking retard

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I guess if you push a useless mouth too far they have nothing left to do but punch down.

[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes. What a great victory for you. Go console yourself some more 😅

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Lol 9d old post. Trying to get the last word. You're a joke.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I was busy, and responded when I saw the notification.

Stop being such a nerd.

[-] zbyte64 4 points 1 year ago

Underbanking is a problem, and so is underinvesting. Both are caused by profit motives because investors rather put in pay day loan services instead of grocery stores in historical redlined districts🤷

But sure, blame the habits of poor people.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Almost the entirety of any rich person's wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

Damn, maybe poor people should just hire a full-time broker and give them the $20 they can spare this month and let that smart person invest it so they're not poor anymore 🤓

Being poor in the US is a literal trap. It is intentional. It is exploitation. The lack of financial education isn't the fault of poor people who grew up going to schools that could barely afford to run, and/or went to school hungry.

And once you're poor, it can be extremely difficult to escape, bc the system is designed to punish poor ppl. Poor ppl sit on cash bc if it's in a bank the money they need for food might get taken away bc of some bullshit overdraft fee or similar. I know bc I've been poor and know poor ppl.

Poor people aren't poor because they don't invest wisely enough. They're poor bc the system is designed in so many ways to keep it that way.

Also rICh pEoPle dOnT Sit ON tHeiR MoNey ThEY iNvEsT it

Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it "investing 🤓" or whatever. It's still hoarding, it's still immoral and detestable.

You sound like you're 17 and just started listening to Fox Business for financial advice.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it “investing 🤓” or whatever. It’s still hoarding, it’s still immoral and detestable.

This has no factual basis.

You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This has no factual basis.

Yes it does.

See I used as much logic in that response as u used in ur comment, so my answer is just as valid as yours. But since I used more logic in the comment you're replying to, my original point still stands. Try again, lil bro.

You seem like you think I'm attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

I do not give a flying fuck whether you were making fun of someone or trying to get a billionaire to see ur comment so they'd let u suck their dick, bootlicker. You're wrong.

Also billionaires can literally just use their stock value as cash, genius.

Why you simp for billionaires bruh. U ain't gonna become one.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Imagine caring about the opinions of someone who calls you a "bootlicker" for simply understanding how reality works

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And again no reasoning given. Yup, certified brain rot.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 year ago

You're kidding right?

  1. The yachts are probably insured

  2. Just because they don't literally have millions sitting in a checking account doesn't mean they can't liquidate some of their investments and get it in short order.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

actually putting money into the economy

This person veliev s rich people have millions sitting in checking. This belief is widespread, and is not just misleading, it changes the entire discussion from wealth to money.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

My comment was satire. Stop arguing with the wind.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

I said "shooting holes in a water tower to make trickle-down economics work" as a reply to someone making an obvious quip. IDK if you've just never been around leftist discussions, but joking about how fucked trickle-down economics is isn't an endorsement of building megayachts that wreck the environment and provide no good to society.

Stop being intentionally obtuse, or just don't blame others for your inability to read between the lines.

EDIT to add: I also explicitly stated it was satire in response to the only other comment that replied to mine taking it seriously. But even their comment just seemed more like a clarification for anyone else reading, not someone actually taking my comment seriously.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So then why reply to my comment with a hostile argument when there was already a thread in reply to mine which cleared up any possible confusion?

You can't read satire, got confused and replied without spending the time to even read the other reply saying the same shit you said.

And you wanna blame satire for creating confusion.

If u smell shit everywhere you go, check ur own shoe bud.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So leading with "the argument is sloppy" is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?

Please tell me exactly what I'm broadly extrapolating or distorting here, because your comment makes broad accusations without actually talking specifics, while mine does exactly the opposite. If anything, ur the one extrapolating bs.

You're the one that chose to make a useless comment in the first place, don't bitch when you get called out for it.

You just literally don't know how to accept/respond to satire, and when you realized you took satire seriously, instead of saying "oh okay" u got defensive and offended.

Grow tf up dude. Let satire exist. Read other replies before adding to meaningless drivel like you did.

[-] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So leading with “the argument is sloppy” is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?

I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text you quoted.

Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.

[-] clanginator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text your quoted.

Starting a reply with "the argument is sloppy" is unfriendly, yes. Deny it all you want.

Your first comment was 100% unnecessary if you'd spent 30 seconds to read further into the thread instead of taking those 30 seconds to tell me I'm wrong.

That's antagonistic.

Now go look up the definition of hostile.

Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.

Yeah bc ur comments from the first one have been utterly pointless, added nothing to the discussion, and shown that you have an inability to just admit when you're wrong.

The other person who took my comment seriously just up voted my reply saying my comment was satire and left it at that. U just got something up ur ass and can't handle ppl correcting u.

Bye lil bro, have fun arguing with the ether. Hope you can grow tf up someday.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
2370 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

10360 readers
148 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS