Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class) Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class)

09-08-2014 , 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil, a mere one post prior
I don't know where you're getting this whole hurt feelings thing from.
You have an idea of where I might get that hurt feelings from? ****ing 4 am rambling screeds about how I'm personally attacking you. WTF do you even mean, "hold it against you"? Labeling you "well off" is holding something against you?

Quote:
Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?
This was an excellent point, dude, you really got me. I'm the one who sounds ridiculous. Not you.

Given how you laughed at attending Penn State, your scorn for people who make minimum wage isn't surprising, per se, but it's a real ****ing example to the children of America.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. People spitballing about what "rich" means leads to full scale mental breakdowns. You were so emotional making that post you couldn't keep a coherent point together for more than like two sentences, you barely kept your strawmen straight. I don't give a **** how much money you make, but I damn sure "hold it against you" that you made that post.
09-08-2014 , 06:28 AM
Seriously Henry had the same ****ing meltdown where he lashed out at me, acting like I had some sort of vendetta because I argued that it was reasonable to label X income Y label. That's so ****ing bizarre.

What makes people think that "you're doing alright for yourself financially" is a personal attack? As we see, it doesn't even need to be particularized, "people making $250k are rich" and "people making $180k are upper middle class" both lead to absolute ****ing fits, with like, this confused emotional pleading with people to stop, wil is acting hurt here and acting like he doesn't understand why I'm being so viciously mean to him.

I literally and sincerely do not understand why it is so important for someone like wil to avoid labels like that. I think Thayer may have been on the right track.
09-08-2014 , 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
OK but you do understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, right? It's an arbitrary and subjective definition. For some as yet unknown reason, whenever people start spitballing where they put that definition, some people(INCLUDING YOU) throw a ****ing bizarre temper tantrum of this insane callous and narcissistic myopia about how you feel you live "pretty normally" so nobody label XXXk rich or upper middle class or well off or whatever the **** other trigger words you might have as you voluntarily choose to save an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage to pay for your child's future education.
Not reading most of the stipballing or temper tantruming, i will say i have a basic problem with the concept that you seem to have that there need be, or can be, some line draw, strictly on yearly income, that in any way, shape, or form, will have any real bearing on who is "rich" and who is not. Is the first year doctor "rich" making over 200K a year rich, when at 27 has no assets, no savings, and almost 600K in debt from undergrad and med school loans? Is the union laborer who started working at 18 poor compared to him, when he has been working for 9 years, is single, and has been making between 60-75+K per year with no student loans, no other expenses? Is the guy who is working as a public defender in Ma making 37K, poor, when his great grandfather left the family a fortune that is measured in fractions of Billions, and he does his job not for the salary but out of a need to help defend everyone's constitutional protections?
09-08-2014 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawMess
Not reading most of the stipballing or temper tantruming, i will say i have a basic problem with the concept that you seem to have that there need be, or can be, some line draw, strictly on yearly income, that in any way, shape, or form, will have any real bearing on who is "rich" and who is not. Is the first year doctor "rich" making over 200K a year rich, when at 27 has no assets, no savings, and almost 600K in debt from undergrad and med school loans? Is the union laborer who started working at 18 poor compared to him, when he has been working for 9 years, is single, and has been making between 60-75+K per year with no student loans, no other expenses? Is the guy who is working as a public defender in Ma making 37K, poor, when his great grandfather left the family a fortune that is measured in fractions of Billions, and he does his job not for the salary but out of a need to help defend everyone's constitutional protections?
Well rich doesn't need to be defined by merely income but could also be in terms of wealth and projected future income. A public prosecutor who is doing his job out of civic duty but who has assets in the millions is certainly wealthy and probably noble as well.
09-08-2014 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foco
One thing that I don't get is that why anyone on a salary is against raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage will raise all salaries.

This should be really obvious and has been proven with historical data. If a manager of McD earns $12 and the floor sweeper earns $7.5 you really think if they raise the floor sweeper to $12 that the manager will be paid the same salary as well?
Because those people don't deserve to make more! Lizard brain engage!
09-08-2014 , 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foco
One thing that I don't get is that why anyone on a salary is against raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage will raise all salaries.

This should be really obvious and has been proven with historical data. If a manager of McD earns $12 and the floor sweeper earns $7.5 you really think if they raise the floor sweeper to $12 that the manager will be paid the same salary as well?
Let's just raise minimum wage to $200/hr and everyone will be rich!
09-08-2014 , 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Because those people don't deserve to make more! Lizard brain engage!
Well, I mean, do they? Maybe, but the minimum wage isn't about people deserve. It's about the price of labor.

Minimum/living wage theory is pretty tightly coupled with the labor theory of value.

UBI is a better solution.

* doesn't require the government to outsource the provisioning of the safety net to greedy coprorations
* doesn't leave unemployed people by the wayside
* doesn't involve price controls
* let's talk about what people deserve instead of what their labor is worth.
09-08-2014 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAASH
Let's just raise minimum wage to $200/hr and everyone will be rich!
Actually this is probably not that far from the truth. Currently almost all corporate profits go directly into the pockets of the investor class. Almost none filter down to the workers. Raise the wages and the investor class would still be rich, just not quite AS rich. And the worker class might not be rich but certainly more secure than they are now.

Perhaps not $200 per hour, but there is clearly a level where workers can make a decent living and the investors will still be rich by any reasonable definition.
09-08-2014 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33
Actually this is probably not that far from the truth. Currently almost all corporate profits go directly into the pockets of the investor class. Almost none filter down to the workers. Raise the wages and the investor class would still be rich, just not quite AS rich. And the worker class might not be rich but certainly more secure than they are now.

Perhaps not $200 per hour, but there is clearly a level where workers can make a decent living and the investors will still be rich by any reasonable definition.
And I am sure the "investors" will still be motivated to be "investors" in that hypothetical system.
09-08-2014 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawMess
Not reading most of the stipballing or temper tantruming, i will say i have a basic problem with the concept that you seem to have that there need be, or can be, some line draw, strictly on yearly income, that in any way, shape, or form, will have any real bearing on who is "rich" and who is not. Is the first year doctor "rich" making over 200K a year rich, when at 27 has no assets, no savings, and almost 600K in debt from undergrad and med school loans? Is the union laborer who started working at 18 poor compared to him, when he has been working for 9 years, is single, and has been making between 60-75+K per year with no student loans, no other expenses? Is the guy who is working as a public defender in Ma making 37K, poor, when his great grandfather left the family a fortune that is measured in fractions of Billions, and he does his job not for the salary but out of a need to help defend everyone's constitutional protections?
Again, it's an arbitrary and subjective definition. First two guys aren't rich, last guy is, but if someone wanted to say none of them are or the first and third guys both are I certainly wouldn't get emotional about disagreeing.

I think one significant issue, and something worth making clear, is something about your second guy. No "other expenses"? What does that even mean?

Because, if you recall, per wil's tantrum SAVING MONEY IN A COLLEGE FUND counts as an expense for him.

So whatever that union dude is spending his money on, that's an expense for him. He doesn't have "no other expenses", taking vacations and buying fancy cars and **** are expenses. Basically, expenses aren't something you subtract from your income to see if you're still rich afterward, because in exchange for "expenses", YOU GET SOMETHING.

All income is either saved for future consumption or spent on present consumption.

Like, that terrible WSJ article people mentioned earlier about how people making $400K($400k!) are feeling the squeeze because they spend $120k on cars every three years and go on a luxury vacation every year and ****...

This Gawker article from 2012 pretty well explains it:
http://gawker.com/5885705/the-top-1-...t-this-instant

Quote:
And here we see the fundamental dishonest characteristic of each and every article which advances this particular enraging argument. "Sure, it's an objectively large sum of money," they say. "But it is far smaller after I spend it."

No ****.
Emphasis mine.
09-08-2014 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
You have an idea of where I might get that hurt feelings from? ****ing 4 am rambling screeds about how I'm personally attacking you. WTF do you even mean, "hold it against you"? Labeling you "well off" is holding something against you?

This was an excellent point, dude, you really got me. I'm the one who sounds ridiculous. Not you.

Given how you laughed at attending Penn State, your scorn for people who make minimum wage isn't surprising, per se, but it's a real ****ing example to the children of America.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. People spitballing about what "rich" means leads to full scale mental breakdowns. You were so emotional making that post you couldn't keep a coherent point together for more than like two sentences, you barely kept your strawmen straight. I don't give a **** how much money you make, but I damn sure "hold it against you" that you made that post.
Once again, wtf is this? I don't have scorn for people who make minimum wage. It's literally the MINIMUM you can make. You are comparing something that is no where near the highest incomes vs the absolute BOTTOM wage. As far as personal attacks the air of the thread seemed to be going in that direction when people mentioned Dess was unlikable for simply stating his opinion.

My scorn for Penn state was more about the rape stigma I believe, but I'll have to look that up. I wouldn't send my kid to a school that handled that situation like that. Penn state isn't all that cheap either.
09-08-2014 , 04:09 PM
You'll have to "look up" your opinion about Penn State from last week? In a thread full of baffling and weird statements from you, that might be the weirdest. (P.S. Nope! You're lying! Your comment to the suggestion that your child attend PSU for less than half the price of Davidson was to imply it was equivalent to a community college)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil
You are comparing something that is no where near the highest incomes vs the absolute BOTTOM wage
This is gibberish. Where did I "compare" "something that is no where near the highest incomes"(????) to the minimum wage? In what way was that imaginary comparison inappropriate? Do you even know what the word comparing means? I didn't compare anything, I said that $1000/mo is the monthly income of someone on minimum wage. That's just a fact.

Also, again, maybe this is like the PSU thing and you'll need to look it up, but here's what you said about people who make that wage:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil
You hold it against me because I make more than someone who can push a button at a predetermined interval? Really?
wtf is this, indeed.

wil, you appear to have literally no idea what anyone else's point is for like the last three pages, you're just weirdly flailing around guessing that they must be being mean to you, but for some reason you can't articulate how or why. Is everything OK?

Last edited by FlyWf; 09-08-2014 at 04:19 PM.
09-08-2014 , 04:14 PM
I thought that was quite a while ago. I do believe it was misinterpreted. When someone mentioned it I think my response was "come on man" or something to that effect and everyone thought it was it was a state school. I'd be fine with that.

Just not Penn State.
09-08-2014 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Why shouldn't I just send her to a community college and finish her last two years at a state school, right?

Come on dude.
Actual post made by wil about the suggestion that his daughter attend a school that it is entirely plausible she would be accepted into. PSU has selective admissions.

Also, wil, just a point that I'm surprised has to be made, but it's a little weird that apparently you LEARN ABOUT YOUR OWN OPINION from your writings. Don't you have access to that **** in a more direct manner? Discussing your own thoughts in such a disassociated way is ****ing bizarre.

Is everything OK?
09-08-2014 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Where did I "compare" "something that is no where near the highest incomes"(????) to the minimum wage? In what way was that imaginary comparison inappropriate? Do you even know what the word comparing means? I didn't compare anything, I said that $1000/mo is the monthly income of someone on minimum wage. That's just a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
other trigger words you might have as you voluntarily choose to save an entire month's pay for someone on minimum wage to pay for your child's future education.
And you're using that fact to draw some line where you could consider someone in a different class because they do something with the equivalent of what someone who gets paid the lowest possible wage can save. I understand the points from a certain perspective but I don't agree with almost all of them. Once again, if I had yachts and Italian sports cars but complained I couldn't save my goal of 2 million a year, obviously that'd be ridiculous. To use these types of measures such as minimum wage monthly incomes and saying that having a house 2 cars and providing education costs for a child is by definition rich is absurd.
09-08-2014 , 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Actual post made by wil about the suggestion that his daughter attend a school that it is entirely plausible she would be accepted into. PSU has selective admissions.
That didn't come out as well as I wished it would. I was simply saying that I don't think that's the optimal route, as I did exactly that and it caused me a lot of issues because a lot of the credits didn't transfer over and I was in school a lot longer than I wanted to be.

It wasn't because I think that path isn't plausible, it's just not optimal. I didn't intend there to be some sort of sneering towards people who did that. I did that. It just didn't come out well.
09-08-2014 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
And you're using that fact to draw some line where you could consider someone in a different class because they do something with the equivalent of what someone who gets paid the lowest possible wage can save. I understand the points from a certain perspective but I don't agree with almost all of them. Once again, if I had yachts and Italian sports cars but complained I couldn't save my goal of 2 million a year, obviously that'd be ridiculous. To use these types of measures such as minimum wage monthly incomes and saying that having a house 2 cars and providing education costs for a child is by definition rich is absurd.
wil, you really, really do not understand the points people are making. Maybe try reading instead of assuming you're the victim here? This post is absolutely nonsensical. What line? Who said having a house and two cars is "by definition" rich?

Quote:
That didn't come out as well as I wished it would. I was simply saying that I don't think that's the optimal route, as I did exactly that and it caused me a lot of issues because a lot of the credits didn't transfer over and I was in school a lot longer than I wanted to be.

It wasn't because I think that path isn't plausible, it's just not optimal. I didn't intend there to be some sort of sneering towards people who did that. I did that. It just didn't come out well.
Dude, we get it, you think your daughter is too good for state school. Why are you ****ing brainstorming these transparent bull**** excuses(it was about the rape charges! no... OK maybe it was about my fears that credits won't transfer?)? Seriously this is some **** you believed last month and presumably still believe today, why are you GUESSING AT WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MEANT?

P.S. The scorn you feel towards minimum wage button pushers don't exactly earn you the benefit of the doubt. Your first immediate response to the tangential mention of the minimum wage as a rough benchmark(to put $12k/year into perspective)... was to demean the people who make it.
09-08-2014 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
P.S. The scorn you feel towards minimum wage button pushers don't exactly earn you the benefit of the doubt. Your first immediate response to the tangential mention of the minimum wage as a rough benchmark(to put $12k/year into perspective)... was to demean the people who make it.
I know people who make minimum wage. I know plenty of people who are considered poor (statistically) and people who are absolutely poor. I don't demean them, I don't look down on them, but it's not something I'd want for me. Let's just face the facts, it's minimum wage. It's literally the least amount of money you could make legally. It's the lowest level of skill set needed. Most people can move past that.
09-08-2014 , 05:04 PM
OK...and you're still demeaning them. How do you think that's responsive to the argument I was making? Like what argument do you imagine I could've been making where "but, der, minimum wage is what unskilled labor earns!" is a relevant ****ing rebuttal? You're posting as if I was unaware of what minimum wage means, like the definition of "minimum" appears to be something you think you're contributing.

Do they make more or less money per month, in total, than you voluntarily choose to save for your child's college education? How much do you think those people get to put away to finance their children's educations? Remember when Thayer was telling you that you seem delusional and insecure and ****... this is what he was talking about.
09-08-2014 , 05:12 PM
Because apparently it didn't connect:


Quote:
And here we see the fundamental dishonest characteristic of each and every article which advances this particular enraging argument. "Sure, it's an objectively large sum of money," they say. "But it is far smaller after I spend it."

No ****.
09-08-2014 , 05:18 PM
And if I did save more than a month's salary of the absolute bottom earning group, what does that mean? How does that define my status? Minimum wage can't provide many things for people who earn it.

I doubt they can put anything towards saving to finance their children's education. I still have to work every day. I don't sit home and live off dividend checks. I have to save and invest my money for many many years to be able to pull this off.
09-08-2014 , 05:42 PM
Minimum wage can't provide many things for people who earn it.
09-08-2014 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
I doubt they can put anything towards saving to finance their children's education. I still have to work every day. I don't sit home and live off dividend checks. I have to save and invest my money for many many years to be able to pull this off.
In what conceivable way do you think this information is:

1) Unknown to people, like they previously believed otherwise, shu22 calling $180k upper middle class never would've happened if he had known that about you

2) Relevant to any possible discussion currently ongoing, in this thread or otherwise

????

How do you see any thing anyone has said in here as an accusation that you personally live off dividends, and why does that imagined accusation hurt your feelings so ****ing much you are practically bawling with every post?

Last edited by FlyWf; 09-08-2014 at 06:49 PM.
09-08-2014 , 06:47 PM
LOL, as an aside, I'm still just blown away at how little respect you have for other people to try that **** about the Penn State jibe being about credits transferring. Seriously?
09-08-2014 , 06:54 PM
Also a reminder that wil once wrote a thread advocating that WIC be repealed because he knows a girl who got pregnant, and in the course of that wrote this about himself:
Quote:
We'll never get anything for free, so we'll simply have to pay through the nose. That's ok because I think we'll be able to swing it.
He wrote that as someone who apparently makes >$200k and expects to retire with an 8 figure net worth.

wil your quarterly evaluation is in and

NEEDS TO IMPROVE
[x] self-awareness
[x] empathy for those less fortunate
[x] basic ****ing decency are you ****ing kidding me

      
m