Unless they have kids, or get sick. Or are laid off unexpectedly. Or any number of the large amount of crap that can fall on someone at some point in life. Its pretty obvious that you were born into a family that was well off, and have never experienced hardship. You also seem to have the world outlook of a stunned choirboy, and I'm not sure where you get most of your ideas, but learning from Ayn Rand is a bad choice.
Unless they have kids, or get sick. Or are laid off unexpectedly. Or any number of the large amount of crap that can fall on someone at some point in life. Its pretty obvious that you were born into a family that was well off, and have never experienced hardship. You also seem to have the world outlook of a stunned choirboy, and I'm not sure where you get most of your ideas, but learning from Ayn Rand is a bad choice.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Show me a plan for how the heck a person making $40K a year will retire with $1M at the age of 60. I just ran some numbers at a website with an investment calculator and only arrived at about $250K after inflation and taxes. This was with $10K/year of savings which would really tough for someone making only $40K a year.
It's true that pretty much everyone would like more money. Few people would refuse if you offered them a million dollars for free. It's also true that having a few million dollars by the time you're sixty is not that difficult, if that's what you really want.
However, depending on how much money you can make, it can require a large financial sacrifice early in your working life. Is it really that stupid to live life to the fullest when you're young instead of saving your money until you're too old to care?
However, depending on how much money you can make, it can require a large financial sacrifice early in your working life. Is it really that stupid to live life to the fullest when you're young instead of saving your money until you're too old to care?
Invest 4.5% into a 401k starting when you get out of college (25) until retirement age (65). 3% annual salary increase, 10% investment performance. That will get you ~1 million by the time you retire. If you want $1M inflation adjusted at retirement, contributions will have to go up to 14% (all factors being equal).
I'd say those are unrealistic career expectations for 50-70% of the population. Studies show that no one keeps a job that long, annual salary increases aren't a sure thing, etc. Furthermore the market has hardly shown 40 year stability at 10% recently.
My favorite politicians are millionare politicians crying about millionares.
My least favorite politicians are the ones who put the interests of the millionares ahead of the large majority of the nation's citiziens, and of the national interest.
They're trying to return the nation to the 'glory days' of the gilded age when most lived in poverty and the few lived very, very well, better described as ecojnomic feudalism.
You think that's not possible? Of course it is. Even then, there was 'opportunity' for a few, as the self-made Joe Kennedy (JFK's father) proved; while most lived in poverty.
We're moving in that direction, and with the top 5% ownership of the nation's wealth going from 50% to over 75% in the last 30 years, we're well on the way back.
Especially when you consider the 'invisible' part of our economic health based on $8 trillion in debt, and the increasing competition from China and elsewhere.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
LOL! Typical populist, you fall for the scam hook, line, and sinker. Those "millionare politicians crying about millionares" are just lying to you to get votes and increase their own wealth and political power. They never keep their promises except when it serves their interests (except for a very rare few who actually cared, i.e. RFK, but you would have hated his policies had he lived to today). Which is why 100+ years of populist "reform" has only made the rich richer and poor poorer. :laugh:
Populism lost most of it's steam after WWII and died completely in the Reagan era. Much of the huge disparity between rich and poor has come along since then and has nothing to do with populism.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You're on crack. Populism is as strong as ever, it's just taken on some new and different forms. For the most part, it is disguised on the left-wing today as being "liberal" when it is anything but. (edit: although right-wingers have their own versions of populism, which I won't elaborate here).
Here's some tips: if you think the disparity between the rich and poor is more important than the overall standard of living, you're a populist. If you think that the disparity has increased in recent times while the overall standard of living has improved dramatically, and that's bad, you're a populist. If you think rich people are good when they parrot your political agenda, and bad when they don't, you're a populist. If the basis of your political agenda is screwing over the evil rich while you consistently vote for rich men for political office, you're a populist. If you think Old Money is good while New Money is bad, you're a populist. If you believe in numerous bizarre conspiracy theories in order to cover up all the holes and double-thinking in your ideology, and so on...
Is amazing isnt it? Kerry provided your text book example in 04 when he cried the Rich dont pay their fair share of taxes, then proceeded to work the books to an 11% federal tax rate on 5.6 million dollars.
People like Craig defended such hypocrisy and ask for more rhetoic to boot.
Eh? Do you pay attention to politics at all? What are the big topics besides Iraq?
Socialized healthcare? Populist, check
More money for schools? Populist, check
More money for govt expansion under the guise of helping people? Populist check
The list can go on and on.
The goals of the populists are to get everybodys hands in the cookie jar. Once everbody has their hand in the cookie jar who is going to vote for somebody who promises to cut govt spending, ie take their hands out of the cookie jar?
What is amazing is people havent figured out that the bigger the govt grows, so does the oppression and the disparity between the rich and poor as well, contrary to what the populists tell you will happen.
Hate to break up the Gen and Vic circle jerk going on here but Populism as a movement is quite dead. If you want to disagree with me on that, that's fine, however, the current liberal movement and classical Populism that rose in the early part of the 20th century have little to do with each other.
The economic trends of the past 30 years with regards to the disparity between rich and poor are exactly what caused the Populist movement in the first place.
The economic trends of the past 30 years with regards to the disparity between rich and poor are exactly what caused the Populist movement in the first place.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You're trying to narrowly define a broad political philosophy that has existed since Ancient Greece into a specific form that existed in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Populism is much more than that, to the point where it could be said that, within a democracy, it has never NOT existed.
Generally speaking, populism holds that the common people's interests are being oppressed by a certain elite group, and that the power of the state needs to be utilized in order overcome these elitists and protect the interests of the common people. Populism is such a wide-ranging philosophy that it is often considered to be more of a rhetoric than an actual philosophy. Its basic premise is "us vs. them." "They" are screwing us. "We" need to screw them back. It's a great tool for politicians to use in order to sieze power.
The earlier populist movements in America began with industrialization and subsequent increase in wealth and urbanization. When we all lived in mud huts, living in a mud hut was not a big deal. When some upgraded to mansions, there was trouble. The disparity of the last 30 years has similar origins in a period of technological advancement where not everyone has kept pace. Otherwise, how do you explain the increasing disparity post- Great Society? Or the increasing overall standard of living?
Just like modern "classical liberals" that try to claim that they hold true to the ideas of the true liberals. Hence modern American liberals are socialist--great reasoning there--pot meet kettle.
The mansions were built off of the backs of the people who lived in the mud huts, and they noticed that as technology improved, their quality of life did not. That's why "populism", or the idea that government is there to protect everyone's rights (i.e. not only the elite that can afford expensive lawyers) works so well--because it is a common sense ideology consistent with basic moral values of utilitarianism and the categorical imperative.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
*shrugs* Even Lincoln was a well-to-do lawyer. I always considered people who hated Bill Gates mostly just because of his massive wealth to be idiots. (Today with the charity work he's done, that hate parade is pretty much dead.)
All other things being equal, I'd vote for the wealthy candidate over the not-so-wealthy one. First, because to me it represents achievement. Second, because it implies connections. Third, because it means the person is less likely to go into shock once s/he realizes the enormous budget that's theirs to use or misuse.
All other things being equal, I'd vote for the wealthy candidate over the not-so-wealthy one. First, because to me it represents achievement. Second, because it implies connections. Third, because it means the person is less likely to go into shock once s/he realizes the enormous budget that's theirs to use or misuse.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Populism is NOT the idea that government is there to protect everyone's rights. That's liberalism. Populism is the idea that government is there to protect the rights of the "common people" at the expense of the "elite." Get it straight.
And (continuing the allegory) your argument that those mansions were built off the backs of the people who lived in the mud huts doesn't make sense given that the mansions didn't exist before. My point was that the distribution of NEW wealth and technology is always uneven as it is initially created. The overall standard of living of the people did not decline in that period, nor in this period, it actually got better, it's just that some got more better than others. Do you understand this? It's right in front of your face that if someone invents something new that benefits the people (for example, let's say Ford and the mass-produced automobile), and he gets rich from it, that the people are not actually harmed from this. Quite the opposite, all of society benefited from Ford's development, but some more than others. Get it? Populism would tell us that that is wrong, that Ford is evil, blah blah blah. Fast-forward to the modern day and you get the same rhetoric with Gates and the PC, as though the PC made your life worse!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
:roll:
Of course I do. But it's like saying that everyone has to stay after school just because a few kids were bad. It's a moralist argument, and completely irrational. There has never been a shortage of people willing to help -- all on their own without force or coercion -- the downtrodden and the poor. Just because a few rich pricks don't help is no reason to punish all of us, or to destroy all the true charity in this world.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter