1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16
Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy Dork
6/2/24 11:47 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Let's be honest, your issue is that you don't like inequity. It's all about inequity. No matter how well I prove that everyone is better off now than in the past, it's worse in your eyes because inequity. You used your pay vs. production graph to try to prove itself. Of all of the variables that explain the variance, you single out inequity, with zero to back it up other than the graph itself. You complain that previous generations were wealthier, I show you that's not the case. You reply that it's inaccurate, because- many of people in the later generations are wealthy.  And somehow we shouldn't count them, because inequity. Every time you say inequity, my mind replaces the word with opportunity. We have more opportunity. It's not a bad thing. Show me equity, and I'll show you a people that are poor and starving with no opportunity. Except for the few that are more equal than others. 
 

RE: Cars. You don't appear to be old enough to remember how crappy 70's cars were, especially if you couldn't afford a new one back then and had to buy used. They may be cool to us now and sought after, but as they rolled off the assembly line they required a lot of repair and maintenance. Tires sucked, flat tires were the norm. Pollution was horrible, and you sure didn't want to be in a wreck in one. Most odometers only had 5 digits for a reason. While I'd love a cool classic car for a cruiser or restomod, I wouldn't want my family commuting in one. 

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
6/3/24 2:04 a.m.
Duke said:

I was born in 1965.

The '70s were a socioeconomic hell hole. No one in their right minds would want to go through that again.

 

Bell bottoms!  And disco!

 

Duke
Duke MegaDork
6/3/24 12:51 p.m.
GameboyRMH said:

A man born in 2020 only has about 10 years more life expectancy than a man born in 1955, who grew up around omnipresent tobacco smoke and leaded gas fumes...

So, around 15% longer, then?

I don't consider that to be insignificant.

 

QuasiMofo (John Brown)
QuasiMofo (John Brown) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 1:09 p.m.
Duke said:
GameboyRMH said:

A man born in 2020 only has about 10 years more life expectancy than a man born in 1955, who grew up around omnipresent tobacco smoke and leaded gas fumes...

So, around 15% longer, then?

I don't consider that to be insignificant.

 

Jesus that's a huge increase considering that the rate of suicide is up over 35% since 1999.

(Citing KFF.org)

bobzilla
bobzilla MegaDork
6/3/24 1:23 p.m.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:
Duke said:
GameboyRMH said:

A man born in 2020 only has about 10 years more life expectancy than a man born in 1955, who grew up around omnipresent tobacco smoke and leaded gas fumes...

So, around 15% longer, then?

I don't consider that to be insignificant.

 

Jesus that's a huge increase considering that the rate of suicide is up over 35% since 1999.

(Citing KFF.org)

I mean its ONLY 10 years. Geesh... that's nothing. 

/sarcasm

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 1:28 p.m.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I definitely don't like inequity, I haven't tried to hide that. But it seems that you're literally enthusiastic about it because you think it's equivalent to opportunity!? You think it's a good thing that later generations are mostly poorer because a minority of them are rich enough to bring overall generational wealth up? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding. By that logic a world with a single septillionaire among billions of people all on the verge of starving to death while working to make the septillionaire richer would be a utopia.

Toyman!
Toyman! GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 1:39 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Equal in opportunity is not equal in outcome. There will never be equality in outcome. 

Some people suck at life. Some people don't. 

Some people just have their eye on the ball and make their own opportunity. Some people are so unlucky if it was raining $100 bills they would catch a face full of E36 M3. 

That's life. 

ShawnG
ShawnG MegaDork
6/3/24 1:43 p.m.

If we had equality of outcome, there's no incentive to do anything more than sit under a tree, eating bananas and procreating. 

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 1:52 p.m.

In reply to Toyman! :

Equality of opportunity is pretty meaningless though. Animals in the jungle have equality of opportunity. And if we don't have some similarity of outcome for similar inputs then we have a system that can enable any type or level of injustice and cloak it as a normal function of the system. Why not write off women making less than men for doing the same job as "well, there's no equality of outcome"?

bobzilla
bobzilla MegaDork
6/3/24 2:22 p.m.

Can we just lock this flaming pile of dumpster fire for being literally the same bullE36 M3 that's been hashed over repeatedly with the same lack of understanding of how life works by literally the same people? IT's the same E36 M3, over and over. We get it, you don't understand. 

Toyman!
Toyman! GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 2:30 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You want socialism. Unfortunately, no one in the history of man has been able to make that actually work.

Personally, I'd rather live under a bridge. 

 

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy Dork
6/3/24 3:48 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In reply to Toyman! :

Equality of opportunity is pretty meaningless though. Animals in the jungle have equality of opportunity. And if we don't have some similarity of outcome for similar inputs then we have a system that can enable any type or level of injustice and cloak it as a normal function of the system. Why not write off women making less than men for doing the same job as "well, there's no equality of outcome"?
 

It's not meaningless to those that purse the opportunities. And it even has a benefit to those that do not. I've already clearly shown that the quality of life has improved for all. Sure, the rich today are better off than the rich of the 50's or whenever you choose. But so are the poor, by a wide margin. 

Did a bit deeper on the men vs. women pay thing and let me know what you find past the blanket statement. There is a lot more there, and it likely won't support your current belief. 

codrus (Forum Supporter)
codrus (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltimaDork
6/3/24 4:09 p.m.
ShawnG said:

If we had equality of outcome, there's no incentive to do anything more than sit under a tree, eating bananas and procreating. 

Equality of outcome is impossible, because different people have different values.  Even if you did a comprehensive wealth redistribution so that everyone had exactly the same amount of money, go away for a year and when you come back it will have diverged because some people will have used that money to buy short-term things while others will have saved/invested it in long term returns.  You can't enforce equality of outcomes without literally removing the freedom for people to do what they want with their property.

 

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 4:41 p.m.

In reply to Toyman! :

Is that really the only alternative? I don't think it is, unless the theory that the "golden age" of capitalism was a fluke of circumstance is correct. I think we have a system that could work a lot better for way more people if it hadn't been hijacked by a class of business professionals all working from the same playbook for a plot to redirect as much of the money flowing through the system to themselves as possible, consequences be damned.

Boost_Crazy made a correct observation that past a certain point, you can't pay a person any more to work any harder or be any more productive. The amount of money the top 5-9% is taking home is way past that, it's utterly ludicrous, and the higher you go the more batE36 M3-bananas it gets. It's an amount that a system that seeks to optimize costs shouldn't naturally allow to occur, any more than it should allow a specific employee to make 3x more than their peers doing similar work or all oil change techs to have salaries in the 6-digits. That's what makes me think that this situation isn't just the system doing what it normally does if left to its own devices.

ShawnG
ShawnG MegaDork
6/3/24 5:13 p.m.

If equality of opportunity is meaningless, how come we have people building janky boats out of old trucks and oil barrels to sail to America from the socialist utopia of Cuba?

You lived in Barbados, now you live in Canada. Would you say you have better opportunities here or in Barbados? Keep in mind, I know nothing about Barbados other than Hermes Conrad's arch nemesis is from there.

Sounds like you've already made an improvement. That's good, keep at it.

 

Steve_Jones
Steve_Jones UltraDork
6/3/24 5:57 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You look at the wealthy and think "why not me" instead of "how can I?" There are people on this board that are wealthy because they got tired of making excuses and did something about it.

If you put more effort into doing anything other than being jealous of what others have, you'd be surprised at the outcome.  Over the last 10 years, you've been looking for any and all reasons of why life is not fair, sometimes the reason is the person themselves.

If you are not taking advantage of the opportunity, don't get mad at those who do.

 

tester (Forum Supporter)
tester (Forum Supporter) HalfDork
6/3/24 8:14 p.m.
GameboyRMH said:

In reply to Toyman! :

Equality of opportunity is pretty meaningless though. Animals in the jungle have equality of opportunity. And if we don't have some similarity of outcome for similar inputs then we have a system that can enable any type or level of injustice and cloak it as a normal function of the system. Why not write off women making less than men for doing the same job as "well, there's no equality of outcome"?

Equality of  opportunity is literally everything. 
 

You do know that if you actually account for time away from work due to pregnancy and child care usually 4-18 years women make the same as men? No, I assume not.

No Time
No Time UberDork
6/3/24 10:27 p.m.
GameboyRMH said:

Trimmed for the section being responded to:

Boost_Crazy made a correct observation that past a certain point, you can't pay a person any more to work any harder or be any more productive. The amount of money the top 5-9% is taking home is way past that, it's utterly ludicrous, and the higher you go the more batE36 M3-bananas it gets. It's an amount that a system that seeks to optimize costs shouldn't naturally allow to occur, any more than it should allow a specific employee to make 3x more than their peers doing similar work or all oil change techs to have salaries in the 6-digits. That's what makes me think that this situation isn't just the system doing what it normally does if left to its own devices.

I may be wrong, but I believe the statement about diminishing productivity returns after a certain level of pay was not meant to say that point is the same for all people.

I've worked blue collar jobs where some people would take all the overtime offered,  and others would turn it down regularly. So 1.5 times was enough incentive for some to work more hours and produce more, while not enough for others. I've also worked white collar jobs where some people are content at a certain level and do what is necessary to remain employed, while others push themselves to move up in salary and role.

As people move through their career the increase they receive in salary is the result of their performance record, and not increased as an incentive to do more work. The workplace is competitive, and is no different than any other competitive activity. 

Whether it's the office or playing field, the work need to be put in to get the reward. Teams don't win if they don't work to practice and improve skills before getting to game day. They can't say once we win we'll practice harder, the work come first in order to win. 

In the workplace it's competitive. If you want the promotion, raise, or bonus you need to put in the work before you get the reward. The work needs to be done to show you deserve get that reward, rather than receiving the rewards as an incentive to work harder. If your coworkers put in more effort and produce more revenue (directly through sales or indirectly through development) than you, then they will be rewarded with increased salary, promotion, or bonus. They out worked you and deserve a bigger piece of the pie.

Move beyond that and start looking at the c-suites. These are people that in many cases have out worked the average employee over the years by petting more effort into developing their skills, knowledge, and network. As a result they have climbed to upper levels of executive management, and have responsibility for steering the ship and producing value for shareholders. They are compensated with stock option to link their income to performance of the company, and to reduce potential for them jumping ship through vesting schedules.  

Sure the guy in the corner office gets paid more than me, but he's also traveling a majority of the time to different corporate offices, attending shareholder meeting, addressing news conferences, and working to create a team that can address the problem areas of the company to increase revenue, sales, and overall value. Those are all thing that keep the  other 91% employed and payed competitively in the market place. That's a lot of responsibility and commitment to a job where you can be the hero one day and a failure the next, and if the market rate is 7 figures to get the best person you can for that job, then that's the value of that person.

If everyone gets paid the same, then you will eliminate the people stuck at the bottom, but you will also eliminate any incentive to work harder or improve, creating a civilization dominated by mediocrity. 

I'm sorry you feel it's unfair because the opportunity is equal instead of outcome, but all employees have the opportunity to put in the work to reap the rewards, some just don't want to put in the effort. 

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
6/3/24 10:45 p.m.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

It seems like you haven't seen my last post on the previous page, you continue to assert that I'm not "doing something about it." It looks like at least 3 other people haven't as well. Or do you only measure effort through results?

Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
6/4/24 6:49 a.m.
Toyman! said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You want socialism. Unfortunately, no one in the history of man has been able to make that actually work.

Personally, I'd rather live under a bridge. 

 

 
 

Most of the developed world bends towards Socialism. Your statement isn't correct.  It's my personal belief that countries eventually move that way as time progress.   Most of the things that we now take for granted as services thst improve our quality of life are kinda derived from socialism. Public schools, public water and sewer, police force, fire departments, ambulance services, commute colleges.  Etc etc etc. basically our infrastructure, social safety net and departments that keep us safe.  All socialism (mostly). 
 

it could be at argued that since the early 1900's we've been living in a more and more socialism driven country.   I mean child labor laws came out from unionists and socialist agitators.  We probably owe more to socialists in our daily lives than we think. 

SV reX
SV reX MegaDork
6/4/24 8:33 a.m.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

There's a difference between Social Democracy and Socialism. 
 

Socialism at its core is tied to state ownership of production methods. Most countries that have tried that have backed off toward a Social Democracy model.

Social services offered within a Capitalist Democratic system are not Socialism. But some of the ideas are definitely co-opted. 
 

There is also a difference between Non-market socialist systems and market forms (which retain the profit motive).  Non-market socialist systems seek to eliminate perceived inefficiencies socialists associate with capital accumulation. 

But if you'd like to try a purer form of Socialism, consider Cuba or Russia.

(My grandfather was a Cuban businesssman ousted by the Castro regime in the 50's.  He didn't have to swim, but he did have to leave the country with only the clothes on his back)

Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
6/4/24 9:31 a.m.

In reply to SV reX :

correct. But my point still stands. This country is more socialist than not. And those who still freak out about "becoming socialist" are scaremongering. 
 

as to the "no country has ever figured it out" comment I was responding to. This is patently false because the answer is out there and our country and every other developed country shows this every day. To not admit this would be disingenuous. 
 

my ideal country setup is just like ours with a bit more social services and single payer health care thrown in. You know like 32 out of the 33 other "advanced" or developed countries. 

SV reX
SV reX MegaDork
6/4/24 9:41 a.m.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I think it's pretty clear that is not what Gameboy is advocating, regardless of what we call it. 

Fueled by Caffeine
Fueled by Caffeine MegaDork
6/4/24 9:48 a.m.

In reply to SV reX :

Agreed.  

SV reX
SV reX MegaDork
6/4/24 9:56 a.m.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I think it is a bit extreme to suggest that Toyman is scaremongering because he used the word "socialism".  He is expressing frustration that his thread that posed a simple polling question has been obliterated by 1 man's extremely biased opinion about compensation inequity (which everyone else seems to disagree with).

 

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
F4abhrCoKn3Tjf25Ucngkyufobo0kTv9pigBerBPyHGzOeoh8rPbabnird3mViNP