[hey mtangelsfan] How Bernie pays for his proposals

[Make Angels Great Again]

I think I understand, to be successful you need to work 70 hours a week.

No problem.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Adam and Nate nailed it.  

 

 I've got friends with HS diplomas who work blue collar jobs that they busted their asses at and clear 6 figures.  They had to stick it out for a while making very little doing back breaking work to climb their way up.  Now friends of ours are asking for help to get jobs and the response is always the same - "apply online to any of the cities you're willing to drive to, get your foot in the door and pick up as many shifts as you can."  Another one of my good friends who I've known forever went to the fire academy and instead of going the paramedic or hospital route to get experience while he applied for jobs he stayed at the same job he had been at.  It's not a bad job and he definitely gets by but he could be making 2x+ as much or more while getting in line for a great pension.  He didn't want to make the time and effort sacrifice to set himself apart from other candidates.  I heard from him for a while how hard it was to get a firefighter job and I don't doubt that it isn't easy but I've met multiple other people that are younger than him who all got jobs after him.  The difference is they made the sacrifices he wasn't willing to make to get where they are.  Just having a diploma only gets you so far it's what you do once you start working that will set you apart.

[Adam]

Maybe. Maybe not. 

 

How do you define success? Money? Really? 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I think I understand, to be successful you need to work 70 hours a week.

No problem.

 

Sometimes early on in your career you do need to put in long hours.  I'll tell you what definitely won't get you there - whining, making excuses and expecting someone else to make your situation better.  That's one of the biggest knocks on millennials - they expect to get promoted and praised for doing the bare minimum and that's coming from someone who is one of the older millennials.  

 

Edit - That knock on millennials can apply to a person from any generation but it's something you hear more and more as they continue to enter the workplace.  

Edited February 23, 2016 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[Adam]

Good lessons in this piece

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/stefanie-williams-response-to-yelp-employee-talia-jane-2016-2?utm_content=buffer5c01b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Spirit]

I think I understand, to be successful you need to work 70 hours a week.

No problem.

 

 

No.  You can also throw a baseball 100mph.  Or you could be super attractive and a marginally good actor.  Or you could write songs that people like to listen to.  Or you could put a rock in a box and call it a Pet Rock.  

 

There's lots of ways to be successful and work under 70 hours a week. 

[Adam]

When was the last time you felt sorry for a couple making $100K/year?

[Adam]

I made $37,100 the year I was 30. Suck it. 

[nate]

I made $37,100 the year I was 30. Suck it. 

 

49,800

[Adam]

You know what I did, Nate?

 

I went in early. I stayed late. I asked lots of questions. I learned to do more. I worked on projects from home.

 

You know what happened, Nate?

 

I got a raise. Then, I worked harder, stayed later, worked more at home.

 

You know what happened then, Nate?

 

Got another raise. Then a promotion. Then another raise. Then another promotion. 

[Spirit]

Adam is just a puppet for the man!

[Crampknees]

I made around $100k in a year plenty of times and never worked near 70 hours in a week. Of course I work for myself and can make $100 or make $30 any given year depending on how I want to hustle getting new customers. I think if you are a young kid wanting free college to major in Meditation Art you should go get a trade instead. 

[nate]

You know what I did, Nate?

 

I went in early. I stayed late. I asked lots of questions. I learned to do more. I worked on projects from home.

 

You know what happened, Nate?

 

I got a raise. Then, I worked harder, stayed later, worked more at home.

 

You know what happened then, Nate?

 

Got another raise. Then a promotion. Then another raise. Then another promotion. 

 

So you are saying they didn't give the promotion and raise to the other dudes that didn't put in the work?  How odd.

[mtangelsfan]

I made $37,100 the year I was 30. Suck it. 

 

40K

[Angelsjunky]

I honestly don't know what the trade-off is between following your passion and worshipping the god of Capitalism.

 

That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer either. I tend to advocate for following your passion as fully as possible, yet having a back-up plan. Or if you love doing something like painting or playing music, also learn a useful skill that you enjoy or at least can tolerate.

 

You might be interested in Ken Robinson's view - this TED Talk is a classic. His view is that we should all try to find our "element," which he defines as the place where our natural talents and interests meet.

 

Some things are more valuable, monetarily speaking than others. 

 

People should absolutely pursue what they like/want to do. But it doesn't mean they should be entitled to anything, financially speaking. Every one of us ultimately decides what we value most. 

 

Do I become a teacher and make dick? Well, if I really want to teach, sure. Do I want to make as much money as I possibly can? Well then, I had better assess my talents, abilities and education and determine which line of work is going to give me the best chance at accomplishing my goals. 

 

To your first sentence, yes - but why are things more or less valuable? It is what the market dictates. In some case it is actually skill-based (e.g. Mike Trout), in others it is entirely faddish or trendy (many fashions), in others a combination of talent and trend (e.g. Beyonce). But it is determined by cultural values, and then relative to the market. But the thing is, we just accept this, which in turn drives our culture.

 

I'm not talking about entitlement, but fixing a system that is skewed towards commercial wealth. Our economic system rewards those who can either take money from others or make money for others. On one hand this makes sense, but it has become so skewed that we have the obscene gaps in wealth in this country that we have, that are only getting larger.

 

We are all driven by different things.  The job market pays based on a lot of things, skill, candidate pool, etc.

 

Trying to mitigate all of the factors that go into it like "luck" "fortune" etc is a never ending process that will never give the proper results and when you mitigate one, you cause another.

 

If you want to make a ton of money, you strive for a job that will get you that.  You work hard at your education, do everything you can to get that education, work your way up and get the job.  Will everyone get it?  Of course not.  I say 90% of the time they don't get it because they didn't put their full effort into it.

 

If you are ok making a comfortable wage and giving up on wants and luxuries then you become a teacher, or a mechanic, etc.

 

Again I have never met a rich person that gave excuses like it was too hard or they didn't want to do it.  If you want to get your self a top notch education, you can get it.  It might take a ton of hard work, but you can.

 

The problem with what you are doing is you are just making excuses for people to be less driven, to take shortcuts and still reap the benefits.

 

I get it, nate, and have no problem with this view as it is basic common sense. But you miss the mark with the last sentence and clearly don't understand where I'm coming from.

 

Your view--which is basically the traditional American Capitalist ideology: work hard and it will pay off--doesn't take into account various factors and obstacles that different people face, and it is overly simplistic and downright cruel to assume that people who struggle are "parasites" or lazy or lacking in ability or intelligence, etc. Many are lazy and without good education or obvious talents, but many aren't. Actually, some of the most intelligent and talented people I know struggle to pay rent. We can say, "Those faggot artists and dead-beat philosophers should have gotten a real education and gotten a real job in business or law or insurance." But don't we want artists and philosophers? Don't we want our nurses to be able to make a living wage, or a teacher to be able to support his or her family?

 

I think the point Bernie is trying to make is that wealth has been pooling at the top, and it doesn't have to be that way. Part of the reason it is pooling (going to the 1%) is that the country has become more and more oligarchic, especially since Reagan. The wealth hasn't trickled down, it has pooled up. The trends are very clear: Lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, stagnating wages for the middle and lower classes, and rising cost of living. All of this is connected.

[ABC]

That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer either. I tend to advocate for following your passion as fully as possible, yet having a back-up plan. Or if you love doing something like painting or playing music, also learn a useful skill that you enjoy or at least can tolerate.

 

You might be interested in Ken Robinson's view - this TED Talk is a classic. His view is that we should all try to find our "element," which he defines as the place where our natural talents and interests meet.

 

 

To your first sentence, yes - but why are things more or less valuable? It is what the market dictates. In some case it is actually skill-based (e.g. Mike Trout), in others it is entirely faddish or trendy (many fashions), in others a combination of talent and trend (e.g. Beyonce). But it is determined by cultural values, and then relative to the market. But the thing is, we just accept this, which in turn drives our culture.

 

I'm not talking about entitlement, but fixing a system that is skewed towards commercial wealth. Our economic system rewards those who can either take money from others or make money for others. On one hand this makes sense, but it has become so skewed that we have the obscene gaps in wealth in this country that we have, that are only getting larger.

 

 

I get it, nate, and have no problem with this view as it is basic common sense. But you miss the mark with the last sentence and clearly don't understand where I'm coming from.

 

Your view--which is basically the traditional American Capitalist ideology: work hard and it will pay off--doesn't take into account various factors and obstacles that different people face, and it is overly simplistic and downright cruel to assume that people who struggle are "parasites" or lazy or lacking in ability or intelligence, etc. Many are lazy and without good education or obvious talents, but many aren't. Actually, some of the most intelligent and talented people I know struggle to pay rent. We can say, "Those faggot artists and dead-beat philosophers should have gotten a real education and gotten a real job in business or law or insurance." But don't we want artists and philosophers? Don't we want our nurses to be able to make a living wage, or a teacher to be able to support his or her family?

 

I think the point Bernie is trying to make is that wealth has been pooling at the top, and it doesn't have to be that way. Part of the reason it is pooling (going to the 1%) is that the country has become more and more oligarchic, especially since Reagan. The wealth hasn't trickled down, it has pooled up. The trends are very clear: Lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, stagnating wages for the middle and lower classes, and rising cost of living. All of this is connected.

 

Teachers and nurses are homeless?

[ABC]

Exception, not the rule.

 

Wrong.

[ABC]

I don't have a great answer for you.

 

Higher earners go in higher tax brackets. That's just how it works.

 

I'll gladly trade places and pay more taxes, no questions asked. Where do I sign up?

 

Go earn it and then come back to us with your exuberance to pay more taxes.

[Stradling]

I made $37,100 the year I was 30. Suck it.

That was my second full year as a store manager.

[Adam]

That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer either. I tend to advocate for following your passion as fully as possible, yet having a back-up plan. Or if you love doing something like painting or playing music, also learn a useful skill that you enjoy or at least can tolerate.

You might be interested in Ken Robinson's view - this TED Talk is a classic. His view is that we should all try to find our "element," which he defines as the place where our natural talents and interests meet.

To your first sentence, yes - but why are things more or less valuable? It is what the market dictates. In some case it is actually skill-based (e.g. Mike Trout), in others it is entirely faddish or trendy (many fashions), in others a combination of talent and trend (e.g. Beyonce). But it is determined by cultural values, and then relative to the market. But the thing is, we just accept this, which in turn drives our culture.

I'm not talking about entitlement, but fixing a system that is skewed towards commercial wealth. Our economic system rewards those who can either take money from others or make money for others. On one hand this makes sense, but it has become so skewed that we have the obscene gaps in wealth in this country that we have, that are only getting larger.

I get it, nate, and have no problem with this view as it is basic common sense. But you miss the mark with the last sentence and clearly don't understand where I'm coming from.

Your view--which is basically the traditional American Capitalist ideology: work hard and it will pay off--doesn't take into account various factors and obstacles that different people face, and it is overly simplistic and downright cruel to assume that people who struggle are "parasites" or lazy or lacking in ability or intelligence, etc. Many are lazy and without good education or obvious talents, but many aren't. Actually, some of the most intelligent and talented people I know struggle to pay rent. We can say, "Those faggot artists and dead-beat philosophers should have gotten a real education and gotten a real job in business or law or insurance." But don't we want artists and philosophers? Don't we want our nurses to be able to make a living wage, or a teacher to be able to support his or her family?

I think the point Bernie is trying to make is that wealth has been pooling at the top, and it doesn't have to be that way. Part of the reason it is pooling (going to the 1%) is that the country has become more and more oligarchic, especially since Reagan. The wealth hasn't trickled down, it has pooled up. The trends are very clear: Lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, stagnating wages for the middle and lower classes, and rising cost of living. All of this is connected.

If you want wealth you can make decisions that allow you to acquire it. There's no conspiracy. The system sucks but in my view it is for reasons opposite of yours. Most individuals succeed in spite of the system not because of it.

Pointing at a tiny group of rich crony ****s as the cause of everything keeping the little guy down is lazy.

[Stradling]

And inaccurate

[nate]

If you want wealth you can make decisions that allow you to acquire it. There's no conspiracy. The system sucks but in my view it is for reasons opposite of yours. Most individuals succeed in spite of the system not because of it.

Pointing at a tiny group of rich crony ****s as the cause of everything keeping the little guy down is lazy.

 

You nailed it.  Your last sentence is especially important too.

 

Most of the 1% are getting richer because they are really good at making money and that doesn't just stop when they make it to the 1%.  Bernie's plan to steal their money and give it to people who aren't making money is just morally wrong, and violates just about very principal there is in nature.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

What people value doesn't just drive our culture it drives the world and that's not going to change, ever.  What we value can of course change but whatever that is it's always going to drive people to want more.  I read a book years ago I've referenced on here where the author pointed out that people in developing countries are willing to work 6 days a week 10+ hours a day for a better life while people in developed countries want more pay and more time off for less work.  In the global economy we live in who do you think is going to gain at the others expense?  The rest of the world will continue to catch up when they're willing to work longer and harder because that's how the world works and furthermore that's simply human nature to want to better your life, at least when you can't count on someone else to support you financially.  If you expect Bernie, Hillary or some other politician to make your life easier and better off you're going to end up disappointed.  The best place to look for a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.       

Edited February 23, 2016 by Catwhoshatinthehat

[Jay]

Whenever you make something free, the value of it goes to zero.

 

People who get free college have no incentive to attend, or get good grades.  After all, it's FREE.

 

People who pay something for their college have some skin in the game.

 

That's why I proposed the reimbursement idea rather than simply FREE college.

[Tank]

You guys are all recipients of "free stuff" as some like to call it.

 

please go have a read in the gasoline prices thread. 

 

what you'll consistently find there is that gas in CA is a good dollar more than the rest of the country. why? taxes, which are used to pay for those free roads we all drive on.

 

just wait until they install the black boxes in our cars so they can track our mileage and charge us a user tax for the amount of miles we drive. why? to pay for even more upkeep of our roads.

 

nothing is free.